/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160526.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 26, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 105 Headlines A&F STAFFING: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Lawrence" Suit Says ACT INC: Must Defend Against Yaakov's Unwanted Fax Suit ADVANCE AUTO: Sued Over Website's Unfair Terms and Conditions AFFILIATED FOODS: Court Certifies "Morgan" Class AK STEEL: Claims by Indirect Steel Purchasers Still Pending ALLERGAN PLC: "Providence" Sues Over Overpriced Drugs ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Bushansky" Class Action ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Luck" Class Action ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Haynes" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Still Faces Securities Class Action AMGEN INC: Settlement Reached in Onyx Litigation AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 19 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Parties Settled Caremark Action ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Consolidated 8 Maryland Cases AUTOLIV, INC: Settles with Truck and Equipment Dealers Class AUTOLIV, INC: 4 Antitrust Class Actions Pending in Canada B. BRAUN: To Pay Up to $7.8MM for Selling Contaminated Syringes BANCORPSOUTH, INC: Has Agreement to Settle N.D. Fla. Action BANCORPSOUTH, INC: No Class Certified in Tennessee Action BANKRATE INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $20MM BRAVO BRIO: "Husein" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay BUFFALO WILD: Suit by Former Employees Ongoing C. R. BARD: Class Suit Pending Over Hernia Product C. R. BARD: Update on Women's Health Product Claims C. R. BARD: Update on Filter Product Claims CANADA: May 31 Veterans Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set CARESCOPE LLC: Abstention Doctrine Not Applicable in Torres Suit CENERGY INTERNATIONAL: "Derrick" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Salary CLEAN HARBORS: Petition to Remove "Gibson" Suit Filed CLIFFS NATURAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for June 30 CLIFFS NATURAL: "Rosenberg" Settlement Has Final Court OK COLORADO: DOC Faces "Atkerson" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation COLORADO: DOC Faces "Lujan" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation CR ENGLAND: "Fozard" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay CRST VAN: Can Recoup $4.7MM Legal Fees From EEOC, Court Rules DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS: "Garcia" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay DEL TACO: "Tomasulo" Plaintiff Mulls Amended Complaint DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in Calif. Managers' Suit DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in Calif. Hourly Employees' Suit DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports DOW CHEMICAL: Settles Plutonium Claims for $375 Million DURHAM SCHOOL: Faces "Shann" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime EXPEDIA, INC: HomeAway.com Faces "Arnold" Suit in Texas EXPEDIA, INC: HomeAway.com Faces "Seim" Suit in Texas EXTREME NETWORKS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Filed EXXONMOBIL: Challenges Virgin Islands AG's Subpoena in Tex. Court FACEBOOK INC: Faces KBC Asset Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports FAY SERVICING: Faces "Bowles" Class Suit in District New Jersey FERROGLOBE PLC: Anticipates Further Discussions with Insurers FIRST NIAGARA: Has Deal to Settle KeyCorp Merger Class Action FIRSTMERIT CORP: 5 Lawsuits Filed by Shareholders FITBIT INC: Investors Group Appointed as Lead Plaintiff FLY LEASING: Faces Gerald Margolis Action in New York FORD MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Broken Spark Plugs FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Powershift Transmission FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: "Cappello" Sues Over Underfunded Pension Plan GANNETT CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Clark" Action Claims GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 20 GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Hialeah Case GODADDY INC: Johnson & Vines Files False Advertising Class Action GRO-WELL BRANDS: Judge Narrows Claims in "McMillan" Suit GTX CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Over Construction Contract Breach HARRIS AND ZIDE: "Harper" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Case HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss HF FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Facing Class Action by Former Employee INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Action Against BOH Holdings INGRAM MICRO: Faces "Scheiner" Class Action in California INSPERITY, INC: Worksite Employee Class Action Pending INSULET CORP: Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. Action Ongoing INTEL CORP: Motion for Reconsideration Scheduled in May 2016 INTEL CORP: McAfee Shareholder Litigation Ongoing IXIA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 29 KENNEDY KRIEGER: "Myers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: EoTech Class Actions in Early Stages L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Underway in Securities Action LACOSTE USA: Sued Over the Americans with Disabilities Act Breach LAMBCORP: Texas Homeowners File Class Action Over Fraudulent Fees LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Still Pending LEGEND UPPER: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif. LG DISPLAY: Reached Settlement Except as to Motorola and Costco LG DISPLAY: TFT-LCD Class Suits in Canada Still Pending LG DISPLAY: Decision in Israel Class Action Under Appeal LIBERTY OILFIELD: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay LIFEPOINT HEALTH: District Court Order Under Appeal M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Confidential Resolution in "Alvarez" MARATHON PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs