/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160523.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 102 Headlines ADVANCED MICRO: Court Denies Request for 28 Fact Depositions AFFYMETRIX INC: Deal Reached in "Cheah", Deadlines Adjourned ALBERTSONS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive BOGO Deal ALGONQUIN COLLEGE: Law Firm Launches Privacy Breach Class Action AMEDISYS INC: Securities Action Set for June 21 Mediation AMEDISYS INC: Final Settlement in Conn. Wage & Hour Case Okayed AMEDISYS INC: Illinois Wage and Hour Suit Settled for $0.8-Mil. ANCHOR BANCORP: "Parshall" Stayed Thru June 14 Pending Talks ANGIE'S LIST: $2,350,000 Settlement Reached in "Moore" Case ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Plaintiff to Seek Stay of Action ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" and "Crabtree" Actions Filed APPLIED MACHINERY: Certification of Rig Welders Class Sought ARDOIN INC: Conditional Certification of "Greer" Class Granted ASCENSION PARISH, LA: Expedited Discovery Bid in "Williams" Denied BIOGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending BROADCOM LIMITED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Varjabedian" BROADCOM LIMITED: Del. Suits Over PLX Acquisition Still Pending BRONX, NY: Faces Class Action Over Misdemeanor Backlog CALIFORNIA: Class Action Challenges "Fire Prevention Fee" CANADA: Court of Appeal Upholds Ruling in G20 Class Action CANADIAN SOLAR: Ontario Class Suit Moves to Merits Stage CARIBOU COFFEE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Wisconsin CHEMICAL AND MINING: Briefing on Dismissal Bid Incomplete CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: Faces "Neiheisel" and "Bushansky" Suits CHINA CERAMICS: Class Action Deal Awaits Final Court Approval CODE REBEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CODE REBEL: Investor Files Securities Class Action COMFORT CONTROL: Compressor Eng'g Seeks Certification of Class COMTECH TELECOM: To Seek Dismissal of Anne Arundel County Suits CONVERSE INC: Chavez Seeks Certification of Retail Store Classes CRYPTSY: Class Action Over Collapse Ongoing DIODES INCORPORATED: Class Action Dismissal Upheld DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Trial in "Do Not Call" Suit in October DOLLAR TREE: Answer to "Snipes" Suit Due June 19 DOMINO'S: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Violations ECOLAB INC: Bid to File Oversized Brief in "Schneider" Suit OK'd EL POLLO LOCO: Finalizing Settlement in Employee Suit EL POLLO LOCO: To Defend Against Consolidated Calif. Suit ELBIT IMAGING: Reached Settlement in "Gadish" Case ELECTRONIC DATA: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Karlbom" Suit ENDOCYTE INC: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Dismissed ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: S.D. Fla. Class Action Remains Pending FIRST AMERICAN: Updates on Class Action Lawsuits FITCHBURG GAS: Still Defends "Bellerman" Action FTD COMPANIES: No Hearing Date on Final Settlement Approval Bid FUSION AUTOPLEX: Rodney Allen Seeks Certification of FLSA Class FUTUREDONTICS INC: Court Terminates Charles Shulruff Class Suit FXCM INC: Defending Against Class Suit by IUOE Local 478 GENERAL MOTORS: 122 Class Actions Pending through April 15 GENERAL MOTORS: Hearing This Year on Canada Dealers' Claim Appeal GEO GROUP: EEOC's Pre-suit Conciliation Efforts Sufficient GERON CORPORATION: Securities Actions Remain Pending in Calif. GOOGLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Free Range Content Suit HCP INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action HEWLETT PACKARD: Hearing on Motion to Decertify Reset to June 16 IMAX CORPORATION: Settlement in IMAX Chicago Case Approved INDOFF INC: Old Town Pizza Seeks Certification of Class in Ill. INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona INVENTURE FOODS: Complied with "Lilly" Settlement Requirements ITURAN LOCATION: Defending Against Class Suit in Tel-Aviv JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: $5.05-Mil. Class Action Settlement Approved JONES FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Case Pending JP MORGAN: "Stikas" Suit Over Foreclosure Fees Dismissed KRAFT HEINZ: May 26 Oral Argument on Parmesan MDL Petitions KRAFT HEINZ: "Brahler" Suit Stayed Pending MDL Petitions KROGER CO: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Hardesty" Suit LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Berk" Class Action Closed LECOM INC: Court Narrows Claims, Grants Conditional Cert. LIFE CARE: Certification of BOMs Class Sought in "Robinson" Suit LIFE PROTECT: Primack Seeks Certification of TCPA Class in Ill. LOS GATOS-SARATOGA: Illegally Uses Athletic Fields, Suit Says LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Contributes to Class Action Settlement Fund LUXOTTICA SUN: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach LYFT: Offers to Settle Driver Class Action for $27 Million MANPOWER INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Payroll Records MANPOWER INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MARKIT LTD: $45-Mil. CDS Case Settlement Subject to Court OK MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: Reviewing Merger Class Action Complaints MDX MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Shulruff" Suit Due on May 27 MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: 8th Cir. Reinstates Claims in Fax Ads Suit MENARD CORRECTIONAL: "English" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice MICHIGAN: Judge Allows Class Action Against UIA to Proceed MICROSOFT CORP: Trial in British Columbia Case to Begin in 2016 MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active MICROSOFT CORP: Proceedings in US Cell Phone Case Stayed MILLER AND STEENO: Bid to Certify Class Hearing Set for July 18 MISSION BAY: Court Wants Executed Amended Settlement Filed MONEY RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Corey" Action Claims MOTEL 6: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Occupancy Contract Violation MURRIETA, CA: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Fenaroli" Suit NETFLIX INC: 9th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Securities Suit NEW ORLEANS, LA: Claims Against Sheriff Dismissed NEW YORK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Fraud Investigators Overtime NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal Remains Pending in Pigment Case NL INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Suit Over Blood Lead Levels Testing NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Faces Property Tax Class Action NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Jurisdictional Concerns Raised in "Edwards" NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Securities Class Suits Underway OCEAN POWER: Settles Securities Class Action ORGANO GOLD: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Ganoderma Coffee OXY RECKITT: Humidifier Disinfectant Victims Await Compensation PACIFIC GUARDIAN: Court Dismissed "King" Class Action PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dismissal of Antitrust Actions Sought PINNACLE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Avenue Deal PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces Criminal Charges Over Oil Spill PLATINUM AFFAIRS: Suit Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities PONTIAC CORRECTIONAL: Court Severs Claims in "Merritt" Suit PREMIER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Criddell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PUBLIC STORAGE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action RAYMOND JAMES: Sued in Florida Over Unlawful Financial Structure RECOLOGY LOS ANGELES: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says RESORT MARKETING: Class Certification Sought in "Charvat" Suit SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS: Class Certification Sought in "Hinkle" Suit SEI INVESTMENTS: Claims in East Baton Rouge Class Suit Pending SINGING RIVER: Court Quashes Subpoenas in "Jones" SOUTH AFRICA: Trade Union Files Class Action Against Pension Fund SPOTIFY USA: Misleading Class Members, Plaintiff Claims STAAR SURGICAL: "Todd" Class Suit Sent to Private Mediator STRAIGHT PATH: Lead Plaintiff Must File Amended Suit in June SUNRISE PROPANE: No Compensation Yet for Plant Explosion Victims SWEPI LP: Bid to Amend Class Definition in "Walney" Suit Denied TARGET CORPORATION: Appeal in Consumer Data Breach Suit Ongoing TARGET CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing in 2nd Quarter TARGET CORPORATION: Data Breach Suit Pending in Canada TD BANK: "Feinman" Class Suit Removed to S. District New York TD BANK: "Luce" Class Suit Removed to District New Jersey TERANET: Court Dismisses Land Surveyors' Copyright Class Action TIDAL: May Opt for Quick Resolution of Class Action TMK IPSCO: Employee Files Class Action Over Unlawful Termination TRICO BANCSHARES: Ex-Banker's Suit in Calif. Goes to Mediation TRICO BANCSHARES: Mediation Eyed in Current Banker's Suit TRXADE GROUP: Class Suit in Preliminary Stage, No Discovery Yet TYSON FOODS: High Court Affirms $2.9MM FLSA Class Action Judgment UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Waiver Unenforceable in Calif. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Lose Out More Than $700M in Settlement UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers File FLSA Class Action in Miami UNION PACIFIC: Briefs Filed Addressing Tyson Foods Decision UNITED SERVICES: June 10 Hearing Set for Attorney Sanctions VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Cold-FX Claims WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Real Removed From Barbri Class Action WISCONSIN: Police Can Disclose Accident Report Driver Info WYNDHAM HOTELS: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set XOLLE LLC: Faces "Aguirre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime XOMA CORP: Case Management Conference on May 24 XTO ENERGY: Trust Updates on Class Suits * Accounting Securities Class Actions Hit Record High in 2015 * Appeals Court Revives Class Action Against Three Hospitals * CFPB Proposals to Expose Banks to More Class Actions * Judge Awards $1.5MM in Attorney Fees in Fen-Phen Cases * UCCL Well-Matched to Class Action Commonality Requirements ********* ADVANCED MICRO: Court Denies Request for 28 Fact Depositions ------------------------------------------------------------ In the securities fraud class action, BABAK HATAMIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00226-YGR (JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs contend that AMD made misrepresentations regarding the launch of its "Llano" microprocessor, and in particular, misstatements regarding the Llano manufacturing plant's chip yield. Pending before the Court is the parties' joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an order increasing the presumptive limitation of 10 fact depositions per party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2)(A) to 28 fact depositions per party. Defendant proposes a more modest increase of 15 total fact depositions per side. According to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, Plaintiffs have taken only three of their ten noticed fact depositions to date, and Defendant has already agreed to increase the number of depositions to 15. While this case is complex, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a particularized need for more than 15 depositions at this time. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Plaintiffs' request for 28 fact depositions. Each party may take up to 15 fact depositions. Plaintiffs may renew their request for additional depositions after taking the first 15 and establishing a particularized need for more depositions in light of those witnesses' testimony. A copy of the Court's May 16, 2016 Order is available at https://is.gd/HrEffM from Leagle.com. Babak Hatamian, Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Plaintiffs, represented by Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Rory P. Read, Thomas J. Seifert, Lisa T. Su, Richard A. Bergman, Defendants, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Kala Sherman-Presser -- kala.sherman-presser@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP, Matthew Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi -- melanie.blunschi@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP & Ming M Zhu -- ming.zhu@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins LLP. KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Carol C. Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael J Pendell -- mpendell@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Sharon Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, James Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher -- mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith B. Miller -- mbmiller@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, William H. Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP. Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alec T Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Sharon Maine Lee, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Yah E. Demann -- ydemann@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Catherine Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio & William S. Norton, Motley Rice LLC. Christopher Hamilton, David Hamilton, Movants, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP. Jake Ha, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner -- avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm & Kara M Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. AFFYMETRIX INC: Deal Reached in "Cheah", Deadlines Adjourned ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, JEFFREY S. L. CHEAH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AFFYMETRIX, INC., JAMI DOVER NACHTSHEIM, FRANK WITNEY, NELSON C. CHAN, GARY S. GUTHART, RICCARDO PIGLIUCCI, MERILEE RAINES, ROBERT H. TRICE, THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC. and WHITE BIRCH MERGER CO., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-01253-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Initial Case Management Conference will be adjourned until August 23, 2016. The Parties have reached a preliminary settlement agreement and are currently conducting confirmatory discovery. The Parties agreed to adjourn the deadline for any response to the Complaint as well as the Initial Case Management Conference until after the conclusion of confirmatory discovery. In the event that confirmatory discovery has not been completed by that date, the parties shall state in their Joint Case Management Statement the specifics concerning the discovery completed and the anticipated discovery that remains. Defendants' deadline to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Complaint shall be adjourned indefinitely, with the parties to confer on a new deadline in the event that the settlement is not consummated. On March 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint captioned Cheah v. Affymetrix, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-01253- WHO in the United States District Court, Northern District of California for violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9, and breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger between Affymetrix, Inc. and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. The Defendants' Answers to the Complaint are due on May 27, 2016. The Initial Case Management Conference was originally set for June 14, 2016. A copy of District Judge William H. Orrick's May 16, 2016 Order is available at https://is.gd/73djqr from Leagle.com. Jeffrey S. L. Cheah, Plaintiff, is represented by Leigh Anne Parker -- lparker@weisslawllp.com -- and Richard A. Acocelli -- racocelli@weisslawllp.com -- Weisslaw LLP. Defendants Affymetrix, Inc., et al. are represented by Neal Alan Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Andrew David Yaphe -- andrew.yaphe@davispolk.com -- Jayeeta Kundu -- jayeeta.kundu@davispolk.com -- Micah Galvin Block -- micah.block@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP. The other defendants are Jami Dover Nachtsheim, Frank Witney, Nelson C. Chan, Riccardo Pigliucci, Merilee Raines, Robert H. Trice, and Gary S. Guthart. ALBERTSONS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive BOGO Deal ------------------------------------------------------- Angie Koehle, writing for ABC15, reports that a lawsuit filed in Multnomah County, Oregon court accuses Albertsons and Safeway of deceiving customers into believing they're getting a deal. In the court documents dated May 4 and posted on The Oregonian's website, Schearon Stewart and Jason Stewart are listed as plaintiffs and filed the class action suit "individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated persons". The suit accuses Albertsons and Safeway of hiking the prices on meat so when customers take advantage of a buy one get one free (BOGO) deal, they're actually paying for the free item. Safeway and Albertsons have the same parent company. "They are paying more per pound than regularly-priced meat, and they are buying more meat in order to obtain the illusory "free" product. These "free" sales constitute unfair and deceptive practices," the suit reads. For example, the lawsuit states boneless pork chops were typically $4.49 per lb. Under the BOGO promotion, they pumped the price to $12.99 per lb. Petite sirloin, beef bottom round, beef eye of round, boneless pork chops, boneless skinless chicken breasts and chicken 6 quarters (leg and thigh) were all part of the various BOGO promotions. However, the suit is only on behalf of customers who bought meat at Oregon Albertsons grocery stores or Oregon Safeway grocery stores, using the Safeway Club Card at Safeway Stores and coupons at Albertsons grocery stores. ALGONQUIN COLLEGE: Law Firm Launches Privacy Breach Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Sandor, writing for cfra, reports that a Toronto law firm is considering launching a class action lawsuit against Algonquin College following a privacy breach earlier this year, when the test results of more than 1,400 prospective health program students were sent out to 40 prospective students in a mass email. The email included names, email addresses, student numbers, program choices and test scores of the students. Flaherty McCarthy Litigation Council is consulting with some of the affected students and anticipated commencing the suit, seeking $100-million in damages. AMEDISYS INC: Securities Action Set for June 21 Mediation --------------------------------------------------------- Mediation is scheduled to occur on June 21, 2016, among the parties in a consolidated securities class action in Louisiana against Amedisys, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. The Company said, "On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the "District Court") against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the District Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010." "On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint") which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages. "All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied on April 9, 2013. "On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. "On October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. The case then returned to the District Court for further proceedings. "On March 30, 2015, the defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the "Petition") with the United States Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to consider whether the Fifth Circuit erred in reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. The Supreme Court denied the Petition on June 29, 2015, which did not affect the ongoing proceedings before the District Court, including the District Court's consideration of a motion filed on April 3, 2015, by the Co-Lead Plaintiffs for leave to amend the Securities Complaint, which motion was granted by the District Court. "On December 15, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. All discovery in the case is currently stayed pursuant to federal law. "The parties have agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of this matter, and a mediation is scheduled to occur on June 21, 2016. No assurances can be given about the timing or outcome of this matter." AMEDISYS INC: Final Settlement in Conn. Wage & Hour Case Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Amedisys, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Connecticut court has approved the final settlement of a wage and hour class action in that court. The Company said, "On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us in which three former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per- visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them overtime pay. "Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week over 40, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based on misclassification. "On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. "Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. The period within which putative class members were permitted to opt into the action expired on July 16, 2014. "On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act ("KWHA") alleging that the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five years before the filing of their original complaint under the KWHA. "On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On December 12, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add the claims under the KWHA. The Company and the plaintiffs agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the Connecticut case, and on February 23, 2015 filed a joint motion to stay proceedings for six months to pursue that process, which was granted by the Court on February 24, 2015. "On June 10, 2015, the Company and plaintiffs participated in a mediation whereby they agreed to fully resolve all of plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit for $8.0 million, subject to approval by the Court. The settlement agreement will be submitted to the Court for preliminary approval and plaintiffs will request certification of Pennsylvania and Kentucky classes for the sole purpose of this proposed settlement. If the Court grants preliminary approval, notice will be issued to members of the settlement classes to provide them with an opportunity to object to the settlement and, in the case of members of the Pennsylvania and Kentucky classes, opt out of the settlement. Following this notice period, the Court will hold a final fairness hearing for the purpose of considering objections and deciding whether to grant final approval of the settlement. "As of September 30, 2015, we had an accrual of $8.0 million for this matter. "On January 29, 2016, the Court approved the final settlement of this case. The settlement became effective on February 26, 2016. "As a result of the final amount calculated by the settlement administrator based on claims timely submitted, we reduced our accrual to $5.3 million as of December 31, 2015; this amount was paid during the three-month period ended March 31, 2016." AMEDISYS INC: Illinois Wage and Hour Suit Settled for $0.8-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Amedisys, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in an Illinois wage and hour class action have agreed to settle the case for $0.8 million, subject to court approval. The Company said, "On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us in which a former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in her misclassification as an exempt employee, thereby denying her overtime. The plaintiff alleges violations of federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois statute." "On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case. On December 23, 2015, the parties agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the Illinois case, and a mediation occurred on April 18, 2016. The parties agreed to settle the case for $0.8 million, subject to court approval, which we have accrued as of March 31, 2016." ANCHOR BANCORP: "Parshall" Stayed Thru June 14 Pending Talks ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Parshall, Paul v. Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin, Inc. et al, Case No. 3:16-cv-00120 (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D Peterson granted the parties' stipulation and motion for a stay. The case is stayed until June 14, 2016, pending the parties' settlement talks. If the parties have not filed their definitive settlement agreement by that date, then the stay is lifted and defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond starts to run on June 15, 2016. Regardless when or how defendants respond, the parties' joint Rule 26(f) report must be filed not later than July 15, 2016. The court will hold a telephonic preliminary pretrial conference on July 21, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. Using the court's calendaring template for class actions, the parties should anticipate the court setting jury selection and trial for mid- January 2018. Anchor Bancorp Wisconsin Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on February 25, 2016, a plaintiff filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on behalf of himself and other Company stockholders against the Company, its Board, and Old National in connection with a proposed transaction between the Company and Old National, pursuant to which the Company will be acquired by Old National. The lawsuit is captioned Parshall v. Anchor Bancorp Wisconsin, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-CV-120 (W.D. Wis.), and alleges state law breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Company's Board for, among other things, seeking to sell the Company through an allegedly defective process, for an unfair price and on unfair terms. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the transaction and damages. The complaint alleges that Old National aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also brings state and federal law claims alleging that the Form S-4 Registration Statement that was filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 17, 2016 for the transaction, omitted certain material information. In April 2016, shareholders of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin approved the deal with Old National Bancorp, with 80.7% of the outstanding shares in support. Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. is a savings and loan holding company formed in 1992 to be the holding company for AnchorBank, fsb (the "Bank" or "AnchorBank"). ANGIE'S LIST: $2,350,000 Settlement Reached in "Moore" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has reached a $2,350,000 settlement in the case, Moore v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD. 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 for breaches of contract and the 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 place 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 claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment were dismissed from the action. The parties proceeded to exchange extensive written and document discovery and have conducted depositions. Pursuant to the court's recently amended scheduling order, the deadline to complete discovery passed on April 14, 2016 with summary judgment motions due by April 25, 2016. Certain other cases with similar allegations also were filed by some of the same plaintiffs' counsel in federal court in California and New Jersey. The Company has not been served with the summons and complaint in the California matter, and no action is currently necessary as a result. Following mediation sessions held on April 4, 2016 and April 12, 2016, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") on April 19, 2016 to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. Among other relief, the settlement provides for a cash payment of up to $2,350,000 to create a fund for the payment of cash to settlement class members and for the payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the court. Settlement class members will have the option of sharing in the cash fund or selecting a free period of membership of up to four months depending on the date and length of their membership with Angie's List. The settlement also provides certain prospective relief in the form of enhanced explanations in the Company's Membership Agreement and in responses to Frequently Asked Questions concerning, among other things, the advertising revenue earned from service providers. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company recorded a $3,500,000 contingent liability related to this matter, and this amount includes the cost of the cash fund described above as well as the payment of reasonable notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees and an assumption of revenue the Company will forego as a result of certain class members selecting the option for a free period of membership. Pursuant to the MOU, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel will seek to stay all remaining pending deadlines to allow the parties to confer in drafting a definitive settlement agreement and to facilitate the court- approval process. The California plaintiff also has agreed to contact the California court to seek a further stay of the action pending the anticipated approval proceedings in the Moore litigation. Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review service and marketplace where consumers can research, shop for and purchase local services for critical needs, such as home, health and automotive services, as well as rate and review the providers of these services across 253 markets in the United States. ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Plaintiff to Seek Stay of Action ------------------------------------------------------ Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, Glick v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:16-cv-00546, the plaintiff shall seek a further stay of the Glick action pending the anticipated approval proceedings in the Moore litigation. 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 filed a joint stipulation to extend the response deadline by 75 days as the outcome of the Moore litigation could moot further proceedings in the Glick action. The court approved the stipulation on March 9, 2016, setting the Company's response deadline for May 31, 2016. Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding to settle these actions, the plaintiff shall seek a further stay of the Glick action pending the anticipated approval proceedings in the Moore litigation. Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review service and marketplace where consumers can research, shop for and purchase local services for critical needs, such as home, health and automotive services, as well as rate and review the providers of these services across 253 markets in the United States. ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" and "Crabtree" Actions Filed ----------------------------------------------------- Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on April 20, 2016, a group of former sales representatives filed separate lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The lawsuits allege that we failed to pay (i) wages earned in a timely manner as required under Indiana Wage Payment Statutes and (ii) overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07) and is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, interest, attorneys' fees and other charges. The Company is currently unable to determine the likely outcome or reasonably estimate the amount or range of potential liability, if any, related to these matters, and accordingly, has not established any reserves for these matters. Williams v. Angie's List, Inc. 1:16-cv-878; Crabtree v. Angie's List, Inc. 1:16-cv-877. Angie's List operates a national local services consumer review service and marketplace where consumers can research, shop for and purchase local services for critical needs, such as home, health and automotive services, as well as rate and review the providers of these services across 253 markets in the United States. APPLIED MACHINERY: Certification of Rig Welders Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuit entitled RODOLFO DIAZ, et al. v. APPLIED MACHINERY CORPORATION, et al. Case No. 4:15-cv- 01282 (S.D. Tex.), filed with the Court their partially opposed motion for class certification and expedited discovery. Rodolfo Diaz, Plaintiff, filed a putative collective action lawsuit against Applied Machinery on May 13, 2015, alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by, among other things, failing to pay him and others similarly situated overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. After the complaint was filed, seven other individuals consented in writing to become parties to the lawsuit. On November 20, 2015, a related case was consolidated into this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs ask that the Court conditionally certify this class: All current and former "rig welders" who worked for Applied Machinery Corporation and/or Nabors Industries, Inc., its parents, subsidiaries or affiliates during the last three years. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1VF3g5WM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ross A. Sears, II, Esq. WILLIAMSON, SEARS & RUSNAK, L.L.P. 4310 Yoakum Boulevard Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 223-3333 Facsimile: (713) 223-3331 - and - Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 ARDOIN INC: Conditional Certification of "Greer" Class Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and notice in the lawsuit captioned SHANE GREER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARDOIN, INC. D/B/A SOUTHERN TECHNICAL CONTROL, JASON ARDOIN and ALICIA K. ARDOIN, Case No. 2:15-cv-00415 (S.D. Tex.). The Court orders that a class is conditionally certified as: "All Field/ Mechanical Technicians Who Worked for Ardoin, Inc. d/ b / a Southern Technical Control, Jason Ardoin and/or Alicia K. Ardoin ("Defendants") At Any Time During the Period [insert date notice is sent} 2013, to the Present, And Were Paid Hourly." The Court also approves the proposed Notice and Consent form and further orders that the parties comply with certain deadlines and terms. A copy of the Court's decision is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4qhyh5vE ASCENSION PARISH, LA: Expedited Discovery Bid in "Williams" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, RICHARD WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. MARILYN M. LAMBERT, in her official capacity as Judge of Ascension Parish Court, et al., Civil Action No. 16-251-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., ruled that: -- Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery is denied. -- defendant Bridge Hanna's motion for extension of time to respond and defendant Sherman Jackson's motion for extension of time to respond are denied as moot. Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint alleges that the defendants are engaged in a "financial arrangement that requires the Ascension Parish Judge to collect a Conviction Fee each time she convicts a defendant or accepts a guilty plea," which incentivizes the Parish Judge, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, to find criminal defendants to be guilty. Plaintiff has moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing, among other things, that "Plaintiff and other members of the putative class will suffer irreparable harm through the inherent injury in being forced to undergo biased criminal proceedings that violate due process requirements." Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery seeks an order allowing Plaintiff to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition "of the Ascension Parish Court on the topic of the Court's budget, revenue, finances, and expenditures." Plaintiff argues that this requested pre-service discovery is "required because men and women regularly are convicted of criminal charges by the Parish Judge, and an injunction is necessary to ensure that convictions going forward are free of financial bias." The Court said Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for discovery to be conducted prior to a Rule 26(f) conference. Foremost, Plaintiff filed the motion, and sought the relief requested in the motion, prior to service of the Complaint on any of the named defendants. The defendants would be unduly prejudiced by allowing such discovery to be conducted prior to their knowledge of the lawsuit, much less an opportunity to oppose the relief requested. Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks expedited discovery for the sole purpose of gathering information in support of his motion for an anticipated hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. Plaintiff has not demonstrated, through the motion, that he would suffer any irreparable harm should the Court not allow him to proceed the requested deposition. A copy of the Court's May 18, 2016 Order is available at https://is.gd/k5AzYJ from Leagle.com. Richard Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, David M. Shapiro, III, Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, pro hac vice & Eric Andrew Foley, MacArthur Justice Center. Marilyn M. Lambert, Defendant, represented by David Glen Sanders, Louisiana Department of Justice & Deidre D. Robert, Louisiana Department of Justice. Sherman Jackson, Defendant, represented by Robert Ryland Percy, III, Percy, Lanoux, & Mumphrey & Miranda Mayer Mumphrey, Percy, Lanoux & Mumphrey. Bridget Hanna, Defendant, represented by Edmond Wade Shows, Shows, Cali & Walsh, LLp & Grant Joseph Guillot, Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P. BIOGEN INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that "We and certain current and former officers are defendants in In re Biogen Inc. Securities Litigation, filed by a shareholder on August 18, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The amended complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C. Sec.78j(b) and Sec.78t(a) and 17 C.F.R. Sec.240.10b-5. The lead plaintiff seeks a declaration of the action as a class action, certification as a representative of the class and its counsel as class counsel, and an award of damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. We have filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time." BROADCOM LIMITED: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Varjabedian" -------------------------------------------------------------- The court's dismissal of the first amended complaint in the case related to Broadcom Limited's acquisition of Emulex Corp., is under appeal, Broadcom Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 15, 2016. The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088. Broadcom Limited, a company organized under the laws of the Republic of Singapore, is the successor to Avago Technologies Limited, or Avago. On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless, and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned as follows: James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL (Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11, 2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints alleged, among other things, that Emulex's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2015, by and among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the Merger Agreement, and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, either to enjoin the transaction or to rescind it following its completion, as well as damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Delaware Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the three Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex Corporation Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743- VCL. "On May 5, 2015, we completed our acquisition of Emulex. On June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated action without prejudice," the Company said. On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless and Merger Sub, and purported to assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 28, 2015, the court issued an order appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the putative class. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, which the court granted with prejudice on January 13, 2016. BROADCOM LIMITED: Del. Suits Over PLX Acquisition Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Broadcom Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that The Delaware class litigation relating to the acquisition of PLX Technologies is on- going. Broadcom Limited, a company organized under the laws of the Republic of Singapore, is the successor to Avago Technologies Limited, or Avago. In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the court consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880- VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post- closing litigation. Broadcom's acquisition of PLX closed on August 12, 2014. On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, AT Wireless, and Pluto Merger Sub, Inc., the acquisition subsidiary, aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's Solicitation/Recommendation statement on Schedule 14D- 9, as filed with the SEC, contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 3, 2015, the court granted motions to dismiss filed by AT Wireless, the acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied motions to dismiss filed by several other PLX directors, Potomac Capital Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities. The Delaware class litigation is on-going. BRONX, NY: Faces Class Action Over Misdemeanor Backlog ------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that lengthy delays, congestion and backlogs in Bronx Criminal Court have produced a systemic deprivation of rights for borough residents charged with misdemeanors, according to a federal suit filed on May 10 against the state court system. The sluggish pace of adjudication has "fatally undermined the right to trial and the right to a speedy trial for the tens of thousands of people charged with low-level offenses in the Bronx," said the putative class action, Trowbridge v. Cuomo, 16-cv-3455. "The system more closely resembles punishment than due process," according to the suit, whose name plaintiffs saw their cases wend through the court for years before they were resolved. One plaintiff, Michael Torres, had 14 court appearances, which cost him his job due to missed time. The case was ultimately dismissed -- 877 days after his arraignment. The plaintiffs, who are also suing Gov. Andrew Cuomo, are represented by the Bronx Defenders and pro bono counsel at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady and Morrison & Foerster. The parties are pressing claims of due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment and speedy trial violations under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment. The case has been assigned to Southern District Judge George Daniels. Court spokesman Lucian Chalfen declined to comment on the suit. But in a statement, he said "the issue of case backlogs and delays in the state's courts, particularly the Bronx, are an absolute top priority." From the start of Chief Judge Janet DiFiore's administration in January, Mr. Chalfen said backlogs and delays "have been directly addressed" in DiFiore's Excellence Initiative, which she called an "objective, self-critical analysis" of the system (NYLJ, Feb. 9). On May 10, Mr. Chalfen said Judge DiFiore "and senior court administrators are actively engaged in working on resolving the problem to the expectations and standards that we expect from our state court system." According to court statistics, the number of pending misdemeanors declined to 14,633 as of April, compared to 17,127 at the end of 2013. But the complaint noted the wait for cases on the trial track; Bronx misdemeanor defendants must wait about 642 days on average for a bench trial and 827 days for a jury case. The lawsuit charges that court officials are familiar with the problems it alleges. "Defendants in this case have long been aware of the systemic and pervasive court delays in Bronx Criminal Court and its effect on due process, the right to trial, and the right to a speedy trial. Yet they have repeatedly failed to remedy the violations," Trowbridge alleged. The suit noted that as of December 2013, the last time citywide data was available, Brooklyn had 657 misdemeanors pending for more than a year; Manhattan had 594 such cases; Queens had more than 300 and Staten Island had roughly 275. CALIFORNIA: Class Action Challenges "Fire Prevention Fee" --------------------------------------------------------- AgAlert's Jon Coup and The California Farm Bureau Federation report that by now, most rural homeowners have become accustomed to receiving an annual bill of $150 -- or higher -- for what is euphemistically called a "fire prevention fee." However, this familiarity does not make writing out the check to the State Board of Equalization any more palatable. Many property owners, who are receiving no additional fire protection services, recognize this as the rip-off that it is. "It is hard to believe that those in the Legislature, who created this tax in 2011 with a simple majority vote while calling it a fee, did so with a straight face. Even Gov. Brown questioned its legality while signing it into law. And we at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association saw clearly that it was not a fee -- which requires that a specific service be provided in return for the payment -- but a tax, which under Proposition 13 requires a two- thirds vote of each house of the Legislature," Mr. Coupal said. Of course, the "fee" was established, not so more money could be provided to the Department of Forestry, the stated beneficiary of the new revenue, but to allow lawmakers to divert money previously spent for this purpose to pet projects. Basically it was a switcheroo, with the new money being used to backfill for the money diverted to other programs. In response, HJTA filed a class action lawsuit to provide relief to nearly 1 million California property owners who received bills for the illegal "fire prevention fee." The complaint was filed against the California Department of Forestry and the Board of Equalization, which is the collection agency for the "fee." The class action complaint seeks to overturn the fire "fee," which costs property owners an extra $150 per year charge for each habitable structure. It challenges the constitutionality of the fee on the grounds it is really a tax that needed a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, but garnered a bare majority and therefore should never have become law. On the legal front, progress has been slow, although there has been progress. The delay in reaching a resolution is primarily due to two reasons: First, the California courts are struggling with a backlog of cases. But the biggest problem has been a powerful opponent, the state of California, which is determined to hang on to every ill-gotten nickel. State bureaucrats, fearing that a successful class action suit would require refunds to those taxpayers who filed a protest, used delaying tactics. State attorneys filed repeated motions to postpone trial, including motions to dismiss the case and motions challenging the "class action" status of the suit. "After HJTA responded to each of the state's challenges -- nearly four years of legal work -- the court ruled that the case may proceed as a class action. We have just completed the public notification process that a class action suit requires. It is our hope and intention that the legal process will now proceed rapidly," Mr. Coupal said. Some will ask, "If the fire tax is illegal, should I pay it?" Although HJTA attorneys are confident of the eventual outcome, we strongly urge homeowners to pay the bill. Property owners have 30 days from the mailing of the bill to pay it. If you are late, there is a 20 percent penalty, plus interest. For every 30 days after that, another 20 percent penalty is added, plus interest. The fee is a lien on property, and failure to pay can result in foreclosure. If the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association lawsuit is successful, the court may order refunds to people who have filed a Petition for Redetermination. For instructions on how to file this form, go to www.hjta.org and click on the Fire Tax Protest banner. Once there, you can also sign up for free informational bulletins on progress of the suit against the fire tax. Rural property owners have been paying this illegal tax for years, but we remain optimistic that a court will ultimately grant relief from this unconstitutional money grab. Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association in Sacramento. CANADA: Court of Appeal Upholds Ruling in G20 Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Brian Eberdt, writing for Now Toronto, reports that on the weekend of June 26, 2010, Toronto was held hostage by the G20 summit, literally. Six years have passed. Since then, there have been a series of precedent-setting decisions which hold the police accountable for their actions that weekend. Perhaps the most significant of them was released in April. On April 6, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of our Divisional Court in the case of Good v. Toronto Police Services Board. It is the first class action lawsuit dealing with use of the "kettling" technique, where police surrounded and detained hundreds of people and, in many cases, took them to jail. The primary issue in the Court of Appeal's decision was whether Good's case could proceed as a class action, as opposed to an ordinary civil action involving only her. The benefit of the former is that it enables anyone who was detained in the various "kettling" incidents described in the claim to join the action without hiring their own lawyer and commencing separate lawsuits. The court's decision will significantly increase any damages award made against the police. Good's lawyers estimate this is in excess of 1,000 people. Many of these people were merely walking the streets of the city when they were detained -- they weren't even part of a protest. Like any class action lawsuit, the case involves a "representative plaintiff," Sherry Good, who represents the interests of the group (i.e. the "class"). Her statement to the court is compelling: "At Queen and Spadina that afternoon, during a peaceful protest, with no warning, we were surrounded by hundreds of police in riot gear, fully armed. We could not leave. They kept us standing in one of the worst rain storms of the year for over four hours with no information disseminated to us, no food, no water, no toilets. Sometimes the police charged into the crown, picking out people indiscriminately for arrest, and dragging them away." Good goes on to describe having a panic attack afterwards and losing trust in the police. Because the Court of Appeal is the most authoritative court in the province, its decision is likely to set the course for similar cases in the future, both within and beyond Ontario. Justice Hoy, who wrote the decision for the court, emphasized the importance of the case proceeding as a class action by contrasting it with the recommendations that have been made since the G20: "The reports regarding police conduct during the G20 summit make non-binding recommendations. In my view, the remedies sought by the plaintiffs, which include a declaration that class members' Charter rights have been violated and an award of damages, would be stronger instruments of [police] behaviour modification." Eric Gillespie, one of Ms. Good's lawyers, said, "This is actually about much more than just one event. This class action will help protect the basic freedoms of all Canadians." Good's case is one of several that have been decided in favor of people who were mistreated by the police during the G20. Klippensteins, one of the law firms representing her, also represented Paul Figueiras, who was walking down University that weekend when he was told by a police sergeant that he would not be allowed to walk further unless he subjected himself to a search. Mr. Figueiras brought a civil action, not for money, but for a declaration that his Charter rights had been violated. He lost at the Superior Court, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal on March 30, 2015. On August 15, 2015, Superintendent Mark Fenton -- the officer in charge of the police who were responsible for two of the "kettling" incidents -- was found guilty of one count of discreditable conduct and two counts of unlawful arrest after a disciplinary hearing. The fact that courts have reprimanded the conduct of the police during that weekend is an important step towards correcting the injustices that occurred during the G20 weekend. However, none of this conduct should have occurred in the first place. Brian Eberdt is a criminal defense lawyer with Lockyer Campbell Posner. In the interest of full disclosure, his law firm has represented individuals who were charged during the G20 Summit. Reasonable Doubt appears on Mondays. CANADIAN SOLAR: Ontario Class Suit Moves to Merits Stage -------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Solar Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Ontario class action has moved to the merits stage. The Company said, "Our company and certain of our directors and executive officers were named as defendants in class action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada alleging that our financial disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or misleading and in violation of U.S. federal securities laws and Ontario securities laws, respectively. The lawsuits in the U.S. were consolidated into one class action, which was dismissed with prejudice by the district court in March 2013, and subsequently affirmed by the circuit court in December 2013. The lawsuit in Canada continues." "As a preliminary matter, we challenged the Ontario Court's jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claim, but this motion was unsuccessful. In September 2014, the plaintiff obtained an order granting him leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act for certain of his misrepresentation claims. In January 2015, the plaintiff obtained an order for class certification in respect of the claims for which he obtained leave to assert the statutory cause of action under the Ontario Securities Act, for certain negligent misrepresentation claims and for oppression remedy claims advanced under the Canada Business Corporations Act, or CBCA. The Court dismissed CSI's application for leave to appeal. The class action has moved to the merits stage. "We believe the Ontario action is without merit and we are defending it vigorously." CARIBOU COFFEE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Wisconsin ---------------------------------------------------- David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on May 5, alleging that Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. ("Caribou") violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited text message advertisements without obtaining the prior express written consent to do so. The TCPA class action complaint seeks to certify a class of: All persons within the United States who received an SMS text message from Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. and/or an affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic dialing system and who did not provide prior express written consent to receive such SMS text messages. How is Caribou Alleged to Have Violated the TCPA? TCPA Class Action Allegations Against Caribou According to the complaint, the class action representative plaintiff began receiving unsolicited text message advertisements on her cellular telephone from Caribou in or about March 2016. The TCPA class action complaint specifically alleges that "[t]he source of each of the unsolicited SMS text messages sent by [Caribou] to the [plaintiff's cellular telephone] number was '65017', which is an SMS short code leased by [Caribou] or [Caribou's] agent(s) or affiliate(s), and is used for operating [Caribou's] text message marketing program." The complaint further alleges that Caribou necessarily used an automated telephone dialing system to send the unsolicited commercial text message advertisements because the texts "were sent from '65017', which is a short code telephone number used to message consumers en masse." The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. Caribou has not yet been served with process. CHEMICAL AND MINING: Briefing on Dismissal Bid Incomplete --------------------------------------------------------- Chemical and Mining Company of Chile Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the briefing on the motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit is not yet complete. The Company said, "On October 14, 2015, two class action complaints then pending against the Company, our former CEO and current CEO and CFO, alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws in connection with the subject matter of the investigations described above, were consolidated into a single action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On November, 13, 2015, our former CEO and current CEO and CFO were voluntarily dismissed from the case without prejudice." "On January 15, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint exclusively against the Company. The consolidated complaint alleges that certain statements made by the Company between June 30, 2010 and June 18, 2015, principally in the Company's SEC filings and press releases, were materially false and/or misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the consolidated complaint challenges certain of the Company's statements concerning its compliance with applicable laws and regulations; the effectiveness of its internal controls; its adoption of a code of ethics consistent with SEC requirements; its revenues and taxes owed; and its compliance with applicable accounting standards. The consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company made inadequate disclosures concerning the status of the Corfo litigation. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class consisting of all persons who purchased SQM ADSs between June 30, 2010 and June 18, 2015, and seeks damages of an undetermined amount to recover the economic losses allegedly suffered by the class as a result of the challenged statements. On March 30, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint under the doctrine of forum non conveniens or, alternatively, pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The briefing on that motion to dismiss is not yet complete." CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: Faces "Neiheisel" and "Bushansky" Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Cheviot Financial Corp. is facing class action complaints over its planned merger with MainSource Financial Group, Inc., Cheviot said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. On November 23, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MainSource Financial Group, Inc., an Indiana corporation ("MainSource"), pursuant to which the Company will merge with and into MainSource, whereupon the separate corporate existence of the Company will cease and MainSource will survive (the "Merger"). It is anticipated that immediately after the Merger, the Bank will merge with and into MainSource Bank, an Indiana chartered commercial bank and wholly- owned subsidiary of MainSource, with MainSource Bank as the surviving bank. On January 15, 2016, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed by Raymond J. Neiheisel against the Company, the Company's directors and MainSource in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, Civil Division (the "Neiheisel Action"). In the Neiheisel Action, the plaintiff alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties of due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing to the shareholders of the Company, that the consideration to be received by the shareholders is inadequate and undervalues the Company, that the Merger Agreement includes improper deal-protection devices that purportedly lock up the Merger and may operate to prevent other bidders from making successful competing offers for the Company, that the deal protection devices unreasonably inhibit the ability of the directors of the Company to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and alternatives and that the Merger Agreement involves conflicts of interests. The complaint further alleges that the Company and MainSource aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company. The complaint was amended on February 29, 2016 to also allege that the Registration Statement of which the proxy statement/prospectus is a part, provides materially misleading and incomplete information rendering the stockholders of the Company unable to make an informed decision with respect to the Merger. The amended complaint contains both direct class action claims as well as indirect shareholder derivative claims. On February 16, 2016, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed by Stephen Bushansky against the Company, the Company's directors and MainSource in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, Civil Division (the "Bushansky Action"). In the Bushansky Action, the plaintiff alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith and due care to the shareholders of the Company, that the consideration to be received by the shareholders is unfair and inadequate, that the Merger Agreement includes improper deal- protection devices that purportedly lock up the Merger and may operate to prevent other bidders from providing the Company's shareholders with a premium for their shares. The complaint further alleges that MainSource aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the Company. The plaintiff seeks an order that the matter may be maintained as a class action, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the Merger, and an award of unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. The outcome of these actions and their impact on any party or the Merger cannot be predicted with certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future. Cheviot, Cheviot's directors and MainSource believe that the claims asserted in these actions are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The complaint was amended on February 29, 2016 to also allege that the Registration Statement of which the proxy statement/prospectus is a part, provides materially misleading and incomplete information rendering the stockholders of the Company unable to make an informed decision with respect to the Merger. The amended complaint contains both direct class action claims as well as indirect shareholder derivative claims. CHINA CERAMICS: Class Action Deal Awaits Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- China Ceramics Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final hearing was held on January 6, 2016, but the Court has not yet issued a final order approving the settlement. On June 6, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Pollock Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and various current and former directors and officers asserting claims of violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and asserting claims for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is captioned Robert Pollock, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang, Jianwei Liu, And China Ceramics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 14-cv-4100). On June 16, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Artinoff Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and various current and former directors and officers asserting claims of violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and asserting claims for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is captioned Roger Artinoff, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. China Ceramics Co. Ltd., Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky And Su Wei Feng. (Case No. 14-cv- 4312). On July 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint (the "Finlayson Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and various current and former directors and officers asserting claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and claims for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; and pursuing remedies under the Exchange Act. The complaint is captioned Richard Finlayson, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Huang Jia Dong, Su Pei Zhi, Hen Man Edmund, Ding Wei Dong, Paul K. Kelly, Cheng Yan Davis, William L. Stulginsky, Su Wei Feng, Shen Cheng Liang, Jianwei Liu, and China Ceramics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 14-cv-4997). "On February 6, 2015, we and the individual defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the above-described cases as against all defendants and us in consideration of the payment by us of $850,000, consisting of a combination of cash and our common stock," the Company said. "The settlement is subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement agreement and the approval of the settlement by the Court. A Stipulation of Settlement and related documents were subsequently filed with the court, and were revised on July 22, 2015. The settlement is subject to approval by the court." "On September 1, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary approval order that among other things preliminarily approved the proposed settlement of the class action litigation. A final hearing was held on January 6, 2016, but the Court has not yet issued a final order approving the settlement." CODE REBEL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 10 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Code Rebel Corporation securities from August 17, 2015 through May 5, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Code Rebel investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Code Rebel class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-896.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Code Rebel's financial statements contained errors concerning its assets and financial condition; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, Code Rebel's public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 11, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-896.htmlfor more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CODE REBEL: Investor Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Gallagher, writing for Pacific Business News, reports that an investor has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against Maui software developer Code Rebel Corp., which, along with an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, could lead to three possible negative outcomes for the startup, according to Mike Purpura, a partner at the Honolulu law firm Carlsmith Ball. On May 10, investor Robert Springer filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York against Code Rebel seeking monetary damages for investments they claim were made based on false and/or misleading statements. The lawsuit, filed by the New York-based Rosen Law Firm, is seeking class action status on behalf of anyone who purchased Code Rebel securities between Aug. 17, 2015, and May 5, 2016. Code Rebel may file a motion to dismiss the case, according to Mr. Purpura, who practices litigation and white-collar criminal defense, including securities enforcement matters, and has handled class actions. The case will be heard first and be based on the allegation and complaint. "It will take a while to work through the system," said Mr. Purpura. "It will depend on the court's schedule, but it could take several months or up to year [before a decision is made]." The company's stock was suspended from trading by the SEC because of a "lack of accurate information" about the company's securities. The suspension will end on May 20. "It is severe action for the SEC to stop trading on the securities, it is unusual," confirmed Mr. Purpura. "The SEC will evaluate the situation over the next several days, and the stock can resume trading or they have the power to extend the ban." The class action lawsuit and the SEC investigation are on "two separate tracks," the attorney explained. Things could get worse for the company, as sometimes when the SEC conducts investigations, it finds content that is criminal and so refers the case to the U.S. attorney's office, he said. These are the "three potential avenues that this could take," Mr. Purpura said. COMFORT CONTROL: Compressor Eng'g Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff filed with the Court a "placeholder" motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled COMPRESSOR ENGINEERING CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. COMFORT CONTROL SUPPLY CO., INC. d/b/a JOHNSTONE SUPPLY, CHESTER LIMITED INC., Michigan corporations, CHESTER LIMITED IV, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv- 11726-NGE-SDD (E.D. Mich.). The plaintiff asserts that it files the "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief. The Plaintiff proposes this class definition: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice. The Plaintiff also asks that, following discovery and further briefing, the Court certify the class, appoint the Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint the Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zHLDdq6r Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com COMTECH TELECOM: To Seek Dismissal of Anne Arundel County Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- ComTech Telecommunications Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the Company intends to seek dismissal of the Anne Arundel County actions following receipt of the decision by the Baltimore City court dismissing the actions pending there. On December 9, 2015, a putative class action, Stanley Magee v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., was commenced by the filing of a complaint in Maryland state court, in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, against TCS, members of the TCS Board of Directors, Comtech and a wholly owned subsidiary of Comtech formed to effect the acquisition, Typhoon Acquisition Corp. ("Acquisition Corp."). Three other complaints were filed on December 15, 2015: James Morakis v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., in the same Circuit Court; and Rafal Sawicz v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., and Wesley Shaffron v. TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., both filed in Maryland state court in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. All of the complaints raise similar putative class claims against TCS, members of the TCS Board, Comtech and Acquisition Corp., in challenging (i) the process undertaken by TCS leading up to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated November 22, 2015, among TCS, the Company and Acquisition Corp., (ii) the consideration to be received by TCS stockholders and (iii) the disclosures made in connection with the tender offer made pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The complaints generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by members of the TCS Board in connection with the Merger Agreement, and allege that some or all of TCS, Comtech and Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek equitable and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the defendants from having completed the Acquisition, rescission of any consummated transaction, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In the actions pending in Baltimore City, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaints and the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against completion of the acquisition. A hearing on these motions was held on January 18, 2016. The court in Baltimore City, however, did not rule on the preliminary injunction motion prior to the expiration of the tender offer or the closing of the acquisition which actually occurred on February 23, 2016. On February 29, 2016, the court in Baltimore City issued a "Memorandum to Counsel" stating that the court had determined to grant defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints in the actions pending in that court and would issue a decision within seven to ten days. With respect to the two actions pending in Anne Arundel County, on February 10, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions. There has been no further activity in that court with respect to those actions. The Company intends to seek dismissal of the Anne Arundel County actions following receipt of the decision by the Baltimore City court dismissing the actions pending there. "On February 23, 2016, we completed our acquisition of TCS, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 22, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), among Comtech, TCS and Typhoon Acquisition Corp., a Maryland corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Comtech ("Merger Sub")," the Company said. TCS is a provider of commercial solutions such as public safety systems and enterprise application technologies and government solutions such as command control (also known as Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance ("C4ISR") applications). ComTech designs, develops, produces and markets innovative products, systems and services for advanced communications solutions. CONVERSE INC: Chavez Seeks Certification of Retail Store Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ERIC CHAVEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONVERSE, INC., an Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-03746-NC (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify the following Class and Subclass: (a) All current and former non-exempt retail store employees of Defendant who worked in California during the period from July 10, 2011 to the present (the "Class"); and (b) All current and former non-exempt retail store employees of Defendant who worked in California during the period from July 10, 2011 to the present, and who received overtime and additional non-discretionary remuneration (the "Regular Rate Sub-Class"). The Plaintiff also asks the Court to determine that he is an adequate representative and to certify him as the class representative, and to find his counsel as adequate class counsel and certify them as class counsel. A hearing on the Motion will be held on August 17, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NNwpLWGK The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com CRYPTSY: Class Action Over Collapse Ongoing ------------------------------------------- Stan Higgins, writing for CoinDesk, reports that one month after a Florida court first appointed a receiver in charge of troubled digital currency exchange Cryptsy, the representative has filed a report detailing efforts to retain information about the whereabouts of Cryptsy assets, as well as CEO Paul Vernon. Entered by receiver James Sallah, the filing comes months after users first began voicing concerns about their inability to withdraw funds from the exchange or receive clarity from its management on the status of such services. Back in January, two Florida law firms filed suit against Project Investors, the company that oversaw the exchange's operation, just prior to the emergence of claims that Cryptsy had been hacked and robbed nearly a year and a half prior. At the time, Cryptsy claimed that it owed its customers millions in various digital currencies, denominated primarily in bitcoin. Claims about the hack, widely disputed by both customers and critics, were kept hidden at the time to avoid a panic, Vernon told CoinDesk in January, but that dwindling income brought the extent of the exchange's insolvency to the fore. Court documents later revealed that the exchange's failure was predicted weeks before its insolvency was publicly revealed. Vernon is currently believed to be residing in China, and according to recent reports, played a role in the creation of an altcoin exchange in that region. In the wake of that collapse, according to the receiver's report, is a lack of clarity regarding the location of customer funds -- though some former users have been tracing transactions tied to Cryptsy and Vernon -- as well as an apparent lack of communication or cooperation between Vernon and plaintiffs in the class action. The report states: "As of this First Report, I have not received any cooperation from Mr. Vernon, so my job has been made much more difficult regarding every issue involving Cryptsy, especially wallet and investor information. From my investigation, accessing the servers will be critical to determine current and past account, wallet, investor and financial information and records." Mr. Vernon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Cryptsy is currently offline. Investigation details Despite the reported lack of cooperation between the two sides, court documents suggest that the plaintiffs have been pursuing avenues of restitution for former customers involved in an ongoing class action. Notably, the report asserts that a Florida residential property tied to a recent divorce case involving Vernon was indeed purchased with funds tied to Cryptsy. Lori Ann Nettles, Mr. Vernon's former spouse, was also named as a defendant in the class action lawsuit. "I have also confirmed that the million-dollar plus property currently in Ms. Nettles' name . . . was derived from Cryptsy and should be receivership property," the report states, going on to say that the house is currently on the market. Mr. Sallah further indicated that he could file a separate lawsuit seeking possession of the home. The report includes details on the exchange's financial infrastructure, supported by bank accounts provided by TD Bank and SunTrust Bank, as well as digital currency accounts held by Coinbase and Bittrex, both of which have reportedly frozen funds tied to Cryptsy. Bittrex, for example, is said to have frozen an amount worth at least $100,000. Mr. Sallah also detailed efforts to secure access to the Cryptsy servers, said to be hosted by a company called Vault Networks in Miami. According to the report, following court action Mr. Sallah was able to obtain a commitment to secure access as of May 6. Uncertain road ahead As the report asserts, outstanding questions about the contents of the Cryptsy web servers and the extent to which funds left the exchange prior to its collapse remain unanswered. "My overall investigation is still in its infancy and will be ongoing," Mr. Sallah wrote. "I will continue to search for and attempt to secur[e] funds, cryptocurrencies, accounts and wallets in Cryptsy's name or derived from Cryptsy." Speaking to CoinDesk, attorney David Silver of the Silver Law Group reiterated a past call for Vernon to cooperate with plaintiffs and said that efforts to gain control of assets and client funds remain ongoing. "While we are trying to do everything we can to protect our clients' interests, we are limited in what we can do," he said. "Members of the Cryptsy community have been actively following this case, and any help or information they can provide is much appreciated. DIODES INCORPORATED: Class Action Dismissal Upheld -------------------------------------------------- Diodes Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the dismissal of a class action lawsuit has been affirmed. On September 15, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order regarding the putative securities class action entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action with prejudice. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the order dismissing the Class Action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 13, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued an order and opinion affirming the dismissal of the Class Action with prejudice. Plaintiffs-appellants had until April 12, 2016 to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Defendants-respondents intend to continue defend this action vigorously. Diodes is a global manufacturer and supplier of high-quality, application-specific standard products within the broad discrete, logic, analog and mixed-signal semiconductor markets, serving the consumer electronics, computing, communications, industrial and automotive markets. DISH NETWORK: 2nd Phase of Trial in "Do Not Call" Suit in October ----------------------------------------------------------------- DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a second phase of bench trial has been set for October 2016, in the Do Not Call Litigation. The Company said, "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United States Attorney General and several states in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs allege that we, directly and through certain independent third- party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain telemarketing violations." "On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first time that the state plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties (which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages being sought by the state plaintiffs). The plaintiffs were also seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from certain existing independent third-party retailers and from certain new independent third-party retailers, except under certain circumstances. "We also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect to the parties' summary judgment motions. The Court found that DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to one claim in the action. In addition, the Court found that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment with respect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among other things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.'s liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the plaintiffs' motion. The Court did not issue any injunctive relief and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages, ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the amount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial. "In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties, and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages. The plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief. Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until: (i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting organization to perform a review of its call center operations; (ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C. implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing calls. The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief, if granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure compliance with the TSR. "The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016 through February 11, 2016. In closing briefs, the federal plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns. Under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may not be imposed. "The Court scheduled a second phase of the bench trial for October 2016, which is planned to cover the plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief, as well as DISH Network L.L.C.'s response to certain evidence that the state plaintiffs presented in the first phase. However, the federal plaintiff subsequently filed a motion with the Court seeking to cancel the separate hearing on the plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief and asking the Court to rule on those matters based on the current trial record. "We may also from time to time be subject to private civil litigation alleging telemarketing violations. For example, a portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent third-party retailer at issue in the case described in the previous paragraph are also the subject of a certified class action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. "We intend to vigorously defend these cases. We cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages." DOLLAR TREE: Answer to "Snipes" Suit Due June 19 ------------------------------------------------ In the case, TERRY T. SNIPES, SR., an individual, residing in San Joaquin County, California, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR TREE DISTRIBUTION, INC., A Virginia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00878-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., said Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is deemed filed and the Defendant is directed to file and serve its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint within 30 days. A copy of the Court's May 16, 2016 Order is available at https://is.gd/bO3aWp from Leagle.com. Terry T. Snipes, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com -- Jared Hague -- jared@suttonhague.com -- and Joseph Vidal Macias -- joseph@suttonhague.com -- at Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC. Dollar Tree Distribution, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey J. Mann -- jmann@littler.com -- Kurt R. Bockes -- kbockes@littler.com -- Lindbergh Porter, Jr. -- lporter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson and Steven Woodrow Moore -- smoore@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP. DOMINO'S: Faces Class Action Over Minimum Wage Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a pizza deliveryman has sued the operators of 26 Domino's outlets in South Jersey and Pennsylvania, contending the company effectively pays workers less than the minimum wage. The proposed class-action suit contends workers are not reimbursed for the full cost of using personal vehicles to deliver Domino's products to customers. It also asserts drivers are required to pay for their Domino's jackets. As a result of those unreimbursed expenses, the suit claims, delivery workers' net wages "fall below the federal and New Jersey minimum wage during some or all workweeks." The suit -- brought in the name of Kais Jabrani, a five-year employee at a Burlington City Domino's -- seeks to represent past and present employees of two Haddonfield-based franchisees, Miles Enterprises Inc. and JMRMJ Pizza LLC. Representatives of the franchisees could not be reached for comment. Domino's spokesman Tim McIntrye declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying only the franchisees are "independent businesses." The lawsuit represents the latest legal challenge to pay policies at Domino's, a Michigan-based company with U.S. sales of almost $5 billion last year. The pizza producer has about 5,100 stores nationwide, with all but a few hundred run by franchisees. Another suit, filed in April, in federal court in New York City, said Domino's franchisees "in the last few years . . . have been required to pay nearly $3 million" after state and federal investigations into alleged unlawful pay practices and mistreatment of employees. In one of those settlements, New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman in 2014 said six Domino's franchisees with 23 stores were paying almost $450,000 to settle claims they'd underpaid workers. The money was distributed among some 750 workers. In the local suit, Mr. Jabrani said he is reimbursed about 90 cents per delivery -- or about 18 cents a mile for an average trip covering about five miles. It says the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate, in contrast, "has ranged between (54 cents) and (57.5 cents) per mile." The suit says Mr. Jabrani typically has averaged about two deliveries per hour, and contends that means he's "consistently 'kicked back'" about $3.60 per hour in unreimbursed costs for an "effective hourly wage rate of about $4.78." The minimum wage is $7.25 at the federal level and $8.38 in New Jersey. The suit adds Mr. Jabrani's wages were reduced by a requirement that he buy a jacket with the company logo for $25. The suit seeks to represent employees who have worked for the Domino's franchisees over the past two years. ECOLAB INC: Bid to File Oversized Brief in "Schneider" Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 16, 2016, in the case entitled Steven Schneider v. Ecolab Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01044 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to file oversized brief in support of class certification is granted; the brief is accepted. On the Plaintiff's motion to file under seal, Local Rule 26.2 requires the contemporaneous filing of the under- seal filing (along with the redacted version). The redacted version was filed, but not the under-seal version, which the Court says makes it difficult to make even a preliminary assessment of the propriety of sealing. Having said that, Judge Chang says, the Court grants the motion to seal, but provisionally, subject to further review when assessing the underlying motion on its merit. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=izQwd5LY EL POLLO LOCO: Finalizing Settlement in Employee Suit ----------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2015, that the Company is working on a deal to settle a class action lawsiut by a former employee. On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. "We have executed a Memorandum of Understanding outlining an agreement in principle between the parties to settle the claims on a class-wide basis. The parties are working to memorialize the settlement and secure the required court approval," the Company said. El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment. EL POLLO LOCO: To Defend Against Consolidated Calif. Suit --------------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2015, that the Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in a consolidated class action lawsuit in California. Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015. The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants"). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which resulted in a decrease in value- conscious store traffic. Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted. El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment. ELBIT IMAGING: Reached Settlement in "Gadish" Case -------------------------------------------------- Elbit Imaging Ltd., in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, said, "On April 6, 2016, we announced that we and some other defendants (i.e: our and Elscint's former directors and officers) entered into a settlement agreement with the Plaintiffs in class action #1318/99 (Gadish v. Elscint et al.) The settlement generally provides that in consideration of a total payment of NIS 46 million (approximately $11.9 million) (a) the Hotels & Marina Transactions cause of action (as well as any other cause of action that is -- or may be -- directed against us and our former directors and officers and to Elscint and its former directors and officers) shall be exhausted with respect to all of the defendants; and (b) all other causes of action shall be exhausted with respect to us and our former directors and officers as well as with respect to Elscint and its former directors and officers. Our share in the aforementioned compensation is NIS 4 million (approximately $1 million) and the rest will be financed by our D&O Insurance. The Settlement is subject to the court's approval and additional preconditions fulfillment as determined in the settlement agreement, including, but not limited to the right of the insurer to terminate the settlement under certain circumstances." ELECTRONIC DATA: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Karlbom" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that a court has denied a motion for class certification in the case, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation. Hewlett Packard Enterprise is involved in several pre-separation lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems Corporation ("EDS") or HP Inc. have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and/or in violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Those matters include Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, a class action filed on March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court alleging that certain information technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. On October 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of all California-based EDS employees in the Infrastructure Associate, Infrastructure Analyst, Infrastructure Specialist, and Infrastructure Specialist Senior job codes from March 16, 2005 through October 31, 2009 that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under state law. On January 22, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. ENDOCYTE INC: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a final order with mandate to dismiss the shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 2014 against Endocyte Inc., a leader in developing small molecule drug conjugates, and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters in connection with the events leading up to cessation of the PROCEED Phase 3 clinical trial. On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation"). On July 13, 2014, a nearly identical complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian Oh Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh Litigation"). On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh Litigation under the following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation"). On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended securities class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the Company, P. Ron Ellis, Beth Taylor, Michael A. Sherman, John C. Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith E. Brauer, Ann F. Hanham, Marc Kozin, Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A. Middleton, Lesley Russell (the "Individual Defendants" and collectively with the Company, the "Endocyte Defendants"), and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Endocyte Defendants made false and misleading statements relating to the efficacy of vintafolide and violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The putative class related to these allegations consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between March 21, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Lead Plaintiff also alleged in the Amended Complaint that the Endocyte Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by, among other things, making or allowing the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding positive opinions about vintafolide issued by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use in the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed on March 25, 2014, preliminary prospectus filed on March 26, 2014, and final prospectus filed on March 28, 2014. The putative class related to these allegations consists of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to the Company's April 2, 2014 public offering. Lead Plaintiff sought the designation of the Vallabhaneni Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages, interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Lead Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition on April 6, 2015 to which Defendants replied on April 20, 2015. The court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice on January 4, 2016, but granted Lead Plaintiff until February 1, 2016 to demonstrate sufficient facts to justify an amended pleading. Lead Plaintiff did not respond, and on February 2, 2016, the court amended the dismissal to be with prejudice and a final order was so entered. Lead Plaintiff appealed the final judgment on March 1, 2016. On March 31, 2016, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice. No payments or other consideration of any kind were offered or provided to Lead Plaintiff in exchange for dismissal of the appeal. ERBA DIAGNOSTICS: S.D. Fla. Class Action Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, that one class action lawsuit remains pending in Florida. In December 2015, two purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company and four of its current or former executive officers. The defendants in both actions are the Company, Mohan Gopalkrishnan, Ernesina Scala, Sanjiv Suri and Prakash Patel. Both Complaints allege generally that during the purported class period of April 15, 2014 through November 20, 2015, the Company and the named executive officers knowingly and/or recklessly disseminated or approved statements about the Company's business operation and prospects that were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Both Complaints seek to assert claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek unspecified damages. On February 9, 2016, one of the Complaints was voluntarily dismissed. The Company has been advised by ERBA Diagnostics Mannheim GmbH, the Company's principal stockholder ("ERBA Mannheim"), that ERBA Mannheim will not be joining this purported class action and will not be bringing a claim against the Company. The litigation is in the preliminary stages. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions. ERBA Diagnostics, Inc. (NYSE MKT: ERB), is a fully integrated in vitro diagnostics company, offering a comprehensive suite of clinical testing products throughout the U.S. and emerging markets. The Company serves as a one-stop shop for the testing needs of the growing number of smaller hospitals, reference labs, and physician clinics. ERBA Diagnostics' line of proprietary and automated instruments, test kits, and reagents provide customers with autoimmune, infectious diseases, clinical chemistry, hematology, and diabetes testing. www.erbadiagnostics.com FIRST AMERICAN: Updates on Class Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------ First American Financial Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on several lawsuits pending against the Company. The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of non- ordinary course lawsuits. These lawsuits frequently are similar in nature to other lawsuits pending against the Company's competitors. For those non-ordinary course lawsuits where the Company has determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability representing the best estimate of the Company's financial exposure based on known facts has been recorded. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded. For a substantial majority of these lawsuits, however, it is not possible to assess the probability of loss. Most of these lawsuits are putative class actions which require a plaintiff to satisfy a number of procedural requirements before proceeding to trial. These requirements include, among others, demonstration to a court that the law proscribes in some manner the Company's activities, the making of factual allegations sufficient to suggest that the Company's activities exceeded the limits of the law and a determination by the court -- known as class certification -- that the law permits a group of individuals to pursue the case together as a class. In certain instances the Company may also be able to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate its claim on an individual basis. If these procedural requirements are not met, either the lawsuit cannot proceed or, as is the case with class certification or compelled arbitration, the plaintiffs lose the financial incentive to proceed with the case (or the amount at issue effectively becomes de minimis). Frequently, a court's determination as to these procedural requirements is subject to appeal to a higher court. As a result of, among other factors, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the myriad laws applicable to the Company's business and the uniqueness of the factual issues presented in any given lawsuit, the Company often cannot determine the probability of loss until a court has finally determined that a plaintiff has satisfied applicable procedural requirements. Furthermore, because most of these lawsuits are putative class actions, it is often impossible to estimate the possible loss or a range of loss amounts, even where the Company has determined that a loss is reasonably possible. Generally class actions involve a large number of people and the effort to determine which people satisfy the requirements to become plaintiffs -- or class members -- is often time consuming and burdensome. Moreover, these lawsuits raise complex factual issues which result in uncertainty as to their outcome and, ultimately, make it difficult for the Company to estimate the amount of damages which a plaintiff might successfully prove. In addition, many of the Company's businesses are regulated by various federal, state, local and foreign governmental agencies and are subject to numerous statutory guidelines. These regulations and statutory guidelines often are complex, inconsistent or ambiguous, which results in additional uncertainty as to the outcome of a given lawsuit -- including the amount of damages a plaintiff might be afforded -- or makes it difficult to analogize experience in one case or jurisdiction to another case or jurisdiction. Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents: --- charged an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction, including * Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. A court has granted class certification in Lewis. For the reasons stated above, the Company has been unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. --- purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and others for referrals of business in violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, including * Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June 12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In Edwards a narrow class has been certified. The Company believes the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss is not material to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. --- misclassified certain employees, including * Cruz v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on November 25, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, * Sager v. Interthinx, Inc., filed on January 23, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and * Weber v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., filed on April 17, 2015 and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. These lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. For the reasons described above, as well as the applicability of certain indemnification rights the Company may have, the Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss. --- overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services, denied home warranty claims, failed to timely file certain documents, and gave items of value to developers, builders, brokers and others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations, including * Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court of New Jersey, * Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on October 2, 2015 and pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on June 15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, * Nichols v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on February 26, 2016 and pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and * In re First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation, consolidated on October 9, 2014 and pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Kirk, are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. In Kaufman a class was certified but that certification was subsequently vacated. A trial of the Kirk matter has concluded and the plaintiff's appeal and the Company's cross appeal are pending. For the reasons described above, the Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole. While some of the lawsuits described above may be material to the Company's operating results in any particular period if an unfavorable outcome results, the Company does not believe that any of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the Company's overall financial condition or liquidity. FITCHBURG GAS: Still Defends "Bellerman" Action ----------------------------------------------- Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Town of Lunenburg has filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Company continues to believe that both of these suits are without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel and others, that the ultimate resolution of these suits will not have a material impact on its financial position, operating results or cash flows. Unitil Corporation (Unitil or the Company) is a public utility holding company headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire. Unitil is subject to regulation as a holding company system by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. FTD COMPANIES: No Hearing Date on Final Settlement Approval Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has not yet set the hearing date for the pending final settlement approval motion. Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc. and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International ("EMI"). Various cases were ultimately consolidated during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs' claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership Programs") offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs claim that their enrollment was allegedly deceptive and therefore the charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees for the Membership Programs were unauthorized. On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August 13, 2010 and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14, 2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint. Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only); (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9) negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on January 24, 2012. The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of February 23, 2012, but the court had not yet conducted a hearing or ruled on the motions. The parties participated in numerous settlement conferences and mediations throughout the case in an effort to resolve this matter. On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the high level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal written settlement agreement ("Settlement"). Upon reaching the Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013, and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the hearing. On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court entered judgment on the settlement on February 21, 2013. The objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 4, 2013. After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral argument on the appeal for February 2, 2015. But on January 29, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a matter captioned Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+. The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+ on February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's approval of a settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers. On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Frank v. Netflix. On April 23, 2015, the district court entered an order reopening the case and ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum summarizing the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and stating their intentions going forward. On May 4, 2015, such memorandum was filed by the parties and the objector also filed his own memorandum regarding these same topics on such date. After receiving the parties and objector's memoranda, the district court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of final settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties filed their respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18, 2015, the objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July 2, 2015, and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental briefs on July 16, 2015. The district court has not yet set the hearing date for the pending final settlement approval motion. FTD Companies, Inc., is a premier floral and gifting company with a vision to be the leading and most trusted floral and gifting company in the world. FUSION AUTOPLEX: Rodney Allen Seeks Certification of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RODNEY ALLEN, CEDRICK CALLEGARI, KERMECIA FAULKNER, and BERNADETTE GREEN v. FUSION AUTOPLEX, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00833 (S.D. Tex.), moves the Court for conditional certification. They also seek permission to send Court-supervised notice to employees of their opt-in rights. The lawsuit was filed on March 29, 2016, as a proposed collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning overtime wages allegedly owed to the Plaintiffs. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nr5zl6QV The Plaintiffs are represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778-8182 Facsimile: (832) 778-8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com FUTUREDONTICS INC: Court Terminates Charles Shulruff Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 16, 2016, in the case titled Charles Shulruff, D.D.S. v. Futuredontics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00980 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso The minute entry states that a stipulation to dismiss has been filed. The Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice, and with each party bearing its own costs. The Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed without prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs. The status hearing date of May 25, 2016 is stricken, and the Case is terminated. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M94JhJtk FXCM INC: Defending Against Class Suit by IUOE Local 478 -------------------------------------------------------- FXCM Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund filed on May 8, 2015, a complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, individually and on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between June 11, 2013 and January 20, 2015. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks compensatory damages as well as reasonable costs and expenses. An amended and consolidated complaint was filed on January 11, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend the allegations in the complaint. FXCM is an online provider of foreign exchange ("FX") trading and related services to over 175,000 active retail accounts globally. GENERAL MOTORS: 122 Class Actions Pending through April 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that through April 15, 2016, the Company was aware of 101 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 21 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general, these economic- loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. There are also two civil actions brought by state governmental entities relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief as well as economic damages and attorneys' fees for alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes. "Through April 15, 2016 we were aware of 270 actions pending in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 14 actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). In general, these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief," the Company said. "Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has issued orders from time to time directing that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits involving faulty or allegedly faulty ignition switches or other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through April 15, 2016 the JPML has transferred 289 pending cases to, and consolidated them with, the multidistrict litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties to the multidistrict litigation engage from time to time in discussions of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation. As described below, on September 17, 2015 we announced that we had reached a memorandum of understanding with certain personal injury claimants regarding possible settlement of their claims. "In order to facilitate the resolution of the multidistrict litigation, the Southern District of New York scheduled six bellwether trials (i.e., trials designed to be representative of the group of personal injury cases in the multidistrict litigation). Through April 15, 2016 two of the cases set for bellwether trials were dismissed with prejudice by plaintiffs. In a third bellwether trial, a jury concluded that GM was not liable to plaintiffs. In a fourth case set for a bellwether trial, GM and the plaintiff entered into a confidential settlement term sheet. Each bellwether trial will be tried on its facts and the result of any subsequent bellwether trial may be different from the preceding trials. It is also possible that the court will schedule one or more additional bellwether trials. "Because many plaintiffs in the actions described in the above paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted against us for, among other things, personal injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors Corporation (successor liability claims). "On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a Decision precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement and claims that could be asserted against us only if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision and we have cross appealed with respect to certain issues to preserve our rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) heard oral argument on the appeals on March 15, 2016. In addition on December 4, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment regarding certain issues left unresolved by its April 15, 2015 decision including the extent to which punitive damages could be asserted against GM based on claims involving vehicles manufactured by General Motors Corporation. Various groups of plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the district court overseeing the multidistrict litigation. "In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Shareholder Class Action), the court appointed the New York State Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 the New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current and former officers and employees (Defendants) on behalf of purchasers of our common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements." On September 17, 2015 GM announced that it had entered into a binding term sheet regarding settlement of this matter. GENERAL MOTORS: Hearing This Year on Canada Dealers' Claim Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company anticipates that the appeal related to the GM Canada Dealers' Claim will be heard in the year ending December 31, 2016. On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Company (GM Canada) on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GM Canada dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GM Canada. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of GM's business and the possibility that GM Canada might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GM Canada offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GM Canada dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that their Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GM Canada and that GM Canada failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" Canadian Dollar $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues. A number of former dealers opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers' claim against GM Canada. The court also dismissed GM Canada's counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to them by GM Canada as well as for other relief. All parties have filed notices of appeal. "We anticipate that the appeal will be heard in the year ending December 31, 2016," the Company said. GEO GROUP: EEOC's Pre-suit Conciliation Efforts Sufficient ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony J Oncidi, Esq., of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that Alice Hancock was employed by Geo as a correctional officer at the Arizona State Prison. Geo contracts with the Arizona Department of Corrections to maintain and operate two facilities in the state. Hancock filed a charge of discrimination and harassment based on sex and also alleging retaliation. After concluding its investigation, the Arizona Civil Rights Division and the EEOC issued a reasonable cause determination, substantiating Hancock's allegations, and subsequently filed a class action lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, relying upon Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, 135 S. Ct. 1645 (2015) and holding that the EEOC's pre-suit conciliation efforts are subject to limited judicial review and were sufficient. The Court held that the EEOC is not required to conciliate on an individual basis prior to bringing a class action and that the proper starting date of the class action was 300 days prior to the filing of Hancock's charge (not the date of the filing of the reasonable cause determination). The Court also held that the district court had improperly dismissed another employee's (Sofia Hines) claims of a hostile environment, which allegedly included unwanted comments about her breasts, the grabbing of her breast on one occasion, an unwanted "spanking on her butt," and several unwanted sexually explicit comments directed at her. The case is Arizona ex rel. Horne v. The Geo Group, 2016 WL 945634 (9th Cir. 2016) GERON CORPORATION: Securities Actions Remain Pending in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation continues to defend a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in Calfornia, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with ET or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade LFT abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees." "On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. This lawsuit, which is based on the same factual background as the purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. "On June 30, 2014, both of the foregoing lawsuits, or the Class Action Lawsuits, were consolidated for all purposes, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed by the California District Court. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on September 19, 2014. "We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits. "On June 6, 2014, a securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. This lawsuit, which is based on the same factual background as the Class Action Lawsuits, also alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. "On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California District Court so it could be consolidated with the Class Action Lawsuits. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the California District Court, and the transferred case has been consolidated by the California District Court with the Class Action Lawsuits filed in the California District Court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Geron Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company that currently supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen Biotech, Inc. GOOGLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Free Range Content Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-02329-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part and denied, in part, the defendant's motion to dismiss without leave to amend. The plaintiffs, former AdSense publishers, brought the purported class action to challenge Google for allegedly terminating their accounts without cause and unlawfully withholding revenue they had accrued over their last one to two months as publishers. The Court previously dismissed the case with leave to amend. Google then asked the Court to dismiss the action with prejudice. Judge Freeman granted the motion without leave to amend with regard to: 1. Plaintiffs' force majeure theory of excuse; 2. any payment-related claims by Taylor Chose and Matthew Simpson; 3. Plaintiffs' claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the extent that it relies on allegations of termination or payments withheld under the Terms and Competitions; 4. Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim; and 5. Plaintiffs' fraudulent Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim. The Motion was denied with regard to: 1. Plaintiffs' section 1671(b) claim; 2. Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, except as outlined above regarding payment-related claims by Ms. Chose and Mr. Simpson and Plaintiffs' force majeure theory; 3. Plaintiffs' breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim to the extent that it relies on allegations of payments withheld under the Terms of Service; 4. Plaintiffs' unlawful and unfair UCL claims; and 5. Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief. A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's May 13, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/a0RfKi from Leagle.com. Free Range Content, Inc., Coconut Island Software, Inc., Taylor Chose, Matthew Simpson, Plaintiffs, represented by Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, pro hac vice, Robert F Lopez -- robl@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Simon Bahne Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Jeff D Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Google Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Gutkin -- jgutkin@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kyle Christopher Wong -- kwong@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Michael Graham Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP. Super Cray Inc., Interested Party, represented by Randolph Gaw -- rgaw@gawpoe.com -- Gaw, Poe LLP. HCP INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on May 10 disclosed that on May 9, 2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund ("Boynton Beach Fire") against HCP, Inc. ("HCP"), HCR ManorCare, Inc. ("ManorCare"), and certain of their senior executives (collectively "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH (N.D. Ohio) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired HCP common stock during the period from March 30, 2015 through February 8, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases, financial statements, filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and statements during investor conference calls. HCP is a real estate investment trust ("REIT") focused on the healthcare industry. Throughout the Class Period, HCP was highly dependent upon the operations of ManorCare, a nursing home operator, which served as HCP's most significant client. Prior to the start of the Class Period, HCP invested directly in ManorCare, purchasing substantially all of ManorCare's real estate facilities (which were then leased back to ManorCare) and taking a 10% equity stake in ManorCare. As a result of that transaction, ManorCare had a significant impact on several aspects of HCP's operations and was highly important to HCP investors. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented ManorCare's financial performance, the value of HCP's ManorCare assets, and that HCP's revenue stream from ManorCare leases was secure. Moreover, HCP and ManorCare represented that ManorCare had "a long history of compliance with regulations," and that ManorCare's billing practices had been "audited" in the past and were "to the standard one would want." As a result of these misrepresentations, HCP common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. In truth, Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that ManorCare was engaged in rampant billing fraud, which allegedly generated false claims for "reimbursement" submitted to government programs. ManorCare's billing fraud was the subject of multiple whistleblower lawsuits, and an investigation by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ"). On April 21, 2015, HCP disclosed that the DOJ had intervened in the whistleblower lawsuits and filed a consolidated complaint. Then, on May 5, 2015, HCP disclosed that it had recorded a non-cash impairment charge of $478 million related to certain of its lease arrangements with ManorCare. Finally, on February 9, 2016, HCP disclosed that its equity stake in ManorCare had been written down to zero, and that it had taken an $836 million non- cash impairment on its ManorCare lease assets and placed all of its ManorCare real estate assets on a "Watch List." If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than July 11, 2016, which is the first business day on which the District Court for the Northern District of Ohio is open that is 60 days after the May 10, 2016 publication date of this notice. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. Boynton Beach Fire is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100 attorneys with offices in New York, California, Louisiana, and Illinois. If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e- mail at avi@blbglaw.com Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide. HEWLETT PACKARD: Hearing on Motion to Decertify Reset to June 16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:13- cv-00119 (N.D. Cal.), the clerk of court reset the hearing on these motions to June 16, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.: -- Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective Action filed by Hewlett-Packard Company; and -- Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's First Amended Counterclaims. The hearing on HP Inc's motion to decertify the FLSA collective action was originally scheduled for May 5, 2016. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware for HP Inc. were misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP Inc. violated California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under state law. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed the Technology Consultant and certain Field Technical Support Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA collective action. The class certification hearing on plaintiff's motion to certify a Rule 23 class was held on February 18, 2016. Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reported on April 8 that the federal court has refused to certify three classes of ex-HP technical support consultants in California, Colorado and Massachusetts, after conditionally certifying a national opt-in class of roughly 10,000 workers in the unpaid-overtime collective action. U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 28, ruling that they failed to provide enough evidence to show that the three state classes met the predominance requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. IMAX CORPORATION: Settlement in IMAX Chicago Case Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Court has issued an order finally approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the action against IMAX Chicago. On November 4, 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC ("IMAX Chicago Theatre"), a subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiff, Scott Redman, alleged that IMAX Chicago Theatre provided certain credit card and debit card receipts to customers that were purportedly not in compliance with the applicable truncation requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which IMAX Chicago Theatre denies. The plaintiff did not allege actual damages but sought statutory damages individually and on behalf of a putative class. On October 26, 2015, the parties filed with the Court a class action settlement agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") and proposed form of class notice, and on March 4, 2016, the Court issued an order finally approving the Settlement Agreement and dismissing the action. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, members of the class who did not opt out of the settlement released IMAX Chicago Theatre and its affiliates from liability for all claims that were alleged or could have been alleged in this action or any other proceeding relating to the subject matter of this action. As part of the settlement and in exchange for the release, IMAX Chicago Theatre paid a total of $0.4 million to a settlement fund, which has been distributed to the class (after deducting certain fees and other expenses). INDOFF INC: Old Town Pizza Seeks Certification of Class in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled OLD TOWN PIZZA OF LOMBARD, INC., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. INDOFF, INCORPORATED and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05254 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify its proposed class, appoint the Plaintiff as the class representative, appoint its attorneys as class counsel, and hold a status conference on the Motion. The Plaintiff proposes this class: All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice. Old Town submits its Motion pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). The Plaintiff anticipates that the proposed class definition will change after discovery defines the precise contours of the class and the advertisements that were sent. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8fs3aY7L The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Securities Class Action in Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- Barrack Rodos & Bacine on May 11 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Inventure Foods, Inc. ("SNAK" or the "Company"). While this lawsuit is limited to investors who purchased SNAK common stock in or traceable to the Company's September 17, 2014 stock offering, Barrack Rodos & Bacine is also investigating whether the Company and its senior executives violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements during the period from January 1, 2013 through April 24, 2015. Barrack Rodos & Bacine has four decades of experience prosecuting securities class actions and has achieved some of the largest recoveries in the history of such litigation. If you purchased SNAK stock from January 1, 2013 through April 24, 2015 (including but not limited to in the September 2014 offering), suffered losses from your transactions in the stock, and wish to discuss your rights, please contact Barrack Rodos & Bacine at the following toll-free number: 877-386-3304, or via e-mail to Jeffrey W. Golan (jgolan@barrack.com), Robert A. Hoffman (rhoffman@barrack.com) or Samuel Ward (sward@barrack.com). SNAK, which is headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, is a marketer and manufacturer of healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food brands. It has manufacturing plants in Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Oregon and Washington. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's manufacturing facility in Jefferson, Georgia, was in need of capital improvements to address unsanitary conditions that are known to foster the growth of dangerous bacteria. The complaint also alleges that in late 2014 to early 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety Division found unsafe and unsanitary conditions at the Jefferson facility, which were the subject of a March 2015 complaint filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration. On April 23, 2015, SNAK issued a press release announcing that it had initiated a recall of certain products due to the Jefferson facility testing positive for listeria. As a result of these developments, the price of SNAK stock declined significantly, closing at $8.71 per share on April 24, 2015 (a $2.88 drop in the stock's price from the closing price before the recall announcement). INVENTURE FOODS: Complied with "Lilly" Settlement Requirements -------------------------------------------------------------- Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has complied with the requirements of the settlement in the "Lilly" class action lawsuit against Jamba Juice Company and the case has been dismissed. The Company said, "Under our license agreement with the Jamba Juice Company ("Jamba Juice"), we are obligated and have agreed to indemnify and defend Jamba Juice in the two matters identified below, and Jamba Juice has tendered defense of these matters to us." "In March 2012, we learned that Jamba Juice was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the Federal Court for the North District of California and captioned Anderson v. Jamba Juice Company (the "Anderson Matter"). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of individuals who purchased make- at-home smoothie kits from Jamba Juice, and alleges that such smoothie kits contain unnaturally processed, synthetic and/or non- natural ingredients and that use of the words "All Natural" on the labels of these smoothie kits is unfair and fraudulent and violates various false advertising and unfair competition laws. The Anderson Matter is one of several "all natural" lawsuits recently brought against various food manufacturers and distributors in California. "In an amended complaint, the plaintiff also alleged violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which were dismissed by the court in August 2012. In a second amended complaint filed in September 2012, we were added as a defendant. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, on September 3, 2013 the court dismissed the Anderson Matter. "On June 28, 2013, a class action complaint against Jamba Juice and the Company, captioned Lilly v. Jamba Juice Company et al (the "Lilly Matter"), was filed in the Federal Court for the Northern District of California, with nearly identical allegations as those made in the Anderson Matter, except that the complaint also alleges that the smoothie kits contain two additional allegedly non-natural ingredients. The plaintiffs in this new action are represented by the same counsel that represented the plaintiff in the Anderson Matter. While we currently believe the "all natural" statement on the smoothie kits are not misleading and in full compliance with FDA guidelines, we are investigating the claims asserted in the Lilly Matter, and intend to vigorously defend against them. "On September 17, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as to gelatin and the Orange Dream Machine smoothie kit. Our motion was denied in November 2013. On February 3, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of all persons in California who bought certain Jamba Juice smoothie kits. "On September 18, 2014, the court issued an order granting class certification solely for purposes of determining liability and denying certification for purposes of damages. The court requested further briefing on the question of whether it has jurisdiction to certify a class for purposes of granting injunctive relief. Following mediation, the basic terms of a proposed class settlement were reached. The parties signed a definitive agreement that was filed with the court for approval on December 1, 2014. "The court's ruling on a motion for preliminary approval is pending and will be followed by a subsequent final approval hearing. If approved by the court, a settlement class will be certified for injunctive relief only, requiring the Company to (i) remove the "all natural" designation on the labels of the challenged products and (ii) pay $5,000 to each of the two individual plaintiffs and up to $425,000 to plaintiffs' counsel for fees and costs. The Company would pay no damages to class members, although there would be no release by class members of any individual damage claims they might have related to the Lilly Matter. The Company has complied with the requirements of the settlement and the case has been dismissed." ITURAN LOCATION: Defending Against Class Suit in Tel-Aviv --------------------------------------------------------- Ituran Location And Control Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending against a purported class action lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv. The Company said, "On July 13, 2015 we received a purported class action lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, by one plaintiff who is a subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated between its customers. The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from customers who are obliged by insurance company requirements to install location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the monthly subscription fees that are charged from customers who are not required by insurance companies to install location and recovery systems in their vehicles." "In addition, the plaintiff claims that the Company offers to customers who are not required by insurance companies to install location and recovery systems in their vehicles, a discounted warrantee service to their location and recovery systems. The plaintiff claims in addition to the above, that such actions raise additional causes of action against the Company such as negotiations without good faith, executing contract without good faith, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of consumer protection laws, tort laws, and breach of statutory duty. "The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million (approximately USD 78 million). "Our defense against the approval of the class action lawsuit was filed on January 3, 2016. The plaintiff has responded to our defense on February 29, 2016. "A class action lawsuit based on similar claims, against the Company, which was filed on form 6-K on March 22, 2011, was dismissed by the court on the request of both parties, on March 5, 2012 for a small compensation to the plaintiff and his attorneys, in a total amount of NIS 30,000 (approximately USD 7,900). Such dismissal of a similar class action lawsuit may have a positive effect on the Company's defense against the current lawsuit. "Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, at this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success, however based on the documents of the claim, the Company has good defense arguments in respect of claims made by the plaintiff and that the chances that the lawsuit will not be approved as a class action lawsuit are higher than it will be approved. While we cannot predict the outcome of this case, if we are not successful in defending our claim, we could be subject to significant costs, adversely affecting our results of operations." Ituran Location is mainly engaged in the area of location-based services, consisting of stolen vehicle recovery, fleet management services and other tracking services. It also provides wireless communication products used in connection with our location-based services and various other applications. JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: $5.05-Mil. Class Action Settlement Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a U.S. court has entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement in a shareholder class action lawsuit. On October 11, 2011, JinkoSolar was named as a defendant in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Marco Peters v. JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 11-CV-7133 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "U.S. Securities Action"). On June 1, 2012, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In addition to JinkoSolar, the Amended Complaint also named as defendants Xiande Li, Kangping Chen, Xianhua Li, Wing Koen Siew, Haitao Jin, Zibin Li, Stephen Markscheid, Longgen Zhang (the "Individual Defendants"), and the underwriters of our initial public offering in May 2010. The lead plaintiffs in the U.S. Securities Action sought to represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers of ADSs of JinkoSolar between May 13, 2010 and September 20, 2011, inclusive. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by making material misstatements or failing to disclose material information regarding, among other things, JinkoSolar's compliance with environmental regulations at its Haining facility. The Amended Complaint also asserted claims against the Individual Defendants for control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint sought, among other things, certification of the putative class, unspecified compensatory damages (including interest), and costs and expenses incurred in the action. On January 22, 2013, the District Court issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing the Amended Complaint as against all defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which issued an order on July 31, 2014 vacating the District Court's Order and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On September 15, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, proposing a settlement of the lawsuit, subject to the approval of the District Court. On March 11, 2016, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement, certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes, and dismissing the Amended Complaint with prejudice. Under the terms of the settlement, the members of the proposed class will receive a settlement fund of US$5.05 million (RMB 32.7 million), less any court-approved fees, among which the Company will contribute US$0.6 million (RMB 3.9 million), and the remaining portion will be funded by JinkoSolar's insurers. The Company has settled the litigation claim of US$0.6 million (RMB 3.9 million) related to this class action in cash during the year ended December 31, 2015 and recorded a charge of US$0.6 million (RMB 3.9 million) in general and administrative expense. JONES FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal from the order approving a settlement of securities lawsuits remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In the past several years, there have been five cases filed against Edward Jones (in addition to numerous other issuers and underwriters) asserting various claims under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") in connection with registration statements and prospectus supplements issued for certain mortgage- backed certificates issued between 2005 and 2007, four of which have appeals that are currently pending. Three of these cases were purported class actions (David H. Luther, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2007 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; Maine State Retirement System, et al. v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; and Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al. filed in 2010 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles) filed against numerous issuers and underwriters, including Edward Jones. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and reasonable costs and fees, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval of a settlement for these three cases on December 6, 2013. The approved settlement is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the Partnership's consolidated financial condition. On January 14, 2014, some objectors to the settlement filed a notice of appeal of the Court's final judgment and dismissal, and the appeal is currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is a registered limited liability limited partnership organized under the Missouri Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The Partnership's principal operating subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., is a registered broker-dealer in the U.S. and one of Edward Jones' subsidiaries is a registered broker-dealer in Canada. JP MORGAN: "Stikas" Suit Over Foreclosure Fees Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul A. Crotty granted J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion for summary judgment in the case captioned MARIANNE STIKAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, No. 14 Civ. 1277 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.). The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of Judge Crotty's May 13, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/y8BLPu from Leagle.com. Marianne Stikas sued J.P. Morgan and various unknown entities, alleging that they breached the terms of a mortgage note by seeking non-legal fees in a foreclosure judgment under the guise of attorneys' fees. Previously, the Court granted J.P. Morgan's motion to dismiss all but Stikas' claim for breach of contract. The Court also held that Stikas adequately pleaded standing by alleging that "[t]he fees and charges under the Uniform Note were paid by [P]laintiff . . . directly to or on behalf of J.P. Morgan." In its motion for summary judgment, J.P. Morgan argued the undisputed proof is that Stikas never paid any legal fees and accordingly lacks standing. Marianne Stikas, Plaintiff, represented by Neal Arthur DeYoung, Neal Deyoung. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, Defendant, represented by James Lawrence Bernard -- jbernard@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Julia Beatrice Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice & Raymond Alexander Garcia -- rgarcia@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. KRAFT HEINZ: May 26 Oral Argument on Parmesan MDL Petitions ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, JOHN LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-400 AWI SAB (E.D. Cal.), is stayed pending a ruling by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on MDL Petitions 2705, 2707, and 2708. The parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court within five days of the JPML's ruling. John Lewis filed his Class Action Complaint on March 23, 2016; and the deadline for Kraft Heinz to respond to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint was May 12, 2016. At least twenty other similar complaints have been filed against Kraft Heinz across the country, and plaintiffs in five of those cases filed petitions with the JPML seeking to centralize all of the Parmesan-related lawsuits against Kraft Heinz in a common jurisdiction. The JPML has scheduled oral argument on those MDL petitions, In re: 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2705; In re: Kraft 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2707, as well as a related MDL petition, In re: Walmart Great Value 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL NO. 2708, on May 26, 2016 and will likely issue its decision regarding centralization in June 2016. The parties in the Lewis suit are directed to file joint status reports at least every three months. A copy of the Stay order dated May 16, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/zlKWxr from Leagle.com. John Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Michael McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP & Sean Clinton Woods, Audet & Partners, LLC. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul Lee -- KLee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP. George Brahler, Neutral, represented by Matthew J. Preusch -- mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP. KRAFT HEINZ: "Brahler" Suit Stayed Pending MDL Petitions -------------------------------------------------------- The case, GEORGE BRAHLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-849 KJM EFB (E.D. Cal.), is stayed pending a ruling by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on MDL Petitions 2705, 2707, and 2708. The parties shall submit a joint status report to the Court within five days of the JPML's ruling. Brahler filed his Class Action Complaint on April 25, 2016. The deadline for Kraft Heinz to respond to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint is June 27, 2016. At least 20 other similar complaints have been filed against Kraft Heinz across the country, and plaintiffs in five of those cases filed petitions with the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to centralize all of the Parmesan-related lawsuits against Kraft Heinz in a common jurisdiction. The JPML has scheduled oral argument on those MDL petitions, In re: 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2705; In re: Kraft 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2707, as well as a related MDL petition, In re: Walmart Great Value 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL NO. 2708, on May 26, 2016 and will likely issue its decision regarding centralization in June 2016. A copy of the Court's May 16 Order is available at https://is.gd/0ZkA4b from Leagle.com. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq., at Jenner & Block LLP. George Brahler, represented by Matthew J. Preusch, Esq., at Keller Rohrback, LLP. KROGER CO: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Hardesty" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of the collective action titled JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al., Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. THE KROGER CO., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00298-TSB (S.D. Ohio). The Plaintiffs move for the conditional certification of their Fair Labor Standards Act overtime claims and the claims of the class that they seek to represent, as a collective action. The proposed FLSA collective action class includes all current and former employees of Kroger, who were employed as "Recruiters" at Kroger's Center of Recruiting Excellence in Blue Ash, Ohio. The Plaintiffs allege that Kroger has willfully misclassified these Recruiters as "exempt" from the FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements, and consequently has withheld overtime wages from Recruiters for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve their proposed notices to be sent to the proposed FLSA class members, and to require Kroger to produce names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, social security numbers, job titles, and date of hire and date of termination for all CoRE Recruiters from the date CoRE began its operations in Blue Ash to the present. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P7C7Kqt0 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter A. Saba, Esq. Joshua M. Smith, Esq. Sharon Sobers, Esq. STAGNARO, SABA & PATTERSON CO., L.P.A. 2623 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 533-2701 Facsimile: (513) 533-2711 E-mail: pas@sspfirm.com jms@sspfirm.com sjs@sspfirm.com LABORATORY CORPORATION: "Berk" Class Action Closed -------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, that a Delaware court has approved a stipulated proposed order providing for, among other things, the closing of the class action lawsuit by Barry Berk. On November 2, 2014, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings ("LabCorp") and Covance Inc. ("Covance") announced that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which LabCorp would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Covance common stock for per-share consideration of $75.76 in cash and 0.2686 shares of LabCorp stock (the "Merger"). On December 9, 2014, plaintiff Barry Berk ("Plaintiff") filed a purported stockholder class action complaint (the "Complaint") against Covance, members of the Covance Board of Directors, LabCorp and Neon Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of LabCorp that was merged out of existence in connection with the Merger (the "Defendants") in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") captioned Berk v. Covance Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10440- VCL challenging the Merger (the "Action"). The Court entered the parties' stipulated order of dismissal dismissing the Action on December 1, 2015, and following formal notification to the Court of the filing of this Form 8-K concerning LabCorp's subsequent agreement to pay Plaintiff's counsel a fee of $175,000, the Action will be closed. The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the Covance Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties under Delaware law in connection with the merger process. The Complaint also alleged that the Proxy Statement filed by Covance on November 26, 2014, misrepresented and failed to disclose material information necessary for Covance's public stockholders to cast an informed vote on the proposed transaction. Among other things, Plaintiff alleged that the Registration Statement failed to disclose: (i) material facts regarding the process leading to the signing of the Merger Agreement, (ii) material information pertaining to the analyses performed by Covance's financial advisor, and (iii) whether Covance's financial advisor's fee was entirely contingent on the transaction's close. While Defendants in the Action have, at all times, completely denied all of the allegations set forth in the Complaint, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle with Defendants on February 9, 2015, to settle the Action on a class-wide basis (the "Class Settlement"). In connection therewith, Covance filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") a Form 8-K on February 9, 2015, containing certain additional disclosures (the "Supplemental Disclosures") to moot certain of Plaintiff's claims and resolve the Action. The parties subsequently decided not to pursue the Class Settlement. On November 25, 2015, the parties filed a stipulated proposed dismissal order with the Court providing, among other things, for the dismissal of the Action against all Defendants, with prejudice as to Plaintiff only. The stipulated proposed dismissal order also stated that it was the intention of Plaintiff's counsel to submit an application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with the Supplemental Disclosures. On December 1, 2015, the Court entered the stipulated order dismissing the Action against all Defendants, with prejudice as to Plaintiff, and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of resolving any dispute as to Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Arms- length discussions between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendants' counsel followed, and LabCorp subsequently agreed to pay Plaintiff's counsel a fee of $175,000. As a result of LabCorp's agreement to pay this amount, the Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment or amount of the $175,000 fee or its reasonableness. On February 17, 2016, the Court approved a stipulated proposed order providing for, among other things, the closing of the Action following formal notification to the Court of the filing of this Form 8-K. LECOM INC: Court Narrows Claims, Grants Conditional Cert. --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned HARRY BENION, ZACHARY GOODGALL, DAMON FRANKLIN, and LESLIE MORGAN, Plaintiffs, v. LECOM, INCORPORATED, and LECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-14367 (E.D Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson granted the defendants' motion to dismiss only as to count II of the complaint, but granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the claim in count I as a collective action. Harry Benion and three others commenced an action against LeCom, Incorporated and LeCom Communications, Inc. alleging that these companies misclassified them as independent contractors in order to avoid the minimum wage and overtime obligations established by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs also made a claim for unjust enrichment under Michigan common law. The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Since the case was filed, one other plaintiff has opted in to the case, and the plaintiffs have moved to certify the case conditionally as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Judge Lawson found that the plaintiffs have stated a viable claim in count I of their complaint for violation of the FLSA as to the named defendants, but have not stated a valid claim for unjust enrichment. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs have established a right to conditional certification of the claim in count I as a collective action. A full-text copy of Judge Lawson's May 13, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/YTqGTv from Leagle.com. Harry Benion, Zachary Goodgall, Damon Franklin, Leslie Morgan, Plaintiffs, represented by Harold Lichten -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC & David M. Blanchard, Blanchard & Walker, PLLC. LeCom, Incorporated, LeCom Communications, Inc., Defendants, represented by James R. Andary, Andary, Andary. LIFE CARE: Certification of BOMs Class Sought in "Robinson" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff moves the Court to conditionally certify as a collective action the lawsuit styled BETH ROBINSON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-03675 (S.D. Tex.). Ms. Robinson also asks the Court for an order allowing notice to be sent to members of a class of all current and former Business Office Managers employed by Life Care after January 21, 2013. She filed the Action on January 21, 2016, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated seeking to cease the Defendant's alleged continued violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zy0nCWRO The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick A. Reed, Esq. SMITH REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC 1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 350 Pearland, TX 77584 Telephone: (281) 519-7606 Facsimile: (281) 506-8693 E-mail: derrick@srapllc.com - and - Marrick Armstrong, Esq. SMITH REED & ARMSTRONG, PLLC 1920 Country Place Pkwy, Suite 350 Pearland, TX 77584 Telephone: (281) 489-3934 Facsimile: (281) 506-8693 E-mail: marrick@srapllc.com LIFE PROTECT: Primack Seeks Certification of TCPA Class in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Primack asks the Court for an order determining that the lawsuit captioned MERRILL PRIMACK, on behalf of plaintiff and the class defined below v. LIFE PROTECT 24/7, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05249 Document (N.D. Ill.), alleging claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, may proceed as a class action against Life Protect. The Plaintiff defines the classes as: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, Plaintiff seeks to represent a class. The class consists of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c) received calls from defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice. For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiff also seeks to represent a class. The class consists of (a) all persons with phone numbers in the Illinois area codes (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, and on or before a date 20 days following the filing of this action, (c) received calls from defendant on their cell phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lNUq39KW The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com LOS GATOS-SARATOGA: Illegally Uses Athletic Fields, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Citizens for Responsible Action and Does 1 through 5, inclusive v. Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District, and Does 6 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 16CV294909 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), arises out of the actions of the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District permitting the use of the Los Gatos High School (LGHS) athletic fields for events and activities outside of school hours and school athletic or other program practice hours, without submitting this project for review required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District is a school district duly organized under the laws of the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rose M. Zoia, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROSE M. ZOIA 50 Old Courthouse Square, Suite 401 Santa Rosa, CA Telephone: (707) 526-5894 Facsimile: (267) 381-6097 E-mail: rzoia@sbcglobal.net LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Contributes to Class Action Settlement Fund --------------------------------------------------------------- CBSNews reports that Lumber Liquidators (LL) reported a wider- than-expected first-quarter loss and sales declined for a fifth straight quarter as the flooring company spends heavily to put behind it damaging reports on potentially dangerous products imported from China. The company will contribute $26 million and a million of its shares to a settlement fund to resolve a related class action. That follows an announcement in April that the Toano, Virginia, company would pay $2.5 million to settle allegations that some of its products violated California's air-safety standards. Last year, it paid $13.2 million in fines and pleaded guilty to environmental crimes for importing China-made flooring that contained timber illegally logged in eastern Russia. Lumber Liquidators has been doing damage control and attempting to restore its reputation since a March 2015 airing of "60 Minutes," which revealed that some of the chain's Chinese-made laminate flooring contained high levels of formaldehyde. For the period ended March 31, Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc. lost $32.4 million, or $1.20 per share, for the period ended March 31. A year earlier it lost $7.8 million, or 29 cents per share. The outsized losses far exceeded those projected by Wall Street, which had forecast per-share losses of 27 cents, according to analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research. Shares slumped 9 percent before the opening bell on May 10. In the past year, the company's stock has plunged more than 50 percent. Selling, general and administrative expenses increased to $117.2 million from $97.7 million. This is mostly due to an approximately $16 million charge related to its consolidated securities class action matter. Revenue dropped to $233.5 million from $260 million. That's below the $239.2 million in revenue that analysts polled by Zacks predicted. Sales at stores open at least a year, a key indicator of a retailer's health, tumbled 13.9 percent. LUXOTTICA SUN: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Luxottica Sun Corp. d/b/a Lenscrafters, Case No. 1:16-cv-21640-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Luxottica Sun Corp. owns and operates an optical retail shop in Miami Dade, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 Facsimile: (786) 513-7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com LYFT: Offers to Settle Driver Class Action for $27 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Kia Kokalitcheva, writing for Fortune, reports that ride-hailing company Lyft is making a second try at settling a class action lawsuit filed by drivers. This time, it's upped its proposed payout to $27 million, according to documents filed on May 11 in San Francisco federal court. In January, Lyft attempted to settle a lawsuit by former drivers who claimed the company owed them expenses because it misclassified them as contractors instead of employees. In April, a federal judge rejected a proposed $12.25 million settlement, saying it "shortchanged" drivers. Under the new proposal, average "casual" Lyft drivers would receive about $131, while average "frequent drivers," who drove an average of 700 hours, would receive about $2,000, according to court documents. Lyft's new settlement proposal comes after calculations ordered by the judge showed that its California drivers would have been owed $126 million if they were employees instead of independent contractors. Under the new proposal, Lyft drivers still remain contractors. Almost all the additional money will go to the drivers, the company said in a press release. "In light of Lyft's continued growth, we agreed to update the resolution in a way that both increased monies paid to drivers and helped preserve their flexibility to control when, where and for how long they drive on the platform," Lyft general counsel Kristin Sverchek said in a statement. Rival ride-hailing company Uber is also in the middle of getting approval for a $100 million settlement proposal for similar lawsuits in California and Massachusetts. Uber is also still at risk of having to increase its settlement payout considering that employment calculations showed that drivers would be owed $730 million if they were employees instead of contractors. MANPOWER INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Payroll Records ---------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Rodriguez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 16CV294904 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide all proper payroll records of Plaintiff and class members. Manpower, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing staffing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 MANPOWER INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Rodriguez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 16CV294904 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Manpower, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing staffing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: (831) 531-4214 Facsimile: (831) 634-0333 MARKIT LTD: $45-Mil. CDS Case Settlement Subject to Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------ MARKIT LTD. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a $45 million settlement in a credit default swaps litigation awaits court approval. Markit was named as a defendant with certain major international investment banks (the "Dealers"), andthe International Swaps and Derivatives Association ("ISDA") in a number of putative class action lawsuits related to the same fact patterns that are the subject of the EC and the DOJ civil investigations, filed beginning in May 2013 in various U.S. courts and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2013. On September 30, 2015, Markit entered into a definitive settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit. The settlement agreement provides for Markit to pay a settlement amount of $45 million with no injunctive or other significant non-monetary obligations and no admission of any liability. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval, and there can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement or that no members of the class will opt-out of the settlement. In addition, certain plaintiffs have requested to be excluded from the settlement, and no assurance can be given that they will not undertake additional legal proceedings or lawsuits or assert other claims. The full amount of the settlement was reflected as an exceptional item in our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015. Exceptional items for the year ended December 31, 2015 were $48.7 million. These pertain to the agreement to settle the consolidated U.S. antitrust class action lawsuit regarding credit derivatives and related markets for $45.0 million and legal advisory fees of $3.7 million associated with the antitrust class action lawsuit as well as the related ongoing antitrust investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission. MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: Reviewing Merger Class Action Complaints ------------------------------------------------------------ Mattson Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is reviewing class action complaints related to the merger with Beijing E-town Dragon Semiconductor Industry Investment Center ("Parent"), and Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). On December 14, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors, Beijing E- town Dragon Semiconductor Industry Investment Center ("Parent"), and Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), captioned Sally Mogle v. Mattson Technology, et al., Case No. 11807 (Del. Ch.). On December 22, 2015, a second putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Mattson's Board of Directors, Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Philip Durgin v. Kannappan, et al., Case No. 11837 (Del. Ch.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and that Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 12, 2016, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors, Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Mary Salinas v. Mattson Technology, et al., Case No. RG16799807. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement, and that Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction and unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging, among other things, that Mattson's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and issuing an incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement, and that Mattson, Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 22, 2016, a second putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County against Mattson, Mattson's Board of Directors, Parent, and Merger Sub, captioned Darrell Brown v. Mattson Technology, et al., Case No. RG16804802. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Mattson's directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement and issuing an incomplete and misleading Preliminary Proxy Statement, and that Mattson, Parent, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as unspecified damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On February 18, 2016, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Board, captioned Talbert v. Mattson Technology, et al., No. 8:16-cv-00811-LHK. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Mattson and Mattson's Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially incomplete and misleading statements and/or omitting material information from the Preliminary Proxy Statement. The complaint seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed transaction, unspecified damages, certain other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Mattson is reviewing the complaints and has not yet formally responded to them, but believes the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. Mattson designs, manufactures, markets and globally supports semiconductor wafer processing equipment used in the fabrication of integrated circuits ("ICs" or chips). MDX MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended "Shulruff" Suit Due on May 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 16, 2016, in the case entitled Dr. Charles Shulruff, D.D.S. v. MDX Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01989 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. The minute entry states that: -- telephone status hearing held with attorneys for both sides; -- motion to dismiss original complaint is terminated as moot; -- motion to dismiss amended complaint is to be filed by May 27, 2016. Response is due by June 24 and reply is due by July 11. -- ruling is due on August 4, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn without prejudice pursuant to the parties' stipulation; and -- status hearing is set for August 4, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a7VGmM9x MEDTOX SCIENTIFIC: 8th Cir. Reinstates Claims in Fax Ads Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A recent Eighth Circuit decision reinstating class claims over unsolicited fax ads creates a new class membership test and widens a circuit split, a defense attorney tells Bloomberg BNA. David Almeida -- dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com -- said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit adopted a "circular and essentially meaningless ascertainability requirement" by defining the implicit test as whether class members are "clearly ascertainable." Mr. Almeida, a partner in Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP's Chicago office who specializes in consumer class actions, said this is a third version of the ascertainability standard, distinct from the Third Circuit's "strict" test and the Seventh Circuit's "weak" test. But plaintiffs' attorney Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP in New York and civil procedure professor Tanya Pierce tell Bloomberg BNA it appears that the Eighth Circuit is basically adopting the Seventh Circuit's approach. The Eighth Circuit is rightfully reluctant to impose a stringent test, "as ascertainability is not mentioned anywhere in the text of Rule 23 and, indeed, runs counter to the basic principles underlying Rule 23," Reese said in a May 5 e-mail. Mr. Reese is a consumer protection class action attorney and an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School. Sandusky Wellness Center LLC filed a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, alleging MedTox Scientific Inc. sent unsolicited fax advertisements. The Eighth Circuit told the lower court to take another look at its denial of class certification. It held May 3 that members of the class could be identified through the defendant's fax records, in Sandusky Wellness Ctr. LLC v. MedTox Scientific Inc., 8th Cir., No. 15-1317, 5/3/16 (see related story). Circuit Split Ascertainability doesn't appear in the rule that governs class actions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. But many courts include it as an implied prerequisite when considering whether a class should be certified. A circuit split has emerged, illustrated by two false advertising suits involving dietary supplements. The Third Circuit required that sales records -- or other reliable evidence of product purchases identifying class members -- be available for a class to be found ascertainable in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., 727 F.3d 300 (3d Cir. 2013) (14 CLASS 1058, 9/13/13). The Seventh Circuit roundly rejected the Third Circuit's Carrera strict standard for identifying class members in its July 2015 ruling in Mullins v. Direct Digital LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015). The Seventh Circuit held that as long as the class definition is spelled out clearly and objectively, ascertainability is met. The court also endorsed class members' ability to self-identify through affidavits when other means of identification aren't available. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review of that case in February (17 CLASS 249, 3/11/16). Eighth Circuit Language The Eighth Circuit in Sandusky acknowledged this split but said it, "unlike most other courts of appeal, has not outlined a requirement of ascertainability." The appeals court went on to say, "this court adheres to a rigorous analysis of the Rule 23 requirements, which includes that a class 'must be adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.'" So is this a new test? A non-test? Defense attorney Almeida said in a May 5 e-mail that the Eighth Circuit "goes to the left of the Seventh Circuit," creating an even weaker test. Because the decision "provided no meat to its analysis," he said the district courts in the Eighth Circuit could "completely abandon any analysis of ascertainability whatsoever." But Professor Pierce disagreed, saying the Eighth Circuit's approach is consistent with the Seventh Circuit's. "Both focus on whether the class is adequately defined, rather than whether it would be difficult to identify particular members of an adequately defined class," she said in a May 9 e-mail. Neither court's approach "requires plaintiffs to prove there exists an administratively feasible mechanism to determine just who the class members are," as the Third Circuit does, she said. Need for SCOTUS Review? Mr. Almeida said the Sandusky decision points to the need for the Supreme Court to settle the split. "We now have three different versions of ascertainability, despite the fact that Rule 23 is supposed to be uniformly applied throughout the federal courts," he said. "It has gotten to the point where the same putative class will receive wildly varying receptions depending on the Circuit in which the case is filed." MENARD CORRECTIONAL: "English" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Staci M. Yandle dismissed without prejudice the complaint filed in the case captioned MARIO S. ENGLISH, JR., DONALD HARDY, SUAVE JOHNSON, FNU MCCOY, DAVID GEHRET, and FNU BLACKMAN, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY BUTLER, and MONICA NIPPE, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00395-SMY (S.D. Ill.). The judge futher ordered as follows: -- that each plaintiff shall have until June 13, 2016, in which to advise the Court whether he wishes the Court to consider him a plaintiff in the group action. If, by June 13, 2016, any one or more of the plaintiffs advises the Court that he does not wish to participate in the action, he will be dismissed from the lawsuit and will not be charged a filing fee. -- that any plaintiff who does not respond to the order by June 13, 2016, will be considered a party in the action and shall be held accountable for all consequences. -- that, in order to proceed with the action, any plaintiffs that choose to remain a party to the action are directed to submit their amended complaint within 35 days of the entry of the order (on or before June 17, 2016). They should label the form First Amended Complaint, and they should use the case number for the action. In drafting the amended complaint, the plaintiffs should state, in chronological order, what happened to each of them that constituted a deprivation of their constitutional rights, and who was personally involved. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's May 13, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/4BtSjA from Leagle.com. The plaintiffs Mario S. English, Jr., Donald Hardy, Suave Johnson, FNU McCoy, David Gehret and FNU Blackman are currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center. They jointly brought the pro se action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against Monica Nippe, a Menard employee and Warden Kimberly Butler. MICHIGAN: Judge Allows Class Action Against UIA to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Darren Cunningham, writing for Fox17, reports that another lawsuit against the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency will move forward. Judge Cynthia Stephens' ruled that the Michigan Court of Claims will hear the tentative class action suit in Bauserman v. Michigan UIA. The plaintiffs accuse the state of intercepting tax refunds and garnishing wages without due process after accusing people of unemployment fraud. The plaintiffs also accuse the agency of violating federal law by failing to give claimants the legally prescribed time to respond to fact-finding forms. The state Attorney General filed to dismiss the case, claiming state courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case and that no harm has been done. A separate lawsuit is also moving forward in federal court. The AG had also filed to dismiss that suit, but that motion was also denied. The unemployment agency said its hosting informational seminars. To help its customers better understand the unemployment insurance system, Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) is hosting free Unemployed Worker Seminars at locations around the state. Participants will have the opportunity to learn some of the ins and outs of the claims process, how to use MiWAM, the UIA's system for managing benefit accounts online, and much more. The first seminar will be held May 23 in Ann Arbor, with others scheduled through August from Detroit to Marquette. "The seminars will cover the areas of Michigan's unemployment insurance system that people most often have questions about," said Sharon Moffett-Massey, director of the Unemployment Insurance Agency. "We want to make sure that our customers have every opportunity to understand the UI system and know how to get assistance with their claim if they need it." The day will consist of brief presentations, with adequate time for questions and answers on various topics including filing claims, certification, understanding determinations, the collections process, eligibility requirements, and more. Attendance is free, but participants are encouraged to register online. Unemployed workers can link to online registration via the UIA website at michigan.gov/uia. Customers without Internet access who wish to register should call the UIA Customer Service hotline at 1-866-500-0017 or visit at a local UIA Problem Resolution Office (PRO). MICROSOFT CORP: Trial in British Columbia Case to Begin in 2016 --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a British Columbia class action asserting antitrust and unfair competition claims is now scheduled for trial beginning in 2016. The Company said, "Three antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other software products between 1999 and 2005. In 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial beginning in 2016. The other two cases are inactive. MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. MICROSOFT CORP: Proceedings in US Cell Phone Case Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial court proceedings in the U.S. cell phone litigation are stayed pending resolution of the appeal. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. "We assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants," Microsoft said. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines ("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines. In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence, which the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc. Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal. MILLER AND STEENO: Bid to Certify Class Hearing Set for July 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 16, 2016, in the case styled Maurice Strader v. Miller and Steeno, P.C., et al., Case No. 1:16- cv-05199 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion to continue its motion to certify the class is granted; -- no appearance is required on May 18, 2016; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and continued to July 18, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.; -- status hearing set for July 18, at 9:00 a.m.; -- the parties are directed to meet and discuss the status of the case; -- the parties are directed to file a joint status report in the format described on the court's Web site at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.govat least 3 days prior to the status; and -- the parties are directed to discuss settlement, and whether they consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9WkGqyUR MISSION BAY: Court Wants Executed Amended Settlement Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISSION BAY INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-05235-SI (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Susan Illston said the Court will not rule on the motion for preliminary approval until it receives an executed amended settlement agreement. Plaintiffs have indicated that they anticipate the amended agreement will be filed on May 18, 2016. Plaintiffs are ordered to file a further amended class notice in accordance with the Court's guidance. On May 13, 2016, the parties appeared for a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. On May 17, plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration attaching: (1) an amended class notice to address concerns the Court raised at the hearing and (2) an amended worksheet regarding distribution of settlement funds to allot to class members roughly $20,000 that was previously unallocated. The Court has reviewed the amended class notice, and finds that these issues remain to be corrected: * Page 1 reads: Contest the basis for determining your settlement award. See section _ below. This should read, . . . See section 23 below. * Page 3, Question 8 reads: The Court previously certified a class of current and former MISSION BAY employees who were employed in California, as care staff workers at any time from November 12, 2009 to December 1, 2013. As discussed at the hearing, the class period runs from November 12, 2009 to November 12, 2013. See also Docket No. 81 at 4. * Page 19, Question 20. Plaintiffs have deleted the third sentence from their previously proposed class notice, Docket No. 142-2: Class members are not personally liable for any fees and costs, and MISSION BAY will pay these fees and costs. At the hearing, the Court discussed deleting the second sentence from this section of the prior class notice, but did not instruct plaintiffs to delete the third sentence. The Court finds that this sentence is important to class members' understanding of the settlement and should be added back to the class notice. * Page 7, Question 26. The time for the final approval hearing on August 5, 2016, should be listed as 10:00 a.m., not 9:00 a.m., as discussed at the preliminary approval hearing. Horacio De Veyra Palana et al. are represented by: Phung Hoang Truong, Esq. Huy Ngoc Tran, Esq. Justice at Work Law Group, 84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408.317.1100 Facsimile: 408.351.0105 Tomas Eduardo Margain, CASA Legal, Cary S. Kletter, Trung Thi Nguyen, Kletter Law Firm also represent Palana et al. Mission Bay Inc., and Print It Here And Copy, Inc., are represented by: Reyna Elena Macias, Esq. Scott A. Freedman, Esq. WFBM, LLP 1 City Blvd W Fl 5 Orange, CA 92868 Tel: (714) 634-2522 Fax: (714) 634-0686 E-mail: rmacias@wfbm.com sfreedman@wfbm.com MONEY RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Corey" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Corey and Catherine Tubergen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Money Recovery Nationwide d/b/a Nationwide Collection Agencies, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00481 (W.D. Mich., May 9, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Money Recovery Nationwide operates a debt collection firm located at 8155 Executive Ct #10, Lansing, MI 48917. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas Allan Reyna, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS A. REYNA PC 528 Bridge St., Ste. 1A Grand Rapids, MI 49504 Telephone: (616) 235-4444 E-mail: nickreyna7@hotmail.com MOTEL 6: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Occupancy Contract Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Dalton, for herself, and for all other persons similarly situated v. Motel 6, Inc., Motel 6 Operating LP, G6 Hospitality Property LLC Subhash Patel, Veena Patel, Prakash Patel, Frenca Hospitality LLC and Does 1-30, Case No. RG16814857 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons who have been occupants of the Defendants and who have been or are at risk of being unlawfully forced to move from their home before the expiration of 30 days occupancy contract. The Defendants own and operate residential hotels in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1970 Broadway, Ste. 210 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 834-3300 Facsimile: (510) 834-3377 E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com MURRIETA, CA: Wins Bid to Strike Class Claims in "Fenaroli" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Virginia A. Phillips grants the Defendants' motion to strike class allegations and denies as moot the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled Jacqueline Elise Fenaroli v. Officer K Stickleman et al., Case No. EDCV 15-1699-VAP (KKx) (C.D. Cal.). On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violations of her constitutional rights, including due process, free speech, and substantive due process. In the Motion for Certification, the Plaintiff seeks to certify an expanded class, which the Plaintiff calls the "damage class," which is defined as those who sustained any damage as a result of being issued notices to appear after January 2010 for violations of Section 38300 and 21461 of the California Vehicle Code. The Court declines to certify the Plaintiff's class because, among other things, the Plaintiff was never issued a notice to appear for violating Section 21461, and the Plaintiff's evidence shows that the Defendants stopped issuing notices to appear under Section 38300 as of March 11, 2014. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPFo9NZi NETFLIX INC: 9th Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Netflix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of the securities class action suit with prejudice. On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging substantially similar claims. These lawsuits were consolidated into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv- 00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs. On June 26, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on February 13, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the first amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on August 20, 2013, and judgment was entered on September 27, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and requested leave to file a second amended complaint on October 25, 2013. On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion. On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; oral argument occurred on March 17, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of the suit with prejudice. Plaintiffs have 14 days to petition for rehearing. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. Netflix is the world's leading Internet television network with over 81 million streaming members in over 190 countries enjoying more than 125 million hours of TV shows and movies per day, including original series, documentaries and feature films. NEW ORLEANS, LA: Claims Against Sheriff Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ALANA CAIN, ET AL., v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-4479. Section: R(2) (E.D. La.), Judge Sarah S. Vance granted Sheriff Gusman's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against him. Named plaintiffs Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, and Vanessa Maxwell filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 seeking to declare the manner in which the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court collects post-judgment court costs from indigent debtors unconstitutional. According to the plaintiffs, the Criminal District Court and other, related actors maintain a policy of jailing criminal defendants who fail to pay their court costs solely because of their indigence. Sheriff Gusman sought to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Sheriff Gusman argued that the plaintiffs' allegations are conclusory and unsupported by facts demonstrating that plaintiffs are entitled to relief. Sheriff Gusman also argued that his office is legally required to execute the arrest warrants and enforce the bail bond fee statutes challenged in the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of Judge Wright's May 13, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/uPniys from Leagle.com. Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste, Thaddeus Long, Vanessa Maxwell, Plaintiffs, represented by William Patrick Quigley -- quigley@loyno.edu -- Loyola Law School Clinic, Alec George Karakatsanis -- alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org -- Equal Justice Under Law, pro hac vice, Anna Lise Lellelid-Douffet, Law Office of Anna Lellelid, LLC & Emily Faye Ratner, Emily Faye Ratner, Attorney at Law. Robert J. Kazik, Laurie A White, Tracey Flemings-Davillier, Benedict Willard, Dennis Waldron, Keva Landrum-Johnson, Robin Pittman, Byron C. Williams, Camille Buras, Karen K. Herman, Darryl Derbigny, Arthur Hunter, Franz Zibilich, Harry E Cantrell, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Phayer, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., Celeste Brustowicz, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C., Christopher Kent Tankersley, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. & Elizabeth A. Doubleday, Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.. Jeff Landry, Movant, represented by Emily G Andrews, Louisiana Department of Justice & Madeline S. Carbonette, Louisiana Department of Justice. NEW YORK: Sued Over Failure to Pay Fraud Investigators Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Violeta Hernandez, et al. v. The City of New York, Case No. 1:16- cv-03445 (S.D.N.Y., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay Associate Fraud Investigators or a Fraud Investigators' overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The City of New York, often called New York City or simply New York, is the most populous city in the United States. Located at the southern tip of the State of New York, the city is the center of the New York metropolitan area, one of the most populous urban agglomerations in the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq. David Ricksecker, Esq. Sara Faulman, Esq. WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY 1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 833-8855 E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com - and - Hope Pordy, Esq. SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP 1700 Broadway Suite 2100 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 765-2100 E-mail: hpordy@spivkalipton.com NL INDUSTRIES: Appeal Remains Pending in Pigment Case ----------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's appeal from a class action ruling is proceeding with the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California. The Company said, "In April 2000 we were served with a complaint in County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 1-00-CV-788657) brought by a number of California government entities against the former pigment manufacturers, the LIA and certain paint manufacturers. The County of Santa Clara sought to recover compensatory damages for funds the plaintiffs had expended or would in the future expend for medical treatment, educational expenses, abatement or other costs due to exposure to, or potential exposure to, lead paint, disgorgement of profit, and punitive damages." "In July 2003, the trial judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss all remaining claims. Plaintiffs appealed and the intermediate appellate court reinstated public nuisance, negligence, strict liability, and fraud claims in March 2006. A fourth amended complaint was filed in March 2011 on behalf of The People of California by the County Attorneys of Alameda, Ventura, Solano, San Mateo, Los Angeles and Santa Clara, and the City Attorneys of San Francisco, San Diego and Oakland. That complaint alleged that the presence of lead paint created a public nuisance in each of the prosecuting jurisdictions and sought its abatement. "In July and August 2013, the case was tried. In January 2014, the Judge issued a judgment finding us, The Sherwin Williams Company and ConAgra Grocery Products Company jointly and severally liable for the abatement of lead paint in pre-1980 homes, and ordered the defendants to pay an aggregate $1.15 billion to the people of the State of California to fund such abatement. "In February 2014, we filed a motion for a new trial, and in March 2014 the court denied the motion. Subsequently in March 2014, we filed a notice of appeal with the Sixth District Court of Appeal for the State of California and the appeal is proceeding with the appellate court. "NL believes that this judgment is inconsistent with California law and is unsupported by the evidence, and we will defend vigorously against all claims. "The Santa Clara case is unusual in that this is the second time that an adverse verdict in the lead pigment litigation has been entered against NL (the first adverse verdict against NL was ultimately overturned on appeal). We have concluded that the likelihood of a loss in this case has not reached a standard of "probable" as contemplated by ASC 450, given (i) the substantive, substantial and meritorious grounds on which the adverse verdict in the Santa Clara case will be appealed, (ii) the uniqueness of the Santa Clara verdict (i.e. no final, non-appealable verdicts have ever been rendered against us, or any of the other former lead pigment manufacturers, based on the public nuisance theory of liability or otherwise), and (iii) the rejection of the public nuisance theory of liability as it relates to lead pigment matters in many other jurisdictions (no jurisdiction in which a plaintiff has asserted a public nuisance theory of liability has ever successfully been upheld). In addition, liability that may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated, as NL continues to have no basis on which an estimate of liability could be made, as discussed above. However, as with any legal proceeding, there is no assurance that any appeal would be successful, and it is reasonably possible, based on the outcome of the appeals process, that NL may in the future incur some liability resulting in the recognition of a loss contingency accrual that could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position and liquidity." NL Industries operates in the component products industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. (NYSE MKT: CIX). NL operates in the chemicals industry through its noncontrolling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. NL INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Suit Over Blood Lead Levels Testing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit on behalf of parents or legal guardians of children who lived in certain "high risk" areas in Illinois between August 18, 1995 and February 19, 2008, and incurred an expense or liability for having their children's blood lead levels tested. The Company said, "In June 2000, a complaint was filed in Illinois state court, Lewis, et al. v. Lead Industries Association, et al (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, Case No. 00CH09800.) Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes, one consisting of minors between the ages of six months and six years who resided in housing in Illinois built before 1978, and another consisting of individuals between the ages of six and twenty years who lived in Illinois housing built before 1978 when they were between the ages of six months and six years and who had blood lead levels of 10 micrograms/deciliter or more. The complaint seeks damages jointly and severally from the former pigment manufacturers and the LIA to establish a medical screening fund for the first class to determine blood lead levels, a medical monitoring fund for the second class to detect the onset of latent diseases and a fund for a public education campaign." "In April 2008, the trial court judge certified a class of children whose blood lead levels were screened venously between August 1995 and February 2008 and who had incurred expenses associated with such screening. In March 2012, the trial court judge decertified the class. In June 2012, the trial court judge granted plaintiffs the right to appeal his decertification order, and in August 2012 the appellate court granted plaintiffs permission to appeal. "In March 2013, the appellate court agreed with the trial court's rationale regarding legislative requirements to screen children's blood lead levels and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court. In July 2013, plaintiffs moved to vacate the decertification. In October 2013, the judge denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the decertification of the class. "In March 2014, plaintiffs filed a new class certification motion. In April 2015, a class was certified consisting of parents or legal guardians of children who lived in certain "high risk" areas in Illinois between August 18, 1995 and February 19, 2008, and incurred an expense or liability for having their children's blood lead levels tested." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. NL Industries operates in the component products industry through its majority-owned subsidiary, CompX International Inc. (NYSE MKT: CIX). NL operates in the chemicals industry through its noncontrolling interest in Kronos Worldwide, Inc. NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTH: Faces Property Tax Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that in the wake of an Illinois appellate court decision striking down as unconstitutional the state law allowing Illinois' nonprofit hospitals to avoid property taxes, a Chicago real estate investment group has filed a class action lawsuit against all every hospital in Illinois, alleging property owners in Cook County and elsewhere have been forced to pay higher real estate taxes than they otherwise should have to make up for what the plaintiffs allege the hospitals should have been paying all along. On May 5, a business group identified as Thornmeadow Partners LP filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against NorthShore University Health System and what the complaint identified as a "defendant class" of all other hospitals operating in Cook County. NorthShore operates four Cook County hospitals, including hospitals in Evanston, Highland Park, Glenbrook and Skokie. The complaint does not identify who is involved in Thornmeadow Partners. However, the complaint said Thornmeadow owns a residential property in the 4800 block of West Dakin on Chicago's northwest side. According to Cook County property tax records, the taxes on the property were paid by a business entity identified as Sabra Management, of Northfield. State business records indicate Sabra is headed by Jack Gore, a lawyer based in Northfield. According to the Thornmeadow complaint, NorthShore and other hospitals throughout Illinois have long enjoyed a favored tax exempt status they should not have. The complaint cited a January opinion posted by a three-justice panel of the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court, in which the court found a judge in downstate Champaign County had erred in finding state law allowed the operators of Urbana's Carle Foundation Hospital to be exempted from paying local property taxes. That decision came as the latest round in a long-running legal dispute between the Carle Foundation on one side and the Illinois Department of Revenue and a collection of local taxing bodies in Champaign County and the city of Urbana, on the other. The state and local governments argued the hospital should owe property taxes, despite their nonprofit status. However, the hospital cited a 2012 state law which it said gave it and other nonprofit hospitals tax exempt status, should its services to "low-income or underserved individuals" offset its estimated annual property tax liability. The appellate justices, however, said the standards spelled out in the law for granting tax exemptions to hospitals falls short under the Illinois state constitution, which requires nonprofit organizations to use their property primarily for "charitable purposes" to earn a property tax exemption. The justices said the law effectively grants hospitals the chance to purchase a tax exemption. Thus, the justices said the law is unconstitutional. While the matter may yet be resolved by the Illinois Supreme Court, the Thornmeadow group cited the Fourth Appellate District's opinion in arguing the hospitals should be made to pay taxpayers back for effectively forcing other taxpayers to pay higher property tax bills to make up for what hospitals weren't paying. The complaint asks for the court to order Illinois hospitals to pay an amount equal to the amount they should have owed in property taxes since 2014, with interest, to Thornmeadow and other property taxpayers in Cook County and throughout the state. The Thornmeadow complaint said the plaintiffs chose NorthShore because it is based in Cook County, and because the plaintiffs believed NorthShore "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Defendant Hospital Class and has no interests that are antagonistic to, or that irreconcilably conflict, with those of other" hospitals Illinois. The lawsuit also named the Cook County Treasurer and Clerk's offices as defendants in the action, as those offices are responsible for collecting property taxes on NorthShore's property and that owned by Thornmeadow. The complaint alleged NorthShore and other hospitals essentially misused public funds by using the purportedly unconstitutional tax breaks to withhold what they should have otherwise owed to the local governments of the communities in which their hospitals operate. The complaint does not make any estimates on how much any hospitals might be made to pay, should the lawsuit succeed. Thornmeadow is represented in the action by attorney Larry D. Drury, of Chicago. NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Jurisdictional Concerns Raised in "Edwards" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PAUL T. EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. NORTH AMERICAN POWER AND GAS, LLC, Defendant, No. 3:14-cv-1714 (VAB) (D. Conn.), Judge Victor A. Bolden directed the plaintiff to file a new proposed amended complaint addressing the court's concerns about its subject-matter jurisdiction within 21 days of the date of the order. A full-text copy of Judge Bolden's May 13, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/3K5dyh from Leagle.com. Paul T. Edwards is a Connecticut resident who has brought a putative class action against North American Power and Gas, LLC ("NAPG"), a Connecticut citizen. Edwards alleged that NAPG promised consumers low rates on electricity tied to the wholesale market rate and subsequently charged exorbitant rates that were unrelated to the wholesale market rate. Edwards has filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, seeking to add additional legal claims and several plaintiffs who reside in states other than Connecticut. Before ruling on the motion, however, Judge Bolden raised some concerns about the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Paul T. Edwards, Plaintiff, represented by Robert A. Izard, Jr. -- rizard@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel, LLP & Seth R. Klein -- sklein@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel PC. North American Power & Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Greil Roberts -- groberts@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP & William E. Murray -- wmurray@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP. NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Securities Class Suits Underway -------------------------------------------------- United States Commodity Index Funds Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative class action filed in federal court for the Southern District of New York involving six different NovaStar offerings is presently being litigated. It is alleged that the offering documents were materially misleading because they failed to disclose that NovaStar, which originated or acquired the loans backing the certificates disregarded its lending guidelines. The claims were initially dismissed in 2011 and 2012, but those rulings were overturned on appeal and all claims were reinstated by the trial court in 2015. Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC (WCM) served as one of several underwriters. The United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (the "Trust") is a Delaware statutory trust formed on December 21, 2009. The Trust is a series trust formed pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act and is organized into three separate series (each series, a "Trust Series" and collectively, the "Trust Series"). As of December 31, 2015, the Trust includes the United States Commodity Index Fund ("USCI"), a commodity pool formed on April 1, 2010 and first made available to the public on August 10, 2010, the United States Copper Index Fund ("CPER"), a commodity pool formed on November 26, 2010 and first made available to the public on November 15, 2011 and the United States Agriculture Index Fund ("USAG"), a commodity pool formed on November 26, 2010 and first made available to the public on April 13, 2012. OCEAN POWER: Settles Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------- Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. ("OPT" or "the Company") on May 11 disclosed that it has reached a settlement agreement in the class action securities litigation, In re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 14-3799, first filed in June 2014 in US District Court in New Jersey. The Company and the other defendants reached a settlement agreement which, if approved by the court, will settle claims asserted in the lawsuit by the lead plaintiff individually and on behalf of a class that consists of investors in the Company from January 14, 2014 through July 29, 2014, and investors who purchased the Company's securities in the Company's April 4, 2014 offering of shares of common stock. The agreement will settle the class action litigation without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. The terms of the settlement are subject to notice to the class and final approval by the Court. George Kirby, President and Chief Executive Officer of OPT commented, "The settlement of the securities litigation is another significant step for OPT to finalize our strategic pivot. We value all of our stockholders and institutional investors, and are pleased to be in a position to put this litigation behind us. I want to personally thank all the parties that were involved in the process." The class of plaintiffs is represented by the law firm of Levi & Korskinsky LLP, which will be responsible for the notification process. The Company is represented by the law firm of Dechert LLP. About Ocean Power Technologies Headquartered in Pennington, New Jersey, Ocean Power Technologies is a pioneer in ocean wave energy conversion. OPT's proprietary PowerBuoy(R) technology is based on a scalable and modular design. OPT specializes in cost-effective and environmentally sound ocean wave based power generation and energy storage technology. ORGANO GOLD: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Ganoderma Coffee --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Leonard P. Stark granted in part and denied, in part, Organo Gold International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned MARLIN JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ORGANO GOLD INT'L, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-390-LPS (D. Del.). A full-text copy of Judge Stark's May 13, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/zxSpfP from Leagle.com. On March 19, 2015, Marlin Johnson, currently a resident of Delaware, filed a civil action against Organo Gold, Organo Gold International, Inc. (a Washington Corporation), Organo Gold International, LLC, and Organo Gold Management, Inc. (collectively, "Organo Gold"), in the Superior Court of Delaware in and for New Castle County. In his complaint, Johnson alleged that he suffered serious complications after undergoing gastric bypass surgery, due to his consumption of Organo Gold coffee containing a supplement called Ganoderma Lucidum. He claimed that the defendants failed to warn him of the dangerous side effects of Ganoderma Lucidum and further failed to label the amount of Ganoderma Lucidum in their product. Consequently, in Johnson's view, the defendants are liable for his resulting injuries. Johnson also purported to bring a class action on behalf of over 100 individuals and entities "within the State of Delaware that purchased Organo Gold products contain[ing] Ganoderma Lucidum." In his complaint, Johnson asserted six counts for: (I) declaratory relief; (II) breach of express and implied warranties; (III) consumer fraud; (IV) negligence; (V) negligent labeling and failing to warn; and (VI) misrepresentation. Marlin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Philip Thomas Edwards, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon, John S. Spadaro, John Sheehan Spadaro, LLC & Kelley Marie Huff, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon. Organo Gold Int'l Inc., Defendant, represented by Colm F. Connolly -- colm.connolly@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jody Barillare -- jody.barillare@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Kelly A. Costello -- joseph.