/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160524.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 103 Headlines 1160 THIRD: "Lui" Suit in New York Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Union Class Suit in Colo. Remains Stayed AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Unit Facing Customer Suits in Mexico AMERICA PIZZA CO: "Hassan" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement in "Kaufman" Case Under Appeal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Dismissal of Plumbers Amended Complaint Sought AMERICAN EXPRESS: Moved to Dismiss "Houssain" Complaint AMERICAN EXPRESS: Arbitration of B&R Supermarket Complaint Sought AMERICAN GENERAL: Court Refuses to Certify Ulti-Mate Suit Class ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Allows Silicosis Class Action to Proceed ANGLO AMERICAN: Mineworkers' Lawyer Welcomes Class Action Ruling ANTHEM, INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Demutualization ANTHEM, INC: 11 Actions Over OON Reimbursement Remain Pending ANTHEM, INC: Still Defending Blue Cross Antitrust Litigation ANTHEM, INC: Motion to Dismiss Cyber Attack Suit Underway APOLLO COMMERCIAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Action APPLUS VELOSI: Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ATCO STRUCTURES: "Griggs" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay BALTIMORE, MA: Judge Tosses Maintenance Workers' Defamation Case BARCLAYS BANK: "Doherty" Sues Over TCPA Violation BLITT & GAINES: Faces Class Action Over Wage Garnishments BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Six Lawsuits Lodged in Pradaxa Docket BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Company and Officers Face New York Class Action BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CABLEVISION: Begins Payouts in Set-Top Box Class Actions CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims CARMAX INC: Claims Remain in "Fowler" Case in California CASHLESS PAYMENTS: Bid to Certify "Able Home" Class Stricken CASSWAY CONTRACTING: Faces "Redwood" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CATALINA CHANNEL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Breaks CATHOLIC HEALTH: "Chavies" Sues Over Under-funded Pension Plan CEMEX SAB: Unit Still Faces Homeowner's Class Action CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Hampton Seeks Certification of Two Classes CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Livonia Suit CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Bushansky" Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Defending "Sciabacucchi" Action in Michigan CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Nicholl" Suit in E.D. Mich. CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in MainSource Merger Action CHINA FINANCE: Mediation Session Scheduled for Late May 2016 CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: Filed First Amended Complaint CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: To Defend Against "Ong" Class Action CHRYSLER: Recalls Jeep Grand Cherokee 2016 Models CHRYSLER: Recalls 150 Units of RAM Promaster 2014, 2015 Trucks CHRYSLER: Recalls 9,022 Units of RAM Promaster 2014, 2015 Trucks DELTA AIR: Lopez Seeks Certification of Class of LAX Employees DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Securities Class Action in New York DEUTSCHE BANK: $120-Mil. Settlement of CDS Antitrust Case Pending DEUTSCHE BANK: Bid to Dismiss TruPS Litigation Pending E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Drinker Water Suits Pending at March 31 EDMONTON RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls Iobenguane I123 Injection EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Paid $750,000 to Vathana Settlement Fund EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Tentative Deal Reached in "West" Action EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Tentative Deal Reached in "Bland" Action EXPRESS SCRIPTS: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set FACEBOOK INC: Rule 23(b)(2) Class in "Campbell" Suit Certified FACEBOOK INC: Faces Excavators Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports FACEBOOK INC: Faces Westchester Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report FACEBOOK INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Photo Tag Feature FIRST NATIONAL: Settling Antonik & Saxe Suits for $750,000 FMA ALLIANCE: Certification of Class Sought in "Devera" Suit FORMFACTOR, INC: Defendant in Lum v. Cascade Microtech Case FORMFACTOR, INC: Defendant in Solak v. Cascade Microtech Case GAZIT-GLOBE: Hearing on Motion for Documents Disclosure Deferred GENERAL CHEMICAL: Jefferson County Sues over Overpriced Alum GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk GOLDEN DROP: "Nobles" Suit in Cal. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages H&R BLOCK: Fails in Bid to Send "Lopez" Suit to Arbitration H&R BLOCK: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Pending in "Perras" HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Sued in N.C. Over Proposed Sale to Annaly HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims HELIX ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint HILTON CINCINNATI: Faces "Morgan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HUNTER WARFIELD: Bid to Certify "Goldstein" FDCPA Class Denied ILLINOIS, USA: Court Certifies Class of Medicaid-Eligible Kids IMPAC MORTGAGE: Baltimore Securities Class Suit Ongoing IMPAC MORTGAGE: "Marentes" Class Suit in Discovery Stage INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Defending 2 NY Suits Over Sale of Unit INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Set in Class Suits ITASCA: Recalls Ellipse and Tour 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk JETT PRO LINE: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Bernier" JPS COMPLETION: "Martinez" Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Ridley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT KINDER MORGAN: Delaware High Court Upholds Claims Dismissal KLA-TENCOR: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 3 LIAMBEN INC: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LIFE PROTECT: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Continued to Aug. 2 M&T BANK CORP: "Habib" Sues Over Fund Mismanagement MDL 2474: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Certification of Class Sought in "Oliver" Case MINISTRY HEALTH CARE: Employees File Suit Over Unpaid Breaks NCEP LLC: Bid to Certify Class Terminated; Hearing on June 15 NOVANT HEALTH: Judge OKs Settlement, Sept. 23 Fairness Hearing Set NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending OCEAN POWER: Defending Securities Class Action in New Jersey OFFICE DEPOT: Approval of "Heitzenrater" Accord Expected Mid-2016 OFFICE DEPOT: "Rivet" Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Securities Class Action Still Ongoing PAN ASIA: Recalls Breaded Fish Cake Products Due to Egg PAN ASIA: Recalls Fish Sausage Products Due to Egg PEARLAND CAPITAL: Stewart Seeks Conditional Class Certification PHILADELPHIA, PA: Certification of Property Owners Class Sought PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Digital Diagnost PHOTOMEDEX INC: Wants Kern County Suit Moved to D.C. Court PIER 1: Kenney and Davie Cases Ongoing in Texas PREMIER COURIER: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Amended Complaint Filed in Haverhill Suit QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against "Nguyen" IPO Suit RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Two Investor Class Actions REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Certification of Two FDCPA Classes Sought RENFRO CANADA: Recalls Dr. Scholl's Graduated Compression REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 21 Tobacco-Related Cases Served During 2016 Q1 ROOSEVELT DISCOUNTS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Rosas" Suit Says ROYAL OAK, MI: Residents File Class Action Over 2014 Floods RUSHCARD: Settles Prepaid Card Class Action for $20.5MM SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime SAFETY 1ST: Recalls Child Car Seat 2015 Models SANOFI SA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Kickback Schemes SE CEMETERIES: Charles Sheppard Seeks Certification of FLSA Class SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Hassett Class Action Dismissed SHANDEX GROUP: Recalls Night-time Sleep Aid Liquid SHANDEX GROUP: Recalls Life Brand Night-Time Sleep Aid Liquid SIGMA: Net Profit Takes $8.8MM Hit from Class Action Settlement SPARK NETWORKS: Deal Close in Werner, Wright Suits SPARK NETWORKS: Resolves Israeli Consumer Actions SPRINT CORPORATION: "Chowdhury" Sues Over Automated Calls STRYKER SUSTAINABILITY: Recalls Electrophysiology Catheters SUN OF MAY LLC: "Cortez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Wisconsin Suit SUPERVALU INC: Response to Motion to Certify Due SUPERVALU INC: Bid to Vacate Case Dismissal Tossed SYNOVIS MICRO: Recalls GEM Flow Coupler T-W TRANSPORT: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action TEEKAY CORP: Company, Officers Face Class Action in Connecticut TFI FOODS: Recalls Fish Cakes & Crab Sticks Due to Egg TICKETMASTER: Class Action Settlement Marketing Opportunity TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suit by Hamilton and Macon Counties Underway TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss La Crosse Suit Granted in Part TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Suit by Jackson County, MO TRINITY INDUSTRIES: NJ Treasury Appointed as Lead Plaintiff UNITED STATES: Beauty School Students Score Win Over Loans URANIUM ENERGY: Dismissal of "Stephens" Action Sought VAALCO ENERGY: Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Approved VERIZON: Faces "Johnnidis" Suit in N.Y. Over Phone Service VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Action Dismissed WAUPUN, WI: McKinley Bey Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class WEATHERBY INC: Final Approval of "Fiant" Settlement Sought WEIGHT WATCHERS: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action WONDRIES FAMILY: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WOODSPRING HOTELS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Smith" Suit Says YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell to File Motion to Overturn Verdict YUM! BRANDS: 9th Circuit Not Yet Set Briefing Schedule ********* 1160 THIRD: "Lui" Suit in New York Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xiao Guang Liu, Shou De Jin, Xiao Dong Wang, Jing Bin Wang, Gang Ren, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. 1160 Third Avenue Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Ollie's Noodle Shop & Grille, Tsu Y. Wang, and John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No. 705635/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the New York Labor Law. The Defendants used to own, operate, and control a restaurant located at 1991 Broadway, Frnt B, New York City, NY 10023. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keli Liu, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Union Class Suit in Colo. Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------ Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the securities class action lawsuit, United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv- 01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.), remains stayed. A class action lawsuit against ADES and certain of its current and former officers is pending in the federal court in Denver, Colorado. This lawsuit and a companion case were originally filed in May 2014. On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated these cases and appointed the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of the law firms. The consolidated case is now captioned United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv- 01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.). The lead plaintiff filed "Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Class Action Complaint" on April 20, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain current and former Company officers. Plaintiffs allege that ADES and other defendants misrepresented to the investing public ADES's financial condition and its financial controls to artificially inflate and maintain the market price of ADES's common stock. The Consolidated Complaint alleges two claims for relief for: 1) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, and 2) control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages together with costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting the class action, among other relief. The Consolidated Complaint, alleges a class period covering all purchasers or acquirers of the common stock of ADES or its predecessor-in-interest during the proposed class period from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on June 19, 2015, contending the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b) claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015. On March 7, 2016 the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the case while the parties mediate the matter. On March 8, 2016, the motion to stay was granted, and the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice with the option to refile should mediation fail. The case is stayed until further order of the court. AMERICA MOVIL: Telcel Unit Facing Customer Suits in Mexico ---------------------------------------------------------- America Movil, S.A.B. De C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Radiomovil Dipsa, S.A. de C.V. ("Telcel") is defending against class action lawsuits by customers. The Federal Consumer Bureau (Procuradur¡a Federal del Consumidor, or "Profeco") initiated proceedings before Mexican courts in 2011 on behalf of customers who alleged deficiencies in the quality of Telcel's network in 2010 and breach of customer agreements. This proceeding is pending, and if it is resolved in favor of Profeco, Telcel's customers would be entitled to compensation for damages. Telcel is also subject to four class actions initiated by the alleged affected groups with respect to quality of service and wireless and broadband rates. The Company does not currently have enough information on these proceedings to determine whether any of these class actions could have an adverse effect on the Company's business and results of operations if they are resolved against Telcel. Consequently, the Company has not established a provision in the accompanying financial statements for a loss arising from these contingencies. In July 2015, a fifth class action related to a technical malfunction in Telcel's network was concluded pursuant to a settlement with Profeco that recognized past compensations by Telcel to its customers in connection with this malfunction. America Movil, S.A.B. de C.V. is a sociedad anonima bursatil de capital variable organized under the laws of Mexico. It was established in September 2000 when Telefonos de Mexico, S.A.B. de C.V. ("Telmex"), a fixed-line Mexican telecommunications operator privatized in 1990, spun off its wireless operations in Mexico and other countries. In 2010, it acquired control of Telmex and Telmex Internacional, S.A.B. de C.V. in a series of public tender offers. AMERICA PIZZA CO: "Hassan" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hamdi Hassan, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. America's Pizza Company, LLC, and Michael Brent Stolzenthaler, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00418-JLG-TPK (S.D. Ohio, May 11, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, unlawful deductions and charge-backs, and unreimbursed expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Constitution. America's Pizza operates 127 Pizza Hut restaurants in Ohio, Louisiana, Texas, North Carolina and South Carolina with Stolzenthaler as the Chief Executive Officer. Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers who claim underpayment of wages and overtime as well as non-reimbursement of business-related expense. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Beggs, Esq. BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 Tel: 614-678-5640 Fax: 614-448-9408 Email: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com - and - Andrew Kimble, Esq. KIMBLE LAW, LLC 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 Tel: 614-983-0361 Fax: 614-448-9408 Email: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement in "Kaufman" Case Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that notices of appeal has been filed in the case, Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, following final approval of a class-wide settlement. The Company said, "We are a defendant in a class action captioned Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs' principal allegation is that our gift cards violated consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly had difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior to the imposition of monthly service fees." The Court preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of (with some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of all gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002 through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement." On March 2, 2016, the court granted final approval of the class-wide settlement. Notices of appeal have been filed. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Dismissal of Plumbers Amended Complaint Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint by Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund on March 21, 2016. The Company said, "On July 30, 2015, plaintiff Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of American Express stock, filed a suit, captioned Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell, for violation of federal securities law, alleging that the Company deliberately issued false and misleading statements to, and omitted important information from, the public relating to the financial importance of the Costco cobrand relationship to the Company, including, but not limited to, the decision to accelerate negotiations to renew the cobrand agreement. The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 21, 2016." AMERICAN EXPRESS: Moved to Dismiss "Houssain" Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has moved to dismiss the Houssain complaint. On October 16, 2015, a putative class action, captioned Houssain v. American Express Company, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain officers of the Company under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to disclosures of the Costco cobrand relationship. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA obligations by: allowing the investment of American Express Retirement Savings Plan ("Plan") assets in American Express common stock when American Express common stock was not a prudent investment; misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts to Plan participants in connection with the administration of the Plan; and breaching certain fiduciary obligations. The suit seeks, among other remedies, an unspecified amount of damages. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 20, 2016. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Arbitration of B&R Supermarket Complaint Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration and change venue and jointly moved with co-defendants to dismiss the B&R Supermarket complaint. On March 8, 2016, plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others, filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright Act and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, against American Express Company, other credit and charge card networks, other issuing banks and EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo, conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. On April 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and change venue and jointly moved with co-defendants to dismiss the complaint. AMERICAN GENERAL: Court Refuses to Certify Ulti-Mate Suit Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Josephine L. Staton entered an order (1) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and (2) denying as moot their motion for appointment of class counsel in the lawsuit titled Ulti-Mate Connectors, Inc., et al. v. American General Life Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-01051-JLS-JPR (C.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants "organized, promoted, administered, and sold rights to participate in [VEBAs] that they touted as offering owners of small, closely-held businesses a valuable insurance-oriented welfare benefit with significant tax advantages." The Defendants undertook this activity, according to the complaint, despite their knowledge that the voluntary employees' beneficiary association (VEBA) plans were "noncompliant" and, as a result, "the tax advantages they promoted were illusory." After careful consideration of the argument and evidence submitted by the Parties, the Court concludes that there is a serious potential -- and, in all likelihood, actual -- conflict between tje Plaintiffs and certain absent class members. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QYiCWqBp ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Allows Silicosis Class Action to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Crowley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a South African court has allowed thousands of former mineworkers to proceed with a class action seeking damages from mining companies for lung diseases they contracted while working at their operations. "Class action is the only realistic option through which most mineworkers can assert" their constitutional rights, Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo said at the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on May 13. Otherwise, "impoverished, indigent workers won't be able to access justice," he said. Current and former mineworkers who contracted silicosis and pulmonary tuberculosis and the families of employees who have died from the diseases are eligible to join a suit, which may amount to as many as half a million people, Mr. Mojapelo said. The action would sue 32 mining companies for damages caused by unsafe working practices, lawyers for the applicants say. Silicosis, a lung disease caused by inhaling dust from mines, causes scar tissue in the organs, increasing vulnerability to tuberculosis that can kill more than half of sufferers if not properly treated. Claims Settled In a separate case settled in March, Anglo American Plc's South African unit and AngloGold Ashanti Ltd. agreed to pay about 500 million rand ($33 million) to 4,365 former employees who said they contracted dust-related lung diseases while working for the companies. That amounts to about 115,000 rand per person. Under a scenario where 500,000 applicants for the class-action suit won the same amount of compensation, the mining companies would have to pay about 57.5 billion rand, or $3.8 billion. The mining companies, which include Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold, Sibanye Gold Ltd., African Rainbow Minerals Ltd., Gold Fields Ltd. and Harmony Gold Mining Co., are studying the judgment and are pursuing an out-of-court settlement, said Alan Fine, a spokesman for the producers. They "will decide individually whether to appeal," he said. The companies want "a comprehensive solution that is both fair to past, present and future gold-mining employees, and also sustainable for the sector," they said in a statement. The next step for the applicants is to notify former mineworkers - - many of whom are from rural areas of South Africa and neighboring countries such as Mozambique -- of the case and establish the size of the class, according to Georgina Jephson, a lawyer for Richard Spoor Attorneys who's working on the case. That may take as long as two years, she said. ANGLO AMERICAN: Mineworkers' Lawyer Welcomes Class Action Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Mabuza, writing for Times LIVE, reports that a lawyer for mineworkers suffering from diseases contracted at the mines welcomed the judgment on May 13 which certified a class action by mineworkers against gold mining companies in South Africa. The Johannesburg court certified the class action brought by 69 workers against companies operating in the gold mining industry. Few class actions have been brought in South Africa and none filed for sick workers. The mineworkers were represented by Richard Spoor Incorporated, Abrahams Kiewitz Incorporated and the Legal Resources Centre (LRC). On May 13, the court granted certification for current and former mineworkers who have contracted silicosis, as well as the dependents of mineworkers who died of silicosis, who worked for two years or more on one or more of the 82 mines owned by the companies. The court also granted certification for current and former mineworkers who have tuberculosis, but who do not have silicosis, and the dependents of miners who died of tuberculosis. Certifying the class means that litigation may continue to the phase which includes discovery and preparing for trial. Mthobeli Gangatha, one of people who have been diagnosed with silicosis, welcomed the judgment. "As miners we were not helped and protected even though our employers knew that we were going to get sick," said the former gold mine worker, who lives in Lusikisiki in the Eastern Cape. "I am happy and relieved that the court's decision is in our favor Mr. Spoor said a pervasive culture had existed for decades in the mining industry that viewed these miners as disposable. "It has been a privilege to represent them and offer a voice to thousands who have never had one and who have been ignored by society," Mr. Spoor said. Charles Abrahams said the court decision was a crucial step in the path to justice for potentially hundreds of thousands of mine workers and the families of deceased mine workers who contracted silicosis and TB as a result of their employment in poorly maintained working environments of South Africa's gold mining industry. The LRC's Sayi Nindi-Thsiani said the organisation had been involved in litigation since 2004 in the hope of obtaining compensation for all sick gold miners and their families. "Mining companies must pay for failing to protect mineworkers against excessive levels of dust and the concomitant risks of silicosis and tuberculosis. "This judgment is a step in the right direction," Mr. Nindi-Thsiani said. ANTHEM, INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over Demutualization ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is defending a certified class action filed as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance. The Company said, "The lawsuit names Anthem Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem Insurance's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of Anthem Insurance from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance distributed the fair value of the company at the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong ESMs. "A trial on liability was held in October 2014. In June 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance on all issues, finding that (1) Anthem Insurance correctly determined the State of Connecticut to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (2) Anthem Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a presumption that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual obligation. "In July 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered for Anthem Insurance. In December 2015, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided it would hear the appeal directly rather than the appeal going to the intermediate appellate court. A date for argument has not been set. We intend to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." ANTHEM, INC: 11 Actions Over OON Reimbursement Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who received OON services for which the defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers, the American Podiatric Medical Association, California Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations, and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies. The Company said, "We filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those amended complaints, which were granted in part and denied in part. The most recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice." "The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. "The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff. Fact discovery is complete. "The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in November 2013 seeking six different classes. Following oral argument, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in late 2014. "The California subscriber plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with more narrowly defined proposed classes, which the court denied. All but two of the individually named subscribers and all of the providers and medical associations dismissed their claims with prejudice. "We filed a motion for summary judgment in March 2016. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." ANTHEM, INC: Still Defending Blue Cross Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. "Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has commenced. We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined," the Company said. ANTHEM, INC: Motion to Dismiss Cyber Attack Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a second amended complaint filed in the litigation related to a cyber attack incident remains pending. The Company said, "In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers gained unauthorized access to certain of our information technology systems and obtained personal information related to many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health care identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no assurance can be given that we will not identify additional information that was accessed or obtained." "We have continued to implement security enhancements since this incident and are supporting federal law enforcement efforts to identify the responsible parties. Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify solutions based on the evolving landscape. We are providing credit monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been affected by this cyber attack. We have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. We will recognize these expenses in the periods in which they are incurred. "Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of current or former members, current or former employees, other individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. State and federal agencies, including state insurance regulators, state attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. "Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations. With respect to the civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in February 2015 and was subsequently heard by the Panel in May 2015. "In June 2015, the Panel entered its order transferring the consolidated matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The U.S. District Court entered its case management order in September 2015. "We filed a motion to dismiss ten of the counts that are before the U.S. District Court. In February 2016, the Court issued its order granting in part and denying in part our motion, dismissing three counts with prejudice, four counts without prejudice and allowing three counts to proceed. "Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in March 2016, and we subsequently filed a second motion to dismiss. There remain a few state court cases that are presently proceeding outside of the Multidistrict Litigation. "We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain expenses and potential liabilities of this nature. The coverage has been sufficient to cover the majority of claims and liabilities incurred to date. While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved." APOLLO COMMERCIAL: To Defend Against Merger Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits related to a merger agreement. On February 26, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("AMTG"), and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc., a Maryland corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger Sub"), pursuant to which the Company will acquire AMTG for an aggregate purchase price equal to 89.25% of AMTG's book value as of a future determination date, plus the assumption of $172,500 of AMTG's 8.0% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Perpetual Preferred Stock (the "AMTG Preferred Stock"). After the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement, two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger, captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532 and Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on March 7 and March 21, 2016, respectively. The complaints name as defendants the Company, Merger Sub, AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC and allege, among other things, that the members of the AMTG Board breached their fiduciary duties to AMTG's stockholders. The complaints further allege, among other things, that the proposed merger involves inadequate consideration, was the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints also allege that the Company, Merger Sub, and Apollo Global Management, LLC aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek, among other things, certification of the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the mergers, unspecified damages, and an award of other unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs. On April 12, 2016, counsel for the parties filed with the Court a stipulation and proposed order of consolidation and appointment of interim lead counsel in both actions, which provides that plaintiffs will file an amended complaint by April 20, 2016. On April 20, 2016, counsel for the parties filed an amended stipulation and proposed order, which provides that plaintiffs will file an amended complaint by April 27, 2016. The defendants believe that the claims asserted in the complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits. APPLUS VELOSI: Employee Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that a welding and electrical inspector alleges his employer did not pay him overtime wages and has filed a class-action suit. David Erwin filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on April 21 in the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas against Applus Velosi America LLC alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked for more than 40 hours per work week but did not receive any overtime compensation. The plaintiff holds Applus Velosi America LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly misclassified its employees in order to avoid paying them overtime compensation. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked, liquidated damages equal to the unpaid overtime wages, all legal fees and any other relief as this court deems just. He is represented by Galvin B. Kennedy of Kennedy Hodges LLP in Houston. Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number 3:16-cv-00105 ATCO STRUCTURES: "Griggs" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Kerry Griggs, Daniel Reyes, Cynthia Welch, Steven Crites, Joanne Lewis, Shaina Funke and Linda Murray, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ATCO Structures Logistics (USA) Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01331 (S.D. Tex., May 11, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, North Dakota Century Code and North Dakota Minimum Wage and Work Conditions Order. ATCO is registered with the Texas Secretary of State as a Foreign For-Profit Corporation with its United States Head Office at 1105 North Temple Drive, Diboll, Texas 75941. It provides workforce housing and camp services to customers worldwide including the Williston Lodge that houses workers in the Bakken oilfield in North Dakota where Plaintiffs worked as cooks and claim to be denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Tel: (201) 630-0000 Fax: (855) 582-5297 Email: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Charles W. Branham, III, Esq. Corinna Chandler, Esq. DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP 3900 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226 Tel: (214) 722-5990 Fax: (214) 722-5991 Email: tbranham@dobllp.com cchandler@dobllp.com BALTIMORE, MA: Judge Tosses Maintenance Workers' Defamation Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yvonne Wenger, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a Baltimore Circuit Court judge on May 11 dismissed a defamation case against women who alleged maintenance workers at public housing units demanded sex before making repairs, according to the women's attorney. Lawyer Cary J. Hansel said Judge Shannon E. Avery threw out the case in which two former Housing Authority of Baltimore City handymen said they were wrongly fired based on false allegations that a group of 17 women made for financial gain. "The Circuit Court ruling stands in staunch support of these brave women," Ms. Hansel said in a statement. "We have full faith in our clients and we are thrilled that the Court saw that the case against them had absolutely no merit." Kerrie A. Campbell, an attorney for the former maintenance men Charles Coleman and Michael Robinson, said the men have not decided what next step to take. She said the case was dismissed, not on the merits of their argument, but on a legal technicality. "The dismissal has nothing to do with the facts of the case," Ms. Campbell said. Messrs. Coleman and Robinson were seeking $6 million for compensatory damages and $30 million from each of the defendants for punitive damages. Ms. Hansel said the dismissal of the case "helps to bring closure to each of our clients." The housing authority reached a settlement worth up to $8 million in a class-action suit brought in September by the group of women. The women said they were sexually abused or harassed by Mr. Coleman, Mr. Robinson and other members of the maintenance staff while living in Baltimore public housing complexes. When the women did not comply with the demands, they say they were exposed to unsafe living conditions, including lack of heat. Mr. Coleman was hired by the housing authority in 2002 and worked as a maintenance supervisor. Mr. Robinson was hired in 1991 as a maintenance mechanic. The men claimed the women's allegations cast them in a false light and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. The defamation case was filed in the city Circuit Court in late January. Messrs. Coleman and Robinson said the women wrongly portrayed them "to be unprofessional and sexual predators." As a result of the women's suit, the housing authority pledged to make sweeping changes, including creating 50 more maintenance positions and developing a plan to improve the housing complexes. Coleman and Robinson were fired as a condition of the settlement. Mr. Hansel said he is working with the housing authority to retain a third-party administer in the class-action suit. Other tenants who say they, too, were sexually abused or harassed can join the suit and share in the settlement. Details on how additional tenants can join the suit are pending. A notice on how they could do so might be provided as early as this month. "We are pressing to move things as quickly as possible," Mr. Hansel said. BARCLAYS BANK: "Doherty" Sues Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------- Michael Doherty, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Barclays Bank Delaware, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01131-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal., May 11, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant called cellular telephone numbers of the Plaintiff using an autodialer without prior consent from the Plaintiff. The voice over the phone called in to collect a credit card debt which the Plaintiff denies was his. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas J. Campion, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC 17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 299-2091 Facsimile: (619) 858-0034 Email: Doug@DJCampion.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Daniel G. Shay, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY 409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Facsimile: (866) 431-3292 Email: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com BLITT & GAINES: Faces Class Action Over Wage Garnishments --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Hadley, writing for Madison St. Clair Record, reports that a Madison County woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against a firm that allegedly collects wage garnishments after the underlying actions have expired. Vickie Lampkins filed the lawsuit May 5 in Madison County Circuit Court against Blitt & Gaines P.C. and Credit Acceptance Corp., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, abuse of process and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, after an Oct. 31, 2005 ruling in Madison County Circuit Court against Ms. Lampkins for $5,541, Credit Acceptance Corp. requested garnishment of her wages to settle the judgment. Once the ruling became dormant and unenforceable on Oct. 31, 2012, the suit says wage garnishment was legally supposed to end. However, the defendants continued presenting garnishment requests to the plaintiff's employer, allegedly in violation of the law. Ms. Lampkins seeks punitive damages for herself and other class members in excess of $50,000. She is represented by attorney John Sholar of Sholar Law in Alton. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Six Lawsuits Lodged in Pradaxa Docket ----------------------------------------------------------- The following lawsuits were lodged in the Consolidated Pradaxa Docket at the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford on April 29, 2016: (i) EDWARD AMMEEN, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Defendant. (ii) ALEXANDRA BITTNER, INDIVIDUALLY, AS SURVIVING SPOUSE, AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT BITTNER, SR., Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Defendants. (iii) EMMA JOISE BLOCKER, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GmbH, Defendants. (iv) BETTY JEAN BOWERS, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; and BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Defendants. (v) PLAINTIFF, BRIAN MOSS, AS SURVIVING CHILD AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BILLY MOSS, DECEDENT, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Defendants. (vi) JEANETTE BRODEN, Plaintiff, vs. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., AND BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, Defendants. Boehringer and Boehringer International are in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa(R). The Plaintiffs allege (1) Violation of Connecticut Product Liability Act and (2) violation of Connecticut General Statute against Defendants in relation to their: -- Over Promotion of Pradaxa(R) -- Failure to Warn of the Risks Associated with Pradaxa(R) -- Defective Design, Marketing, and Manufacturing of Pradaxa(R) -- Misrepresentations of the Risks Associated with Pradaxa(R) -- Concealment of Pradaxa(R) Claims from Plaintiff; and -- Resulting Injuries from the Use of Pradaxa(R) Thus, the Plaintiffs pray for a trial by jury where the following relief will be awarded: Judgment be entered against all Defendants on all causes of action of this Complaint; Compensatory damages; Punitive damages; Costs; and Such other relief the Court deems as just and appropriate. Plaintiff Edward Ammeen is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: 800-521-4492 Fax: 214-526-6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com Plaintiff ALEXANDRA BITTNER is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - C. Andrew Childers CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC 1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30319 Phone: 404-419-9500 Fax: 404-419-9501 E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com Plaintiff EMMA JOISE BLOCKER is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: 800-521-4492 Fax: 214-526-6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com Plaintiff BETTY JEAN BOWERS is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - C. Andrew Childers CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC 1932 N. Druid Hills Road, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30319 Phone: 404-419-9500 Fax: 404-419-9501 E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com Plaintiff BRIAN MOSS is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: 800-521-4492 Fax: 214-526-6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com Plaintiff JEANETTE BRODEN is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Phone: 203-610-6393 Fax: 203-610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: 800-521-4492 Fax: 214-526-6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Company and Officers Face New York Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brixmor Property Group Inc. and Brixmor Operating Partnership LP said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and the former officers on March 31, 2016, were named as defendants in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The complaint, captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefit Funds v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., et al. (Case No. 16-CV-02400 (AT), asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on the facts described in the Company's February 8, 2016 press release and Form 8-K. Additional securities class action complaints alleging the same or similar facts may be filed in the near future, and the Company expects that all such cases will be consolidated with the existing action pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The Company believes it has valid defenses in this action and intends to vigorously defend itself. Brixmor Property Group Inc. engages in the ownership, management, leasing, acquisition and development of retail shopping centers. BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- John Perry Cook, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Buckeye, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00424-LAM-GJF (D.N.M., May 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Cook was employed by Buckeye as a mud engineer. He claims to have worked in excess of forty hours a week without receiving any overtime compensation. Buckeye is an oilfield services company doing business in New Mexico and Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Milad K. Farah, Esq. GUERRA & FARAH, PLLC 1231 E Missouri Ave. El Paso, TX 79902 Tel: (915) 533-0880 Fax: (915) 533-1155 Email: mkf@gflawoffices.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8. Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel. 713-877-8788 Fax. 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com CABLEVISION: Begins Payouts in Set-Top Box Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Frankel, writing for FierceCable, reports that following six years of litigation in which class-actioners successfully sued Cablevision over their anti-trust claim that the MSO restricts them from using cheaper third-party set-top boxes, the payouts have finally begun. And let's just say nobody's getting rich except -- of course -- the lawyers. Current Cablevision customers who leased a set-top from the MSO between April 30, 2004 and March 9, 2016 can receive service credits valued at $50 to $140 or a one-time bill credit ranging from $20 to $40. Former customers who leased a box during the eligibility window can receive a one-time cash benefit of $20 to $40. The settlement, which was announced in December, more than a month before the FCC announced its "Unlock the Box" proposal, also obligates Cablevision to open its systems to certain third-party set-top box providers. It's unclear as to how this mandate proceeds, given the regulatory backdrop and the purchase of Cablevision by Altice NV. Cablevision also agreed to pay $9.5 million in attorneys' fees for the six-year-old anti-trust case that involves Cablevision customers in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. CARESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Wilkes and Benjamin Wilkes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Caresource Management Group Co., and Caresource Indiana, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00038-RL-PRC (N.D. Ind., May 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. The Defendants operate a nonprofit managed health care plan headquartered in Dayton, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Pavlack PAVLACK LAW, LLC 255 N. Alabama St., Ste. 301 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 251-1100 E-mail: Eric@PavlackLawFirm.com - and - James R. Schrier, Esq. REILING TEDER & SCHRIER, LLC Renaissance Place, Sixth Floor 250 Main Street, Suite 601 P.O. Box 280 Lafayette, IN 47902-0280 Telephone: (765) 423-5333 E-mail: jrs@rtslawfirm.com - and - Jason R. Reese, Esq. Stephen M. Wagner, Esq. WAGNER REESE LLP 11939 North Meridian Street Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 569-0000 E-mail: JReese@wagnerreese.com SWagner@wagnerreese.com CARMAX INC: Claims Remain in "Fowler" Case in California -------------------------------------------------------- CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2016, that there are remaining claims in the consolidated class action lawsuit by John Fowler. On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On November 21, 2011, the court granted CarMax's motion to compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual basis. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration. On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. On February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of Appeal for further consideration. The California Court of Appeal determined that the plaintiffs' Labor Code Private Attorney General Act claim is not subject to arbitration, but the remaining claims are subject to arbitration on an individual basis. CarMax appealed this decision with respect to the Private Attorney General Act claim on March 9, 2015 by filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On April 22, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. On August 20, 2015, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied. On March 30, 2016, the remaining claims asserted by Fowler were settled for an immaterial amount. The non-Private Attorney General Act claims asserted by Areso are subject to arbitration. Areso's Private Attorney General Act claim is stayed in the California state court, pending arbitration. Once the stay is removed, the Private Attorney General Act claim, now asserted solely by Areso, may proceed in the California state court. The Areso lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in this matter," the Company said. CASHLESS PAYMENTS: Bid to Certify "Able Home" Class Stricken ------------------------------------------------------------ The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 18, 2016, in the case entitled Able Home Health, LLC v. Cashless Payments, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04461 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan. The minute entry states that: -- a status hearing was held and continued to June 22, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.; -- Defendants' request for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead is granted to and including June 17, 2016; and -- as stated on the record, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken without prejudice to reinstate a later date. The Plaintiff has preserved its right. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2gYG7R57 CASSWAY CONTRACTING: Faces "Redwood" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Redwood and Eduardo Redwood,on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cassway Contracting Corp., JS & JR Construction Corp., James Cassidy, Jose Luis Suarez, and Jackson Ramone, Case No. 1:16-cv-03502 (S.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cassway Contracting Corp. operates a carpentry construction company based out of New York. JS & JR Construction Corp. is a New York corporation that provides subcontracting services to Cassway. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548 Facsimile: (212) 688-5639 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com CATALINA CHANNEL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------- Monte Beard and Rigoberto Rosales, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC620021 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks. Catalina Channel Express, Inc. operates a business that provides ferry service to customers in Long Beach, Dana Point, San Pedro, and Catalina Island areas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Monrad, Esq. LEONARD CARDER, LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 272-0169 Facsimile: (510) 272-0174 E-mail: pmonrad@leonardcarder.com CATHOLIC HEALTH: "Chavies" Sues Over Under-funded Pension Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Albert R. Chavies and Thomas Holland, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Catholic Health East Plans, Plaintiffs, v. Catholic Health East, Anthony Camaratto, Clayton Fitzhugh and John and Jane Does 1-20, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01417-PJM (E.D. Pa,., March 28, 2016) has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs participated in the pension plan maintained by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant violated reporting and disclosure provisions, minimum funding requirements and trust requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Catholic Health East is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation operating in 11 states. It owns and operates hospitals, health care facilities, health/hospice agencies, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, behavioral health and rehabilitation facilities and numerous ambulatory and community based health services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Havila Unrein, Esq. Matthew M. Gerend, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com - and - Ron Kilgard, Esq. Laurie Ashton, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK P.L.C. 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: (602) 248-0088 Fax: (602) 248- 2822 Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com lashton@kellerrohrback.com - and - Casey Preston, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLER & TOLL PLLC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-479-5700 Fax: 267-479-5701 Email: cpreston@cohenmilstein.com - and - Karen L. Handorf, Esq. Bruce F. Rinaldi, Esq. Monya M. Bunch, Esq. Matthew A. Smith, Esq. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com mbunch@cohenmilstein.com brinaldi@cohenmilstein.com msmith@cohenmilstein.com CEMEX SAB: Unit Still Faces Homeowner's Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a unit of the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed by a homeowner. On June 21, 2012, one of CEMEX's subsidiaries in Israel was notified about an application for the approval of a class action suit against it. The application, filed by a homeowner who built his house with concrete supplied by CEMEX in October of 2010 (same application was filed against three other companies by the same legal representative), claims that the concrete supplied to him did not meet with the Israeli ready-mix strength standard requirements and that as a result CEMEX acted unlawfully toward all of its customers who received concrete that did not comply with such standard requirements. As per the application, the plaintiff claims that the supply of the alleged non-conforming concrete has caused financial and non-financial damages to those customers, including the plaintiff. CEMEX presumes that the class action would represent the claim of all the clients who purchased the alleged non-conforming concrete from its subsidiary in Israel during the past 7 years, the limitation period according to applicable laws in Israel. The damages that could be sought amount and equivalent to approximately US$71 (Ps1,223). CEMEX's subsidiary submitted a formal response to the corresponding court. The applicant requested the court to join all claims brought by him. In a hearing held on December 20, 2015, the preliminary proceeding was completed and the court set dates for hearing evidence on May 8, 10 and 16, 2016. Moreover, the court decided to join together all claims against all four companies, including CEMEX's subsidiary in Israel, in order to simplify and shorten court proceedings, however, the court has not formally decided to join together all claims. As of December 31, 2015, CEMEX's subsidiary in Israel is not able to assess the likelihood of the class action application being approved or, if approved, of an adverse result, such as an award for damages in the full amount that could be sought, but if adversely resolved CEMEX does not believe that the final resolutions would have a material adverse impact on its results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Hampton Seeks Certification of Two Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that the action styled NIKYAMICHA HAMPTON and MARQUINE S. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04693 (N.D. Ill.), alleging violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, be certified as a class action. The Plaintiffs define the classes to be certified as: All persons who worked for Defendant as telephone dedicated employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in full, on an hourly basis in Illinois at any time between April 27, 2013 and the present who did not receive the full amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them (the "IMWL Class"). All persons who worked for Defendant as telephone dedicated employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in full, on an hourly basis in Illinois at any time between April 27, 2006 and the present whose hourly rate exceeded the applicable Illinois minimum wage and who did not receive the full amount of wages earned and owed to them (herein the "IWPCA Class"). The Plaintiffs further ask that their counsel be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ubp6YFHn The Plaintiffs are represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Livonia Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the City of Livonia plaintiff has amended its complaint related to the Company's merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc., to add additional factual allegations. On January 25, 2016, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc. On February 22, 2016, two putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan by individuals purporting to be a shareholder of Talmer. The actions are styled Regina Gertel Lee v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et. al., Case No. 2016-151642-CB and City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation et. al., Case No. 2016-151641-CB. These complaints purport to be brought derivatively on behalf of Talmer against the individual defendants, and individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Talmer and Chemical. The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of Talmer breached their fiduciary duties to Talmer's shareholders in connection with the merger by approving a transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that undervalues Talmer and includes preclusive deal protection provisions, and that Chemical allegedly aided and abetted the Talmer directors in breaching their duties to Talmer's shareholders. The complaints also allege that the individual defendants have been unjustly enriched. Both complaints seek various remedies on behalf of the putative class (consisting of all shareholders of Talmer who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant). They request, among other things, that the Court enjoin the merger from being consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, direct the Talmer directors to exercise their fiduciary duties, rescind the merger agreement to the extent that it is already implemented, award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each respective action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper. The City of Livonia plaintiff amended its complaint on April 21, 2016 to add additional factual allegations, including but not limited to allegations that Keefe Bruyette & Woods, Inc. served as a financial advisor for the proposed merger despite an alleged conflict of interest, that Talmer's board acted under actual or potential conflicts of interest, and that the defendants omitted and/or misrepresented material information about the proposed merger in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger. Talmer, Chemical and the individual defendants all believe that the claims asserted against each of them in the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Bushansky" Lawsuit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the "Bushansky" lawsuit has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants. On January 25, 2016, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc. On March 22, 2016, a putative class action and derivative complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County, Michigan, by an individual purporting to be a shareholder of Talmer, styled Stephen Bushansky v. Gary Torgow et. al. Case No. 2016-152112-CB. This action contained similar allegations, claims, and requests for relief as the complaints filed in the Lee and City of Livonia lawsuits. The Bushansky lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without prejudice, on April 18, 2016. CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Defending "Sciabacucchi" Action in Michigan --------------------------------------------------------------- Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is defending against the lawsuit by Matthew Sciabacucchi related to the merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc. On January 25, 2016, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc. On April 6, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by another purported shareholder of Talmer, styled Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Chemical Financial Corporation et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11261. Mr. Sciabacucchi purports to bring this action "on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated." This lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, naming Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger. The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction, rescind the transaction if it is consummated or award rescissory damages, order the Talmer directors to file a revised Registration Statement, declare that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, award the plaintiff all costs associated with bringing the action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper. Talmer, Chemical and the individual defendants all believe that the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Nicholl" Suit in E.D. Mich. ------------------------------------------------------ Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is defending against the action by Kevin Nicholl related to the Company's merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc. On January 25, 2016, the Corporation entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Talmer Bancorp, Inc. On April 25, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by another purported shareholder of Talmer, styled Kevin Nicholl v. Chemical Financial Corporation et. al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-11482. The plaintiff names Talmer, Chemical, and several individuals as defendants. This lawsuit is styled as a class action and derivative action, and alleges breach of fiduciary duties as well as violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors of Talmer by, among other things, entering into the proposed merger under various alleged conflicts of interest without regard to the fairness of the transaction to Talmer's shareholders, using a flawed process in entering into the proposed merger that failed to maximize value for Talmer shareholders, and knowingly or recklessly attempting to unfairly deprive the Talmer shareholders of the true value of their investment in Talmer. The Complaint further alleges that the individual defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger, in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and/or were control persons liable for these alleged violations under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Complaint alleges that Chemical aided and abetted the alleged wrongdoing of the individual defendants, as described in the Complaint. The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among other things, that the Court certify the action as a class and derivative action, declare that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in entering into the transaction, direct the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of Talmer's shareholders, enjoin the proposed transaction unless an appropriate procedure or process is implemented to provide the best terms to Talmer's shareholders, rescind the transaction if it is consummated, award the plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further equitable relief as the court deems just and proper. Talmer, Chemical and the individual defendants all believe that the claims asserted against each of them in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. CHEVIOT FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in MainSource Merger Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Cheviot Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, that a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") has been reached regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of November 23, 2015, between Cheviot Financial Corp. ("Cheviot") and MainSource Financial Group, Inc. ("MainSource"), pursuant to which Cheviot would be merged with and into MainSource, with MainSource as the surviving entity (the "Merger"). The MOU relates to two putative class action lawsuits filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton, Ohio, Civil Division, challenging the proposed merger and naming as defendants Cheviot, its directors, and MainSource (collectively, the "defendants"). These actions are captioned: (1) Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359 (filed January 15, 2016); and (2) Stephen Bushansky v. Steven Hausfeld, et al., Case No. A1600936 (filed February 16, 2016) (together, the "Actions"). On February 29, 2016, each plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the actions under Raymond J. Neiheisel v. Cheviot Financial Corp., et al., Case No. A1600359 (collectively, the "Actions"). The amended consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Cheviot breached their fiduciary duties of due care, independence, good faith and fair dealing to the stockholders of Cheviot, that the consideration to be received by the stockholders is inadequate and undervalues Cheviot, 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 Cheviot, that the deal protection devices unreasonably inhibit the ability of the directors of Cheviot to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and alternatives and that the Merger Agreement involves conflicts of interest. The complaint further alleges that Cheviot and MainSource aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Cheviot. The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the registration statement on Form S- 4, initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 11, 2016 in connection with the Merger, provides materially misleading and incomplete information rendering the stockholders of Cheviot unable to make an informed decision with respect to the Merger. On April 21, 2016, defendants and lead plaintiffs entered into the MOU, which provides for the settlement of the Actions. The MOU contemplates, among other things, that Cheviot will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the merger. Although the defendants deny the allegations made in the Actions (including the amended consolidated complaint) and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, Cheviot agreed to make such supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Cheviot's stockholders. A hearing will be scheduled at which the Court of Common Pleas will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Cheviot challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that Cheviot's stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger. CHINA FINANCE: Mediation Session Scheduled for Late May 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------ China Finance Online Co. Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a mediation session is scheduled for late May 2016 in a securities class action. The Company is named as a defendant in a putative securities class action, Wang, et al., v. China Finance Online Co. Limited, 1:15- cv-07894-RMB. The original complaint was filed on June 5, 2015 in the Central District of California. The case was subsequently consolidated with several other similar actions and transferred to the Southern District of New York, where it is currently pending. The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the Company violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose certain of its transactions involving Langfang Shengshi Real Estate Development Co. Limited as related party transactions. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 8, 2016. Plaintiffs' response was due on May 6, 2016 and the Company's reply on May 13, 2016. The amended consolidated complaint also made claims under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against certain of the Company's current officers and its current and former auditors and under Exchange Act Section 20(a) against certain of its current officers and former directors. The Company and plaintiffs have agreed to submit the claims against the Company to mediation. To facilitate that effort, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all defendants other than the Company. A mediation session is scheduled for late May 2016. CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: Filed First Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in a shareholder lawsuit. The Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California filed on October 9, 2015. The Company said, "the action -- purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of their trading activities related to our ADSs from March 27, 2015 to August 20, 2015 -- alleges that certain of our statements in press releases, quarterly earnings calls, and an SEC filing contained misstatements or omissions related to our High Performance Cloud Cache platform and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act." "On January 5, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel. On February 19, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint." As the action remains in its preliminary stages, the Company's management is unable to express any opinion on the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or any estimate of the amount or range of any potential loss. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: To Defend Against "Ong" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to defend Susie Ong shareholder class action. On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint purports to state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules, based on the Company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the Company's quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the case. CHRYSLER: Recalls Jeep Grand Cherokee 2016 Models ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 27, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 2095 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016188TC ID number: 2016188 Manufacturer recall number: S28 On certain vehicles, there may be an incorrect crimp on the wire harness terminal of the brake transmission shift interlock (BTSI) solenoid. This could result in a loss of solenoid function, which could cause the transmission to lock in the Park or Neutral gear without warning when the vehicle comes to a stop. Depending on the driver's reactions and traffic conditions, this could increase the risk of a crash resulting in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the gear shifter assembly. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 2016 CHRYSLER: Recalls 150 Units of RAM Promaster 2014, 2015 Trucks -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 27, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 150 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016187TC ID number: 2016187 Manufacturer recall number: S22 Certain vehicles equipped with a trailer tow lighting control module may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. The trailer tow lighting control module may contain a software error that may result in inoperative trailer brake lights after the first actuation of the brakes, which is contrary to the standard. Towing a trailer with inoperative brake lights may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the Trailer Tow Light Control Module. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- RAM PROMASTER 2014, 2015 CHRYSLER: Recalls 9,022 Units of RAM Promaster 2014, 2015 Trucks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 29, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van Notification type: Service Campaign Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 9022 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016193TC ID number: 2016193 Manufacturer recall number: S29 A safety defect may exist in some aftermarket Trailer Tow Light Control Modules supplied by Mopar as a service replacement part. The trailer tow lighting control module may contain a software error that may result in inoperative trailer brake lights after the first actuation of the brakes. Towing a trailer with inoperative brake lights may increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: FCA Canada will notify owners who may have a suspect Trailer Tow Kit, and replace the Trailer Tow Light Control Module if required. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- RAM PROMASTER 2014, 2015 DELTA AIR: Lopez Seeks Certification of Class of LAX Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled REYNALDO LOPEZ, an individual; EUNICE DELGADILLO, an individual; UMBERTO MENDOZA, an individual; AVEIA TAUTOLO, an individual; and LADONA NARR, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-07302-SVW-SS (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify this class: all persons employed by Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc., as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at Los Angeles International Airport ("LAX") at any time from July 1, 2011 through the date of the order granting class certification. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify these nine subclasses: 1. Meal Period Subclass A: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification, who worked at least one shift over 5 hours; 2. Meal Period Subclass B: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification, who worked at least one shift over 10 hours; 3. Rest Period Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification, who worked at least one shift over 3.5 hours; 4. UCL Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification; 5. Minimum Wage Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification, who were not paid for all time they were clocked in, as indicated in Delta's time and pay records; 6. Overtime Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification, who worked over 8 hours in any day and/or over 40 hours in any work week and were not paid overtime compensation for all time they were clocked in, as indicated by Delta's time and pay records; 7. Regular Rate Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification, who were paid a shift differential and/or non-discretionary bonus during one or more pay periods in which they were also paid overtime; 8. Reimbursement Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and 125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification, who paid for uniform items, had to use their personal cell phone for work related purposes, and were not reimbursed by Delta for such costs; and 9. Wage Statement Subclass: All persons employed by Delta as non-exempt employees in Departments 120 and125 at LAX at any time from July 1, 2011 until the date of the order granting class certification, who were issued wage statements that did not accurately show all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. In the event the Court finds the class or any of the subclasses suitable for class treatment, the Plaintiffs also seek certification of these derivative claims: (a) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (b) failure to maintain required records; (c) failure to furnish accurate, itemized wage statements; and (d) unfair business practices. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint them as representatives of the class and appoint Matern Law Group as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on August 1, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x491uwH6 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia R. Khalili, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Serena M. Patel, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com spatel@maternlawgroup.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Faces Securities Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on May 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft shareholders ("Deutsche Bank" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv- 03539, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank securities between April 15, 2013 and April 29, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Deutsche Bank securities during the Class Period, you have until July 11, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Deutsche Bank provides investment, financial, and related products and services worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Deutsche Bank has serious and systemic failings in its controls against financing terrorism, money laundering, aiding against international sanctions, and committing financial crimes; (2) Deutsche Bank's internal control over financial reporting and its disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and (3) as a result, Deutsche Bank's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 22, 2014, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Deutsche Bank Suffers From Litany of Reporting Problems, Regulators Said", stating that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the Company's U.S. operations suffered from a litany of serious financial-reporting problems that the Company had known about for years but not fixed. On this news, shares of Deutsche Bank fell $1.05 per share or approximately 3% from its previous closing price to close at $34.80 per share on July 22, 2014, damaging investors. Over the next two years, more compliance issues at Deutsche Bank came to light, as media outlets and the Company reported investigations by regulators and an internal probe by Deutsche Bank into possible money laundering by Russian clients, causing Deutsche Bank's share price to fall and damaging investors. Finally, on May 1, 2016, The Financial Times published an article entitled "FCA warns Deutsche on 'serious' financial crime control issues", stating that the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA") sent a letter to Deutsche Bank on March 2, 2015, accusing it of having "serious" and "systemic" failings in its controls against financing terrorism, money laundering, aiding against international sanctions, and committing financial crimes. The FCA stated that its investigation uncovered, among other things, incomplete documentations, lack of monitoring, and influencing staff to take actions related to specific clients, which all amounted to a "serious" and "systemic" controls failure. On May 1, 2016, Bloomberg published a similar article entitled "Deutsche Bank Said to Be Faulted by FCA Over Lax Client Vetting", stating that the FCA faulted the Company for "serious" lapses in efforts to thwart money laundering and criticized the Company's ability to verify client's abilities and goals, or ensure that it wasn't aiding organizations subject to international sanctions. On this news, shares of Deutsche Bank fell $1.62 per share or approximately 9% over the next two trading days to close at $17.34 per share on May 3, 2016, damaging investors. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. DEUTSCHE BANK: $120-Mil. Settlement of CDS Antitrust Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft 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 the Company's $120 million settlement to resolve a Credit Default Swap antitrust litigation in the U.S. remains pending. On July 1, 2013, the European Commission (EC) issued a Statement of Objections (the "SO") against Deutsche Bank, Markit Group Limited (Markit), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (ISDA), and twelve other banks alleging anti- competitive conduct under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 53 of the European Economic Area Agreement (the "EEA Agreement"). The SO alleged that attempts by certain entities to engage in exchange trading of unfunded credit derivatives were foreclosed by improper collective action in the period from 2006 through 2009, which constituted a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. Deutsche Bank contested the EC's preliminary conclusions during 2014 and on December 4, 2015, the EC announced the closure without action of its investigation of Deutsche Bank and the twelve other banks (but not Markit or ISDA). A multi-district civil class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Deutsche Bank and numerous other credit default swap (CDS) dealer banks, as well as Markit and ISDA. Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended class action complaint on April 11, 2014 alleging that the banks conspired with Markit and ISDA to prevent the establishment of exchange-traded CDS, with the effect of raising prices for over- the-counter CDS transactions. Plaintiffs represent a class of individuals and entities located in the United States or abroad who, during a period from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013, directly purchased CDS from or directly sold CDS to the dealer defendants in the United States. The second amended class action complaint did not specify the damages sought. Defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action complaint on May 23, 2014. On September 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On September 30, 2015, Deutsche Bank executed a settlement agreement to resolve the matter for US$120 million, which is subject to court approval. UBS Still Defending CDS Suits Cavendish Futures Fund LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that UBS AG and UBS Securities continue to defend lawsuits in the U.S. alleging that the defendants unlawfully conspired to restrain competition in and/or monopolize the market for Credit Default Swaps trading in the U.S. in order to protect the dealers' profits from trading CDS in the over-the-counter market. Between May 2013 and November 2013, several putative class action complaints were filed against multiple dealers, including UBS AG and UBS Securities, as well as Markit and ISDA, alleging violations of the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act ("Sherman Act") and common law. In January 2014 and April 2014, after the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes in U.S. federal court in New York, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired to restrain competition in and/or monopolize the market for CDS trading in the U.S. in order to protect the dealers' profits from trading CDS in the over-the-counter market. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of all purchasers and sellers of CDS that transacted directly with any of the dealer defendants since January 1, 2008, and seek unspecified trebled compensatory damages and other relief. No further updates were provided in Cavendish Futures' SEC report. DEUTSCHE BANK: Bid to Dismiss TruPS Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft 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 defendants' motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint in the Trust Preferred Securities Litigation remains pending. Deutsche Bank and certain of its affiliates and officers are the subject of a consolidated putative class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased certain trust preferred securities issued by Deutsche Bank and its affiliates between October 2006 and May 2008. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice, which dismissal was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit. On October 16, 2014, the Second Circuit denied the petition. In February 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition, vacated judgment, and remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of its recent decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. On June 16, 2015, Deutsche Bank filed a motion with the Second Circuit requesting leave to submit briefing on the question of whether the Second Circuit's prior decision in this case is consistent with the Supreme Court's Omnicare decision. On July 21, 2015, the Court of Appeals remanded the action to the district court for further consideration in light of the Omnicare decision, and denied Deutsche Bank's motion as moot. Deutsche Bank renewed its motion in the district court. The district court denied Deutsche Bank's motion as premature and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third consolidated amended complaint by October 15, 2015, with no further extensions. On October 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed their third consolidated amended complaint, wherein plaintiffs allege unquantified but substantial losses in connection with alleged class-member purchases of trust preferred securities. On December 14, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint. The motion remains pending. E. I. DU PONT: 3,500 Drinker Water Suits Pending at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that at March 31, 2016, there were approximately 3,500 drinking water lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio. DuPont used PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to manufacture some fluoropolymer resins at various sites around the world including its Washington Works plant in West Virginia. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. The company funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer; testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, the company established and put $1 million into an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the balance in the escrow amount must be at least $0.5 million; as a result, transfers of additional funds may be required periodically. The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account; at March 31, 2016, less than $1 million has been disbursed. In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users. Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. At March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, there were approximately 3,500 lawsuits pending in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). About 75 percent of the lawsuits allege personal injury claims associated only with high cholesterol and/or thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. As a result of plaintiffs' corrected pleadings and further discovery, the company has revised downward to 30 the estimated number of pending lawsuits alleging wrongful death. In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual trial. The jury awarded $1.6 milion in compensatory damages in the first individual trial, captioned Bartlett v DuPont, which was tried to a verdict in October 2015. The plaintiff alleged that exposure to PFOA in drinking water had caused kidney cancer. DuPont, through Chemours, is appealing the decision. The second matter selected for trial, Wolf v DuPont, involved allegations that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused ulcerative colitis, a confidential settlement for an inconsequential amount was reached and substantially completed in Wolf v DuPont. Three cases are scheduled for trial in 2016 starting in May, August and November, respectively; the plaintiffs in each of these cases allege exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused cancer. In January 2016, the court determined that 40 cases in which plaintiffs assert cancer claims, would be scheduled for trial in 2017, beginning in April of that year. Less than 10 percent of the 3,500 pending lawsuits involve claims that exposure to PFOA in drinking water caused cancer. DuPont, through Chemours, denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself vigorously. EDMONTON RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL: Recalls Iobenguane I123 Injection --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 28, 2016 Posting date: May 13, 2016 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-58304 Recall initiated because the product does not meet the specification results for purity. Depth of distribution: Hospitals (Clinic) Affected products: Iobenguane I123 injection DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM Not applicable Dosage form: Liquid Strength: Assay -63.81Mbq/ml Lot or serial number: #12516, Rx#171256 Recalling Firm: Edmonton Radiopharmaceutical Centre 11560 University Avenue Edmonton T6G 1Z2 Alberta CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Paid $750,000 to Vathana Settlement Fund ------------------------------------------------------------ EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has paid $750,000 to the settlement fund in the Vathana class action. In April 2009, a putative class action entitled Vathana v. EverBank was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, against EverBank on behalf of all persons who invested in certain EverBank foreign currency certificates of deposit between April 24, 2005 and April 24, 2009, whose certificates of deposit were closed by EverBank and who were allegedly improperly paid the value of the account. In May 2009, EverBank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that EverBank breached its contract with its customers by invoking the force majeure provision when closing certain foreign currency certificates of deposit, and that at the time of account closing, utilizing an improper conversion rate. On October 9, 2015, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 18, 2016. On March 29, 2016, EverBank paid $750,000 to the settlement fund pursuant to the settlement. Notices were scheduled to be sent to the class members in April 2016. EverBank Financial is a savings and loan holding company which operates primarily through its direct subsidiary, EverBank. EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Tentative Deal Reached in "West" Action ----------------------------------------------------------- EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is a party to a collective action under the FLSA entitled Anthony West and all others similarly situated under 29 USC 216(B) v. EverBank Financial Corp filed on May 19, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this collective action suit alleges that plaintiff and the class were (1) improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA (2) entitled to and not paid overtime and (3) not paid federally mandated minimum wage. The suit seeks (1) unpaid back wages, (2) liquidated damages equal to the back pay and (3) costs of the suit incurred by plaintiff. EverBank filed an answer to the complaint denying the claims. On March 22, 2016 the parties entered into a tentative settlement agreement to resolve the claims of the 19 individual opt-in plaintiffs and are finalizing the settlement agreements. EverBank Financial is a savings and loan holding company which operates primarily through its direct subsidiary, EverBank. EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Tentative Deal Reached in "Bland" Action ------------------------------------------------------------ EverBank Financial Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is party to a collective action arbitration demand under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) entitled Edward Moise, James Tyrrell, John Jahangani, Louis Andrew Doherty III, Calvin Cooper, Lemuel Bland and all others similarly situated v. EverBank and EverBank Financial Corp filed with the American Arbitration Association on September 3, 2015. The plaintiffs in this collective action arbitration allege that plaintiffs and the class were (1) improperly classified as exempt under the FLSA (2) entitled to and not paid overtime and (3) not paid federally mandated minimum wage. The demand seeks (1) unpaid back wages, (2) liquidated damages equal to the back pay and (3) costs of the suit incurred by plaintiff. On March 23, 2016 the parties entered into a tentative settlement agreement at mediation to resolve the claims of the 9 individual opt-in plaintiffs and are finalizing the settlement agreements. EverBank Financial is a savings and loan holding company which operates primarily through its direct subsidiary, EverBank. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: July 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on May 12 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all those who purchased Express Scripts Holding Company ("Express Scripts" or the "Company") securities between February 24, 2015 and March 21, 2016 (the "Class Period"), inclusive. Shareholders who have purchased Express Scripts Holding Company are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. If you purchased shares of Express Scripts Holding Company during the Class Period and suffered a loss, you may request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class no later than July 5, 2016. The filed complaint focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose the status of its relationship and contract with its most important client, Anthem, Inc. ("Anthem"). Specifically, on January 12, 2016, Anthem publicly threatened to terminate its relationship with the Company unless both parties renegotiated an agreement that would deliver more than $3 billion in annual savings to Anthem. On this news, Express Scripts' share price fell $5.89 from a closing price of $85.58 per share on January 12, 2016 to a closing price of $79.69 on January 13, 2016, a 6.9% drop. On March 21, 2016, Anthem sued Express Scripts alleging that the Company breached its contract with Anthem by failing to negotiate drug pricing terms in good faith. Anthem's complaint revealed a conflict between Express Scripts and Anthem dating back to at least February 2015, alleging that the Company was experiencing severe operational problems that interfered with its ability to adequately serve Anthem and exposed Anthem to increased regulatory scrutiny. Following this news, Express Scripts' share price fell from a closing price of $69.34 per share on March 21, 2016 to a closing price of $67.52 on March 22, 2016, an additional $1.82 drop. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our website at www.whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the "Express Scripts investigation." FACEBOOK INC: Rule 23(b)(2) Class in "Campbell" Suit Certified -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton entered an order in the lawsuit captioned MATTHEW CAMPBELL, et al. v. FACEBOOK INC., Case No. 4:13-cv-05996-PJH (N.D. Cal.), ruling that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as to the proposed Rule 23(b)(3) class, and granted as to the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) class. The Lawsuit is a privacy case involving the alleged scanning of messages sent on Facebook's social media Web site. The Plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, under Rule 23(b)(2). The Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the complaint on a limited basis, and any amended complaint must be filed no later than June 8, 2016. The court will conduct a case management conference on June 30, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K7YotoGV FACEBOOK INC: Faces Excavators Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Excavators Union Local 731 Pension and Welfare Funds and Seafarers Pension Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl K. Sandberg, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Susan D. Desmondhellmann, Reed Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter Thiel, and Facebook, Inc., Case No. 12320 (Del. Ch. Ct., May 11, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The Defendants operate an online social networking service headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Christopher Lometti, Esq. Richard A. Speirs, Esq. Kenneth M. Rehns, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 E-mail: clometti@cohenmilstein.com rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com krehns@cohenmilstein.com FACEBOOK INC: Faces Westchester Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl K. Sandberg, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Susan D. Desmondhellmann, Reed Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter Thiel, and Facebook, Inc., Case No. 12319 (Del. Ch., Ct., May 11, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The Defendants operate an online social networking service headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Grant, Esq. Cynthia A. Calder, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DA 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com ccalder@gelaw.com - and - Joseph E. White III, Esq. Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. Adam Warden, Esq. SAXENA WHITE, P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 394-3399 Facsimile: (888) 458-9055 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com jstein@saxenawhite.com awarden@saxenawhite.com FACEBOOK INC: Must Defend Against Suit Over Photo Tag Feature ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Facebook can't duck claims that it violated users' privacy by analyzing and storing data on facial features from uploaded photos, a federal judge in San Francisco has ruled. Three plaintiffs from the Chicago area -- Nimash Patel, Adam Pezen and Carlo Licata -- filed separate suits against the social media giant in Illinois last year. The cases were combined and transferred to the Northern District of California this past summer. The three men say Facebook's "Photo Tag Suggest" function, which uses facial recognition software to analyze and collect facial geometry data, violates Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). The Illinois law, enacted in 2008, prohibits collecting or disclosing biometric data, such as an iris or retina scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, hand scan or facial geometry, without a person's permission. In a May 5 ruling, U.S. District Judge James Donato refused to dismiss the class action, finding the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Facebook had analyzed and stored their facial data without their blessing. "The court accepts as true plaintiffs' allegations that Facebook's face recognition technology involves a scan of face geometry that was done without plaintiffs' consent," Donato wrote in his 22-page ruling. Facebook had argued the Illinois law specifically excluded photos, along with writing samples, signatures and physical descriptors like height and weight, as items that do not qualify as biometric information. However, the judge found the facial geometry of individuals derived from photo scans is considered a piece of biometric data under BIPA. The judge cited a 2015 Northern District of Illinois ruling, Norberg v. Shutterfly, which denied a motion to dismiss based on the same argument that BIPA excludes biometric identifiers obtained from photographs. Donato also rejected Facebook's request to have California law, rather than Illinois law, govern the class action claims. The judge found that all three men had agreed to Facebook's terms of use, which require claims against it be governed by California law. However, enforcing that provision would hamper Illinois' interests in protecting its citizens' privacy rights, Donato concluded. Factors for deciding choice of law weighed more heavily toward Illinois, in part because California lacks a similar privacy law, Donato found. Attorneys Paul Gellar and Shawn Williams of Robins Gellar Rudman & Dowd in San Francisco and Boca Raton, Florida, did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment May 12, morning. Facebook did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment May 12. Android phone users filed a similar lawsuit in March, accusing Google of extracting biometric data from pictures uploaded to its cloud-based photo service. The case captioned, IN RE FACEBOOK BIOMETRIC INFORMATION PRIVACY LITIGATION., Case No. 15-cv-03747-JD (N.D. Cal.) FIRST NATIONAL: Settling Antonik & Saxe Suits for $750,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- First National Community Bancorp, 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 has reached a deal to resolve both the Antonik and Saxe class action lawsuits for a combined $750,000, which settlement has gained initial approval from the court. On August 13, 2013, Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A. Howells, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a consumer protection class action against the Company and Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, seeking equitable, injunction and monetary relief to address an alleged pattern and practice of wrong doing by the Bank relating to the repossession and sale of the Plaintiffs' and class members' financed motor vehicles. On December 17, 2015 the Honorable Margaret Moyle entered an Order outlining the primary terms of a tentative agreement to settle this matter, pending a finalized, more-detailed settlement agreement, class notice and a class fairness hearing, said Order covering both this matter and the matter involving Plaintiff Charles Saxe, II individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The primary terms of the tentative agreement to settle are: 1) Defendants to pay the Plaintiffs' class members, which the Defendants have stated are approximately 430 members, the total sum of $750,000; 2) Plaintiffs will release all claims against Defendants; 3) Defendants will remove to vacate any judgements against any class members arising from the vehicle loans that are the subject of these actions; 4) Defendants will remove the trade line on each class member's credit report associated with the subject vehicle loans that are at issue in these actions for Experian, Equifax and TransUnion, providing Plaintiffs' counsel with verification of such; 5) Defendants will verify that the aggregate amount received from class members by Defendants and its agents during the alleged unjust enrichment class period does not exceed $45,000; and 6) Defendants will waive the disputed deficiency balances relating to the subject loans of each class member and agree not to issue IRS Forms 1099-C in connection with these deficiency waivers or to sell, assign, or otherwise collect on the alleged deficiencies. * * * On September 17, 2013, Charles Saxe, III individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed a consumer class action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code in connection with the repossession and resale of financed vehicles. On December 17, 2015 the Honorable Margaret Moyle entered an Order outlining the primary terms of a tentative agreement to settle this matter, pending a finalized, more-detailed settlement agreement, class notice and a class fairness hearing, said Order covering both this matter and the matter involving Plaintiffs Steven Antonik, individually, as Administrator of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells, and Louise A. Howells, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. First National Community Bancorp, Inc., incorporated in 1997, is a Pennsylvania business corporation and a registered bank holding company headquartered in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. FMA ALLIANCE: Certification of Class Sought in "Devera" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned CERILINA DEVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FMA ALLIANCE, LTD., Case No. 16-cv-518 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint. According to the Motion, Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on the Plaintiff's Counsel. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. The Plaintiff contends that she is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the Plaintiff contends that the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed. Therefore, the Plaintiff asks that the Court enter an order certifying the proposed class in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jA29QiBn The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com FORMFACTOR, INC: Defendant in Lum v. Cascade Microtech Case ----------------------------------------------------------- FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that an individual plaintiff filed on March 8, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Cascade Microtech shareholders against Cascade Microtech, its directors, FormFactor and Cardinal Merger Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), in connection with Cascade Microtech, FormFactor and Merger Sub entering into the merger agreement. The lawsuit, captioned Lum v. Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., No. 16CV07293, was filed in Washington County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon. The lawsuit alleges that the individual members of Cascade Microtech's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Cascade Microtech's shareholders by approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration; approving the merger to obtain unique benefits not shared equally with other Cascade Microtech shareholders; failing to take steps to maximize the value paid to Cascade Microtech shareholders; failing to take steps to ensure a fair process leading up to the proposed merger; and agreeing to preclusive deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The lawsuit also alleges claims against FormFactor and Merger Sub for aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the individual members of Cascade Microtech's board of directors. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the merger, rescission of the merger if it is completed, an accounting by defendants, plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs, and other relief. FormFactor believes that the claims asserted are without merit. FORMFACTOR, INC: Defendant in Solak v. Cascade Microtech Case ------------------------------------------------------------- FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016, by another individual plaintiff. This lawsuit, captioned Solak v. Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., No. 16CV11809, was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon. This lawsuit makes similar allegations, including that Cascade Microtech's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cascade Microtech shareholders by failing to perform a reasonable sale process designed to obtain the best possible price for Cascade Microtech's shareholders, adopting unfair deal protections and failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow Cascade Microtech shareholders to cast a fully informed vote on the pending acquisition. The lawsuit additionally alleges that FormFactor and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Cascade Microtech directors in the breach of that fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting completion of the merger, plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs, reforming the Merger Agreement to remove deal protection provisions and other relief. FormFactor believes that the claims asserted are without merit. GAZIT-GLOBE: Hearing on Motion for Documents Disclosure Deferred ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gazit-Globe Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit against Dori Group and Dori Construction have agreed that, at this stage, the hearing on the motion for disclosure of documents would be deferred. In July and August 2014, a number of lawsuits were filed with the Economic Affairs Division of the Tel Aviv District Court requesting class action certification against Dori Construction, Dori Group, their directors and officers and their auditors, as well as against Gazit Development and Gazit-Globe itself. The motions deal with damage allegedly caused to the shareholders of Dori Construction and/or Dori Group, respectively, as a result of the publication of allegedly erroneous information by Dori Construction, including in its financial statements, and as a result of its alleged failure to report, at the required time, material adverse information concerning the financial results and the financial position of Dori Construction and, in turn, Dori Group. The grounds for the claims in the aforementioned motions include grounds under the Securities Law, 1968, among which are the inclusion of erroneous details in the financial statements and deficient and erroneous reporting, a tort of negligence under the Torts Laws, breach of statutory duty (in relation to the Securities Law and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as the Companies Law), all being with regard to the reporting of Dori Construction. The amounts of the aforesaid claims range from NIS 13 million to NIS 75 million (subject to quantifying the exact damage in the course of the hearings on the lawsuits), which are not material for the Company (including cumulatively). The aforesaid motions have been unified into a single proceeding (apart from three motions that have been dismissed). The Company and the other respondents have submitted their responses to the amended motion, subsequent to which the petitioners filed their replies and also added and lodged a motion for disclosure of documents in which the disclosure was sought of documents not belonging to the Company or Gazit Development. In December 2015, a preliminary hearing was held on the amended motion, within the framework of which the parties agreed to transfer the proceeding to mediation. The parties further agreed that, at this stage, the hearing on the motion for disclosure of documents would be deferred. At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, the chances of the lawsuit cannot be assessed. Moreover, two derivative actions were filed in 2014 against Dori Construction and Dori Group and their directors and officers in connection with a dividend distribution made by Dori Construction to its shareholders. With regard to the two motions to certify derivative actions, the court has decided that a ruling with regard to the procedural rules in these motions will be granted by it at a later date, following the filing of the unified motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. GENERAL CHEMICAL: Jefferson County Sues over Overpriced Alum ------------------------------------------------------------ Jefferson County, Alabama, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Chemtrade Solutions, LLC, Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc, C&S Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00777-SGC (N.D. Ala., May 11, 2016) seeks permanent enjoinment, damages, monetary relief, treble damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Jefferson County purchases liquid aluminum sulphate for use in the county sewage operations. Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive prices. Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey. General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300, 155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario. General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States. It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation. Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United States and Europe. Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario. Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund. Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund. GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler, Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals. C&S Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at 4180 Providence Road, Marietta, Georgia. C&S Chemicals specializes in the production of Liquid Aluminum Sulfate and Sodium Aluminate and currently operates six manufacturing facilities located in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Illinois, and Minnesota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig L. Lowell, Esq. Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 28, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Light Truck & Van, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Suspension Units affected: 432 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016190TC ID number: 2016190 Manufacturer recall number: 42190 Certain vehicles may have been built with front upper control arms with a poor quality weld near the control arm's bushing. If these welds were to fail, it could cause the upper control arm to deform or separate from the bushing, which could affect steering and directional control of the vehicle, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the left and right front upper control arms, and perform a realignment. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- CHEVROLET SUBURBAN 2016 CHEVROLET TAHOE 2016 GMC YUKON 2016 GMC SIERRA 2016 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 2016 GMC YUKON XL 2016 CADILLAC ESCALADE 2016 CADILLAC ESCALADE ESV 2016 GOLDEN DROP: "Nobles" Suit in Cal. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Nobles, Hubert Johnson, each of them individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as representative of other aggrieved employees v. Golden Drop Trucking, Inc. and Does 1-250 inclusive, Case No. BC620127 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. Golden Drop Trucking, Inc. is a California corporation that provides delivery services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary R. Carlin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP 555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818 Long Beach, CA 90802 Facsimile: (562) 435-1656 Telephone: (562) 432-8933 E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com H&R BLOCK: Fails in Bid to Send "Lopez" Suit to Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that an appellate court has affirmed a trial court's order denying a motion to compel arbitration in the Lopez Compliance Fee Litigation. The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment." "We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal. "On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further consideration of the motion. "On March 12, 2015, the trial court denied the motion on remand. We filed an additional appeal. On March 8, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. "We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter." H&R BLOCK: Summary Judgment, Class Cert. Bids Pending in "Perras" ----------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the Company's summary judgment motion and the plaintiffs' motion for class certification are pending in the case by Ronald Perras. The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff originally sought to represent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment." "In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining 2012 claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015. "In January 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims of violation of Missouri and California state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment, along with a motion to certify a class of all persons (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee in the state of California. "We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. Both motions remain pending before the court. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter." HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Sued in N.C. Over Proposed Sale to Annaly ------------------------------------------------------------- James Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hatteras Financial Corporation, David W. Berson, Michael R. Hough, Benjamin M. Hough, Ira G. Kawaller, Jeffrey D. Miller, William V. Nutt, Vicki H. Wilson-Mcelreath, Thomas D. Wren, Case No. 1:16-cv-00445 (M.D.N.C., May 11, 2016), is brought on behalf of all holders of the common stock of Hatteras Financial Corp., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Hatters by Annaly Capital Management Inc. through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Hatteras Financial Corporation is an externally managed mortgage Real Estate Investment Trust that invests in single-residential mortgage real estate assets. Headquartered in New York, Annaly Capital Management Inc. operates a real estate investment trust. The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Ward Black, Esq. WARD BLACK LAW 208 W. Wendover Ave. Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 273-3812 Facsimile: (336) 379-9415 E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Otico, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-02557-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. is a large passenger airline carrier. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alisa A. Martin, Esq. AMARTIN LAW, PC 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 308-6880 Facsimile: (619) 308-6881 E-mail: alisa@amartinlaw.com - and - Lindsay C. David, Esq. SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES 2173 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Telephone: (760) 206-3566 Facsimile: (760) 888-3575 HELIX ENERGY: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------- Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the lead plaintiff in a stockholder class action has filed an amended class action complaint. On July 31, 2015, a purported stockholder, Parviz Izadjoo, filed a class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo v. Owen Kratz and Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the Company and Mr. Kratz, our President and Chief Executive Officer, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of shares of our common stock between October 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to both us and Mr. Kratz, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Kratz based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public disclosures regarding projections for 2015 dry docks of two of our vessels working in the Gulf of Mexico that allegedly caused the price at which putative class members bought stock during the proposed class period to be artificially inflated. On January 28, 2016, the judge in the case approved a motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint, adding Mr. Tripodo, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, and Mr. Chamblee (our former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer) as individual defendants, alleging the same types of claims made in the original complaint (alleged violations during the Class Period of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 with respect to all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants), but asserting that the alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public disclosures are related to the condition of and repairs to certain equipment aboard the Q4000 vessel. We believe this lawsuit to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. HILTON CINCINNATI: Faces "Morgan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Enisha Morgan and Christa Pettyjohn, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Hilton Cincinnati Netherland Plaza, Netherland Plaza Associates, Ltd., Cincinnati Netherland Hotel LLC, John Doe 1-10 and ABC Corporation 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-00540-SJD (S.D. Ohio, May 11, 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 Hilton Cincinnati Netherland Plaza in Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen M. Myers, Esq. Alison De Villiers, Esq. Peter L. Cassady, Esq. Kimberly S. Phillips, Esq. 300 Pike Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 621-2100 Facsimile: (513) 621-0106 E-mail: kmyers@beckman-weil.com adevilliers@beckman-weil.com petercassady@beckman-weil.com kphillips@beckman-weil.com HUNTER WARFIELD: Bid to Certify "Goldstein" FDCPA Class Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. R. Gary Klausner denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned Amir J. Goldstein v. Hunter Warfield, Inc., Case No. CV 15-09319 RGK (Ex) (C.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against the Defendant alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and its California analog, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff sought certification of this class: [A]ll persons whom Defendant's records reflect resided in the state of California and who were sent collection letters (a) bearing the Defendant's letterhead which were in substantially the same form as the letter(s) sent to the Plaintiff, (b) the collection letters were sent to consumers seeking payment of a consumer debt; (c) the letters contained violations of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and/or 1692g; and (d) the letters were sent within one year of the filing of the instant Class Action Complaint. Alternatively, the Plaintiff asked that the Court reserve ruling on the Motion and allow the parties to conduct discovery on class- related issues. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=txXqFkvC ILLINOIS, USA: Court Certifies Class of Medicaid-Eligible Kids -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Charles P. Kocoras entered a memorandum opinion granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class in the lawsuit entitled O.B., et al., individually and on behalf of a class v. FELICIA F. NORWOOD, in her official capacity as Director of Healthcare and Family Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-10463 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs O.B., C.F., J.M., and S.M. bring the four-count Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and various provisions of the Social Security Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; and the Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs allege that they are Medicaid- eligible children with disabling and chronic health conditions who are "eligible for Medicaid-funded in-home shift nursing services," and that the Defendant Felicia F. Norwood, the Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, "has failed to arrange for adequate in-home shift nursing services" for the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent. The Plaintiffs seek to certify this class: All Medicaid-eligible children under the age of 21 in the State of Illinois who have been approved for in-home shift nursing services by the Defendant, but who are not receiving in-home shift nursing services at the level approved by the Defendant, including children who are enrolled in a Medicaid waiver program, such as the Medically Fragile Technology Dependent (MFTD) Waiver program, and children enrolled in the nonwaiver Medicaid program, commonly known as the Nursing and Personal Care Services (NPCS) program. The Court denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for limited class discovery on the issue of numerosity. The Court also appointed as class counsel attorneys Robert H. Farley, Jr., Esq., Thomas D. Yates, Esq., Jane Perkins, Esq., and Sarah Somers, Esq. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ndkniZhN IMPAC MORTGAGE: Baltimore Securities Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- Summary judgment motions are pending in a Baltimore class action lawsuit against Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc, et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the Company's 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection with the Company's 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an improper "vote buying" scheme, and that the tender offer was a breach of a fiduciary duty. The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses. The court, on January 28, 2013, dismissed all individual director and officer defendants from the case and further dismissed three of the six causes of action. The remaining causes of action against the Company allege the Preferred B holders did not approve amendments to its Articles Supplementary and the holders thereof seek to recover two quarters of dividends and to elect two members to the Board of Directors of the Company. On November 27, 2013, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to reconsider the court's January 28, 2013 order. The Company and Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims and motions are currently pending. IMPAC MORTGAGE: "Marentes" Class Suit in Discovery Stage -------------------------------------------------------- Impac Mortgage 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 31, 2015, that a purported class action was filed on April 30, 2012, entitled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the fees charged are improper. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and prejudgment interest. On August 22, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiff dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without prejudice. Discovery is currently proceeding in this matter. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Defending 2 NY Suits Over Sale of Unit -------------------------------------------------------------- International Business Machines Corporation is defending two class action lawsuits filed in New York, IBM disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. In March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business. The company and three of its officers are named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In May 2015, a related putative class action was also commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on the same underlying facts, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The company, management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three current or former IBM executives are named as defendants. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Set in Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 19, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no trial date has been set in the purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed April 26, 2013, and May 24, 2013. On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against a number of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013. On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their complaint. On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August 21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on November 26, 2014. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on December 15, 2014. The case is moving forward on the claims that remain, and discovery is ongoing. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015, the Company filed its opposition on October 15, 2015, and the plaintiffs filed their reply on November 16, 2015. On January 21, 2016, the court held a hearing on the motion, which remains pending. No trial date has been set. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future results of operations. ITASCA: Recalls Ellipse and Tour 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 27, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorhome Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 3 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016189TC ID number: 2016189 On certain motorhomes equipped with a heavier weight adjustable foot pedal, the brake activation signal to certain towed devices may not deactivate when the motorhome service brakes are released. If the brakes of a towed vehicle were to remained engaged, it could result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Daimler Trucks North America authorized service facilities will replace the torsion spring of the pedal assembly with an improved spring. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- ITASCA ELLIPSE 2014 WINNEBAGO TOUR 2014 JETT PRO LINE: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Bernier" -------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Cortney Bernier, et al., Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Jett Pro Line Maintenance, Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-11368-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court for an order: (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA class defined as; All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant, who (i) work/worked as station manager, lead technician, senior line technician, and junior line technician; and/or (ii) whose primary job responsibilities include general airline maintenance, worked over 40 hours in any workweek during the previous three (3) years through the date of final disposition of this case, and were not paid time and half for the hours they worked over 40 in any workweek because they were unable to take a 0.5 hour uninterrupted meal break, but still had an automatic meal period deduction taken from their compensable hours worked. (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to class members; (3) requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the Defendant at any time in any location in the United States for the three years immediately preceding the filing of the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4oJsf9s2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 6600 W. Sylvania Avenue, Suite 260 Sylvania, OH 43560 Telephone: (419) 824-4439 Facsimile: (419) 932-6719 E-mail: mbryant@bryantlegalLLC.com - and - Daniel I. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High Street Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 704-0546 Facsimile: (614) 573-9826 E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalLLC.com JPS COMPLETION: "Martinez" Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Randy Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPS Completion Fluids, Inc., Sergio Garza and Pedro Gonzales, Case No. 5:16-cv-00438-DAE (W.D. Tex., May 11, 2016) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Martinez alleges that Defendant improperly calculated his regular rate of pay and overtime premium when he was employed as an oil and gas field worker. JPS Completion Fluids, Inc. is a domestic oilfield services provider, having its principal place of business in Mathis, San Patricio County, Texas. Plaintiffs represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com KAPLAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Ridley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaitlin Ridley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kaplan International North America, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02536 (N.D. Cal., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kaplan International North America, LLC operates a facility that helps student prepare for a variety of tests such as School Admission Tests, Graduate Management Admission Tests, Graduate Record Examinations, Dental Admission Tests, Medical College Admission Tests and professional licensing exams. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com - and - Matthew David Carlson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com KINDER MORGAN: Delaware High Court Upholds Claims Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation, the Delaware Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of all claims on appeal and this matter is now concluded. Certain unitholders of KMP and EPB filed five putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in connection with the Merger Transactions, which the Court consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc. Corporate Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093-VCL). On December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which purported to assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB unitholders and the former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff alleged that (i) El Paso Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the general partner of EPB, and the directors of EPGP breached duties under the EPB partnership agreement, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB Transaction; (ii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI and individual defendants aided and abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the EPB partnership agreement by causing EPGP to breach its duties under the EPB partnership agreement. The KMP plaintiffs alleged that (i) KMR, KMGP, and individual defendants breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement, including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub LLC, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP partnership agreement by causing KMGP to breach its duties under the KMP partnership agreement. The complaint sought declaratory relief that the transactions were unlawful and unenforceable, reformation, rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages, interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On December 30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 2, 2015, the EPB plaintiff and the defendants submitted a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing to dismiss all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice as to the EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other members of the putative EPB class. The Court entered such order on April 2, 2015. On August 24, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, captioned Haynes Family Trust et al. v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al. (Case No. 515). The plaintiffs only appealed the dismissal of claims brought against defendants KMGP, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, and Perry M. Waughtal and not those asserted against KMI, P. Merger Sub LLC, Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, KMP and KMR. On March 10, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of all claims on appeal and this matter is now concluded. KLA-TENCOR: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ KLA-Tencor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the California Superior Court has set a hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement hearing for June 3, 2016. The California Class Actions. In connection with the October 21, 2015 announcement of the merger transaction, four purported KLA-Tencor stockholders filed putative class actions on behalf of all KLA-Tencor stockholders. Three actions were filed in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County and are captioned, Hedgecock v. KLA-Tencor Corp., et al., Case No. 115CV287329, Karr v. KLA-Tencor Corporation, et al., Case No. 115CV287331, (both filed on October 28, 2015) and Spoleto Corp. v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 115CV289552 (filed on December 29, 2015) (collectively, the "California Class Actions"). Plaintiffs in the Hedgecock and Karr actions filed amended complaints on December 21, 2015. The California Class Actions all name KLA-Tencor, the members of the KLA-Tencor Board, Lam Research, Merger Sub 1, and Merger Sub 2 (together with Merger Sub 1 and Lam Research, the "Lam Group") as defendants. The California Class Actions allege that the members of the KLA-Tencor Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with the Lam Group at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and by making disclosures concerning the transaction that are materially misleading. Plaintiffs allege that the Lam Group aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin or rescind KLA-Tencor's transaction with the Lam Group, as applicable, as well as an award of damages and attorneys' fees, in addition to other relief. The Delaware Chancery Court Class Action One putative class action was filed on November 10, 2015, in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and is captioned, Rooney v. Wallace, et al., Case No. 11700. On December 23, 2015, plaintiff Rooney filed an amended complaint. The Rooney action was filed against the members of the KLA-Tencor Board and similar to the California Class Actions alleges that the members of the KLA- Tencor Board breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, causing KLA-Tencor to agree to a merger transaction with Lam Research at an unfair price and pursuant to an unfair process, and by making disclosures concerning the transaction that are materially misleading. Plaintiff Rooney seeks to enjoin or rescind KLA-Tencor's transaction with Lam Research, as applicable, as well as an award of attorneys' fees, in addition to other relief. KLA- Tencor has made an accrual with respect to the Hedgecock, Spoleto and Rooney actions. Agreement in Principle to Resolve Merger-Related Litigation On or about December 29, 2015, plaintiffs in all four actions agreed to coordinate and proceed in the California Superior Court. On February 5, 2016, an agreement in principle was reached with the plaintiffs in the Rooney Action, Hedgecock Action, and Spoleto Action to settle those actions. Pursuant to the agreement in principle, as set forth in a signed memorandum of understanding, the parties agreed to resolve disputed legal claims and KLA-Tencor and Lam agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures regarding the proposed merger, as set forth in the Form 8-K filed by KLA- Tencor on February 5, 2016. None of the defendants in these actions has admitted wrongdoing of any kind, including that there were any inadequacies in any disclosure, any breach of any fiduciary duty, or aiding or abetting any of the foregoing. On February 17, 2016, the California Superior Court dismissed the Karr action pursuant to a stipulation by the parties. The agreement in principle is expected to be further memorialized in a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary terms and conditions, including court approval, and will include an agreement by the plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of KLA-Tencor stockholders, to provide a release of claims of KLA stockholders against KLA-Tencor, the Lam Group and their respective officers and directors. Following final approval of the settlement by the court, the Hedgecock, Spoleto, and Rooney actions will be dismissed. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders of KLA-Tencor in connection with the acquisition of KLA-Tencor by Lam. The California Superior Court has set a hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement hearing for June 3, 2016. KLA-Tencor has made an accrual with respect to the Hedgecock, Spoleto and Rooney actions. KLA-Tencor has determined a potential loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible; however, based on its current knowledge, KLA-Tencor does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable. KLA-Tencor Corporation is a supplier of process control and yield management solutions for the semiconductor and related nanoelectronics industries. LIAMBEN INC: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Alvaro Jimenez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Liamben, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC620230 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Liamben, Inc. provides automobile maintenance and repair services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave El Segundo, CA 90245 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com LIFE PROTECT: Hearing on Bid to Certify Class Continued to Aug. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 18, 2016, in the case styled Merrill Primack v. Life Protect 24/7, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16- cv-05249 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and continued to August 2, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.; -- the initial status hearing is set for August 2, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.; and -- the Motion hearing date of May 25, 2016, is stricken. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yhmrB3Vp M&T BANK CORP: "Habib" Sues Over Fund Mismanagement --------------------------------------------------- Sa'ud Habib, Beverly Williams, J. Marlene Smith, Kenneth Sliwinski, and Russ Dixon, individually as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the M&T Bank Corporation Retirement Savings Plan, Plaintiffs, v. M&T Bank Corporation, Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, M&T Bank Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, Wilmington Funds Management Corporation, Wilmington Trust Corporation, Janet Coletti, Michele Trolli, Mark Czarnecki, Stephen Braunscheidel, Brian Hickey, Darren King, Kevin Pearson, Michael Spychala, Brent O. Baird, C. Angela Bontempo, Robert T. Brady, T. Jefferson Cunningham III, Gary N. Geisel, John D. Hawks, Jr., Patrick W.E. Hodgson, Richard G. King, Melinda R. Rich, Robert E. Sadler, Jr., Herbert L. Washington, Robert G. Wilmers, Robert J. Bennett, Michael D. Buckley, Jorge Pereira, Colin E. Doherty, Denis J. Salamon, Newton P.S. Merrill, and John Does 1- 20, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00375 (W.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), seeks disgorgement, equitable relief, enjoinment, pre-judgment interest, attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. M&T provided a defined-contribution for its employees, including the Plaintiffs. It owns Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, Wilmington Funds Management Corporation and Wilmington Trust Corporation. Plaintiffs allege mismanagement of the pension fund by engaging in unlawful self-dealing and imprudent investment decisions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kai Richter, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. Jacob Schutz, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: 612-256-3200 Facsimile: 612-338-4878 Email: krichter@nka.com cengstrom@nka.com jschutz@nka.com MDL 2474: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held ------------------------------------------------ H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that a Missouri court was slated to hold a hearing May 19, 2016, to consider final approval of the settlement reached in the Form 8863 Litigation. The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against us in various federal courts and one state court beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using H&R Block At Home(R) online tax services or desktop tax preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence and violation of state consumer laws in connection with transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre- judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs." "In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently granted our petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG). On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate their claims. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in October 2014. We filed a motion to strike the class allegations relating to those clients who agreed to arbitration, which the court granted on January 7, 2015. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to settle the remaining claims, subject to court approval. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 12, 2016. A final approval hearing was set for May 19, 2016. A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this matter for the amount of loss that we consider probable and reasonably estimable. MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Certification of Class Sought in "Oliver" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ANTHONY OLIVER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, a Texas corporation, Case No. 2:16-CV-01100-TJH (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a class consisting of thousands of consumers. The Case is brought over alleged unauthorized automated text message calls sent to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and the class using an automatic telephone dialing system, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A hearing will be held on August 1, 2016, to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zLQGSiMs The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Parisi, Esq. Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq. PARISI & HAVENS LLP 212 Marine Street, Ste. 100 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (818) 990-1299 E-mail: dcparis@parisihavens.com shavens@parisihavens.com - and - Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com MINISTRY HEALTH CARE: Employees File Suit Over Unpaid Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------ Nate Beck, writing for Oshkosh Northwestern, reports that Ministry Health Care faces its third lawsuit in two years claiming that the healthcare company fails to pay employees properly. A class of Ministry Health Care employees claim in a lawsuit filed on May 9 that the network expects them to stay on-call during unpaid breaks, and doesn't pay them for work off-the-clock. Ministry has faced two other similar suits since February 2014, settling one last June for more than $1 million, according to court documents. In a complaint filed on May 9, employees claim that the healthcare company Affinity Health System and its parent company, Ministry Health Care, expect hourly employees that care for patients to remain near their workplace during unpaid breaks and don't pay employees when they are called back to work during breaks. "During such unpaid meal periods, the affected hourly employees are required to remain on call on the employer's premises or so close thereto that they cannot use the time effectively for their own purposes," the complaint said. Lead plaintiffs Yvette Olson, of Iola, and Carin Gretzon, of DePere, were employed at Appleton's St. Elizabeth Hospital as surgical technologists, or members of an operating room team. The complaint argues that Affinity and Ministry have employed hundreds like Ms. Olson and Ms. Gretzon. Employees at Ministry, which has offices in Milwaukee and Stevens Point, seek a jury trial in the case and bring the suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which outlines overtime pay, minimum wage and other federal work mandates. Representing Ms. Olson and Ms. Gretzon are Nathan Eisenberg and Erin Dedeiros, of the Previant Law Firm in Milwaukee, and Appleton attorney Barry Gill. Messrs. Eisenberg and Gill did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Ministry has not yet filed a response or registered attorneys in the suit. Since early 2014, Ministry has faced two other class-action FLSA lawsuits. Mr. Eisenberg and the Previant Law Firm represented Ministry employees claiming the company expected them to work unpaid during breaks. The company settled that lawsuit in June 2015, paying out more than $1 million to employees and more than $300,000 in fees and costs to attorneys Eisenberg and Gill. In August 2015, employees at Marshfield's Ministry St. Joseph Hospital represented by Eisenberg sued the company in August 2015 under similar unpaid work claims. That lawsuit is still pending. NCEP LLC: Bid to Certify Class Terminated; Hearing on June 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 18, 2016, in the case styled Ana M. Cruz v. NCEP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09282 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer. The minute entry states that the motion to certify class is terminated without prejudice to parties' proposed class-wide settlement. A status hearing is set for June 15, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kqY1CPwP NOVANT HEALTH: Judge OKs Settlement, Sept. 23 Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. William Lindsay Osteen, Jr., entered a findings and order preliminarily certifying a class for settlement purposes in the lawsuit styled KAROLYN KRUGER, M.D., CANDACE CULTON, FRANCES BAILLIE, EILEEN SCHNEIDER, JUDY LEWIS, LINDA CHRISTENSEN, and TERESA POWELL, individually as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Novant Health Retirement Plus Plan v. NOVANT HEALTH, INC., ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF NOVANT HEALTH, INC., NOVANT HEALTH RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-40, Case No. 1:14CV208 (M.D.N.C). The Court also appoints Schlichter, Bogard & Denton as Class Counsel. The litigation arose out of claims involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the Savings and Supplemental Retirement Plan of Novant Health, Inc. and the Tax Deferred Savings Plan of Novant Health, Inc. Solely for the purposes of proposed settlement in this matter, the Court preliminarily finds that the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution, the Rules of the Court and any other applicable law have been met as to the certification of the "Settlement Class," defined as: All current and former participants and beneficiaries who participated in any of the following retirement plans (herein collectively referred to as the "Plans") between October 1, 1998 and September 30, 2015: * The Savings and Supplemental Retirement Plan of Novant Health, Inc. and the Tax Deferred Savings Plan of Novant Health, Inc. (collectively, the "Retirement Plus Plan"); * The Franklin/Upstate 401(k) Plan; * The Presbyterian Women's Care Corp. 401(k) Plan; * The Lakeside/Q-Neck 401(k) Plan; * The 457(b) Retirement Plan of Novant Health, Inc.; or * The Retirement Plus Plan Wrap Nonqualified 457(b)/457(f) Plan of Novant Health, Inc. Excluded from the class are members of the Novant Health Retirement Plan Committee, the Administrative Committee and members of Novant Health, Inc.'s Board of Trustees since October 1, 1998. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9je0CJqq $32-Mil. Settlement Has Initial OK Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a federal judge approved a $32 million settlement on May 11 involving Novant Health Inc. and a class-action lawsuit targeting its defined-compensation retirement plan. A fairness hearing will be held at 2:00 p.m. Sept. 23. About $10.67 million goes to attorney fees. Each of the six named plaintiffs receive $25,000. The remaining money will be distributed among the class. The lawsuit was filed March 12, 2014, by six current and former employees, including Karolyn Kruger, a retired doctor who served as chief of staff at Thomasville Medical Center. The preliminary settlement was reached Nov. 9. Novant's administrative and retirement plan committees -- both in their committee roles and as individuals -- are listed as co-defendants. The complaint accuses Novant of breaching its fiduciary duties by causing plan participants to pay millions of dollars in fees for excessive record-keeping and administrative services to third- party service providers Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. and D.L. Davis & Co. of Winston-Salem. According to the plaintiffs' law firm of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, there are about 25,000 affected Novant employees who had been enrolled automatically in the retirement plan since 2009. The lawsuit covered the period Oct. 1, 1998, to Sept. 30, 2015. The plan's assets more than doubled from $612 million in 2008 to $1.42 billion as of March 2014, the latest total available. "This settlement will not only compensate Novant employees and retirees for the past, but will also mean that they have a great plan going forward and can build their retirement assets," said Jerry Schlichter, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys. Novant filed for dismissal in May 2014, saying the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for excessive investment fees and excessive record-keeping fees. "Novant offers a 'sufficient mix' of 23 different investment options which spanned the risk/return spectrum," Novant said at the time. Plaintiffs argued the plan has different versions of the same investment vehicle available with less expensive fees. On May 12, Novant said in a statement that the preliminary approval "is an important step toward full implementation of the settlement, which we believe is in the best long-term interests of our health system and our retirement plan participants. "If finally approved in September, the settlement will allow us to put additional money toward eligible team members' retirement accounts, rather than spending it on a long and costly legal battle." The parties agreed that future "certain non-monetary terms and affirmative relief" include hiring a plan record keeper and investment adviser selected by Novant and approved by an independent consultant. In September, Judge Osteen issued an order in which he upheld three plaintiff disloyalty and imprudence claims as to: Excessive investment options Excessive payment to Great West, an administrative and record- keeping service provider Excessive payments to D.L. Davis, a brokerage company that the plaintiffs claim provided the plan with limited marketing and enrollment services. The complaint said Great West received excessive compensation of $8.6 million between 2009 and 2012. The complaint states D.L. Davis received a second source of revenue in the form of "kickbacks" from the managers of the plan investment options. The complaint claims that D.L. Davis provided the plan with limited marketing and enrollment services, but was paid excessive fees up to $9.6 million from 2009 to 2012 in the form of "commissions." Novant said D.L. Davis "provided extensive services that go well beyond mere limited and enrollment services." Among the services that Novant cited are plan-design implementation, mutual-fund selection and fees, selection of the record keeper, and communication and educational efforts with employees. Novant denied allegation of kickbacks. NUVASIVE INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the securities litigation remains pending. On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California naming the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically relating to the purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws. The District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 8, 2014, and the District Court once again granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. On December 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, and while the Company's motion was pending, Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On August 28, 2015, the District Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint with leave to amend. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint. At March 31, 2016, the probable outcome of this litigation cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an accrual related to this litigation. Nuvasive is a medical device company in the global spine surgery market, focused on developing minimally-disruptive surgical products and procedurally-integrated solutions for spine surgery. Its currently-marketed product portfolio is focused on applications for spine fusion surgery, including biologics used to aid in the spinal fusion process. For the year ended December 31, 2015, Nuvasive generated global revenues of $811.1 million, including sales in over 30 countries. OCEAN POWER: Defending Securities Class Action in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy are defendants in consolidated securities class action lawsuits, and pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG). The consolidated actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG (filed June 13, 2014); Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815 (filed June 13, 2014); Konstantinidis v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015 (filed June 23, 2014); and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592 (filed July 22, 2014). On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff. On October 9, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended class action complaint which alleges claims for violations of sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to the Company's technology and a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd. (VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for the development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). The third amended class action complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended class action complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to the motion on December 7, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on December 21, 2015. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated in 1984 in New Jersey, commenced business operations in 1994 and re- incorporated in Delaware in 2007. The Company is developing and is seeking to commercialize proprietary systems that generate electricity by harnessing the renewable energy of ocean waves. The Company markets its PowerBuoys in the United States and internationally. Since fiscal 2002, government agencies have accounted for a significant portion of the Company's revenues. These revenues were largely for the support of product development efforts. The Company's goal is to develop a commercially viable product and to generate revenues from the sale of products and maintenance services, as compared to revenue to support its product development efforts. As the Company continues to advance its proprietary technologies, it expects to continue to have a net decrease in cash from operating activities unless and until it achieves positive cash flow from the planned commercialization of products and services. OFFICE DEPOT: Approval of "Heitzenrater" Accord Expected Mid-2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that final settlement approval and dismissal of the "Heitzenrater" case are expected by mid-2016. Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers ("ASMs") as exempt employees. OfficeMax vigorously defended itself in this lawsuit and in November 2015 reached a settlement in the amount of $3.5 million which the court preliminarily approved on November 23, 2015. Final settlement approval and dismissal of the case are expected by mid-2016. OFFICE DEPOT: "Rivet" Class Action Ongoing in New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the Kyle Rivet class action lawsuit. Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., formerly known as Constance Gibbons v. Office Depot, Inc., a putative class action that was instituted in May 2012, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Office Depot's use of the fluctuating workweek method of pay was unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to provide its ASMs with a clear and mutual understanding notification that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes in this case that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in this matter. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Securities Class Action Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, according to 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 May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S- 3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012. Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order, SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013. Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to address discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013. On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014. The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss. On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United States Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint. On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day. The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact- finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the Commission. The Commission inquiry is not an indication that the Commission believes the Company or anyone else has violated federal securities laws or regulations. Nor does it mean that the Commission has a negative opinion of any person, entity, or security. The investigation is ongoing and the Company has been cooperating fully with the Commission. On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22, 2016. The Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims. Given that the litigation is still in the pleading stage, it is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. The Bank was originally organized in 1919 as a state-chartered bank. On March 8, 1988, in a bank holding company reorganization transaction, the Company acquired 100% ownership of the Bank, issuing 131,455 shares of the Company's common stock to the former shareholders of the Bank. PAN ASIA: Recalls Breaded Fish Cake Products Due to Egg ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 28, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Co. Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10566 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Wang Breaded 560 g 2017.05.27 0 87703 15636 4 Korea Fish Cake PAN ASIA: Recalls Fish Sausage Products Due to Egg -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 28, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Company Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10564 Pan Asia Food Company is recalling Wang Korea brand fish sausage products from the marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Wang Miss Bong 34 g JUN.11.2016 0 87703 13085 2 Korea Fish Sausage Wang Cheese 34 g JUN.11.2016 0 87703 21273 2 Korea Bong Fish Sausage Cheese Flavor Wang Kkot Gae 34 g JUN.11.2016 0 87703 16995 1 Korea Bong Fish Sausage Crab Flavor Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: https://is.gd/VRuGth PEARLAND CAPITAL: Stewart Seeks Conditional Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CHASTITY STEWART, Individually and on behalf of ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. PEARLAND CAPITAL GROUP, LP D/B/A HILTON GARDEN INN PEARLAND, Case No. 4:16-cv-00948 (S.D. Tex.), files with the Court a motion for conditional certification and class notice. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to permit Court-supervised notice to employees of their opt-in rights. The Lawsuit was filed on April 5, 2016, as a collective action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, concerning overtime wages allegedly owed to the Plaintiff and others similarly situated by the Defendant. According to the Motion, the affidavit of Chastity Stewart supports a finding that the Defendant's practice of not paying overtime wages to its guest services agents, cleaning staff, maintenance staff, bar employees, manual laborers and drivers is a company-wide policy and not an isolated incident. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to require the Defendant to produce the names, last known addresses, and phone numbers of all such proposed opt-in class members under oath no later than 10 days from the date the Court enters an order granting the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5sbLkyQ8 PHILADELPHIA, PA: Certification of Property Owners Class Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOS SOUROVELIS, DOILA WELCH, NORYS HERNANDEZ, and NASSIR GEIGER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; JAMES F. KENNEY, in his official capacity as Mayor of Philadelphia; PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; R. SETH WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Philadelphia; and RICHARD ROSS JR., in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department, Case No. 2:14-cv-04687-ER (E.D. Pa.), ask the Court to certify the Conflict of Interest claim on behalf of a class of: All persons who hold legal title to or otherwise have a legal interest in property against which a civil-forfeiture petition was filed by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office on or after August 11, 2012, or will in the future be filed, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. On August 11, 2014, three real-property owners, Plaintiffs Sourovelis, Welch, and Hernandez filed the putative class action challenging six different policies and practices implementing Philadelphia's civil-forfeiture program. As relevant here, the Plaintiffs allege that the retention by Defendants City of Philadelphia, Mayor James F. Kenney, Police Commissioner Richard Ross Jr., and the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and District Attorney R. Seth Williams of forfeited property and its proceeds for use by the Philadelphia Police Department and Philadelphia D.A.'s Office violates due process by presenting a conflict of interest. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to designate them class representatives, and to appoint Institute for Justice and local counsel David Rudovsky, Esq., as class counsel. If the Court deems that Plaintiffs' request for restitution is not appropriate for classwide treatment, they alternatively ask that the Court certify the Conflict of Interest claim as to liability only.\ A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Nh3Rbjbz The Plaintiffs are represented by: Darpana M. Sheth, Esq. Robert P. Frommer, Esq. Robert Peccola, Esq. Milad Emam, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 Facsimile: (703) 682-9321 E-mail: dsheth@ij.org rfrommer@ij.org rpeccola@ij.org memam@ij.org - and - David Rudovsky, Esq. KAIRYS, RUDOVSKY, MESSING & FEINBERG The Cast Iron Building 718 Arch Street, Suite 501 South Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 925-4400 Facsimile: (215) 925-5365 E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com Defendants City of Philadelphia, Mayor James F. Kenney, and Police Commissioner Richard J. Ross, Jr., are represented by: Michael R. Miller, Esq. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 683-5444 E-mail: Michael.R.Miller@phila.gov Defendants Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and District Attorney R. Seth Williams are represented by: Elizabeth J. Graham-Rubin, Esq. Bryan C. Hughes, Esq. Douglas M. Weck, Jr., Esq. OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Three South Penn Square Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 686-8787 E-mail: bj.graham-rubin@phila.gov bryan.hughes@phila.gov douglas.weck@phila.gov PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Digital Diagnost ----------------------------------------- Starting date: April 27, 2016 Posting date: May 16, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-58374 A firmware anomaly inside the detector (4343RC) can cause the detector to appear ready for acquisition on very short time intervals while it actually is not, resulting in not correctly acquiring the x-ray image. Affected products: DIGITAL DIAGNOST Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer. Model or catalog number: 9890 010 83904 Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems Dmc Gmbh Rontgenstrabe 24 Hamburg 22335 GERMANY PHOTOMEDEX INC: Wants Kern County Suit Moved to D.C. Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is seeking to remove a class action originally filed in Kern County to the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of the class, which consists of customers in the State of California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in the discovery phase. On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; as a result of that filing, all discovery in this case has now been stayed. That removal was granted, and the Company has now filed to remove this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the district with jurisdiction over the Mouzon litigation. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. PIER 1: Kenney and Davie Cases Ongoing in Texas ----------------------------------------------- Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended February 27, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the Kenney and Davie cases which have been consolidated into a single action. On August 28, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division, captioned Kathleen Kenney, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants (the "Kenney Case"), alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 through February 10, 2015, and seeks to recover damages purportedly caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. A second related case, captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants (the "Davie Case"), was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division on October 21, 2015 making similar allegations on behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 and September 24, 2015. The Kenney Case and the Davie Case have been consolidated into a single action, captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants. The consolidated action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. Pier 1 Imports owns retail stores and an e-Commerce website. PREMIER COURIER: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Wright, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Premier Courier, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00420-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Premier Courier, Inc. is engaged in the business of delivering packages locally and across the country for medical, payroll processing, and banking clients. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Superior Building 815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: 440-498-9100 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagealawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelaweyers.com - and - Thomas A. Downie, Esq. 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (440) 973-9000 E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Amended Complaint Filed in Haverhill Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Providence Service Corporation 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 verified amended class action and derivative complaint has been filed in the case, Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley. On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL. The complaint names Richard A. Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S. Rustand, Christopher Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and Coliseum Capital Management, LLC ("Coliseum") as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint purported to allege that the dividend rate increase term originally in the Company's outstanding convertible preferred stock was an impermissibly coercive measure that impaired the voting rights of the Company's stockholders in connection with the vote on the removal of certain voting and conversion caps previously applicable to the preferred stock (the "Caps"), and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the dividend rate increase term and attempting to coerce the stockholder vote relating to the Company's preferred stock, and by failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow the Company's stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Caps. The complaint also purports to allege derivative claims alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by entering into the subordinated note and standby agreement with Coliseum, and granting Coliseum certain stock options. The complaint further alleges that Coliseum has aided and abetted the Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties and that demand on the Board is excused as futile. The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate increase, a finding that the Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's stockholders, a finding that Coliseum is liable for aiding and abetting the Individual Defendant's breaches of their fiduciary duties, a finding that Coliseum is liable for unjust enrichment, a finding that demand on the Board is excused as futile, a revision or rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and preferred stock as necessary and/or appropriate, a requirement for the Company to reform its corporate governance profile to protect against future misconduct similar to that alleged by the putative stockholder class, a certification of the putative stockholder class, compensatory damages, together with pre-and post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements (including expenses, attorneys' and experts' fees), and any other and further relief as is just and equitable. On August 31, 2015, after arms' length negotiations, the parties reached an agreement in principle and executed a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of claims concerning the dividend rate increase term and stockholder vote and related disclosure. The Memorandum of Understanding stated that the Defendants have entered into the partial settlement of the litigation solely to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense, and potential delay of further litigation involving claims that have been settled. Pursuant to the partial settlement, the Company agreed to supplement the disclosures in its definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A ("Definitive Proxy Statement"), Coliseum and certain of its affiliates and the Company entered into an amendment to that certain Series A Preferred Stock Exchange Agreement, by and among Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Coliseum Capital Co-Invest, L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, and The Providence Service Corporation dated as of February 11, 2015 described in the Definitive Proxy Statement, and the Board of Directors of the Company agreed to adopt a policy related to the Board's determination each quarter as to whether the Company should pay cash dividends or allow dividends to be paid in the form of PIK dividends on the preferred stock, as further described in the supplemental proxy disclosures. On September 2, 2015, Providence issued supplemental disclosures through a Supplement to the Proxy Statement. On September 16, 2015, Providence stockholders approved the removal of the Caps. The settlement provided for, among other things, the release of any claims based on alleged coercion and disclosure related to the stockholder vote on the removal of the Caps. On November 13, 2015, the Court issued an order setting out the schedule related to application for court approval of the proposed settlement and plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses related to the settlement as provided for in the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). The Company provided notice of the proposed partial settlement to Providence's shareholders by December 11, 2015. At a hearing on February 9, 2016, the court denied approval of the settlement. The Court indicated that plaintiff's counsel could petition the Court for a mootness fee, and that defendants would have the opportunity to oppose any such application. On January 12, 2016, plaintiff filed a verified amended class action and derivative complaint. In addition to the defendants named in the earlier complaint, the amended complaint names David Shackelton, Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, Coliseum Capital CO- Invest, L.P. (collectively, and together with Coliseum Capital Management, LLC, "Coliseum") and RBC Capital Markets, LLC, ("RBC Capital Markets") as additional defendants. The amended complaint purports to allege direct and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against some or all of the Individual Defendants and David Shackelton (collectively, the "Amended Individual Defendants") regarding the approval of the subordinated note, the rights offering, standby agreement with Coliseum, and grant to Coliseum of certain stock options. The amended complaint also purports to allege an additional derivative claim for unjust enrichment against Coliseum regarding the subordinated note, the rights offering, and standby agreement with Coliseum, and stock options. The amended complaint further alleges that Coliseum and RBC Capital Markets aided and abetted the Amended Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties and that demand on the Board is excused as futile. The amended complaint seeks (a) findings that (i) the Amended Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company and the putative stockholder class, (ii) Coliseum and RBC Capital are liable for aiding and abetting such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, (iii) Coliseum is liable for unjust enrichment, (iv) certain stock options awarded to Coliseum were the product of waste, and (iv) demand on the Board is excused as futile, (b) revision or rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and preferred stock as necessary and/or appropriate, (c) a requirement that the Company reform its corporate governance profile to protect against future misconduct similar to that alleged by the putative stockholder class, (d) certification of the putative stockholder class, (e) compensatory damages, together with pre-and post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements (including expenses, attorneys' and experts' fees), and (f) any other and further relief as is just and equitable. The Providence Service Corporation (the "Company" or "Providence"), a Delaware corporation formed in 1996, is a holding company, whose subsidiaries provide critical healthcare and workforce development services. The Company operates within two key industry sectors-US healthcare and global workforce development-through its three operating segments: Non-Emergency Transportation Services ("NET Services"), Workforce Development Services ("WD Services") and Health Assessment Services ("HA Services"). NET Services coordinates non-emergency transportation for individuals whose limited mobility and/or financial resources would otherwise hinder them from accessing necessary healthcare and social services. WD Services primarily provides employability and offender rehabilitation services to eligible participants of government sponsored programs. HA Services, provides care optimization and delivery solutions, including comprehensive health assessments ("CHAs") for health plans as well as in-home care management offerings. QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against "Nguyen" IPO Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Quotient 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 intends to defend against a class action lawsuit related to its initial public offering. The Company said, "On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against us, the members of our board of directors, certain of our executive officers and the underwriters of our IPO: Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15- 544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County). The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for our IPO." "Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15- CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015). "Three other complaints with substantially the same allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV- 278774 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15- CV-278891 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015). "On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action. The Court sustained defendants' demurrer to the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On December 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On January 28, 2016, defendants filed a demurrer to the amended consolidated complaint. "We intend to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, we believe that the potential for liability for the above claims is remote." RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Two Investor Class Actions ----------------------------------------------- Financial Advisor IQ reports that Raymond James has been named in two related class action lawsuits alleging the firm and associated parties deceived investors over various assets and transactions pertaining to EB-5 immigrant visa investor projects based in Vermont, Law360 writes. In a complaint filed on May 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Carlos Enrique Hiller Sanchez and a group of other plaintiffs are seeking to recoup $71.5 million from Raymond James and fund manager Joel Burstein, reports Law360. Hiller Sanchez's suit follows a similar class action filing in the same court by another investor, Alexandre Daccache, a Brazilian national claiming that over $350 million invested into an EB-5 program never made it into the target investments, but instead was paid into other projects and lined the pockets of co-defendant Ariel Quiros, the owner of Jay Peak, a ski resort in Vermont, according to Law360. The EB-5 visa program is designed to reward foreign nationals with U.S. permanent residency green cards as a result of investing in projects that create jobs. Hiller Sanchez alleges the firm and Mr. Burstein violated the SEC Act of 1934, and assisted in fraud and a fiduciary breach, Law360 writes. The Hiller Sanchez suit further claims Mr. Burstein and Raymond James participated in "duping and defrauding" the investors through the falsification of associated business plans and limited partnership agreements, and acted with "severe recklessness" as to whether the representations were misleading or false, Law360 writes. In particular, lawyers for Hiller Sanchez assert in their complaint that Raymond James and Burstein knew funds slated for the target investment vehicle were actually being misused, yet instead of attempting to report or rectify the situation the defendants instead constructed and implemented a "fraudulent financial structure," Law360 reports. In his suit, Mr. Daccache accuses Raymond James of providing margin loans to Mr. Quiros, and that the loans were collateralized with EB-5 investor assets, the Burlington Free Press reports. Attorneys for Mr. Daccache are therefore asserting that plaintiff funds were "misused, commingled, and stolen" by Mr. Quiros and Jay Peak CEO William Stenger "with the assistance of Raymond James and Burstein," the Burlington Free Press reports. The suit also accuses the defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the newspaper writes. "The members of the RICO enterprise had a common purpose: to increase and maximize their profits by illegally diverting funds that they knew belonged to investors for improper and unauthorized purposes," the complaint says. "The Defendants shared the bounty of their enterprise by sharing the illegal profits generated by the joint scheme." Mr. Daccache's suit comes on the heels of an SEC fraud case against Messrs. Quiros and Stenger. The financial regulator has accused the pair of misappropriating $200 million of the project funds in a "Ponzi-like fashion." The SEC alleges Mr. Quiros used the money for personal expenses and to cover losses in unrelated businesses, reports the Burlington Free Press. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Certification of Two FDCPA Classes Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ABEL MANRIQUE, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described herein v. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC.; ANSON STREET LLC; and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., Case No. 1:16-cv-02942 (N.D. Ill.), files with the Court an amended motion for class certification. The Action concerns attempts to collect from the Plaintiff an alleged deficiency on a second mortgage debt incurred for personal, family or household purposes (housing) and not for business purposes. Pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Plaintiff seeks certification of two classes: Class A is defined as: (a) all individuals (b) to whom RTR (c) sent a letter offering a settlement of a debt (d) consisting of a loan entered into in Nevada or secured by Nevada real estate at the time of origination (e) where the last payment or activity had occurred more than six years prior to the letter, (e) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action. Class B class consists of (a) all individuals (b) to whom a letter was sent on behalf of Anson or RCS (c) offering a settlement of a debt (d) consisting of a loan entered into in Nevada or secured by Nevada real estate at the time of origination (e) where the last payment or activity had occurred more than six years prior to the letter, (f) which letter was sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of this action. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kD33Chgl The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. Michelle A. Alyea, 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 RENFRO CANADA: Recalls Dr. Scholl's Graduated Compression --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 29, 2016 Posting date: May 16, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-58412 Renfro Canada Corp. have initiated a recall for the Dr. Scholl's for Her Comfort for Healthy Living Graduated Compression product, due to the lack of a warning label on the packaging. Affected products DR. SCHOLL'S FOR HER COMFORT FOR HEALTHY LIVING GRADUATED COMPRESSION Lot or serial number: 042825 495982 042825 496019 Model or catalog number: DSL-2000-BL1-C DSL-2000-BM1-C Manufacturer: RENFRO CANADA CORP 250 ADMIRAL BLVD MISSISSAUGA L5T 2N6 Ontario CANADA REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 21 Tobacco-Related Cases Served During 2016 Q1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that during the first quarter of 2016, 21 tobacco-related cases were served against Reynolds Defendants. On March 31, 2016, there were 275 cases pending against Reynolds Defendants: 258 in the United States and 17 in Canada, as compared with 180 total cases on March 31, 2015. Of the U.S. cases pending on March 31, 2016, 29 are pending in federal court, 228 in state court and one in tribal court, primarily in the following states: Maryland (44 cases); Illinois (36 cases); Florida (32 cases); New York (20 cases); Missouri (19 cases); Delaware (14 cases); and California (13 cases). The U.S. case number excludes the approximately 564 individual smoker cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated action, 2,963 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 3,851 individual plaintiffs, and 2,488 Broin II cases, pending in the United States against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco or certain other Reynolds Defendants. The table lists the categories of the U.S. tobacco-related cases pending against Reynolds Defendants as of March 31, 2016, compared with the number of cases pending against Reynolds Defendants as of December 31, 2015, as reported in RAI's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, filed with the SEC on February 11, 2016, and a cross-reference to the discussion of each case type. Change in Number of Cases Since U.S. Case Numbers December 31, 2015 Case Type as of March 31, 2016 Increase/(Decrease) ----------- -------------------- ------------------- Individual Smoking and 119 1 Health West Virginia IPIC 1 (approx. 564) No change (Number of Plaintiffs)* Engle Progeny (Number of Plaintiffs)** 2,963 (approx. 3,851) (148) (195) Broin II 2,488 (11) Class Action 33 5 Filter Cases 61 (3) Health-Care Cost Recove 2 No change State Settlement Agreements -- Enforcement and Validity; Adjustments 28 1 Other Litigation and Developments 14 3 * Includes as one case the approximately 564 cases pending as a consolidated action In Re: Tobacco Litigation Individual Personal Injury Cases, sometimes referred to as West Virginia IPIC cases, described below. The West Virginia IPIC cases have been separated from the Individual Smoking and Health cases for reporting purposes. ** The Engle Progeny cases have been separated from the Individual Smoking and Health cases for reporting purposes. The number of cases has decreased as the result of many of the federal and state court cases being dismissed or duplicate actions being consolidated. ROOSEVELT DISCOUNTS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Rosas" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Rosas, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roosevelt Discounts Inc. d/b/a 99 cents Or less, Main Street Store Inc. d/b/a 99 Cents Or Less, Flushing Discounts Inc. d/b/a 99 Cents or Less, ABC Corp. d/b/a 99 Cents or Less, Abdul J. Sikdar a/k/a Abdul Sikder, Fatima Ali, Naima Khatoom, Mazu "Doe" (last name unknown), Kashan "Doe" (last name unknown), John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-02392 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate a store in Queens located at 41-09 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, NY 11355. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com ROYAL OAK, MI: Residents File Class Action Over 2014 Floods ----------------------------------------------------------- John Turk, writing for Macomb Daily, reports that Royal Oak and Clawson residents are suing their respective cities and Oakland County in two class action complaints after record rainfalls in August 2014 led to flooded homes throughout southeastern Michigan. "It wasn't a natural event, it was a man-made event, from our investigations, that caused this flooding," said David Dubin, the Detroit-based attorney who is representing clients in both suits. "It's extremely sad to hear their stories. Many people use their basements as integral part of their lives -- as a kid's bedroom, for family gatherings and parties -- to have that ripped from them and destroyed, frankly, is wrong." Mr. Dubin is representing Clawson resident Kevin Helme, Royal Oak residents Jill Kotsis and Kevin Gallatin, and others in similar situations. The suits are meant to be class action, city officials in several Southeastern Michigan cities tallied thousands of households affected. The lawsuit naming the City of Royal Oak was filed Monday, May 9, in Oakland County Circuit Judge Leo Bowman's courtroom, and the complaint against the City of Clawson was filed Tuesday, May 10, in Judge Phyllis McMillen's courtroom. Each is asking for a jury trial and damages for all economic losses tied to flooded homes and basements. The lawsuits claim that the cities, along with Oakland County and its Water Resources Commissioner's office, did not properly maintain the sewers, interceptors, restrictor plates, catch basins and retention facilities that were designed to transfer waste and water to various locations. Mr. Dubin said that screens at the George W. Kuhn Drainage District Interceptor -- which is designed to direct excess flow of wastewater to a major drain called the Red Run Drain -- malfunctioned during the heavy rainfalls of Aug. 11, 2014, causing a hydraulic bottleneck that backed up entire sewer systems and led to feces, wastewater and noxious odors filling residents' homes. The downpours that hit Southeast Michigan led to closings of several major roadways and damaged numerous homes in multiple cities in the area. Royal Oak, Ferndale, Berkley, Madison Heights, Oak Park and many other cities declared states of emergency in their communities to get relief from extreme flooding and damage caused by the rain storm. Oakland County also declared a local state of emergency and requested state assistance, tallying more than $330 million in flooding damage. To the east, around 18,047 homes in Warren suffered damage, as well, with property losses estimated at $1.2 billion. The rain and flooding also contributed to the death of two area residents. "What it boils down to is that these entities did not properly maintain their sewers," said Mr. Dubin, "which allowed too much water into the sewer systems. "The average flooding claim is tens of thousands of dollars in economic loss. In Royal Oak, there were over 600 households that filed a written notice of claim and in Clawson, there were over 140. "I hesitate to put a value on total damages sought. My clients are entitled to full economic loss, but what that is, we're still in the process of evaluating." Mr. Dubin added that "a lot goes into" design of the original sewer system. "This isn't Noah's Ark, where it rained 40 days and 40 nights," said Mr. Dubin. "The (August 2014) storm was anticipated. Not every city flooded, and not every city suffered the same type of damage as was in Oakland County. This is man-made, not just a weather-related phenomenon." Two similar lawsuits were filed last year in Oakland County Circuit Court against Madison Heights and Oak Park. Those lawsuits are still making their way through the discovery phase, said Mr. Dubin, who is representing residents in those cases, as well. Mr. Dubin added that residents in other cities plan to file suits through his firm in the future, as well. Royal Oak Interim City Attorney Mark Liss said he couldn't comment on the lawsuit, as he has not been served the original complaint against Royal Oak. However, he said that there were about 3,000 claims filed for damage in Royal Oak following the flood event in 2014. Clawson City Attorney Jon Kingsepp, who also was just learning about the lawsuit, said he doesn't believe science was accurate during the time when the sewer systems were constructed. "How were they going to determine how the heck (the system) was going to be developed 20, 30 or 40 years later to handle this type of event?" Mr. Kingsepp asked. "This is not going to be a simple case. There's going to be a lot of conjecture, it's going to be very complex, and it will be years before it's resolved." The Oakland County Water Resources Commissioner's Office said it would not be commenting on the lawsuit until the complaint has been fully reviewed. Attorneys for national litigation firm Dickinson Wright, which will be representing the county, did not immediately return calls for comment. RUSHCARD: Settles Prepaid Card Class Action for $20.5MM ------------------------------------------------------- Jonnelle Marte, writing for The Washington Post, reports that RushCard has agreed to pay a total of $20.5 million to customers who were temporarily locked out of their prepaid card accounts last year, according to court documents. The preliminary settlement, which still needs court approval, includes about $19 million to reimburse customers for fees and other costs they faced after they lost access to their accounts for days. The remaining $1.5 million will go toward attorney fees. RushCard, a prepaid card created by hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, faced technical issues last October while it was transitioning to another payment processor. The glitch left more than 132,000 customers unable to access their accounts for several days. Some cardholders said they had transactions rejected or that they fell behind on bills. "The company recognized that their service had caused frustration and unhappiness and damages [to cardholders]," said John Yanchunis, the lead attorney representing the plaintiffs in the class-action suit. Mr. Yanchunis said he was glad that UniRush, the parent company for RushCard, agreed to a settlement because it could have enforced an arbitration clause that blocked consumers from the class-action suit. The settlement includes some of the payments and breaks that customers have already received -- including $25 credits given to some consumers and a "fee holiday" that waived monthly fees for all customers between November and February. The agreement also called for RushCard to reimburse customers for any fees they paid from Oct. 12 to Oct. 31, the time that they might have been locked out of their accounts. But some customers might qualify for additional funds. People who faced other financial setbacks during the time they couldn't tap into their accounts, such as overdraft charges or late payment fees, can file a claim to be compensated for those costs. Customers can receive up to $100 each if they don't have the paperwork to support their claims. People with the documentation to prove their losses could receive more, up to $500 each. But in both cases, consumers would need to subtract any other payments they may have already received from the company for those expenses. Prepaid cards are often used in place of a checking account by low-income workers or people who don't have bank accounts, according to a report from Pew Charitable Trusts. Simmons, who publicly apologized to customers about the issue, has said he started the card to provide a more affordable option for people who may have paid high fees to cash their checks. The company hopes its latest efforts will help make customers whole. "We are pleased to have reached this preliminary settlement which will resolve the claims of our cardholders," Rick Savard, the chief executive of UniRush, said in a statement. "We believe this settlement fairly compensates our customers who were inconvenienced." Consumers will receive notices in the mail after the court gives the settlement preliminary approval, Mr. Yanchunis said, adding that he thinks approval will be likely since the plaintiffs have accepted the deal. After final approval, which could come as soon as four or five months, cardholders who qualify could start to see checks in the mail. News of the settlement, which was first reported by Law360, may be welcomed by cardholders who struggled financially after losing access to their accounts. But it doesn't mean the company is done answering questions about the incident. After news spread of the technical issues, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requested documents and other information from RushCard so that it could investigate the cause of the outage and find out what the company was doing to compensate consumers. RushCard asked for more time to provide the documents, but the agency denied that request. On May 11, a spokesman for the CFPB said it does not comment on ongoing or potential enforcement activities. SAFEGUARD PROPERTIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Mladinich, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Safeguard Properties, LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG16815229 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Safeguard Properties, LLC operates a property management company in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Arns, Esq. THE ARNS LAW FIRM 515 Folsom St. 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94019 Telephone: (415) 495-7800 Facsimile: (415) 495-7888 E-mail: rsa@arnslaw.com SAFETY 1ST: Recalls Child Car Seat 2015 Models ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 29, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Child Car Seat Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Seats And Restraints Units affected: 15 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2016194TC ID number: 2016194 Certain child car seats that do not comply with the requirements of the Canada Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats Safety Regulations (RSSR) may have been imported in error. Child car seats that were certified to United States requirements may have been mixed with Canadian certified seats during shipping. Correction: All child car seats in non-compliance will be exported. Note: None of the affected seats were sold to consumers. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- SAFETY 1ST 2015, 2015 SANOFI SA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Kickback Schemes ---------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action filed by a union health plan accusing French drugmaker Sanofi SA of using kickback schemes to promote its osteoarthritis and diabetes drugs. U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty in New Jersey on May 11 ruled that Philadelphia-based Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan, had not provided enough detail about how it had been harmed, though he gave it leave to amend the complaint. SE CEMETERIES: Charles Sheppard Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Sheppard moves the Court for conditional certification and facilitation of Court-authorized notice in the lawsuit entitled CHARLES SHEPPARD v. S.E. CEMETERIES OF FLORIDA, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-21130-JEM (S.D. Fla.). The Case is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff alleges that misclassifled Grounds Supervisors like him, who worked for the Defendants were not properly paid for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to direct the Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable format, within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of putative class members, who worked for Defendants between February 2013 and the present. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to, among other things, authorize his counsel to send initial notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel by first-class mail. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CE7WDiMK The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-6000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com apetisco@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew T. Games, Esq. Stephen William Mooney, Esq. Noel Figgures Johnson, Esq. WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL 2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 455-9108 Facsimile: (305) 455-9501 E-mail: mgomes@wwhgd.com smooney@wwhgd.com njohnson@wwhgd.com SENSATA TECHNOLOGIES: Hassett Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Sensata Technologies Holding N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has dismissed the Hassett class action lawsuit on procedural grounds. The plaintiffs had the right to re-file, but have not done so. On March 19, 2015, two named plaintiffs filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against Chrysler and Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc., styled Hassett v. FCA US, LLC et al., case number 2:2015cv11030 (E.D. Michigan). The lawsuit alleged that faulty valve stems were used in Schrader tire pressure monitoring sensors installed on Chrysler vehicles in model years 2007 through 2014. It alleged breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the federal Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act, and was seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Both the size of the class and the damages sought were unspecified. The plaintiffs, joined by an additional individual, filed an amended complaint dated June 2, 2015. "On July 23, 2015, along with Chrysler, we filed motions to dismiss. The court held a hearing on these motions on December 2, 2015. On December 7, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds. The plaintiffs had the right to re-file, but have not done so. We do not believe a loss is probable, and as of March 31, 2016, we have not recorded an accrual related to this matter," the Company said. Sensata Technologies Holding is incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands and conducts its operations through subsidiary companies that operate business and product development centers primarily in the United States (the "U.S."), the Netherlands, Belgium, China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom (the "U.K."); and manufacturing operations primarily in China, Malaysia, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Bulgaria, Poland, France, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. It organizes its operations into two businesses, Performance Sensing and Sensing Solutions. The Performance Sensing business is a manufacturer of pressure, temperature, speed, and position sensors, and electromechanical products used in subsystems of automobiles (e.g., engine, air conditioning, and ride stabilization) and heavy on- and off-road vehicles ("HVOR"). The Sensing Solutions business is a manufacturer of a variety of control products used in industrial, aerospace, military, commercial, medical device, and residential markets, and sensor products used in aerospace and industrial applications such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ("HVAC") systems and military and commercial aircraft. SHANDEX GROUP: Recalls Night-time Sleep Aid Liquid -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 28, 2016 Posting date: May 13, 2016 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-58270 Incorrect labelling: product labelled as "Sucrose free" but contains high fructose corn syrup. Depth of distribution: One wholesaler, retailers all over Canada Affected products: Exact Brand Night-time Sleep Aid Liquid DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02427427 Dosage form: Liquid Strength: 50 mg/30 ml Lot or serial number: 1.6CK0420 2. 5MK0443 Recalling Firm: The Shandex Group 11 Squires Beach Rd Pickering L1W 3N8 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Perrigo International 515 Eastern Ave Allegan 49010-1327 Michigan UNITED STATES SHANDEX GROUP: Recalls Life Brand Night-Time Sleep Aid Liquid ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 28, 2016 Posting date: May 13, 2016 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-58272 Incorrect labelling: product labelled as "Sucrose free" but contains high fructose corn syrup. Depth of distribution: One wholesaler, retailers all over Canada Affected products: Life Brand Night-time Sleep Aid Liquid DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02427427 Dosage form: Liquid Strength: 50 mg/30 ml Lot or serial number: 1.6CK0420 2. 5MK0443 Recalling Firm: The Shandex Group 11 Squires Beach Rd Pickering L1W 3N8 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Perrigo International 515 Eastern Ave Allegan 49010-1327 Michigan UNITED STATES SIGMA: Net Profit Takes $8.8MM Hit from Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- John Conroy, writing for The Australian, reports that drug wholesaler and chemist owner Sigma Pharmaceuticals says it will be finally putting to bed monies outstanding from a class action related to an overstated half-year profit in 2009. Sigma in 2012 settled a $57.5 million class action against it in relation to the breach, which was revealed in the wake of the company's shock-ensuing $389m full-year loss. Sigma said last year's guilty pleas by its former chief executive and CFO -- Elmo De Alwis and Mark Smith -- in relation to the breach had activated a "clawback" clause from insurers AIG who partially cover the 2012 settlement. "As a consequence of the guilty pleas by the former CEO and CFO AIG has notified Sigma of its intention to exercise this right," Sigma said in a release to the market. Both men last year admitted overstating Sigma's revenue for 2010 by $15.5m and its profit for the year by $9.6m. They also pleaded guilty to a second charge of overstating revenue by $3.5m in the 2009 half-year report. Sigma said it had agreed to settle AIG's claim for reimbursement for $12.5m. "As a result, there will be a one-off $8.8m impact on Sigma's reported net profit after tax," Sigma said, adding that the clause had continued to be recognised as a contingent liability in Sigma's accounts since the settlement. For the full-year through January, Sigma booked a $50.5m net profit after tax. Sigma said it expected underlying earnings before interest and tax to be up "at least 10 per cent" for the first half. At 3.40pm (AEST), Sigma shares were up 1.31 per cent to $1. SPARK NETWORKS: Deal Close in Werner, Wright Suits -------------------------------------------------- The parties in the case, Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc., Spark Networks USA, LLC, et al., are finalizing a signed settlement, Spark Networks, 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. On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks"). The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Werner Complaint requests the following relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark Networks, Inc. The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com, LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com, MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Wright Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate. "We believe the parties are now close to a final signed settlement pursuant to which the Company would make individual settlement payments for statutory damages and service awards, as well as legal fees. The final settlement would need to be approved by the court. The parties are in process of preparing exhibits and the necessary motions to obtain court approval. The Company has recorded an accrual for the probable cost related to resolving this matter of $468,000 as of December 31, 2015," the Company said. Spark Networks, Inc. is a leader in creating communities that help individuals form life-long relationships with others that share their interests and values. The Company's core properties, JDate and ChristianMingle, are communities geared towards singles of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Through the Company's websites and mobile applications, the Company helps members search for and communicate with other like-minded individuals. SPARK NETWORKS: Resolves Israeli Consumer Actions ------------------------------------------------- A settlement has been reached to resolve Israeli consumer actions, Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd., Spark Networks, 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. Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981. Spark was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark Networks") refused to cancel her subscription and provide a refund for unused periods and claims that such a refusal is in violation of the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Networks was served with a Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Gever action on January 21, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks renewed his one month subscription without receiving his positive agreement in advance and claims that such renewal is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Law. Spark Networks was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks refused to give her a full refund and charged her the price of a one month subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer Protection Law. In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal damages and damages on behalf of a defined group. On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark Networks' motion to consolidate all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be litigated jointly. Spark Networks' combined response to their motions to certify the classes was filed November 1, 2014 and the plaintiffs responded to the combined response. The parties had a hearing before the judge on December 24, 2014. Following the hearing the judge ordered that the pleadings filed by the parties be transferred to the Israel Consumer Council ("ICC") so that the ICC can provide its position as to the parties' allegations within 90 days. The ICC issued its opinion on April 1, 2015. Following the filing of the ICC opinion, the parties filed briefs addressing the ICC opinion. On January 7, 2016, the parties advised the Court that they have agreed on the terms of a settlement agreement, and jointly moved to approve the agreement and give it the effect of a judgment. According to the terms of the settlement agreement, clients who bought a subscription to JDate.co.il on October 12, 2008 or later will be entitled to receive certain benefits. The settlement agreement, which provides for compensation and legal fees, will only come into effect if the court approves it. On January 14, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to publish the terms of the proposed settlement agreement. The Court allowed for the Attorney General or any person who wishes to object to the settlement or exclude himself from the class to file their position with the Court through March 10, 2016. As such, an accrual for the probable cost related to resolving this matter of $52,000 has been recorded as of December 31, 2015. Spark Networks, Inc. is a leader in creating communities that help individuals form life-long relationships with others that share their interests and values. The Company's core properties, JDate and ChristianMingle, are communities geared towards singles of the Jewish and Christian faiths. Through the Company's websites and mobile applications, the Company helps members search for and communicate with other like-minded individuals. SPRINT CORPORATION: "Chowdhury" Sues Over Automated Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Shabbir Chowdhury, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sprint Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02394 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), seeks damages, declaratory and injunctive relief arising from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of making automated calls to his cell phone without his prior consent. Sprint Corporation is a Kansas based telecommunications company located in 6200 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS 66251. The Plaintiff is represented by: Subhan Tariq, Esq. THE TARIQ LAW FIRM, PLLC 90-52 171st Street Jamaica, NY 11432 Tel: (516) 900-4529 Fax: (516) 453-0490 Email: subhan@tariqlaw.com STRYKER SUSTAINABILITY: Recalls Electrophysiology Catheters ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: April 28, 2016 Posting date: May 16, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-58390 Stryker sustainability solutions has received complaints in which it was reported that EP Catheters were mislabeled for french size. Affected products: A.REPROCESSED DAIG SUPREME AND RESPONSE ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY CATHETERS Lot or serial number: 2555866E Model or catalog number: 401877 Manufacturer: STRYKER SUSTAINABILITY SOLUTIONS 1810 West Drake Dr. Tempe, Arizona 85283 UNITED STATES SUN OF MAY LLC: "Cortez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Sergio Cortes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sun of May, LLC and Anahi Angelone, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03506 (S.D. N.Y., May 11, 2016), seeks statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act and the New York Labor Law. Sun of May, LLC is a New York corporation that owns and operates the Corner Social restaurant in New York City where Cortes worked as a bartender. He claims he was denied overtime pay and paid below minimum wage. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 688-5640 Ext. 2548 Fax: (212) 688-5639 Email: maimon@jhllp.com SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Wisconsin Suit ------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended February 27, 2016, that a class action complaint was filed in September 2008against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company that allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit; however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corporation, was organized in 1925 as the successor to two wholesale grocery firms established in the 1870s. Supervalu today is one of the largest public company grocery wholesale distributors to independent retail customers across the United States through its Wholesale segment, one of the nation's largest hard discount grocery retailers by store count through its Save-A-Lot segment and operates five regionally-based traditional format grocery banners through its Retail segment. Substantially all of the Company's operations are domestic. SUPERVALU INC: Response to Motion to Certify Due ------------------------------------------------ Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended February 27, 2016, that the Company's response to the motion to certify was due May 6, 2016. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases were consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court in Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non- solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and potentially other distribution centers. On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain aspects of the 8th Circuit decision, and on June 8, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied the Petition. On June 19, 2015, the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided a number of matters including granting plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and denying plaintiffs' request to add an additional New England plaintiff and denying plaintiffs' request to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the 8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of New England retailers. On March 1, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a class certification motion seeking to certify five District Court classes of retailers in the Midwest. The Company's response to the motion to certify was due May 6, 2016. SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corporation, was organized in 1925 as the successor to two wholesale grocery firms established in the 1870s. Supervalu today is one of the largest public company grocery wholesale distributors to independent retail customers across the United States through its Wholesale segment, one of the nation's largest hard discount grocery retailers by store count through its Save-A-Lot segment and operates five regionally-based traditional format grocery banners through its Retail segment. Substantially all of the Company's operations are domestic. SUPERVALU INC: Bid to Vacate Case Dismissal Tossed -------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended February 27, 2016, that in the case, In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, the District Court has denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company in fiscal 2015 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: Supervalu Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their burden of showing any compensable damages. On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and the Company filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016. On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to amend the complaint. SUPERVALU INC., a Delaware corporation, was organized in 1925 as the successor to two wholesale grocery firms established in the 1870s. Supervalu today is one of the largest public company grocery wholesale distributors to independent retail customers across the United States through its Wholesale segment, one of the nation's largest hard discount grocery retailers by store count through its Save-A-Lot segment and operates five regionally-based traditional format grocery banners through its Retail segment. Substantially all of the Company's operations are domestic. SYNOVIS MICRO: Recalls GEM Flow Coupler --------------------------------------- Starting date: April 28, 2016 Posting date: May 16, 2016 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type II Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Hospitals, Healthcare Professionals Identification number: RA-58392 Synovis Micro Companies Alliance is issuing a product recall for the potential for a puncture through the outer Tyvek lid of the sterile flow coupler tray-in-tray package. Affected products: A. GEM FLOW COUPLER Lot or serial number: SP15H05-1067843 SP15J15-1087744 SP15J22-1090024 SP15K02-1092807 SP15K05-1094463 SP15K05-1094466 SP15K10-1096021 SP15L02-1102423 Model or catalog number: GEM2752-FC GEM2753-FC GEM2754-FC Manufacturer: SYNOVIS MICRO COMPANIES ALLIANCE INC/A SUB. OF SYNOVIS LIFE TECH. INC 439 INDUSTRIAL LANE BIRMINGHAM 35211 Alabama UNITED STATES T-W TRANSPORT: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a truck driver class action lawsuit against T-W Transport, Inc. alleging that the transportation company failed to lawfully compensate their Truck Driver employees for all their non-driving activities, including time spent performing pre and post trip inspections of the company's trucks. The T-W Transport truck driver lawsuit is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2016-000130010-CU-OE-CTL. The lawsuit filed against T-W Transport, Inc. by the San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik claims that trucking company did not have a business practice that allowed their truck drivers off-duty thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods in accordance with California law. The T-W Transport truck driver lawsuit claims that the failure to provide California meal breaks is evidenced by T-W Transport's business records which contains no evidence of meal breaks. Further the class action lawsuit alleges that T-W Transport truck drivers were paid on a piece-rate basis. The lawsuit alleges that the truck drivers were not paid all minimum wages to which they were owed because T-W Transport allegedly only paid them for miles driven. The class action claims that the truck drivers should have been paid minimum wages for their non-driving tasks, these tasks allegedly included time spent waiting for Defendant's loads to be ready for transport, among other non-driving tasks. TEEKAY CORP: Company, Officers Face Class Action in Connecticut --------------------------------------------------------------- Teekay Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action complaint was filed in March 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of its officers. Following the Company's announcement in December 2015 that its Board of Directors had approved a plan to reduce the Company's quarterly dividend to $0.055 per share, down from $0.55 per share in the third quarter of 2015, commencing with the fourth quarter of 2015 dividend payable in February 2016 and the subsequent decline of the price of the Company's common stock, a class action complaint was filed on March 1, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint includes claims that the Company and certain of its officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In general, the complaint alleges the Company and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's ability and intention to maintain a quarterly dividend of at least $0.55 per share, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, including reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action. The Company plans to vigorously defend against the claim. Based on the early stage of the claim and evaluation of the facts available at this time, the amount or range of reasonably possible losses to which the Company is exposed cannot be estimated and the ultimate resolution of this matter and the associated financial impact to the Company, if any, remains uncertain at this time. The Company maintains a Directors and Officers Insurance policy that provides coverage for such claims, subject to a maximum amount and a deductible. TFI FOODS: Recalls Fish Cakes & Crab Sticks Due to Egg ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: April 29, 2016 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: TFI Foods Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10507 Brand Common Size Code(s) on UPC name name ---- product --- ----- ------ ---------- Aroy Hot Thai 500 g All codes where 8854241000358 Mak Fish egg is not Cake declared on the label Yutaka Hot Thai 500 g All codes where 8854241000358 Fish egg is not Cake declared on the label Yutaka Imitation 1 kg All codes where 061391422000 Crab egg is not Stick declared on the (Shredded) label TICKETMASTER: Class Action Settlement Marketing Opportunity ----------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that class-action lawsuits have long had a farcical quality because of the frequency with which the lawyers who pursue claims take home nearly all the money awarded in settlements, with victims receiving tiny sums, if anything. But the recent settlement in the Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster case may be the most obnoxious one of all. The case had a good cause: punishing Ticketmaster for its awful assertion that hefty fees on tickets for sports and entertainment events were necessary to actually provide services, not just to pad the company's profit. But instead of giving back money to the millions of people scammed by Ticketmaster, the settlement gives most victims up to 17 coupons worth $2.25 to use in new purchases from Ticketmaster -- with two coupons the maximum per transaction. Given the new competition that Ticketmaster faces in ticket sales, this is no penalty. It's a marketing opportunity, a new scam on top of the old one. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suit by Hamilton and Macon Counties Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the class action lawsuit by Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois, Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St. Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff and to expand the proposed class. The case is being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois and on behalf of cities, villages, incorporated towns, and township governments of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards and approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also allege breach of implied warranties, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for which plaintiffs seek actual damages related to purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for class members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. This lawsuit was previously stayed by order of the Court. On September 30, 2015, the Court lifted the stay on this action. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015, titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The alleged class in this matter has been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of the modified ET Plus in Canada. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss La Crosse Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the class action lawsuit by La Crosse County, the Court has partially granted Trinity's Motion to Dismiss as to some but not all of plaintiff's claims. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015, titled La Crosse County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-117 (Western District of Wisconsin). The case is being brought by the plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all other purchasers of allegedly defective ET Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards and approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiff also alleges strict liability design defect, breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases of the ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2016, the Court partially granted Trinity's Motion to Dismiss as to some but not all of plaintiff's claims, with only plaintiff's claims for breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment remaining. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Suit by Jackson County, MO -------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the class action lawsuit by Jackson County, Missouri. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015, titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation authority. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff alleges product liability negligence, product liability strict liability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for supplier's business purposes. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and in the alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, the Company's conduct was unlawful, and class- wide costs and expenses associated with removing and replacing the ET Plus throughout Missouri. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: NJ Treasury Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ----------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated shareholder class action. On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future filings to be filed in the Isolde case. The complaints in Isolde allege that defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as co- lead plaintiffs. On March 22, 2016, the Court entered the parties' Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding the Schedule for the Consolidated Complaint and Defendants' Response Thereto. Under said Order, the Lead Plaintiffs were to file their Consolidated Amended Complaint on or before May 11, 2016. Trinity, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry deny and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case. "Based on the information available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to this shareholder class action; therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these matters," the Company said. UNITED STATES: Beauty School Students Score Win Over Loans ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that former beauty school students who were saddled with student loan debt may sue the Department of Education for not telling them their loans were dischargeable, the Second Circuit ruled May 12. Wilfred American Education Corporation operated beauty schools in the 1980s and 90s that allegedly targeted low-income women in order to secure federal financial aid but did not prepare them to pass state cosmetology licensing exams. Over 61,300 student loans were given to individuals to attend now- defunct Wilfred schools, according to court records. Up until recently, many of the students still faced thousands of dollars of debt. In a class-action lawsuit, former Wilfred students sued the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) for failing to notify them of their eligibility for a loan discharge based on the school's fraudulent certification. A federal judge found the claims moot now that the DOE has discharged the named plaintiffs' debts. But, on May 12, the Second Circuit reinstated the case on appeal. "The text of the relevant statute directs that the DOE 'shall' discharge a borrower's loan liability when a school has falsely certified a student's [ability to benefit, or ATB]," Judge Gerard Lynch said, writing for a three-judge panel. The panel said the case is not moot under the exception for class- action claims that are "inherently transitory." "Legislative history strongly supports our reading of the statute as a mandatory command to the agency, not a grant of unbridled discretion," Lynch wrote. Congress clearly intended that students who have been "victimized by unscrupulous profiteers" should not be burdened by debt due to failures of the DOE's oversight systems, the ruling states. The panel said that the department's own action granting discharges to Wilfred students who requested them is powerful evidence that it had reliable information that all Wilfred borrowers "may" be eligible for a discharge. The case captioned, ANA SALAZAR, MARILYN MERCADO, ANA BERNARDEZ, JEANNETTE POOLE, LISA BRYANT, CHERRYLINE STEVENS, EDNA VILLATORO, On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. JOHN B. KING, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Education, Defendant- Appellee (2nd Cir.). URANIUM ENERGY: Dismissal of "Stephens" Action Sought ----------------------------------------------------- Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that Heather M. Stephens filed on or about June 29, 2015, a class action complaint against the Company and two of its executive officers in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, with an amended class action complaint filed on November 16, 2015, (the "Securities Case") seeking unspecified damages and alleging the defendants violated Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss. Uranium Energy is engaged in uranium mining and related activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and processing on uranium projects located in the United States and Paraguay. VAALCO ENERGY: Stipulation and Order of Dismissal Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- VAALCO Energy, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") approved on April 20, 2016, a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal entered into by the parties in the consolidated class action (the "Action") captioned In re VAALCO Energy, Inc. Consol. S'holder Litig., Consol. C.A. No. 11775-VCL, which was commenced on December 7, 2015 in the Court. Plaintiffs in the Action alleged (i) that certain provisions of the Company's Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Second Amended and Restated Bylaws (the "Charter and Bylaw Provisions") were invalid under the Delaware General Corporation Law and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Charter and Bylaw Provisions. Defendants denied any and all allegations of Plaintiffs that Defendants engaged in any wrongdoing. The Company stated that it agreed to settle Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses due to the costs of defense of that application and litigation risk associated therewith. VERIZON: Faces "Johnnidis" Suit in N.Y. Over Phone Service ---------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Verizon charges maintenance fees for its copper landlines, but lets them degrade to upsell fiber optic, customers claim in Manhattan federal class action. Lead plaintiff Nicholas Johnnidis describes himself as a customer of Verizon's "plain old telephone service (POTS), utilizing traditional copper lines." He subscribes to Verizon's for his home phone and dental business. "As a medical professional, Dr. Johnnidis must be available to his patients for emergency telephone calls. Dr. Johnnidis has relied on the copper line telephone service of defendant is available even when electrical service is interrupted," the complaint states. Johnnidis says he began having trouble with his phone lines about two years ago. "Specifically, when it would rain, Dr. Johnnidis' phone connections began to have loud static in the background," the complaint states. When he called Verizon to complain, he says, the company repeatedly told him he should switch to FiOS optical fiber, because Verizon's copper lines are degrading, and it is phasing them out. Johnnidis says he prefers the "plain old telephone service" because it allows him to use the phone when the power goes out. "With Verizon's FiOS service, when electrical service to an area is interrupted, a backup battery is necessary to provide telephone service," according to the complaint. "Such backup batteries provide service for around 4 to 6 hours, after which time, a FiOS subscriber cannot use the service to make telephone calls." Johnnidis cites two articles published in June 2015, one by the Huffington Post and one by The Wall Street Journal, corroborating his claims. The first, "Verizon Is 'Killing the Copper' and Is Now Denying It," quotes Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam telling investors at a private event, "I am going to be really shrinking the amount of copper we have out there, and then I can focus the investment on that to improve the performance of it." The Wall Street Journal article suggests that Verizon is purposefully allowing its landlines to degrade to upsell customers on fiber optic lines. Verizon says it does maintain its copper landlines, but Johnnidis doesn't believe it. "Verizon needs to have consumers and the public continue to believe it is maintaining its copper telephone lines because Verizon charges POTS customers fees for maintaining its copper lines: fees which have been diverted from POTS maintenance and used elsewhere by Verizon," he says in the lawsuit. Verizon also charges landline customers a municipal franchise fee/right of way fee for jurisdictions where it uses public right of way to provide telecommunications services, Johnnidis says. Fees for plain old telephone service are about $27 per line, the complaint states. "These fees are fraudulent to all Verizon POTS customers, because Verizon says it is providing a service it does not in fact provide," Johnnidis says. Johnnidis seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of unjust profits and damages for breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and fraud. He is represented by Paul Whalen in Manhasset. Verizon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Consolidated Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit against Vipshop Holdings Limited has been dismissed, the Company said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The Company said, "We and certain of our officers and directors were named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Heller v. Vipshop Holdings Limited et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-03870-LTS (S.D.N.Y.)(filed on May 19, 2015) and Schwartz v. Vipshop Holdings Limited et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv- 05097-LTS (S.D.N.Y.)(filed on June 30, 2015). The complaints in both putative class actions allege that certain of our financial statements and other public disclosures contained misstatements or omissions and assert claims under the U.S. securities laws." "On September 15, 2015, the court consolidated the two actions, and appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel for the consolidated action. On November 24, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice which was entered by the court, voluntarily dismissing, without prejudice, all claims in the consolidated action." WAUPUN, WI: McKinley Bey Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned La Ron McKinley Bey, and all similarly situated WCI prisoners in isolated Administrative Confinement v. William Pollard, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00521-RTR (E.D. Wisc.), seeks certification of class of prisoners. Mr. Pollard is the warden of the Waupun Correctional Institution in Wisconsin. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=510m7qOV WEATHERBY INC: Final Approval of "Fiant" Settlement Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephen W. Fiant asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval of a class settlement in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN W. FIANT, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WEATHERBY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 2 through 10, Case No. 2:15-CV-02991-BRO-FFM (C.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff also asks the Court to certify the FLSA Settlement Class for settlement purposes under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He also asks the Court to appoint him as Class Representative for settlement purposes and to appoint Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq., Roxana E. Khan, Esq., Paul K. Haines, Esq., and Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq., as Class Counsel for settlement purposes. Mr. Fiant, individually and on behalf of the proposed Settlement Classes, seeks final approval of the class action settlement on behalf of approximately 95 non-exempt employees of Weatherby. The non-reversionary $500,000 common fund settlement provides for average payments of $3,305 to the Settlement Class Members for alleged unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest period violations, and derivative statutory waiting time, wage statement, and Private Attorney General Act penalties. In exchange for the consideration being provided under the Settlement, Class Members have agreed to a narrowly tailored release of only those claims that were actually at issue in the lawsuit. The Court will commence a hearing on June 6, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QmZT5apC The Plaintiff is represented by: Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq. Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq. BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP 733 Marsh Street, Suite 110 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 322-3412 Facsimile: (805) 322-3413 E-mail: hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com efb@bbemploymentlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com WEIGHT WATCHERS: Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Fortune reports that Weight Watchers International Inc on May 11 won the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming it defrauded shareholders about how badly enrollment declines and the proliferation of free mobile weight loss applications were hurting its bottom line. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan said the plaintiffs in the proposed class action failed to show that Weight Watchers deliberately overstated its business and growth prospects and inflated its stock price in 2012 and early 2013. The case long predated the October 2015 announcement that talk show host and media mogul Oprah Winfrey had taken a 10 percent stake in the New York-based company. Judge Kaplan said the plaintiffs failed to show that Weight Watchers intended to hide its troubles signing up paying clients as more rivals began offering free apps to track food intake, exercise and weight-loss goals. He also rejected a claim that Weight Watchers improperly concealed how badly disruptions to a new software platform were impeding prospective business clients from signing up. "Even if the online business was cannibalizing customers from the traditional business and the traditional meetings business was in decline, plaintiffs have not here pled facts sufficient to demonstrate that this necessarily would be inconsistent with an optimistic growth forecast," Judge Kaplan wrote. The plaintiffs were led by the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, and KBC Asset Management NV of Brussels, Belgium. They sued on behalf of shareholders from Feb. 14, 2012, to Feb. 13, 2013, when Weight Watchers cited competitive threats in projecting 2013 profit that would fall well below analyst forecasts. Its share price fell 17 percent the next day. Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Weight Watchers said it is gratified by Judge Kaplan's decision, and always believed that the lawsuit had no merit. The case is In re: Weight Watchers International Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-01997. WONDRIES FAMILY: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Jose Avila, an individual and on behalf of all employees similarly situated v. Wondries Family Collision Center, LLC, Bob Wondries Ford, Kia of Alhambra, Nissan Automotive of Mission Hills, Inc., Wondries Toyota, and Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. BC620186 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate facilities that provide auto repair, including auto body repair, to members of the public. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net WOODSPRING HOTELS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Smith" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Renee Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Woodspring Hotels, LLC and Woodspring Hotels Property Management, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00489 (E.D. Tex., May 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants operate the Value Place Hotel located at 3210 SSW Loop 323 in Tyler, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shane McGuire, Esq. THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC 102 N. College Ave., Suite 1030 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 630-7154 Facsimile: (903) 630-7173 E-mail: shane@mcguirefirm.com - and - Keith Miller, Esq. KEITH MILLER LAW OFFICE 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 101 Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 597-4090 Facsimile: (903) 597-3692 E-mail: keith@5974090.net YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell to File Motion to Overturn Verdict --------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and intends to file a post-trial motion to overturn a court verdict. The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also sought penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well as statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms were mailed on January 21, 2014. Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim, the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty claim were tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 claim. On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco Bell on the PAGA claims and the Sec. 17200 claim. In a separate ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and intends to file a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. YUM! Brands, Inc. and subsidiaries comprise primarily the worldwide operations of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. YUM! BRANDS: 9th Circuit Not Yet Set Briefing Schedule ------------------------------------------------------ Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit has not yet set a briefing schedule on a plaintiff's appeal concerning the a summary judgment ruling. On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of current and former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various violations of California labor laws including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross-summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's motion. Trial was set for mid-April 2016. Plaintiff ceased to actively pursue this matter and failed to timely file the required pre-trial statement. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a request to dismiss with prejudice all of her remaining claims, which the court approved on March 2, 2016. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal concerning the court's summary judgment ruling. The Ninth Circuit has not yet set a briefing schedule. YUM! Brands, Inc. and subsidiaries comprise primarily the worldwide operations of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. ********* 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 * * *