Seek $2 Million Reimbursement MAXWELL & MORGAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Malcolm" Suit Claims MCS CLAIM: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Action Claims MEDICENTRES: July 7 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set MERCEDEZ BENZ: "Ferrari" Amended Complaint Due May 31 MILLER ENERGY: "Hull" Suit Alleges Accounting and Reporting Fraud MOBILEIRON, INC: Class Suit Dismissed; No Sum Paid MOBILEIRON, INC: Corrected Consolidated Complaint Filed MOL GLOBAL: Preliminary Settlement Approval Sought MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Counsel Does Not Violate Protective Order NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Construction Contract Breach NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former Players File Concussion Class Actions NATURAL HEALTH: Rosen Firm, Levi & Korsinsky Named Co-Lead Attys NGU INC: Faces Win-Vent Suit Over Construction Contract Breach NU SKIN: Final Settlement Approval Expected in Mid-2016 ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: $11-Mil. Class Action Deal Has Final OK OUTERWALL INC: Still Defends "Piechur" Action in Illinois PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Flo & Eddie Suit Remains Pending PANDORA MEDIA: "Sheridan" Class Suits Remain Stayed PANERA BREAD: Defending Class Suits by Former Employees PAPA JOHNS: "Durling" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Recovery of Pay Cuts PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Nieto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lordi" Suit Says RCI PLBG: Faces "Faulkner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RCN TELECOM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Portman" Suit Claims REGEIS CARE: Faces "Richardson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RBS HOLDINGS: Distribution in Madoff Class Action Approved ROTONDA GOLF: Faces "Werman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SANDISK CORP: Summary Judgment Granted in Ritz Camera Action SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Antitrust Action SANDISK CORP: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought SANDISK CORP: Merger Class Action Closed SANGHA SUNDIP SINGH: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SANGHA SUNDIP SINGH: "Juarez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages SERVICE CORPORATION: "Samborksy" Case Sent to Arbitration SINGING RIVER: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss Due June 20 SOUTHERN COPPER: Denies Allegations in "Lacey" Case ST JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: "Garbaccio" Sues Over Underfunded Pension STONEWOOD ALE HOUSE: "Marin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SUNRUN INC: "Cohen" Securities Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. SUNRUN INC: "Nunez" Class Suit Removed to N. Dist. California SUNRUN INC: "Mancy" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California SUNRUN INC: "Pytel" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California TAMPA FOOD: "Evering" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay TARGET CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action TENET HEALTHCARE: Court Re-Opened Discovery in Antitrust Action TEREX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought TOTAL COMMUNITY: "Gallagher" Sues Over Data Breach TRANSAM TRUCKING: May Amend Answers to "Blair" Wage & Hour Suit UNITED ONLINE: Faces "Akerman" Suit Over Proposed B. Riley Merger UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Defend Against Sexual Assault by Drivers UNITED STATES: Judge Rules on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment VOLKSWAGEN AG: Sued Over Defective Timing Belt Tensioning Systems WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Approval of Class Action Settlement WILFRED AMERICAN: 2nd Cir. Remands "Salazar" Suit XENCOR, INC: Paid Plaintiff's $950,000 Legal Award * Activist Organization Ready to Fight SA Mining Companies * Banks May Sue Federal Government Over New CFPB Consumer Rules * Corporate Defendants Rethink Class Action Litigation Strategies * South African Gold Mining Industry Face $3.4BB Silicosis Claims * U.S. Supreme Court & NLRB Arbitration, Waiver Clauses Clash ********* A&F STAFFING: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, "Lawrence" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maggi Lawrence, Jesus Mejia, and Allan Mares v. A&F Staffing d/b/a Secret Garden Management Company, Best Food Pizza, Inc., Prosolare USA, Inc., Riverside PJ ENT Inc., Daniel Millan, Mohammed Asif, Wasif Atta, Ram Gurm, Ahmad Eletreby, Silvia Paola Aquino, Juan Carlos Aquino, and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 5:16-cv-00977 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' systematic misclassification of pizza delivery drivers as independent contractors and failure to pay them minimum wage and overtime. The Defendants operate seven Papa John's Pizza franchise locations in Riverside, Moreno Valley, Norco and Corona, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: EAdam M. Rose, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, #2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com - and - Christopher Marlborough, Esq. MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM 445 Broad Hollow Road, #400 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 991-8960 Facsimile: (212) 991-8952 E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com ACT INC: Must Defend Against Yaakov's Unwanted Fax Suit ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Timothy S. Hillman of the District of Massachusetts denied defendant's motions in the case BAIS YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, Plaintiff, v. ACT, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:12- CV-40088-TSH (D. Mass.) Plaintiff is a religious corporation located in New York. On July 30, 2012, plaintiff brought suit against ACT, Inc. (ACT) on