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. OXY RECKITT: Humidifier Disinfectant Victims Await Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Kwak Jung-soo, writing for The Hankyoreh, reports that a Missouri court ruled on May 3 to order the company Johnson and Johnson to pay US$55 million (around 64.3 billion won) in damages in a suit filed by family members of a woman in her sixties who contracted ovarian cancer after using its products. The total amounted to US$5 million in compensation and US$50 million in punitive damages. But while the death toll in South Korea's humidifier disinfectant case had passed 500 and over five years have passed since the problem first came to light, victims have yet to receive proper compensation. What accounts for the difference? Experts said the situation shows the urgent need for South Korea to adopt class action lawsuit and punitive damage systems that would provide an option for quickly assigning heavy responsibility in cases involving serious misconduct with large numbers of victims. Under a class action system, a successful suit by some of the victims in cases where wrongful actions by companies related in large-scale damages results in restitution for other victims without requiring additional legal action from them. A punitive damage system awards amounts far in excess of actual damages in cases of offenses determined to be particularly severe. "Under the current [South Korean] judicial system, a victim who was blinded because of disinfectant user would only receive around 50 million won [US$42,800] in compensation beyond the legal damages," attorney and Seoul Bar Association human rights committee chairman Oh Yeong-jung explained on May 10. The class action and punitive damage systems, Oh added, are "implemented in places like the US because they increase the ability of the victims [consumers], who are more vulnerable in societal terms than the offenders [companies], which allows them to win compensation more easily and is effective in preventing the same violations from happening again." People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and 15 other civic and social groups held a press conference at Gwanghwamun Square in central Seoul on May 10 to declare a boycott of products by Oxy -- makers of the sterilizer in question -- and demand introduction of the class action and punitive damage systems. South Korea previously introduced a class action system for securities in 2005. But difficult conditions placed on litigation have resulted in just six suits actually being filed to date. A punitive damage system was introduced in 2011 for unfair practices by large corporations according to the Subcontracting Act, but a reluctant judiciary has yet to apply it. During her 2012 campaign, President Park Geun-hye pledged to introduce both systems for cases involving collusion and other violations of the Fair Trade Act, but failed to follow through after meeting with objections from business interest groups. As the opposition party in the 19th National Assembly, the Minjoo Party of Korea (TMPK) presented several related bills. Lawmaker Seo Young-kyo sponsored a consumer class action suit built that would apply the system in cases where consumers suffered damages as a result of illegal manufacturing, advertising, price-fixing, or sales practices by companies. Two other lawmakers, Woo Yoon- keun and Kim Gi-juhn, respectively sponsored a bill to insert special class action terms in the Civil Procedure Act and an amendment to the Securities Class Action Act that would loosen the current system's litigation conditions. Baek Jae-hyun proposed an amendment to the Product Liability Act that would allow for punitive damages of up to 12 times the compensation for cases involving product defects. None of the bills passed the 19th National Assembly, where it was stymied by objections from the administration, ruling Saenuri Party, and business community citing concerns over the increased burden on companies and a possible proliferation of legal action. But with the then-opposition parties now forming a new majority after campaigning successfully on pledges to beef up both systems in the Apr. 13 general elections, hopes for the 20th National Assembly are higher. "To encourage use of the class action system, we need to place the burden of proof on the alleged offender rather than the victim and institute mandatory disclosure by court order for evidentiary materials possessed by the offender," suggested Economic Reform Research Institute senior researcher Wi Pyung-ryang. Wi also advised that the ceiling for punitive damages be raised to up to ten times the amount of actual compensation. PACIFIC GUARDIAN: Court Dismissed "King" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi dismissed without prejudice the case, DONALD KING, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE, ET AL., Defendants, Civil 16-00103 LEK-KSC (D. Haw.). Pro se Plaintiff Donald W. King filed his "Verified Conplant[sic], Class Action. Civil Rights Action. Jury Demand" and an application to proceed in forma pauperis ("Application") on March 8, 2016. Also on March 8, 2016, Chief United States District Judge J. Michael Seabright issued an order setting the Rule 16 Scheduling Conference for May 9, 2016 before the magistrate judge. The District Court filed an order denying Plaintiff's Application on March 23, 2016. The Court ordered Plaintiff to either pay the required filing fee or file an amended application by no later than May 9, 2016. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that, if he failed to pay the filing for or file an amended application, "this action may be automatically dismissed." The Clerk's Office sent the 3/23/16 Order to Plaintiff at the address provided on his Verified Complaint, but it was returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not submitted a notice of a change of address, as required by Local Rule 83.1(h). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has neither filed an amended application nor paid the required filing fee. Further, Plaintiff failed to appear at the May 9, 2016 Rule 16 Scheduling Conference. A copy of the Court's Order dated May 16, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/JEOlcO from Leagle.com. PATTERSON COMPANIES: Dismissal of Antitrust Actions Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein, Inc. and Patterson Companies, Inc. are seeking dismissal of complaints filed against them in the case, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint on March 11, 2016, a copy of which is available at https://is.gd/FqKVok The case is before Judge Brian M. Cogan and Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown. Patterson Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co. and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations, and others that deal with defendants' competitors. On February 9, 2016, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes. On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C., Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D., Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D., P.A. (collectively, the "putative class representatives") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-00696-BMC-GRB. Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or equipment in the United States directly from any of the defendants, or non-defendant Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc., since August 31, 2008. In the consolidated class action complaint, putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and Burkhart not to compete on price. The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally, interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. Putative class representatives have not specified a damage amount in their complaint. "While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we believe the consolidated class action complaint is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this litigation," the Company said. Plaintiffs Case Number ---------- ----------- Comfort Care Family Dental, PC 16-cv-282 Rossman Endodontics Robert W. Grodner 16-cv-345 Bauer Dental Arts 16-cv-355 Robert Corwin 16-cv-442 Keith Schwartz 16-cv-443 Stephen M. Grussmark 16-cv-479 Stanford Dresnin, DDS 16-cv-497 Howard M. May 16-cv-548 Bemus Point Dental, LLC 16-cv-560 Paul Bermudez 16-cv-570 Kottemann Orthodontics 16-cv-576 Nagmeh Yadegar d/b/a New Age Dental 16-cv-591 Evolution Dental Science, LLC 16-cv-596 Casey Nelson 16-cv-609 Jim Peck 16-cv-616 Peter Bence 16-cv-631 Kanellos & Kotis 16-cv-657 Indianola Family Dentistry, PLC 16-cv-658 PJCC Dental PC 16-cv-662 West LA Dental Health Center 16-cv-666 Omid Farahmand Dmd, Inc. 16-cv-661 Mojdeh Shaystehfar 16-cv-692 Indianola Family Dentistry, P.L.C. 16-cv-658 Liaison Class Counsel: John Radice, Esq. Kenneth Pickle, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 34 Sunset Blvd Long Beach, NJ 08008 Tel: (646) 245-8502 Fax: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com kpickle@radicelawfirm.com Co-Lead Class Counsel: Brent W. Landau, Esq. Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP, Esq. 325 Chestnut St., Suite 325 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 985-3270 Fax: (215) 985-3271 Email: blandau@hausfeld.com gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Scott A. Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202)-540-7200 Fax: (202)-540-7201 Email: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Patrick Madden, Esq. Joshua Ripley, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: ecramer@bm.net pmadden@bm.net jripley@bm.net - and - William Christopher Carmody, Esq. Shawn J. Rabin, Esq. Arun Subramanian, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P 560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 336-8330 Fax: (212) 336-8340 Email: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com srabin@susmangodfrey.com asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com - and - Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: 713-651-9366 Fax: 713-654-6666 Email: jross@susmangodfrey.com - and - Richard A. Koffman, Esq. Robert Cobbs, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com - and - Christopher J. Cormier, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2443 S. University Blvd., #232 Denver, CO 80210 Tel: (720) 583-0650 Email: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com PINNACLE: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Avenue Deal --------------------------------------------------------- Scott Harrison, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reports that just when you thought there couldn't be any more intrigue surrounding Nashville's biggest bank deal in a decade, a class- action shareholder suit has now been filed in Nashville court against Avenue Bank's parent company and its board of directors. In a complaint filed on May 9 on behalf of shareholders of Avenue's common stock, plaintiff Stephen Bushansky alleges that Avenue's board of directors put their personal interests ahead of Avenue shareholders' and in the process got an inadequate sales price for the bank. Avenue and Pinnacle announced a $200-million- plus deal in late January in a move that would combine two of the city's biggest local banks. The class-action suit -- which names Avenue, members of its executive team and board of directors, and Pinnacle Bank's parent company, Pinnacle Financial Financial Partners -- seeks a jury trial in Davidson County Chancery Court. The crux of the complaint: Avenue's board didn't ink a deal with Pinnacle that gets as much for the bank as it could have. The suit also alleges Avenue's board didn't open bidding or contact other interested parties to explore a higher sale price, a process Mr. Bushansky argues "was materially unfair and flawed from the outset." Additionally, the complaint alleges Avenue's "single-bidder process . . . catered toward Pinnacle and [Avenue] insiders" by failing "to secure adequate value for Avenue's public shareholders by excluding potentially value-maximizing bidders." "Given [Avenue's] positioning for long-term growth, the merger consideration is inadequate and significantly undervalues the company," the class action suit argues, pointing to Avenue's earnings performance during its first three months as a public company. "Pinnacle is seeking to acquire the company at a time when the long-term prospects of Avenue are increasing, and while its stock price is undervalued." Pinnacle's offer for Avenue is considerably higher than the median price paid by acquiring banks nationwide since March of last year, based on the sales price compared to the bank's tangible book value. Avenue shareholders are set to vote on the pending transaction June 21, according to a new regulatory filing. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces Criminal Charges Over Oil Spill ---------------------------------------------------------- Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a Texas pipeline company responsible for spilling more than 140,000 gallons of crude oil on the California coast last year was indicted on dozens of criminal charges in the disaster that closed popular beaches and killed sea lions and birds, prosecutors said on May 17. Plains All American Pipeline and one of its employees face 46 counts of state law violations in the May 19, 2015, spill that initially went undetected until oil began pouring onto a pristine beach on the Santa Barbara coastline and into the ocean. Initial investigations by federal regulators found the 2-foot-wide underground pipeline was severely corroded where it broke on land. Plains is charged with four felony counts of spilling oil in state waters and could face fines of up to $2.8 million if convicted of all the charges, prosecutors said. "The carelessness of Plains All American harmed hundreds of species and marine life off Refugio Beach," California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a statement. "This conduct is criminal, and [Tues]day's charges serve as a powerful reminder of the consequences that flow from jeopardizing the well-being of our ecosystems and public health." Plains said in a statement that the spill was an accident and believes no criminal behavior occurred. "We will demonstrate that the charges have no merit and represent an inappropriate attempt to criminalize an unfortunate accident," the company said. The spill came two weeks before Memorial Day weekend last year and forced the state to close popular beaches as an oil sheen spread over miles of the Pacific Ocean. More than 300 dead animals, including pelicans and sea lions, were found in the aftermath, and tar balls from the spill drifted more than 100 miles away to Los Angeles beaches. The Houston-based company faces three dozen misdemeanor counts of harming wildlife. A Plains employee and the company also are accused of failing to report the spill quickly enough to state emergency officials. An investigation by federal regulators found that it took hours for Plains to recognize what happened and notify officials. Tests on the pipe had been conducted weeks before the spill, but the results had not been analyzed when it ruptured. PLATINUM AFFAIRS: Suit Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities ----------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Membrives, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Platinum Affairs Ltd. d/b/a Continental Caterers, Sterling Caterers Inc. d/b/a Ateres Avrohom, and Jacob Hirsch, Case No. 603295/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,May 9, 2016), seeks to recover unlawfully retained tips and gratuities owed to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons who are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants. The Defendant operates a catering business with a principal place of business located at 75 Ross Street, Brooklyn, New York 11249. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 PONTIAC CORRECTIONAL: Court Severs Claims in "Merritt" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned KELVIN MERRITT, # B-78207, Plaintiff, v. GONDINEZ, SHERRY BENTON, SUSAN HILL, UNKNOWN PARTY, KIM BUTLER, SIMPSON, PHISTER, C/O MINOR, SGT. QUALLS, and LT. PAYNE, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-102-SMY (S.D. Ill.), Judge Staci M. Yandle held that the plaintiff's claims in Counts 2, 3, and 4, which are unrelated to the grievance-related claims in Count 1, are severed into a new case. That new case shall contain the claims against the defendants Minor, Qualls, and Payne. A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's May 13, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/mESYw3 from Leagle.com. Kelvin Merritt, currently incarcerated at Pontiac Correctional Center, brought the pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. He claimed that the defendants Gondinez, Benton, Hill, Butler, Simpson, Phister and the Unknown Party Grievance Officer failed to provide him with access to the prison grievance process and/or refused to consider or answer his grievances. Some of the defendants are officials at Pontiac and others are at Menard Correctional Center, where Merritt was confined beginning in June 2014. Additionally, the Menard defendants Minor, Qualls and Payne allegedly retaliated against Merritt for his litigation and grievance activity, subjected him to excessive force and falsely charged him with disciplinary violations that resulted in Merritt's confinement in segregation. PREMIER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Criddell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mylinda Criddell, individually and on behalf of all others persons similarly situated v. Premier Healthcare Services, LLC, Case No. BC619824 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Premier Healthcare Services, LLC provides home care services to its clients in various locations around California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Lindner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 Facsimile: (619) 400-5832 E-mail: lindner@stuevesiegel.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T, Ricke, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegei.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNJCK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attomeys.com PUBLIC STORAGE: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Henry Meier, writing for Los Angeles Business Journal, reports that Public Storage and its founder B. Wayne Hughes have finally beaten back a securities class action after nearly five years of litigation. A group of Public Storage shareholders alleged the company and billionaire founder breached their fiduciary duties by undervaluing five California limited partnerships absorbed in a $150 million transaction in August 2011. The plaintiffs sought an additional $41 million in compensation. A finalized order from a judge dismissing the case post-trial was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, ending the legal saga. The plaintiffs sued Public Storage shortly after the 2011 transaction. The bulk of the plaintiffs' claims rested on the theory that appraisers hired by the company had undervalued the assets of the finite-life, limited partnerships set up in the 1970s as vehicles to fund Public Storage's growth. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jane Johnson disagreed with the plaintiffs' theory and found their lone expert's testimony riddled with flaws. "(Plaintiffs' expert's) trial testimony repeatedly contradicted his prior sworn testimony and expert reports, thus requiring direct impeachment on 14 separate occasions," Judge Johnson's ruling in the case reads. "These contradictions concerned fundamental issues, including the specific bases for his opinions, his purported analysis, and whether his opinions were speculative." Craig Varnen -- cvarnen@irell.com -- a partner at Irell & Manella in Century City, represented Public Storage. He declined to comment on the case. Lawrence Kolker -- kolker@whafh.com -- a partner at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York, was the lead plaintiffs' lawyer in the case. He did not immediately return request for comment. RAYMOND JAMES: Sued in Florida Over Unlawful Financial Structure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Enrique Hiller Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. ("RJAI') and Joel Burstein, Case No. 1:16-cv-21643-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 9, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of designing the financial structure for the Jay Peak Resort of a fraudulent scheme that operated in a Ponzi- like manner. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. operates a diversified holding company providing financial services to individuals, corporations and municipalities through its subsidiary companies that engage primarily in investment and financial planning, in addition to investment banking and asset management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Robert Kreines, Esq. BENNETT AIELLO AND COHEN 1218 Drexel Avenue, Apartment 208 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (513) 703-0610 E-mail: kreinesj@gmail.com - and - Michael Paul Bennett, Esq. Paul Aiello, Esq. BENNETT AIELLO & COHEN 25 SE 2nd Avenue, Eighth Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-9011 Facsimile: (305) 358-9012 E-mail: mbennett@baclawfirm.com paiello@bennettaiello.com RECOLOGY LOS ANGELES: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Alvarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Recology Los Angeles, Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC619897 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of the California Labor Code. Recology Los Angeles provides landfill diversion and resource recovery services to homes and businesses through collection, recycling, and composting in California. Crown Tear Off & Disposal, Inc. is an Aviation and Aerospace company located in 13639 Live Oak Ln, Irwindale, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 RESORT MARKETING: Class Certification Sought in "Charvat" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Philip Charvat, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Elizabeth Valente, Resort Marketing Group, Inc., Carnival Corporation & PLC, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., and NCL (Bahamas), Ltd., Case No. 1:12- cv-05746 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to certify a class of 388,966 putative class members, who all received the exact same pre- recorded calls from RMG promoting the products of the Cruise Defendants, on the same dates on which he received those exact same calls. Mr. Charvat filed the Action in July of 2012, seeking to hold the Defendants accountable for massive violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lGwOgQyQ The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P.MCCUE 1 South Ave., Third Floor Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK &PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS: Class Certification Sought in "Hinkle" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ROBIN L. HINKLE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. CASEY JOE MATTHEWS, TIMOTHY MAY and CONNIE MAY, husband and wife, SANTANDER CONSUMER, USA, INC., an Illinois corporation; SAFE-GUARD PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; and JOHNNY HINKLE, Case No. 2:15-cv-13856 (S.D. W.Va.), asks the Court to certify this class of similarly situated persons: All West Virginia consumers who purchased a "Gap Contract Insurance Policy" issued by Defendant Safe-Guard Products International and were charged a premium. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YlMIvJBD The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-2205 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com - and - Howard M. Persinger, III, Esq. PERSINGER & PERSINGER, L.C. 101 Dickenson Street Williamson, WV 25661 Telephone: (304) 235-2000 Facsimile: (304) 235-3018 E-mail: hmp3@persingerlaw.com Defendant Safe-Guard Products International, LLC, is represented by: Jeffrey D. Van Volkenburg, Esq. MCNEER, HIGHLAND, MCMUNN & VARNER, L.C. Post Office Box 2040 Clarksburg, WV 26302 Telephone: (304) 626-1100 E-mail: jdvanvolkenburg@wvlawyers.com Defendant Santander Consumer, USA, Inc., is represented by: Daniel J. Konrad, Esq. DINSMORE & SHOHL 611 Third Avenue Huntington, WV 25701 Telephone: (304) 691-8396 Facsimile: (304) 522-4312 E-mail: daniel.konrad@dinsmore.com SEI INVESTMENTS: Claims in East Baton Rouge Class Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in a class action lawsuit in East Baton Rouge, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before the District Court are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act. Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against SEI and SPTC and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank. The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the petitions. In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class certification. After the Court held a hearing on class certification, it certified a class composed of persons who purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009. SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the class certification judgments. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File a First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition and add claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by seeking dismissal of the action. On March 11, 2013, the newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to the Middle District of Louisiana. SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of the jurisdictional issue. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel transferred the matter against SEI to the Northern District of Texas. On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. On June 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on June 24, 2015 set a briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC's motion challenging the Louisiana court's decision to certify a class, which motion was filed on July 15, 2015. SEI and SPTC filed their answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is now pending in the Northern District of Texas. On July 15, 2015, SEI and SPTC also filed motions seeking reconsideration of the District Court's June 17 denial of the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, seeking leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal of certain elements of the denial, as well as a motion seeking partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to claims brought under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On September 22, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion for reconsideration of the June 17 denial of the motion to dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss, or certify for interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. On November 4, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law. Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before the District Court are plaintiffs' claims for secondary liability against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana Securities Law. In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no material activity has taken place since that date. While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits. SINGING RIVER: Court Quashes Subpoenas in "Jones" ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned THOMAS JONES, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SINGING RIVER HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:14CV447-LG- RHW, CONSOLIDATED WITH 1:15CV1-LG-RHW, CONSOLIDATED WITH 1:15CV44- LG-RHW (S.D. Miss.), Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. granted the following motions: (1) Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by the Cobb plaintiffs as to the subpoena issued to one of their attorneys, Dustin Thomas; (2) Motion to Quash Subpoenas filed by Jackson County Supervisors Barry Cumbest and Melton Harris, Jr., and the Jackson County Chancery Clerk, Joshua Eldridge; and (3) Motion to Quash filed by former Jackson County Supervisor John McKay. The objectors to the proposed class action settlement in the lawsuit served the subpoenas at issue, seeking to compel the attendance of these individuals at the Fairness Hearing presently scheduled for May 16, 2016. Judge Guirola explained that the purpose of a fairness hearing is to "create a record sufficient to determine whether a proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class and to support findings of fact and conclusions of law." The judge found that the subpoenas are untimely, and that the objectors have not demonstrated that these witnesses will provided useful testimony on the relevant issues before the court. A full-text copy of Judge Guirola's May 13, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/rh4Rnd from Leagle.com. Thomas Jones, Joseph Charles Lohfink, Sue Beavers, Rodolfoa Rel, Hazel Reed Thomas, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David G. Wirtes, Jr., CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, George W. Finkbohner, III -- gwf@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, James R. Reeves, Jr., LUMPKIN, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC, Lucy Elizabeth Tufts -- let@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, Steven L. Nicholas -- sln@cunninghambounds.com -- CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC, pro hac vice, Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC & Thomas W. Busby, LUMPKIN, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC. Martha Ezell Lowe, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Angelique M. Cooper, A. COOPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC, pro hac vice, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP, Richard P. Rouco, QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP, pro hac vice & Roger K. Doolittle, ROGER K. DOOLITTLE, ATTORNEY. Regina Cobb, Phyllis Denmark, Susan Creel, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L. Tynes, Jr., TYNES LAW FIRM, PA, Dustin N. Thomas, LAW OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC, J. Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@bsjfirm.com -- BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC, pro hac vice & Robert Keith Miller, MILLER & MILLER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC. Singing River Health Services Foundation, Singing River Hospital System Foundation, Inc., Singing River Hospital System Employee Benefit Fund, Inc., Singing River Hospital System, Michael J. Heidelberg, Tommy Leonard, Morris G. Strickland, Ira Polk, Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall -- carly.duvall@dentons.com -- DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Jason R. Scheiderer -- jason.scheiderer@dentons.com -- DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III -- ksessoms@dwwattorneys.com -- DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Hanson D. Horn -- hhorn@dwwattorneys.com -- DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC. Singing River Health System Foundation, Singing River Health System, Defendants, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Jason R. Scheiderer, DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC, Catherine C. Servati, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC, Dan W. Webb, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC, Jessie Wayne Doss, Webb, Sanders & Williams, PLLC & Roechelle R. Morgan, WEBB, SANDERS & WILLIAMS, PLLC. Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marianne Hogan -- marianne.hogan@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, pro hac vice, William J. Delany -- william.delany@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, pro hac vice & Ashley Eley Cannady -- acannady@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP. KPMG, LLP, Defendant, represented by Amelia Toy Rudolph, SOUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia Anne Gorham, SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP, pro hac vice, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Taylor B. McNeel, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Gary C. Anderson, Defendant, represented by Roy D. Campbell, III, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP. Stephanie Barnes Taylor, Defendant, represented by Pieter Teeuwissen, PIETER TEEUWISSEN, PLLC. Michael Crews, Defendant, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Donald C. Dornan, Jr., DORNAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC,Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Lauren R. Hillery, DORNAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC. Allen Cronier, Defendant, represented by Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS US, LLP & Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC. Marva Fairley-Tanner, Grayson Carter, Jr., Defendant, represented by Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS, Jason R. Scheiderer, DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice, Carly D. Duvall, DENTONS US, LLP &Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC. Board of Trustees for the Singing River Health System, Consol Defendant, Kevin Holland, Consol Defendant, represented by Alexander Kelly Sessoms, III, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC,Brett K. Williams, WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, KINARD, SMITH & EDWARDS,Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jason R. Scheiderer, DENTONS US, LLP, pro hac vice. Martin D. Bydalek, Consol Defendant, represented by Calen J. Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, John A. Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN &Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC. William C. Descher, Consol Defendant, represented by John A. Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Calen J. Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Hanson D. Horn, DOGAN & WILKINSON, PLLC & Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN. Stephen Nunenmacher, Joseph P. Vice, Eric D. Washington, Consol Defendant, represented by John A. Banahan, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN, Calen J. Wills, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN & Jessica B. McNeel, BRYAN, NELSON, SCHROEDER, CASTIGLIOLA & BANAHAN. Hugo Quintana, Consol Defendant, represented by Mary Winter Van Slyke, PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT, PLLC & Stephen G. Peresich, PAGE, MANNINO, PERESICH & MCDERMOTT. Jessie Carl Beasley, Sr., 123 Spruce Pine Drive Lucedale, MS 39452 228-872-1855 Individually and as Administrator, Personal Representative, Heir and Beneficiary of Roberta Clarissa Moesch Beasley, Deceased, and as Guardian for the Use and Benefit of CMB, Minor Child, Heir and Beneficiary of Deceased and Beneficiaries, Interested Party, represented by John G. Corlew, CORLEW MUNFORD & SMITH, PLLC & Matthew G. Lyons, MATT G. LYONS, ATTORNEY. Cynthia N. Almond, Interested Party, represented by W. Harvey Barton, BARTON LAW FIRM, PLLC & Earl L. Denham, DENHAM LAW FIRM, PLLC. Francisco C Aguilar, Kitty Patricia Aguilar, Tanya R Ardoin, Ray J. Barbour, Gail Bass, Marie Baylis, Robert G Baylis, Wilma C Beasley, Nancy L Beech, Sheila E Bishop, Mechelle Bivens, Howard Bosarge, Sandra J Bourgeois, Donna M Boutwell, Patti L. Boutwell, Withee A Brabston, Michael J Brewster, Ann Brumfield, Tammy L Buckley, Gary Burkett, Margaret A Butler, Douglas M. Butler, Ella Byrd, Angel Caillavet, Elizabeth G Carpenter, Harold A Carter, Carol A Carter, Anne B Chatman, Agnes Faye Cherry, Louverta O Cherry, Willie B Chestnut, Barbara B Chestnut, Johnnie M Clausell, Betty J Coles, Eloise Collins, Thomas A Crawford, Patricia A Crawford, Marinell Cumbest, Temesha Cunningham, Susan C Cutrer, Irma J Daniels-Doss, Nesta D Dees, Pamela Denson, Katherine A Douglas, Yulonda S Drake, Phillip W Drake, Ralph Drury, June Drury, Patricia A Dubois, Allen J Dubois, Billie M Dugger, Brenda Jean Eiland, Wanda J Ellisor, Judith C Ellzey, Ronald Ellzey, Walter D Forman, John Furr, Pablo Garcia, Mary J Garrett, Delores M Gowder, Dorothy J Gray, Stephanie A Green, Jo Ann Green, David N Gress, Annie Lushell Griffin, Rosie M Griffin, Alma Erlyne Griffin, Gloria E Hall, Mary E. Hall, Edward G. Hall, Susan Hamilton, Gary W Hamilton, Deloris M Harvey, Joseph Haydock, Alice Haydock, John W Hayes, Joe A. Herrington, David H Hill, Ethel Hill, Constance Hill, Jennie L Hoda, Rose Loquita Holliman, Keely J Horn, Beatrice I Housley, Michael Daniel Housley, Stephen Ray Howard, Deborah C Howard, John G Hyland, Jackie Ingram, Margie Jacobson, Karen R Jenkins, Evelyn Johnson, Ruby Lee Johnson, William C. Jones, Eula Jones, Dewey Kennedy, Jerald A Keyes, Peggy Kinard, Gloria Jo King, Patricia Louise Krebs, Joseph krystosek, Deloris A Larsen, Herman Lee, Leslie Alan Lety, Sandra Locke, Bobbie Jean Lowe, David Anthony Lowery, Evelin Rebecca Lyon, Leslie Lyons, Melva J Manning, Minnie Marshall, Debra A. Martin, Daisy McCann, Edna McDaniel, Laura McKenzie, Wayne McKenzie, Janice McMahan, Russell McMahan, Betty McMillian, Paulette McLemore, Virginia Lee McNease, Willie Frank Molden, Chantel Molden, Willie Ruth Molden, Stella Monroe, Dolly Ann Montgomery, Gaye Noel Moore, Homa Moradmand, Moses Monroe, Lillie M Mosley, Brunetta Murray, Trudy R Nelson, Patricia Nelson, Rodney Nichols, Kerry Sue Nichols, Elnora Oaddams, Mary M Odoms, James Oubre, Barbara Ann Parker, Clinton Parrett, Kimberly Lynn Patterson, Betty J Phelps, David Thomas Pinter, Don Pittman, Karen Poole, Maggie Jewel Rasco, Burton Redmond, Francis Carol Redmond, Karen Reeves, Michael Wayne Reeves, Melba Richardson, June M Ricks, Cynthia K Roberts, Ramona Roberts, Wreatha Robinson, Sharron Lynn Rouse, Joann Russell, Barbara W Sabino, Flora Sanders, Fredia Scott, James W. Scott, Joann Elizabeth Shorkley, Brenda Darnetta Shutz, Barbara J sistrunk, Joyce Mae Skelton, Warren T Skelton, Berthena Smith, Windy M Smith-Taylor, Rosemary Sontoyo, Barbara Stacy, Debra A Stebye, Wanda Street, Donna L Stringer, Sherry Teer, Marvin Teer, Marjorie P Thara, Delia F. Thomas, Victoria Thomas- Poole, Maury Glenn Thompson, Lillian R Thompson, Irby A Tillman, Dorothy L Tillman, Jennifer Toney, Parma Ann Trusler, Iva Nell Vaughan, Vergil Lewis Vaughan, Linda Carolyn Verbeck, Pamela Vice, Gerald Vice, Marian L Waldrop, Mary A Waltman, Beverly Watson, John Watson, Shirley M. Wells, Rickey E White, Bonnie E Wien, Steven G Wien, Kathy Wiggins, Sylvia A Williams, Terry P Wise, Beverly Wise, Darlene Wixon, Rita Womble, Interested Parties, represented by Earl L. Denham, DENHAM LAW FIRM, PLLC & W. Harvey Barton, BARTON LAW FIRM, PLLC. Barry Cumbest, Melton Harris, Jr., Joshua Eldridge, John McKay, Interested Parties, represented by William Lee Guice, III, RUSHING & GUICE, PLLC. Cobb Plaintiffs, Movant, represented by Dustin N. Thomas, LAW OFFICES OF DUSTIN N. THOMAS, PLLC & Matthew G. Mestayer, REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC. SOUTH AFRICA: Trade Union Files Class Action Against Pension Fund ----------------------------------------------------------------- Karl Gernetzky, writing for BDlive, reports that trade union Solidarity said on May 11 it had filed court papers seeking certification for a class action lawsuit against the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF). The union argues that since April 2015 civil servants who have or sought to resign have been prejudiced by a unilateral decision to change a formula determining payouts, made without following the legislated requirement to consult labor. Speaking at a briefing in Pretoria, Solidarity deputy CE Johan Kruger said the union had filed papers on May 11 seeking certification for a class action that could affect 1.2-million active fund members, after the fund admitted its mistake but refused to rectify it. "The fund has admitted to breaking its own rules but sees the costs involved in rectifying it as too costly. They indicated the process is too cumbersome to go back to the previous formula," he said. The union could not provide details on what new actuarial interest formulae had been used, nor the total financial effect of the decision. However, citing the case of one of its members who sought to resign in 2015, Solidarity said the difference of the payout using the old available formula and that offered to the member was R170,000, or 7%. The union would be seeking relief compelling the fund to revert to the old formula and make any necessary back payments required and asking that interest on back-payment be attached at a rate of 10.25% a year. Solidarity, which currently represents 7,000 of the affected public servants, does not meet the 50,000 member threshold for entrance to the Public Service Co-ordinating Bargaining Council, and on May 11 said attempts to raise the issue there did not yield results. The formula in contention had been implemented and the route to proceed with was a judicial review, the union said. SPOTIFY USA: Misleading Class Members, Plaintiff Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer L Jones, Esq. -- jljones@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that in a putative class action alleging widespread copyright infringement commenced in December 2015 against Spotify, Plaintiff, the lead singer for the bands Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven, recently moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d) to monitor -- and possibly prevent -- Spotify USA, Inc. ("Spotify") from engaging in communications with individuals who fall within the Complaint's definition of class members. Lowery v. Spotify USA, Inc. The communications at issue concern Spotify's estimated $30 million settlement with the National Music Publishers Association ("NMPA"), which is not a party to the litigation. The dispute raises an interesting question regarding the appropriate role for the court to play in refereeing class action settlement politics when class counsel has extra-judicial competition in seeking to represent the class. The litigation alleges that Spotify infringed putative class members' mechanical rights for registered musical compositions by unlawfully reproducing and distributing copyrighted musical compositions to its users through music streaming and other services without payment or notice. Amended Complaint 2. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "[a]ll owners of mechanical distribution and reproduction rights in musical compositions registered under United States federal law, which compositions were reproduced or distributed by Spotify first obtaining a voluntary or compulsory license, since December 28, 2012." Id. 42. In other words, Plaintiff seeks to represent certain copyright holders whom Spotify may not have adequately compensated or obtained licenses from when it streamed their songs. Spotify dealt a major blow to the future of Plaintiff's class action when it announced in March that it had reached a settlement with the NMPA, a trade organization representing many of the same individuals Plaintiff seeks to represent in his class. Plaintiff now seeks to insert himself into that settlement by suggesting something nefarious has transpired in the exchange between Spotify and the NMPA, whom Plaintiff accuses of "acting in concert with Spotify" to consummate the settlement. And though Plaintiff admits he personally had not seen any of the communications (at least as of the time he moved for relief), he wasted no time accusing Spotify of using "slanted communications" and "disparaging remarks" on the basis of news reports, and suggesting that Spotify was misleading class members as a result of Spotify's obvious interest in promoting the NMPA settlement over the Lowery lawsuit -- a notable accusation, considering Plaintiff's and his counsel's own obvious bias in favor of convincing putative class members to refuse the NMPA settlement in favor of pursuing continued litigation. The news reports attached to Plaintiff's motion do not appear to include any misleading statements toward putative class members. To the contrary, in one of the articles, Spotify's CEO is clear to point out that "anyone who does not opt in to our settlement is free to pursue their right in any way that they chose, including class action. Each right owner should make the decision that is the best for them about their own rights. This settlement -- and this is very important -- does not compromise anyone's right who does not opt in." Docket 46-1, Exhibit D, page 108. And another article includes statements from Plaintiffs' counsel warning of the consequences of the NMPA settlement. Id. Exhibit E, page 111. Ironically, Plaintiff's chief concern regarding these communications appears to be a statement made -- not by Spotify, but by the NMPA -- in response to certain public statements made by Plaintiff's counsel encouraging opt out from the NMPA settlement. Moreover, none of the authority relied on by Plaintiffs addresses the unique factual scenario here: the putative class members essentially have dual representation from their trade association in trying to resolve the dispute, and the complained of statements were issued not by the defendant but by the competing representative, who is not before the Court. Certainly, it is these kinds of situations which generally can be avoided through coordination and consolidation of putative class actions and the appointment of lead counsel. But in this case, the NMPA settlement negotiations began prior to the lawsuit being filed and did not arise out of a pending litigation. So at present, no court has jurisdiction over the NMPA or its attempts to reach resolution with Spotify. Plaintiff apparently seeks to deal with this issue by targeting its proposed order not just at Spotify, but also those "acting in concert or participation with Spotify", presumably including the NMPA, despite the obvious fact that Spotify and the NMPA reached the settlement from opposite sides of the bargaining table. Even if we assume that the NMPA's statements rise to the level of threatening a "serious abuse" needed to prevent "serious misconduct" that is necessary under the First Amendment jurisprudence to curb such statements, can or should the Court prevent the NMPA of such conduct by issuing an Order against Spotify, which is not accused of the same conduct? That strikes us an overreach of the judiciary's power pursuant to FRCP 23(d). Add that under the present circumstances, the NMPA's statements don't appear to rise to such level but are instead consistent with the court's goal in bringing parties to resolution rather than extending litigation, and we think this round should go to Spotify. STAAR SURGICAL: "Todd" Class Suit Sent to Private Mediator ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald sends the case, Edward Todd v. Staar Surgical Company et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05263 (C.D. Cal.), to a private mediator. The ADR proceeding is to be completed no later than October 27, 2017. Staar Surgical Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2016, that on July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted material information from our investors between February 27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing facility. On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed two Company officers, added one other officer, reduced the alleged Class Period to November 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, and demanded compensatory damages and fees. On September 21, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 16, 2015, the court issued a tentative ruling rejecting the motion to dismiss. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit. STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures and sells implantable lenses for the eye and delivery systems used to deliver the lenses into the eye. STRAIGHT PATH: Lead Plaintiff Must File Amended Suit in June ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications, Inc. et al,. Case No. 2:15-cv-08051 (D. N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez on April 11, 2016, appointed: -- Charles Frischer to serve as Lead Plaintiff, -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class, and -- Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP is appointed as Liaison Counsel for the Class. Meanwhile, Magistrate Judge Mark Falk on April 18 entered a scheduling ordere: -- Lead Plaintiff will have to file an amended class action Complaint no later than 60 days following the entry of This proposed scheduling order by the Court, -- Defendants shall have 60 days after the filing of the amended complaint to answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint, and -- Lead Plaintiff shall have 45 days after the filing of any motion(s) to dismiss to file any opposition(s); etc. Straight Path Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that "On November 13, 2015, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey against Straight Path Communications Inc. (the "Company"), Davidi Jonas, and Jonathan Rand (the "individual defendants"). The case is captioned Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-08051-JMV-MF, and is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between October 29, 2013, and November 5, 2015." "The complaint alleges violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against the Company for materially false and misleading statements that were designed to influence the market relating to the Company's finances and business prospects; and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants for wrongful acts by controlling persons. The allegations center on the claim that the Company made materially false and misleading statements in its public filings and conference calls during the relevant class period concerning the Company's spectrum licenses and the prospects for its spectrum business. The complaint seeks certification of a class, unspecified damages, fees and costs. Four movants filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for their counsel to be appointed lead counsel. "On January 15, 2016, the court entered a stipulation and order that the defendants shall not be required to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until seven days after entry of an order appointing lead plaintiff, whereupon the parties will submit for court approval a schedule for the filing of any proposed amended complaint and defendants' response to the complaint or amended complaint. Thereafter, three of the movants for lead plaintiff subsequently withdrew their motions. The case was reassigned to Judge John Michael Vasquez on March 3, 2016." SUNRISE PROPANE: No Compensation Yet for Plant Explosion Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maryam Shah, writing for Toronto Sun, reports that almost eight years after the Sunrise Propane plant exploded in the middle of the night, Vinicio "Victor" Viani has yet to see a penny from a class-action settlement. "I hope they're going to look after me before I pass on," the 76- year-old said on May 11. "Because we did suffer quite a bit." The deadly Aug. 10, 2008, explosion killed one young man working at the now-defunct plant, and displaced around 6,000 people from their homes in the Keele St.-Wilson Ave. neighborhood. Mr. Viani was one of them. His Murray Rd. Bungalow -- which he had lovingly bought in 1964 and raised four children in -- was destroyed in the blast. Luckily nobody was home at the time, and home insurance covered rebuilding his current home, he said. In August 2014, a $23-million settlement was approved in court, and almost $8 million was earmarked for injuries, uninsured expenses, lost income, and inconvenience suffered by members of the class-action suit. A website was created -- www.sunrisepropaneclassaction.com -- for affected people, likely numbering in the hundreds, to file their claims, which Marsh Canada is tasked with administering. Almost two years after the settlement was reached, Mr. Viani said he is surprised it's taking so long to send out cheques. "The subject is really important because I think we've been ignored completely," he said. Mr. Viani's not alone. Resident Jeff Green and his parents were also affected by the blast. His father has since died. "Overall, I have not been impressed, to say the least," he said of his efforts to reach anyone with answers about why claims have not been paid out yet. Marsh Canada spokesman Colleen Vesci said there has been "no delay." The appeals stage of the claims process recently wrapped up, she said in an email. Final payment amounts are being calculated and will need court approval before distribution. Ms. Vesci could not say when court approval can be expected. "As with any class action of this size and complexity, there are a number of steps that must be completed to ensure funds are distributed appropriately," she wrote. "Class actions of this nature often take several years to resolve. The length of time it has taken to resolve this one is really not out of the ordinary." Class counsel Ted Charney said the class members number in the thousands. "We expect to be in court within the next 30-60 days," he said. "The distribution will take place soon after." Councillor Maria Augimeri shared her constituents' frustration with the process. "We thought this was going to be taken care of two years ago," she said. "They were assured they would get this money two years ago." SWEPI LP: Bid to Amend Class Definition in "Walney" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned THOMAS J. WALNEY and RODNEY A. BEDOW, SR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SWEPI LP and SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-102 Erie (W.D. Pa.), Judge Joy Flowers Conti denied the plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Class Definition. The plaintiffs had argued that the class, as currently defined, unfairly excludes certain leaseholders who should be parties to the litigation. A full-text copy of Judge Conti's May 13, 2016 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/0Or7cT from Leagle.com. In the class action lawsuit, Thomas J. Walney and Rodney A. Bedow, Sr. alleged that the defendants SWEPI LP and its general partner and alleged alter ego, Shell Energy Holding GP, LLC breached certain oil and gas leases by failing to pay bonus monies that were allegedly owed to plaintiffs and similarly situated landowners under the terms of their respective leases. THOMAS J. WALNEY, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph E. Altomare, The Law Office of Joseph Altomare & Richard N. Lettieri -- rlettierlaw@live.com -- Lettieri Law Firm, LLC. RODNEY A. BEDOW, SR, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph E. Altomare, The Law Office of Joseph Altomare. SWEPI LP, SHELL ENERGY HOLDING GP, LLC, Defendants, represented by Jeremy A. Mercer -- jeremy.mercer@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP & Daniel M. McClure -- dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP. SOUTHEAST LAND SERVICES LLC, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Mercer, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP. TARGET CORPORATION: Appeal in Consumer Data Breach Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company believes the settlement terms in a consumer class action lawsuit over a 2013 data breach will be maintained on appeal. The Company said, "In the fourth quarter of 2013, we experienced a data breach in which an intruder stole certain payment card and other guest information from our network (the Data Breach) which resulted in a number of claims against us, several of which have been finally or preliminarily resolved." "A class action suit was asserted on behalf of a class of guests whose information was compromised in the Data Breach. This action was settled and received Court approval during 2015, but is being appealed by several objecting parties. We believe the settlement terms will be maintained on appeal." TARGET CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing in 2nd Quarter ----------------------------------------------------- Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that a hearing for final Court approval of the settlement in the class action lawsuit by credit card issues over a 2013 data breach is scheduled for the second quarter of the Company's fiscal 2016. "In the fourth quarter of 2013, we experienced a data breach in which an intruder stole certain payment card and other guest information from our network (the Data Breach) which resulted in a number of claims against us, several of which have been finally or preliminarily resolved." A class action was asserted on behalf of financial institution issuers of credit cards impacted by the Data Breach. This action was settled and received preliminary Court approval in the fourth quarter of 2015. A hearing for final Court approval of the settlement is scheduled for the second quarter of the Company's fiscal 2016. TARGET CORPORATION: Data Breach Suit Pending in Canada ------------------------------------------------------ Target Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that actions related to a 2013 data breach that remain pending are: (1) one action previously filed in Canada; (2) several putative class action suits brought on behalf of shareholders; and (3) ongoing investigations by State Attorneys General and the Federal Trade Commission. The Company said that, "In the fourth quarter of 2013, we experienced a data breach in which an intruder stole certain payment card and other guest information from our network (the Data Breach) which resulted in a number of claims against us, several of which have been finally or preliminarily resolved." TD BANK: "Feinman" Class Suit Removed to S. District New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Jeffrey Feinman v. TD Bank, N.A., Case No. 652083/2016, was removed from the Supreme Court for the State of New York, County of New York, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-03448 to the proceeding. The action is removable under the Class Action Fairness Act. TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Jeffrey Feinman is a pro se plaintiff. The Defendant is represented by: David Sapir Lesser, Esq. Jamie S. Dycus, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8851 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: david.lesser@wilmer.com jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com TD BANK: "Luce" Class Suit Removed to District New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Nona Luce, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. T.D. Bank, N.A., Case No. L 1585 16, was removed from the Superior Court of Camden County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02621-JBS-JS to the proceeding. T.D. Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas T. Booth Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS T. BOOTH, JR., LLC 129 W. Evesham Road Voorhees, NJ 08043 Telephone: (856) 354-6060 E-mail: BoothLaw@comcast.net The Defendant is represented by: Susan M. Leming, Esq. BROWN & CONNERY, LLP 360 Haddon Avenue Westmont, NJ 08108 Telephone: (856) 854-8900 E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com TERANET: Court Dismisses Land Surveyors' Copyright Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Brown, writing for Legal Feeds, reports that a class action launched by land surveyors who claimed copyright infringement against Teranet -- the private sector company that manages Ontario's land registry system -- has been dismissed. The long-running dispute between surveyors and Teranet considered seven common issues but it took only one -- whether the copyright of the plans of survey belong to the province -- to decide the case in Teranet's favor. The class action in Keatley Surveying v. Teranet was filed in 2007, and was certified on appeal in 2015. Both sides moved for summary judgment on the common issues and the decision was issued May 6 in Ontario's Superior Court. Keatley Surveying brought the action on behalf of about 350 land surveyors in private practice in Ontario whose surveys were scanned and copied into Teranet's digital database and made available online. By copying and selling their plans online, the surveyors claimed Teranet was breaching their copyright and unlawfully appropriating for itself the benefit of the class members' professional land survey work. The class members' complaint was that a for-profit third party inserted itself between the government and users of land registration services and "reaps substantial profits at the expense of class members." Justice Edward Belobaba decided in favor of Teranet and the class action was dismissed on common issue two, which asked whether the copyright in the plans of survey belongs to the Province of Ontario under s. 12 of the Copyright Act, as a result of the registration or deposit of the plans of survey in the land registry office. Teranet argued the plans of survey in question were "prepared or published by or under the direction or control" of the province and therefore copyright belongs to the Crown. Justice Belobaba said in his view " . . . statutory provisions make clear that when plans of survey are registered or deposited at the land registry office, the province takes ownership of the property in these works which includes the right to make copies." "In my view, s. 12 of the Copyright Act, primarily a 'term of copyright' provision, clarifies Crown copyright but does so 'without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the [provincial] Crown.' Thus, the provincial 'property of the Crown' provisions already discussed, and s. 12 of the federal Copyright Act, can live together and operate concurrently," wrote Justice Belobaba. "In any event, the answer to Common Issue 2 is 'yes.'" As both sides agreed that was the determinative issue then there is no copyright infringement "and that is the end of the class action." The next step could be an appeal to the Court of Appeal, but plaintiff lawyer Garth Myers -- gmyers@kmlaw.ca -- would not comment on whether an appeal will be pursued. "We were successful on a couple of the common issues and we're quite pleased we succeed on the Crown copyright issue and assignment issue. We got caught on the second part of common issue two, which was determinative. We don't agree with the judge's finding on that issue. The issue that remains is whether the provincial statutes provide for copying that takes away copyright of land surveyors," said Mr. Myers, an associate with Koskie Minsky LLP. Justice Belobaba decided Teranet was entitled to costs and while it would have sought $200,000, he indicated a reasonable costs award is "probably around $125,000." Mr. Myers said there will be submissions on costs. Legal Feeds could not reach counsel for Teranet before publication. TIDAL: May Opt for Quick Resolution of Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an attorney and social media blogger says the music streaming service Tidal would welcome a quick resolution of a class action lawsuit filed by a disgruntled Kanye West fan. Californian Justin Baker-Rhett earlier this month filed the proposed class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, accusing West of duping fans into buying Tidal subscriptions. West, the lawsuit alleges, promised that his seventh studio album, The Life of Pablo, would be available only on Tidal, which the lawsuit also alleges was on the verge of failure until West made those claims. Whatever the merits of the suit, the wealth of the named defendants (Tidal was purchased by Jay-Z and West is part-owner) could well influence what settlement, if any, to which might be agreed, Carolyn Toto -- carolyn.toto@pillsburylaw.com -- an attorney with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in New York City, told Legal Newsline. . "One would hope that settlement of a case would be on the merits and not whether a party has 'deep pockets', she said. "Practically speaking, most cases do settle. Whether the case settles and how early will depend on different factors. "Here, Tidal is a new business so we do not have a track record of their litigiousness. Also, as a new company, the executives would probably prefer focusing on expanding the business and not have the appetite to engage in a high-profile and protracted ongoing litigation. "These factors would favor an early resolution, especially if they can settle for a nuisance value. However, it is difficult to predict at this juncture. If the plaintiffs maintain an unreasonable position and the company feels the need to fight to deter other claimants, this could draw out the litigation." Ms. Toto said the case is, at its heart, about people who feel misled. "Social media is speech and, just like any speech, has been the source of false advertising and misrepresentation claims," Toto said. "That is essentially what plaintiffs are claiming here, that they were misled by the representation that the album was only going to be available on one streaming service." Ms. Toto, who, along with her colleague Kimberly Buffington, has blogged about the case as part of Pillsbury's Social Media & Games Law Blog, said even if the plaintiff class proves its case, compensation remains murky. "The surge in memberships to Tidal does seem to suggest some reliance on Kanye's statements," she said. "Damages may be the trickier issue. Plaintiffs wanted the album and got the album. "They also have the option to cancel the service. And as noted in the post, many users use multiple streaming services. The stronger argument might be that the users shared private data with Tidal in the sign-up process and that Tidal may use for marketing. "However, there is the possibility that Tidal subsequently agrees to destroy all such data." The alleged deception occurred in February when West posted on his Twitter account about his album's availability. "My album will never never never be on Apple," the tweet said. "And it will never be for sale . . . You can only get it on Tidal." That, the lawsuit claims, sent a throng of fans to the music streaming service, translating into a reported 250 million streams of the album in its first 10 days. Soon after, the album began to stream at other music outlets, including Spotify and Apple Music. The album also now is for sale on West's website. West's deception probably saved Tidal, the lawsuit alleges. "By early 2016, Tidal was quietly teetering on the brink of collapse," the lawsuit said. "Many industry experts predicted its imminent demise absent a significant swell in users and a new round of publicity." West's declaration on Twitter did just that, the lawsuit said. "Mr. West's unequivocal declaration of Tidal's exclusive access to his album had a profound impact on Tidal's business," the lawsuit said. Mr. Baker-Rhett's class action is not unique, Ms. Toto said, pointing to similar cases involving 50 Cent and Rolls-Royce. "As you can see from these two cases, what one posts on social media can implicate various legal claims from violation of privacy to trademark infringement," Ms. Toto said. Toto speculated the next move will be Tidal's. "Tidal will likely file a motion to dismiss to start," she said. "However, these motions are not often granted and plaintiffs need only show they have a claim that is plausible on its face assuming that all facts alleged in the complaint are true. Ultimately, the case will probably settle as most do." TMK IPSCO: Employee Files Class Action Over Unlawful Termination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jared Stonesifer, writing for The Times, reports that an employee of TMK IPSCO has filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in federal court, alleging officials there didn't provide enough advanced notice of pending layoffs. The suit, filed in April in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, alleged that TMK IPSCO in early February terminated 200 employees despite not giving them a 60-day advanced notice in writing, as is required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. William Birkhimer, who worked in the company's Harmony Township location, is the employee who filed the lawsuit. TMK IPSCO also operates a plant in Koppel. The lawsuit also alleges the company failed to pay wages, holiday pay and vacation time and failed to make contributions to employee retirement accounts or health care benefits. Mr. Birkhimer is seeking compensation for unpaid wages and attorneys' fees, among others. TMK IPSCO spokeswoman Michelle Loomis said on May 11 the company is aware of the lawsuit. "This suit is without merit and TMK IPSCO will be filing a motion to dismiss this suit in the near future if the plaintiff does not agree to dismiss this case voluntarily," she said. In addition, she said Birkhimer has returned to work at TMK IPSCO "as market conditions have necessitated the recall of a number of workers at this facility." Joe Walls is one of the several hundred workers who were laid off from the company in February, and he hasn't been recalled back to work. He agreed that TMK IPSCO officials didn't provide advance notice of the layoffs, and also alleged the company refused to honor his three weeks of vacation that were earned when he reached his 10- year work anniversary. "There's been so much stuff going on there that's been pushed under the rug," Mr. Walls, of Beaver, said. "The more it's out there in the public eye, the better." Mr. Walls also said he hopes the lawsuit gets approved for class- action status, being that he could be covered by it if it does. TRICO BANCSHARES: Ex-Banker's Suit in Calif. Goes to Mediation -------------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit by a former personal banker are in the process of scheduling the matter for mediation in the June-July, 2016 time period. On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to represent a class of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt personal bankers, or employees with the same or similar job duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California during the preceding four years. On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint expanding the class definition to all current and formerly hourly- paid or non-exempt branch employees employed by Defendant's within the State of California at any time during the period from September 15, 2010 to final judgment. The Bank has responded to the First Amended Complaint, denying the charges, and the parties have engaged in written discovery. The parties are in the process of scheduling the matter for mediation in the June-July, 2016 time period. TRICO BANCSHARES: Mediation Eyed in Current Banker's Suit --------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit by a current personal banker intend to mediate this matter in a joint mediation this summer. On January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who worked for the Bank during the time period beginning October 18, 2013 through the date of the filing of this action. The Company and the Bank have responded to the First Amended Complaint, deny the charges, and has engaged in written discovery with Plaintiff. The parties intend to mediate this matter in a joint mediation this summer. TRXADE GROUP: Class Suit in Preliminary Stage, No Discovery Yet --------------------------------------------------------------- Trxade Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action litigation is in its preliminary stages, and discovery has not yet commenced. On November 19, 2015, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC filed a class- action claim against Trxade Group, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Westminster Pharmaceutical, LLC, Inc. (Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC v. Trxade Group, Inc. and Westminster, Inc., Case No.: 1:15-CV-00590-KD-B, United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, Mobile Division). Family Medicine has served Trxade for allegedly utilizing a "junk fax" advertising program. Family Medicine seeks statutory damages on behalf of a class of similarly situated entities throughout the United States. The litigation is in its preliminary stages, and discovery has not yet commenced. Although management denies any material liability and the propriety of class certification in this lawsuit, the litigation could have a lengthy duration, it is more likely than not that damages and/or settlement costs will be incurred, and the ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time. Trxade, Inc. is a web based market platform that enables trade among healthcare buyers and sellers of pharmaceuticals, accessories and services. TYSON FOODS: High Court Affirms $2.9MM FLSA Class Action Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony J Oncidi, Esq. -- aoncidi@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that following a jury trial, the employees in this class/collective action recovered $2.9 million in compensatory damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The employees alleged that they did not receive statutorily mandated overtime pay for the time they spent donning and doffing protective equipment at a pork processing plant in Storm Lake, Iowa. Tyson compensated some employees for between four and eight minutes of donning and doffing time per shift but paid others no additional wages. Tyson argued that because of the variance in protective gear that each employee wore, the employees' claims were not sufficiently similar to be resolved on a classwide or collective basis. Because Tyson did not keep records of donning and doffing time, the employees relied upon employee testimony, video recordings of donning and doffing at the plant and a study performed by an industrial relations expert, Dr. Kenneth Mericle. Dr. Mericle conducted 744 videotaped observations and analyzed the average length that various donning and doffing activities took for different departments. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of the employees, holding that the employees could rely upon Dr. Mericle's sample as a permissible means of establishing hours worked in a class action setting and rejecting the employer's argument that use of the study represented an improper "Trial by Formula." UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Waiver Unenforceable in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that in April, facing what we now know to be as much as $852 million in exposure to drivers in California and Massachusetts, the ride-sharing company Uber agreed to a class action settlement with drivers in those states. At the time of the agreement, valued at between $84 and $100 million, Uber was in the midst of appealing a series of decisions by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco, who held that the company's mandatory arbitration clause was unenforceable. Judge Chen increasingly appears to have been an outlier on that issue. In April, U.S. District Judge Douglas Rayes of Phoenix expressly declined to follow Judge Chen's reasoning. He upheld Uber's clause and sent the named plaintiff in a class of Arizona drivers to arbitration. And Reuters' Dan Wiessner reported, federal judges in Baltimore and Tampa have also rejected arguments that Uber's mandatory arbitration provision is unconscionable. Like Judge Rayes, those courts ruled that drivers who wanted to lead class actions must instead arbitrate their claims individually. "I'm sure drivers will keep fighting for their right to bring class actions, but right now, they're losing the war," Ms. Frankel said. "Meanwhile, Uber's co-founder and CEO, Travis Kalanick, is defending an antitrust class action in federal court in Manhattan by a passenger who alleges a price-fixing conspiracy among Uber drivers. I told you about the company's fateful strategic decision in that case not to invoke the mandatory arbitration provision in its agreement with passengers. Uber figured U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff would quickly dispose of the purported class action, which posits an antitrust scheme involving hundreds of thousands of drivers who don't even know of each others' existence. That thinking backfired when Judge Rakoff refused to dismiss the class action." And now a backup argument by Uber has also failed. On May 9, the judge denied Uber's motion for reconsideration, holding that company's class action waiver provision is both entwined with the arbitration clause and unenforceable under California law. Uber's antitrust lawyers at Boies Schiller & Flexner argued in the CEO's reconsideration motion that under the specific language of its passenger agreement, riders waive the right to bring class actions against the company in addition to agreeing to arbitrate their disputes. So, according to Uber, even though it did not invoke mandatory arbitration in the case, it can still block the named plaintiff, Spencer Meyer, from bringing classwide claims. As precedent, Uber cited the U.S. Supreme Court's pro-arbitration rulings in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, American Express v. Italian Colors and DirecTV v. Imburgia. Mr. Meyer's lawyers, Andrew Schmidt Law and Harter Secrest & Emery responded that the class action waiver cannot be disentangled from the arbitration clause, and since the Uber CEO didn't invoke arbitration, he cannot separately try to block the class action. The opposition brief also said the Supreme Court's rulings on class action waivers have all come in cases involving mandatory arbitration provisions. A separate waiver of class action rights, the brief said, would be unconscionable under California's Supreme Court precedent that remains good law even after the U.S. Supreme Court's pro arbitration rulings. Judge Rakoff agreed with all of the plaintiff's arguments. He found that Uber's CEO isn't procedurally entitled to reconsideration -- but even if he were, his motion would fail. The contractual class action waiver, according to the judge, "is most plausibly read as an explanation of the rights that the parties are giving up in agreeing to arbitrate disputes, and not as an independently effective waiver of the right to pursue a class action outside the arbitration context." Since the Uber CEO didn't move to compel arbitration, he can't separately block the class action, Judge Rakoff said. And besides, according to the judge, a separate class action waiver would be unconscionable under California's Discover Bank v. Superior Court. "It is clear that the Supreme Court has not overridden the California Supreme Court's determination that class action waivers are unconscionable except in the case of an arbitration proceeding," the judge wrote. He seemed to chide Uber for suggesting otherwise: "Adopting defendant's views on the effect of Concepcion and related cases on California's unconscionability doctrine would be, not a necessary or inevitable result of Supreme Court precedent, but a dramatic extension of case law on the Federal Arbitration Act into the hitherto largely undisturbed waters of independent class action waivers," Judge Rakoff wrote. "Into those waters the court declines to recklessly plunge." "I've said before the plaintiff's lawyers in this case have pulled some smart drafting maneuvers to get around Uber's arbitration clause and to pique Judge Rakoff's curiosity. They also did an admirable job opposing Uber's reconsideration motion. I still doubt they're going to be able to prove an antitrust conspiracy but they are certainly more formidable opponents than Uber seemed to think at the beginning of this case," Ms. Frankel said. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Lose Out More Than $700M in Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Caitlin Houston, writing for MarketWatch, reports that Uber drivers may be settling for only about 12% of the total amount they could have received at trial. Uber Technologies Inc. reached a $100 million settlement agreement in April for two class-action lawsuits brought by drivers who argued that they should be employees and were owed reimbursement. But, according to documents, if drivers in both cases had won on trials on a class-action basis, the total settlement amount could have been up to $852 million. The disparity between the two amounts could figure in the judge's decision whether to accept the settlement -- U. S. District Judge Edward Chen has yet to accept the agreement -- but to get the higher amount, the plaintiffs would have to take the higher risk of going to trial. Using the IRS's fixed rate of reimbursement for miles, drivers would receive $852 million altogether, according to court documents. With a variable rate, drivers would receive $429 million, meaning the $100 million settlement would be about 23% of the amount. That amount was calculated by the plaintiffs based on data from Uber and includes car reimbursement, cellphone reimbursement and tips owed, assuming a 20% gratuity. Amounts differ depending on the state, with California class-action drivers taking home the most. The plaintiffs in the class action-lawsuits argue that they're misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees, and thus are owed past expenses as employees. As previously reported, the $100 million settlement would net the majority of drivers about $24. If only 50% of the eligible drivers filed a claim for money, California drivers who drove more than 25,000 miles could receive $8,000 apiece. Sharon Liss-Riordan, attorney for the plaintiffs, has argued that the settlement also includes non-monetary aspects that are more beneficial to the drivers, including a change in Uber's deactivation policy and the ability for drivers to post signs telling riders they can tip. The plaintiff's council argued in court filings that in addition to the risk of a jury siding with Uber, plaintiffs faced risks from Uber enforcing arbitration clauses and which drivers could be certified as part of the class- action. Typically, class-action settlements win a fraction of the amount that could have been won in trial. But the large disparity between the settlement and possible trial win in this case, according to Tom Rohback -- trohback@axinn.com -- a partner at Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider, could lead to more drivers objecting to the amount and play into the judge's decision on whether the settlement is "just and fair." "It really is a very nuanced analysis that has to go on," Mr. Rohback said. Lyft Inc. had attempted to settle a similar lawsuit with its drivers for $12.25 million, but that agreement was rejected by the judge for being insubstantial. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers File FLSA Class Action in Miami ---------------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a West Palm Beach lawyer wasn't satisfied when he heard major labor litigation with Uber Technologies Inc. ended in April with a proposed $100 million settlement. The settlement, which covers nearly 400,000 Uber drivers in California and Massachusetts, allows Uber to continue treating its drivers as contractors rather than employees. Gerald Richman of Richman Greer doesn't believe that's the right solution. "The concept of Uber is a good concept, but the employees are not being treated fairly," he said. "They are subject under the labor laws of the United States to benefits that they are not receiving." So Mr. Richman filed a lawsuit of his own in Miami federal court along with Adam Myron -- amyron@richmangreer.com -- and Joshua Spoont -- jspoont@richmangreer.com -- of Richman Greer, Stephen Schultz of Slovak Baron Empey Murphy & Pinkney in San Diego and Thomas Schultz of LSRCF Law in Miami. The nationwide class action claims the San Francisco-based ride- hailing service violates the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying its drivers minimum wage or overtime. The argument is built on the idea that Uber drivers are employees under IRS worker classification rules. The tax agency lists several factors that determine whether a company can classify its workers as independent contractors and avoid paying federal income tax, unemployment tax and Social Security and Medicare tax on their wages. The most important factor in the IRS test is how much control the company exerts over the workers. Mr.Richman argues Uber exerts a lot of control, particularly when it comes to the money drivers make per ride. "There's all kinds of controls with regard to what they're allowed to charge," he said. "Uber is setting the prices. The drivers really have no control over that aspect of the relationship." Uber maintains its drivers, whom it calls partners, are independent contractors because they decide their own hours, have no set hourly wage and are free to work for competing services such as Lyft. The California settlement will require Uber to give drivers an appeals process and more notice before they are cut, and drivers covered by the class would be able to solicit tips from riders. The settlement is awaiting approval by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco. An Uber spokesman did not respond to a request for comment by deadline. The employee-vs.-contractor debate has been raging at the state level in Florida for months. The state Department of Economic Opportunity determined in December that the state would treat Uber drivers as contractors, and a former driver's appeal is pending in the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami. At least 12 other state labor departments have found Uber drivers to be independent contractors. UNION PACIFIC: Briefs Filed Addressing Tyson Foods Decision ----------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a pending class action lawsuit have filed briefs addressing the Tyson Foods decision and are now preparing to file a joint schedule and briefing statement. The Company said, "20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts against us and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit. The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic." "In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation and sought to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state laws. "On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued a decision that certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate- based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling, which did not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not address the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012, the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues in the petition and to address whether the district court properly granted class certification. The Circuit Court heard oral arguments on May 3, 2013. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class certification decision and remanded the case to the district court to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors in the expert report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge Friedman approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for consideration of the class certification issue on remand. "On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015, to file a supplemental expert report to support their motion for class certification. The plaintiffs filed their supplemental expert report on April 1, 2015. Judge Friedman issued a scheduling order on June 19, 2015, scheduling a class certification hearing for November 2, 2015. Judge Friedman then vacated the hearing date in an Order on September 28, 2015 because of the potential impact resulting from the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, related to class action certification and damages, which was heard on November 10, 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in that case on March 22, 2016. The parties have filed briefs addressing the Tyson Foods decision and are now preparing to file a joint schedule and briefing statement with Judge Friedman." UNITED SERVICES: June 10 Hearing Set for Attorney Sanctions ----------------------------------------------------------- W.J. Kennedy, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge in Arkansas intends to sanction attorneys on both sides of a class action case who he says wasted his court's time -- an unusual but emerging trend in the law, a University of Miami law professor says. "It is more typical that one side is sanctioned, in part, because the sanction is often the result of the opposing side's motion for sanctions," said Jan L. Jacobowitz, associate director of the school's Center for Ethics & Public Service and director of the Professional Responsibility & Ethics Program. "However, it has become more common for judges to take control of cases, especially when there is a demonstrated lack of professionalism, and sanction both sides." P. K. Holmes, III, chief judge for the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Arkansas, has scheduled a hearing on June 10 after which, he wrote in an April 15 ruling, he will sanction 16 lawyers because of their actions in Mark and Katherine Adams v. United Services Automobile Association (USAA). In the case, the Adamses accused USAA of excessive depreciation costs figured in insurance claims. The plaintiffs attorneys initially said they believed that "hundreds if not thousands" of Arkansas policyholders had been damaged by USAA's actions and asked that the case be certified as a class action. The case remained in federal court for 17 months when, in June 2015, lawyers for the plaintiffs and USAA voluntarily dismissed it and filed the next day in Polk County Court. With that transfer, the sides also submitted a settlement agreement. The deal was immediately approved by a state judge, though Judge Holmes said it limited payments to claimants while securing attorneys fees of $1.8 million. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Cold-FX Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Mundy, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a Vancouver resident filed a lawsuit against the makers of Cold-FX alleging fraud. On its label, Cold-FX promises to provide "immediate relief" from cold and flu symptoms. This reporter has a bottle (it expired last year but it is still half full because I didn't experience any relief) that also claims it's an "immune booster." "The word is out about Cold-FX and many Canadians want to be part of this class action," says attorney John Green, a Vancouver lawyer and leading litigator in the Cold-FX lawsuit. "We told the court about a study that Afexa Life Sciences sat on for years but only came to light when the drug company was sued by a Vancouver man." Don Harrison in 2012 filed a claim against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Cold-FX, and Afexa Life Sciences for promoting a false product. Valeant is a giant Quebec drug company that bought Afexa and its Cold-FX product in 2011. Mr. Green is referring to a study that was conducted back in 2004 by Dr. Gerry Predy, a top Alberta public health official, who confirmed it was no more effective than a placebo. At that time, the supplement's makers told consumers that Cold-FX would bring fast relief from colds, flu and viruses. But neither Dr. Predy nor the drugmakers disclosed the study results to the public. "If this information was disclosed, it would have shut down Afexa Life Sciences," says Mr. Green. And where is Health Canada in this? Mr. Green says that, although the study results were filed with the government, it is barred from making such proprietary information public. He does know that 58 adverse events have been filed with Health Canada. Interestingly, the medication didn't get through the FDA's gate to sell in the United States. "During the week of certification, the CBC aired a report on Cold- FX and I was contacted by about 50 people. Several people said they got sick and one person was sick for seven weeks after taking Cold-FX," says Green. "We have to get this over-the-counter medication off the market." "After the report II was contacted by about 50 people, several of whom said they got sick Mr. Green had health experts look at studies that Cold-FX claims they backed. There was no scientific evidence that the makers could support their claims. Further, professors in British Columbia and Alberta said the Predy study was "poor." "The defendants admitted they have a statement on their box that claims people can take Cold-FX for three days and their cold or flu symptoms will be improved," says Mr. Green. "The point I made to the judge is that consumers relied on this statement. What if a drugmaker like Afexa makes a drug called Cancer-FX and promises to reduce chemotherapy effects? Many desperate patients would buy into this promise, to help their cancer and boost their immune system. Instead they could get sicker." Cold-FX has made about $500 million for the drug manufacturer. Green says that, even if the certification battle is lost, "We will fight it on punitive damages. We want to take away all the revenue Afexa and Valeant made on these products, so we will seek punitive damages of $500 million because this company was -- allegedly -- built on a lie." In British Columbia, every person who purchased Cold-FX containing the statements the suit claims are false are in the class. Mr. Green says the application for certification was filed in April and he expects to hear in the next six months or up to a year whether the class action will go ahead. WEST PUBLISHING: Judge Real Removed From Barbri Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal appeals court on May 11 ordered the removal of a California judge who is overseeing an antitrust class action against the publishers of the Barbri bar review course after his rulings have been repeatedly reversed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated U.S. District Judge Manuel Real's ruling on attorney fees in a case that alleges West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan Inc. conspired to monopolize the market for the Barbri bar review course. In remanding the dispute, the panel ordered the assignment of a new judge. Judge Real's rulings, particularly on fees, the court noted, have been reversed three times in a separate case involving antitrust claims against Barbri. "In light of the history of this case and related litigation, it is clear to us that the district judge would have 'substantial difficulty in putting out of his . . . mind' his previously expressed, erroneous findings and conclusions, and that 'reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice,' " Ninth Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote for the appeals panel. The ruling comes nearly a decade after a $49 million settlement in a related case spurred numerous appeals to the Ninth Circuit. That settlement involved thousands of law students who claimed to have overpaid for the Barbri course during the nine years after Aug. 1, 1997. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit reversed Real's approval of the deal, noting a "disturbing appearance of impropriety" in the way incentive awards were tied to the settlement amount. On March 12, 2015, the Ninth Circuit reversed Real's ruling granting $236,000 to a law firm whose objector clients claimed credit for unraveling the deal. The panel found the firm, Kendrick & Nutley, should have been entitled to more than $315,000. The May 11 ruling came in a class action brought on behalf of people who bought the Barbri course materials from Aug. 1, 2006, through March 21, 2011. After Real dismissed the case in 2008, the Ninth Circuit sent the matter to mediation. Both sides reached a settlement, which Judge Real rejected. A new settlement in 2013 provided $9.5 million to class members and $1.9 million in legal fees. Objectors challenged the fees, and Real reduced the amount to $585,000. Harris & Ruble and the Law Offices of Perrin F. Disner, class counsel in the case, appealed Real's fee award. "There are a number of areas in which the district court here should have been more specific as to its reasoning," Judge Smith of the Ninth Circuit wrote. Real's reduction of costs was "based on clearly erroneous findings of fact," Judge Smith wrote. Alan Harris, founder of Los Angeles-based Harris & Ruble, who represented class counsel, said in an email on May 11: "Class counsel are gratified by the Ninth Circuit decision. After nearly eight years of litigation, the Stetson case has achieved its principal goal: today, in each of the fifty states, Kaplan offers law school graduates bar exam preparation courses in competition with BarBri." George Richard Baker, a solo practitioner with offices in San Francisco and Birmingham who represented six objectors, had also appealed Real's denial of his legal fees. He claimed he was entitled to fees for his role in raising red flags that precipitated the 2013 settlement. The Ninth Circuit remanded that issue for a later date. Mr. Baker's lawyer, Joseph "Josh" Tucker of Jackson & Tucker in Birmingham, declined to comment other than to say: "We don't disagree with the ruling." WISCONSIN: Police Can Disclose Accident Report Driver Info ---------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Vielmetti, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that a federal law protecting driver's license data does not allow Wisconsin police departments to withhold driver information from accident reports, the Court of Appeals ruled on May 10. But whether that law might require such redaction in other kinds of reports would depend on what function police are serving by releasing the records, and whether the information was obtained directly from department of motor vehicle records, or merely verified with that information. The 30-page ruling will likely trigger continued litigation and confusion over access to routine public records that Wisconsin authorities began to restrict in light of a failed class action 2010 lawsuit in Illinois filed under the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act, or DPPA. "Interpreting the agency functions exception in the manner advocated by (the New Richmond News) -- that is, that the exception allows unfettered disclosure of personal information in response to public records requests -- would be inconsistent with the manifest purpose of the DPPA and would therefore be unreasonable," the decision reads. But the court also called "misplaced" the City of New Richmond's argument that the DPPA always pre-empts Wisconsin's public records law. The newspaper's attorney called the decision an overall win for public access. "Both sides may disagree with parts, but I think it's a decision both sides can live with," said Robert Dreps. "It substantially reaffirms Wisconsin's commitment to open law enforcement." Many law enforcement agencies also welcomed the ruling. "None of us in law enforcement that redacted the information wanted to redact it. We felt it was information that should be released," Wausau Police Chief Jeffrey Hardel told the USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin. Despite assurances from Wisconsin's attorney general that the federal law did not require wholesale redacting of information from public records just because it might also be on driver's license records, state municipalities' insurers advised their customers to err on the side of secrecy to avoid being subject to any similar class actions under the federal law. In 2013, the newspaper sued New Richmond over the issue, and a judge ruled that the DPPA and the Illinois federal case were never meant to overrule the state's public records law. The city appealed and the Court of Appeals tried to pass the case directly to the Supreme Court, citing its importance. But the death of Justice Patrick Crooks resulted in a 3-3 tie on whether to affirm the trial court decision, which sent it back to the Court of Appeals. In its ruling on May 10, the court reversed St. Croix County Circuit Judge Howard Cameron's finding that complying with the public records law was a police function that met an exception under the DPPA. The Court of Appeals, however, left open the possibility that a different reason might meet the exception, and sent the case back to Cameron for more litigation on that point. Congress passed the Drivers Privacy Protection Act in 1994 after a stalker got a Hollywood actress' home address through motor vehicle records, then killed her. The DPPA restricts use of personal information obtained from motor vehicle departments but lists several permissible uses, though none specifically for news reporting. For decades, no one dreamed it was meant to undo states' open records laws, until lawyers and marketers began buying whole state databases of drivers and car owners, and a few successful claims for penalties under the DPPA prompted class-action lawyers to explore new lawsuits. A resident of Palatine, Ill., sued the village under the DPPA because his personal information was on a parking ticket Palatine police had left on his windshield in 2010. Jason Senne wanted his case declared a class action on behalf of all the drivers who got tickets from Palatine. Theoretically, that exposed the village to $80 million in penalties -- the statutory $2,500 penalty to every person who got a ticket since the DPPA passed. The case was thrown out, reinstated and thrown out again by federal courts. But along the way, it set off a panic among lawyers for Wisconsin's League of Wisconsin Municipalities and its self-insurance company. They advised clients to err on the side of censorship. If something as innocuous as a parking ticket could violate the DPPA, they feared, any number of police records could. Police agencies all over Wisconsin suddenly began blacking out names, addresses and ages of people in even the most routine traffic accident reports and other records if the information was obtained from or confirmed by driver's license and motor vehicle records. The redactions came even though in 2008, then-Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen expressly said that the DPPA did not require such redactions, and other police agencies in Illinois and Indiana, the other states covered by the 7th Circuit, did not resort to such practices after the Palatine cases WYNDHAM HOTELS: October 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Keller Grover LLP and Law Offices of Scot D. Bernstein, A Professional Corporation regarding the Roberts v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, et al. Settlement. If you are a California resident who, while physically located in California, called one or more toll-free telephone numbers associated with Wyndham Rewards(R), Wyndham Hotels and Resorts(R), Wyndham Grand(R) Hotels and Resorts, Wyndham Garden(R) Hotels, Travelodge(R), Ramada(R), Knights Inn(R), Wingate(R), Days Inn(R), Super 8(R), Baymont(R), Hawthorn(R), Microtel(R), or Tryp(R) between May 1, 2011 and March 23, 2012, inclusive, spoke to a representative and were recorded without notice, you could receive money from a Class Action Settlement. A proposed $7,325,000 class action settlement has been reached in a lawsuit called Joyce Roberts v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, et al., USDC ND CA Case No. 12-cv-05083-PSG. The lawsuit claims that Defendants' third party vendor recorded telephone calls of persons calling certain toll-free reservations and customer- service lines without telling callers that the calls may be recorded allegedly in violation of California law. Defendants have denied the claims. Nonetheless, Defendants and the Class Representatives have agreed to settle the dispute to avoid the uncertainty and costs of litigation. The $7,325,000 settlement fund will pay eligible claims, notice and administration costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, and the named plaintiff's service award. Who is a class member? You are a Class Member if you are a California resident who, while physically located in California, called one or more toll-free telephone numbers associated with Wyndham Rewards(R), Wyndham Hotels and Resorts(R), Wyndham Grand(R) Hotels and Resorts, Wyndham Garden(R) Hotels, Travelodge(R), Ramada(R), Knights Inn(R), Wingate(R), Days Inn(R), Super 8(R), Baymont(R), Hawthorn(R), Microtel(R), or Tryp(R) between May 1, 2011 and March 23, 2012, inclusive, were routed to a call center operated by a third-party vendor, spoke to a representative and were recorded without notice. What are my legal rights? To receive a settlement payment, eligible class members must submit a claim. It is expected that eligible class members who submit a timely and valid Claim Form will receive at least $150 per qualified call but no more than $5,000 per call. The amount of each individual settlement payment will depend on the total number of claims filed. Whether or not you submit a claim, if the Court approves the settlement, and you do not take steps to exclude yourself from the settlement, you will be bound by all of the Court's orders. This means you will not be able to make any claims against Defendants or other Released Parties covered by the settlement. If you wish to submit a claim, visit www.CARecordedCallsSettlement.com or contact the Claims Administrator at 1-800-889-8319 to get a claim form. The deadline to submit claims is August 18, 2016. If you do not wish to be a member of the settlement class, you must submit a letter to the Claims Administrator at the address below postmarked by August 18, 2016. If you opt-out you cannot submit a claim form. Visit the settlement website for more information. If you wish to object to the settlement, you must do so by submitting your objection to the Court in person or postmarked by August 18, 2016. Visit the settlement website for more information. A final hearing will be held on October 18, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. to determine the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement and to award attorneys' fees and costs and plaintiff's service award. The motion for attorneys' fees and costs and plaintiff's service award will be posted on the settlement website after it is filed. You may attend the hearing, but you do not have to. This is only a summary. For detailed information including, the full text of the Settlement Agreement, the Class Notice and the Claim Form, visit www.CARecordedCallsSettlement.com call 1-800-889-8319, or write to: Settlement Administrator at Hotels Call Recording Settlement c/o Rust Consulting, P.O. Box 2506, Faribault, MN 55021-9506. XOLLE LLC: Faces "Aguirre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Juan Aguirre, Virgilio Escobar, Melvin Escobar, Florentino Morales, and Carlos Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Xolle LLC, Xolle Demo LLC, Xolle Roll Off LLC, and Menachem Roth, Case No. 1:16-cv-02324 (E.D.N.Y., May 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York. Juan Aguirre, Virgilio Escobar, Melvin Escobar, Florentino Morales, and Carlos Ramirez are pro se plaintiffs. XOMA CORP: Case Management Conference on May 24 ----------------------------------------------- District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., directs Richard W. Gonnello of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP -- who was recently appointed lead counsel to lead plaintiff Joseph Tarzia -- to appear telephonically via CourtCall at the Case Management Conference scheduled for May 24, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. Counsel shall contact CourtCall at (866) 582-6878 to make arrangements for the telephonic appearance. A copy of the Court's May 18 Order is available at https://is.gd/OhudgU from Leagle.com. XTO ENERGY: Trust Updates on Class Suits ---------------------------------------- Hugoton Royalty Trust, in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on class action lawsuits against XTO Energy. XTO Energy settled the Fankhouser v. XTO Energy, Inc. royalty class action lawsuit for $37 million. The settlement was given final approval by the court on October 10, 2012. XTO Energy advised the trustee that $1.4 million of the settlement was attributable to Kansas claims, which predated the trust. The settlement also included a new royalty calculation for future royalty payments. XTO Energy and the trustee arbitrated the issue of whether the Fankhouser settlement could be charged to the Trust net proceeds ($28.5 million; $23.4 million and $5.1 million affecting the net proceeds from Oklahoma and Kansas, respectively, in addition to a reduction in the net profits going forward). The three panel tribunal decided on April 21, 2014 that the settlement cannot be charged to the Trust, including the new royalty calculation for future royalty payments. Additionally, XTO Energy had to reimburse $4,386,396, representing amounts withheld from the September and October 2012 distributions and $1,985,438, representing attorney fees, arbitration expenses and interest. The arbitration award was entered into as a final judgment in State District Court of Tarrant County, Texas on December 12, 2014. In September 2008, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas. The case was removed to federal court in Wichita, Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Colorado; later reduced to Kansas. The case was certified as a class action in March 2012. XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 11, 2012, which was granted on June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The case was previously stayed pending a final decision from the Kansas Supreme Court on the Fawcett v. OPIK appeal. Following the decision in Fawcett, the Judge in Roderick ordered new briefing on the pending motions. In its pleadings, the plaintiff has alleged damages in excess of $42.5 million. In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case was certified as a class action in April 2012. XTO Energy filed an appeal of the class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2012, which was granted on June 26, 2012. The court reversed the certification of the class and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it believes that XTO Energy has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend its position. However, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that it is cognizant of other, similar litigation, such as Fankhouser, and other, unrelated entities. As these cases develop, XTO Energy will assess its legal position accordingly. If XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments or receives a judgment against it in Chieftain or Roderick, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that it believes that the terms of the conveyances covering the trust's net profits interests require the Trust to bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment related to production from the underlying properties. Additionally, if the judgment or settlement increases the amount of future payments to royalty owners, XTO Energy has informed the trustee that the Trust would bear its proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced net proceeds. In the event of any such settlement or judgment, the trustee intends to review any claimed reductions in payment to the Trust based on the facts and circumstances of such settlement or judgment. In light of the arbitration tribunal's decision on the treatment of the Fankhouser settlement, to the extent that the claims in Chieftain or Roderick are similar to those in Fankhouser, the trustee would likely object to such claimed reductions. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected to be material to the trust's financial position or liquidity though it could be material to the trust's annual distributable income. Additionally, XTO Energy has advised the trustee that any reductions would result in costs exceeding revenues on the properties underlying the net profit interests of the cases named above, as applicable, for several monthly distributions, depending on the size of the judgment or settlement, if any, and the net proceeds being paid at that time, which would result in the net profits interest being limited until such time that the revenues exceed the costs for those net profit interests. If there is a settlement or judgment and should XTO Energy and the trustee disagree concerning the amount of the settlement or judgment to be charged, if any, against the trust's net profits interests, the matter will be resolved by binding arbitration through the American Arbitration Association under the terms of the Indenture creating the trust. Hugoton Royalty Trust is an express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on December 1, 1998 between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as Cross Timbers Oil Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee. Southwest Bank is now the trustee of the trust. The principal office of the Trust is located at 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 850, Dallas, Texas 75219 (telephone number 855-588- 7839). * Accounting Securities Class Actions Hit Record High in 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Gorman, Esq. -- gorman.tom@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that last year the number of securities class actions filed with accounting allegations exceeded the average over the last ten years. Likewise, the number of accounting cases filed last year alleging internal control violations was the highest since 2006, according to a report prepared by Cornerstone Research titled Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements, 2015 Review and Analysis. The 71 accounting cases filed last year is the highest since 2011 when 80 such actions were initiated. At the same time the percentage of securities class actions that contain accounting allegations declined to 38% (71 of 118) compared to 41% (69 of 101) in the prior year. The largest percentage of those accounting cases (38%) were filed in the ninth circuit -- the highest number of such cases filed there in ten years. The number of actions involving firms listed on the NASDAQ and the NYSE was about evenly split. The number of accounting cases filed against firms based outside the U.S. increased to 20 or 28% of the total of these cases. That compares to 14, or 20% of the total, the prior year and 15, or 32% of the total, in 2013. The number of accounting cases filed against firms based outside the U.S. last year is the second highest total over the last decade. Over half of the accounting cases were brought against firms in the consumer non-cyclical sector were against biotechnology, pharmaceutical and healthcare companies. That is consistent with historical trends. The number of actions filed against industrial sector firms, however, increased to twice its historical average. In contrast, cases against firms in the financial sector declined. Finally, last year about 30% of the accounting cases involved a restatement. That represents a decline from the 42% in the prior year, 40% in 2013 and 38% in 2012. In contrast, over the past six years most accounting cases contain allegations regarding internal controls. That trend accelerated last year with 52% of the actions containing such a claim. Similarly, the number of accounting case settlements containing such an allegations was the highest in 10 years. * Appeals Court Revives Class Action Against Three Hospitals ------------------------------------------------------------ Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals court has revived a proposed class action accusing three Rochester, New York-area hospitals and a health information technology company of overcharging patients for their medical records. In a unanimous opinion on May 10, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that a lower court improperly dismissed the case on the grounds that the named plaintiffs requested and obtained their records through their attorneys, rather than themselves. * CFPB Proposals to Expose Banks to More Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Carle, Esq. -- ncarle@mrllp.com -- of Michelman & Robinson, LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that under new rules proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), consumers would be handed greater ability to bring class action lawsuits against financial institutions and consumer financial services providers. The proposed rules would essentially prohibit the use of mandatory arbitration clauses that contain class action waiver provisions in contracts for consumer financial products and services. The CFPB's publicized objective is to prohibit consumer financial services providers from using arbitration provisions to prevent consumer class action lawsuits. Covering a range of products, from bank accounts and credit cards to auto and student loans, the rules are ostensibly intended to enable customers to utilize the court system to challenge potentially deceitful practices or other improper conduct. There will now be a 90-day public comment period, which will surely be contentious; the consumer finance industry immediately voiced strong concerns with the CFPB's proposal. In recent years, mandatory arbitration clauses have become customary in financial products and services contracts, supported by a series of court rulings that have affirmed the validity of such arbitration clauses and created a strong presumption in favor of private arbitration. Most notably, in a landmark 2011 opinion, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court upheld the use of class action waivers in arbitration provisions in consumer contracts, and declared state law provisions hostile to such provisions pre-empted by federal law. While mandatory arbitration provisions are already prohibited by the CFPB in most residential mortgages and home equity loans, the new proposed rules will expand such protections to cover a broad range of financial products. In fact, the rules would require companies providing such products to insert language into arbitration clauses that explicitly states that the clauses cannot be used to stop consumers from joining a class action. The changes would not apply to existing accounts, though consumers would be free to pay off existing debt and open new accounts that are covered by the new rule. When Congress approved the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Act in 2010, it required the CFPB to study the use of forced arbitration clauses and take appropriate action if those clauses contravened the public interest. Thereafter, the CFPB convened a large, data-driven empirical study, which it released in March of 2015. The study ultimately showed that pre-dispute arbitration agreements "effectively prohibit" class litigation and prevent consumers from obtaining remedies for harm caused by providers of certain consumer financial products or services. Specifically, the study revealed that more than three-quarters of consumers surveyed in the credit card market did not know whether there was an arbitration clause in their contracts. Similarly, fewer than 7% of those covered by arbitration clauses realized that those clauses restricted their ability to sue in court. The proposed regulation includes two significant limitations on pre-suit arbitration agreements with respect to consumer financial products and services: 1) Providers of covered products and services will be prohibited from relying on any forced arbitration agreement entered into after the effective date of the new rule (211 days after publication of the final rule) to block customer participation in a class action lawsuit; and 2) for any pre- dispute arbitration agreements entered into after the effective date, companies will be required to provide the CFPB with records of all arbitration claims relating to consumer financial products or services filed by or against them, including the arbitration agreement itself, any filings, and the ultimate judgment or award issued by the arbitrator. The CFPB contends this will allow it to monitor consumer finance arbitrations to ensure that the arbitration process remains fair for consumers. The CFPB estimates the additional costs of the reporting requirements to be marginal, even if passed on to consumers. Companies would still be able to require consumers to enter arbitration to resolve individual disputes. However, in a letter to the CFPB, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that the rule would force companies to stop using arbitration clauses altogether, eliminating an option that is "cheaper, faster and more effective at delivering relief to consumers." This previews a likely outcome of the proposed rule -- the elimination of arbitration provisions, and the inclusion of class action waivers in consumer contracts. While class action waivers in connection with arbitration provisions have been validated by the Supreme Court, high court guidance on class action waivers outside of arbitration provisions is not as clear. . The next 90 days should be very interesting, as the two sides square off. However, it is almost certain that a version of the proposed rules will be enacted. Consumer advocates contend that it is in the public interest for consumers to be offered a choice when it comes to pursuing legal remedies against financial institutions, and that mandatory arbitration provisions eliminate or obfuscate that choice. Banks and other financial services businesses counter by arguing that the new rule would effectively eliminate private arbitration in this sector, which is often less costly and more efficient than litigation, and result in a windfall for plaintiffs' trial attorneys while not actually furthering the interests of individual consumers. M&R will stay abreast of this issue as the proposed rule is debated and enacted, periodically providing updates regarding the implementation of this likely game-changing regulation. * Judge Awards $1.5MM in Attorney Fees in Fen-Phen Cases -------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal judge has awarded $1.5 million to a law firm representing plaintiffs in the diet drug class action as well as the multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Additionally, U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania authorized a roughly $13,000 reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Levin, Fishbein, Sedran, & Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, for out-of-pocket expenses in litigating the case. According to Judge Bartle's memorandum, the fees were awarded for 1,305 hours -- or 168 eight-hour workdays -- of common benefit work in the litigation from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2015. The money will come from the cost and fees account of the litigation settlement fund. There were no objections to awarding attorney fees to the firm. The firm is being paid $750,000 for work performed in the class action and an additional $750,000 for work performed in the MDL. The total amount of the settlement fund was $6.44 billion, according to Bartle, to compensate thousands of individual class members who took the diet-drug cocktail commonly called Fen-Phen. The litigation commenced in 1997. Michael Fishbein of the firm served as class counsel with respect to the settlement agreement and co-chairman of the plaintiffs management committee. "We have routinely applied every year for fees, so this represents the latest application on our part. Most likely it'll be the last application for the MDL side," Mr. Fishbein said. Mr. Fishbein noted that class action claims are still being administered so there is still work to be done on that front. Bartle wrote that Levin Fishbein assisted 340 claimants in receiving benefits in 2015. The firm continued to take part in trust planning, budgeting and operational planning in 2015, Judge Bartle said. Also, "Levin Fishbein continues to undertake many complex matters within this litigation," Judge Bartle said. "We have recognized, however, that the class action administration and MDL 1203 are in their sunset period and that the number of individuals who benefited from the settlement agreement in 2015 has declined considerably when compared with earlier years." That factor had to be taken into consideration when determining the appropriate fee award, Judge Bartle said. The amount of fees requested amounted to 0.0117 percent of the total settlement fund, Judge Bartle said, and roughly 8 percent of the $9.4 million awarded to plaintiffs in 2015, within the 4 to 15 percent attorney compensation range for fees awarded in similar cases. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the terms of the settlement agreement to the letter. * UCCL Well-Matched to Class Action Commonality Requirements ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher W. Carmichael, Esq. --christopher.carmichael@hklaw.com -- of Holland & Knight LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the Uniform Commercial Code appears to be well-matched to the class actions requirements of commonality, typicality, and predominance. Article 2 provides a relatively uniform body of law, with relatively minor variations. Warranties are often unvarying because they are provided by the product manufacturer. See Sec. 2-313. The implied warranties, in Article 2, are provided to every purchaser unless disclaimed. See Secs. 2-314 & 2-315. Lastly, Article 2 provides for clear remedies, including repair, replacement, and incidental and consequential damages. See Secs. 2-710, 2-711, 2-714, 2-715, & 2-719. As one court summarized: "In the present case, class members purchased similar products and received the same standard warranty, thus, there are common questions of law and fact." Barden v. Hurd Millwork Co., Inc., 249 F.R.D. 316, 318 (E.D. Wis. 2008). Warranty class actions are frequently filed when a product has a defect or performance issue that decreases its value, but does not generally injure the consumer. For example, dozens of warranty class actions were filed against Volkswagen for the diesel vehicles that were equipped with the "defeat devices." Those actions were filed under the Uniform Commercial Code because Article 2 provides a potential remedy for the economic losses (reduction in value), that cannot be recovered by traditional tort claims (which are often precluded by state law economic loss doctrines). See Sec. 2-714 (providing for damages of the difference between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted). Even when a product defect or performance issue does not lead to personal injuries (or leads to few personal injuries), the manufacture faces significantly liability from aggregated economic class action claims relying on Article 2 of the UCC. And, the cost to the company can go beyond damages awardable to the plaintiff, and include the cost of product repair or replacement, which can exceed the original product price by multiples. For example, a recent class action filed under California warranty law demanded that Volkswagen accept return of all "non-conforming vehicles". Thus, in addition to regulatory penalties and paying damages, Volkswagen could potentially be required to absorb the cost of thousands of returned vehicles. There are potential ways to defeat certification of a warranty class action. Broadly speaking, a warranty is a representation about the qualities of a product. See Secs. 2-314 & 2-315. Article 2 of the UCC covers contracts for the sale of goods. A warranty claim is therefore a contract-based claim. Since a warranty is a contract, issues can arise in determining what representations became part of the bargain. And, for example, some courts have concluded that determining what comprises the warranty would require individualized proof, precluding commonality. See Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc., 2015 WL 5568624, at *11 (D. Mass. Sept. 22, 2015). In addition, even where the plaintiff asserts that the representations were all uniform, the law and the consumer's expectations may not be identical. Not all product purchasers may have read or relied upon the warranty in purchasing the product. Also, some states may not require pre-purchase reliance, while other states may. The dichotomy between states that require reliance and those that do not, coupled with the individualized nature of an inquiry into reliance, has led some courts to deny certification. See In re General Motors Dex-Cool Products Liability Litigation, 241 F.R.D. 305, 319-320 (S.D. Ill. 2007). While each product and warranty is different, a warranty class action can be vulnerable to an attack on the uniformity of the warranty, consumer reliance on the warranty, and variance among the states' laws. Some consumers may never experience performance issues or defects; therefore, the actual number of warranty claims, and the corresponding cost of correcting those issues, will likely be fewer than the broad class of all purchasers in a warranty class action. Defeating class certification of class action warranty claims can reduce potential legal exposure from devastating to manageable. ********* 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 * * *