its own behalf and seeking to represent three classes of people. Plaintiff alleges that it received unsolicited faxes from ACT, which did not contain opt-out notices, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA) and a similar New York law, N.Y. General Business Law Section 396- aa. Plaintiff further alleges that from July 30, 2008 through July 30, 2012 ACT either negligently or knowingly sent thousands of unsolicited or solicited faxes without opt-out notices to fax machines belonging to people throughout the United States, and from July 30, 2009 through July 30, 2012 either negligently or knowingly sent thousands of unsolicited or solicited faxes without opt-out notices to fax machines belonging to people throughout New York. Plaintiff claims that each of these faxes violated the TCPA, or both the TCPA and section 396-aa. Defendant made an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the amount of $4800 and mad a motion to deposit with the court and to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Hillman denied defendant's motion to deposit funds and defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Hillman's memorandum and order dated May 10, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/tMkxGffrom Leagle.com. Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, Plaintiff, represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. Bellin & Associates LLC 85 Miles Ave. White Plains, NY 20606 Telephone: 914-358-5345 Plaintiff is also represented by: Matthew P. McCue, Esq. Law Office of Matthew P. McCue 340 Union Avenue Framingham, MA 01702 Telephone: 508-620-1166 ACT, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Michael K. Callan, Esq. Robert L. Leonard, Esq. Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, P.C. One Monarch Place, Suite 1900 1414 Main Street Springfield, MA 01144-1900 Telephone: 413-733-3111 Facsimile: 413-734-3910 ADVANCE AUTO: Sued Over Website's Unfair Terms and Conditions ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Russel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02685-PGS- DEA (D.N.J., May 12, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' unfair, one-sided provisions of the Terms and Conditions in the website, shop.advanceautoparts.com. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. markets automotive products and accessories throughout the State of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Clark, Esq. William S. Peck, Esq. Mark W. Morris, Esq. CLARK LAW FIRM, PC 811 Sixteenth Avenue Belnar, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 443-0333 Facsimile: (732) 894-9647 AFFILIATED FOODS: Court Certifies "Morgan" Class ------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Leon Holmes of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Complaint styled BRENDA MORGAN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; and DONNA KELLETT, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AFFILIATED FOODS SOUTHWEST, INC., Defendant, No. 4:15CV00296. The parties must confer in good faith and submit an agreed-upon date by which the opt-out form must be received. If the parties cannot agree, they may submit separate dates, along with a statement of their objections to the date proposed by the opposing party. The present action began as an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy on July 10, 2009. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, alleging that Affiliated Foods violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by failing to give employees at least sixty days advance notice of termination. To preserve the limited estate assets, the parties agreed to stay the adversary proceeding. The plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay on February 27, 2015, which the bankruptcy judge granted on April 27, 2015. Three days later, Affiliated Foods filed a motion to withdraw the reference pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 157(d), Bankruptcy Rule 5011, and Local Rule 83.1(c). Affiliated Foods contended that this Court had no discretion but to withdraw the reference and that even if it had discretion, the bankruptcy court did not have the constitutional authority to enter a judgment on the plaintiffs' WARN Act claim. The plaintiffs did not object to withdrawing the reference and the motion was granted. Now, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Affiliated Foods opposes class certification, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated April 26, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/EcQVzH from Leagle.com. Brenda Morgan, Plaintiff, is represented by Cade L. Cox, Esq. -- Cox, Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC, David Wayne Sterling, Arkansas Department of Human Services, M. Vance McCrary, Esq. -- vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com -- The Gardner Firm, Mary E. Olsen, Esq. -- molsen@thegardnerfirm.com -- The Gardner Firm, Melanie J. McClure, Esq. -- Cox, Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC & Stuart J. Miller, Esq.-- Lankenau & Miller, LLP. Donna Kellett, Plaintiff, is represented by Cade L. Cox, Cox, Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC, David Wayne Sterling, Arkansas Department of Human Services, M. Vance McCrary, The Gardner Firm, Mary E. Olsen, The Gardner Firm, Melanie J. McClure, Cox, Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC & Stuart J. Miller, Lankenau & Miller, LLP. Affiliated Foods Southwest Inc, Defendant, is represented by Greta Brouphy, Esq. -- gbrouphy@hellerdraper.com -- Heller Draper Hayden Patrick & Horn, LLC, pro hac vice, Kerrilee Elizabeth Kobbeman, Esq. -- Conner & Winters, LLP, Richard L. Cox, Esq. -- Attorney at Law & Todd Patrick Lewis, Esq. -- Conner & Winters, LLP. Richard L Cox, Trustee, is represented by Todd Patrick Lewis, Conner & Winters, LLP. About Affiliated Foods Southwest Little Rock, Arkansas-based Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., and its affiliates, including Shur-Valu Stamps, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. E.D. Ark. Case No. 09-13178) on May 5, 2009. W. Michael Reif, Esq., at Dover Dixon Horne, represented the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. The Debtors estimated assets between $10 million and $50 million and debts between $100 million and $500 million. Rather than proceed with a disclosure statement and plan of reorganization, both Affiliated Foods and ShurValu engaged in an orderly liquidation followed by conversion to Chapter 7 on August 13, 2009. M. Randy Rice became the Chapter 7 trustee in the ShurValu matter. Mr. Rice, as the trustee in the ShurValu case, later chose to put the wholly owned subsidiary -- Supermarket Investors, Inc. -- into a separate Chapter 7 on October 13, 2009. The court thereafter appointed Mr. Rice as the trustee in the SII proceeding. Richard Cox was named the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for Affiliated Foods Southwest Inc. AK STEEL: Claims by Indirect Steel Purchasers Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that claims by indirect purchaser plaintiff class members and direct purchaser class members that have opted out of the class remain pending. The Company said, "In September and October 2008 and again in July 2010, several companies filed purported class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against nine steel manufacturers, including us. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942, 08CV6197 and 10CV04236. On December 28, 2010, another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The defendants removed the Tennessee case to federal court and in March 2012 it was transferred to the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies that purport to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they claim to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January 2005. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices for steel products in the United States. The Company said, "In March 2014, we reached an agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs to tentatively settle the claims asserted against us, subject to certain court approvals". "According to that settlement, we agreed to pay $5.8 to the plaintiff class of direct purchasers in exchange for the members of that class to completely release all claims. We continue to believe that the claims made against us lack any merit, but we elected to enter the settlement to avoid the ongoing expense of defending ourself in this protracted and expensive antitrust litigation. We provided notice of the proposed settlement to members of the settlement class. After several class members received the notice, they elected to opt out of the class settlement." "Following a fairness hearing, on October 21, 2014 the Court entered an order and judgment approving the settlement and dismissing all of the direct plaintiffs' claims against us with prejudice as to the settlement class. "In 2014, we recorded a charge for the amount of the tentative settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and paid that amount into an escrow account, which has now been disbursed in accordance with the order that approved the settlement. "At this time, we do not have adequate information available to determine that a loss is probable or to reliably or accurately estimate the potential loss, if any, with respect to the remaining indirect purchaser plaintiff class members and any direct purchaser class members that have opted out of the class (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Remaining Plaintiffs"). Because we have been unable to determine that a potential loss in this case for the Remaining Plaintiffs is probable or estimable, we have not recorded an accrual for this matter. If our assumptions used to evaluate a probable or estimable loss for the Remaining Plaintiffs prove to be incorrect or change, we may be required to record a charge for their claims." ALLERGAN PLC: "Providence" Sues Over Overpriced Drugs ----------------------------------------------------- The City of Providence, Rhode Island, Plaintiff, V. Allergan PLC, Actavis PLC, Lannett Company, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc. and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00214-M-PAS (N.D. Ga., May 12, 2016), seeks treble damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act. Providence alleges that the manufacturers of generic Digoxin and Doxycycline entered into an unlawful agreement to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of these generic drugs. Doxycycline is a fairly common antibiotic used to treat a wide variety of infections. Providence has a self-insured health and welfare plan, and purchases, pays, and/or provides reimbursement for its employees, retirees and/or plan beneficiaries. Lannett is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lannett is a distributor of generic digoxin and generic doxycycline. West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices at 401 Industrial Way West, Eatontown, New Jersey. West-Ward is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hikma Pharmacueticals PLC. Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It supplies and distributes a generic version of Lanoxin (R) (digoxin) tablets made by Covis Pharma. Impax is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business in Hayward, California. Impax's generics division is called Global Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and distributor of generic digoxin. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent L. Greene, Esq. Robert J. McConnell, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 321 South Main Street, 2nd Fl. Providence, RI 02903 Tel: (401) 457-7730 Fax: (401) 457-7708 ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Bushansky" Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc., et al. Case No. 16-CV-294245 was filed on April 22, 2016, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara naming as defendants the Company, its Board of Directors, Corning and Merger Sub. This action purports to be a class action brought by a stockholder alleging, among other things, that the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement, and that the Company, Corning and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated. Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated in California on December 12, 1995 and reincorporated in Delaware on October 19, 2000. The Company designs, manufactures and markets fiber optic components for communications equipment manufacturers. The Company's headquarters are located in Sunnyvale, California, and it has operations in Taiwan and China. ALLIANCE FIBER: Faces "Luck" Class Action ----------------------------------------- Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a complaint captioned Rudy Luck v. Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-CV-294413 was filed on April 27, 2016, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara naming as defendants the Company, its Board of Directors, Corning and Apricot. Similarly to the Bushansky action referenced above, this action purports to be a class action brought by a stockholder alleging, among other things, that the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger Agreement, and that Corning and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed transaction or to rescind the transaction in the event it is consummated. Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated in California on December 12, 1995 and reincorporated in Delaware on October 19, 2000. The Company designs, manufactures and markets fiber optic components for communications equipment manufacturers. The Company's headquarters are located in Sunnyvale, California, and it has operations in Taiwan and China. ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Haynes" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence Haynes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Interstate LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03295 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2016), seeks actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and such other and further relief resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Allied Interstate is in the business of debt collection and attempted to collect supposed debt from the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialler without prior express consent and incurred a charge for those calls. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 877-206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Still Faces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit. On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and certain of its current or former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 with regard to disclosures concerning pricing and transactions with related parties that allegedly inflated Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. share prices. The Court subsequently appointed the Pension Fund for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead Plaintiffs. On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint which added Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant, and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of purchasers of Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014 and an unspecified amount of damages. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the suit on March 23, 2015. On September 4, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the Lead Plaintiffs' amended complaint failed to state a claim as to any of the defendants, but permitting the Lead Plaintiffs to file another amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs subsequently filed second and third amended complaints with substantially similar claims and theories. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on October 22, 2015. On December 22, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against Ocwen Financial Corporation and certain claims against Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. and the officer and director defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss as to other claims. Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. intends to continue to vigorously defend this suit. AMGEN INC: Settlement Reached in Onyx Litigation ------------------------------------------------ Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs and the Onyx director defendants in a class action lawsuit filed a notice of settlement with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo on March 2, 2016 for an immaterial amount, and the settlement remains subject to finalization and approval by the court. Amgen markets therapeutics for supportive cancer care, inflammation, nephrology, and bone health. AMGEN INC: Trial Date in Securities Litigation Set for July 19 -------------------------------------------------------------- Amgen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the defendants in the case, In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation, in this federal class action have filed motions for summary judgment which are set for hearing on May 23, 2016. The trial date has been set for July 19, 2016. Amgen markets therapeutics for supportive cancer care, inflammation, nephrology, and bone health. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Parties Settled Caremark Action ------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties have settled a class action lawsuit related to Caremark Rx in principle, subject to formal documentation and court approval. AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the second-filed intervened in the first-filed action, and the second- filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage. The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the statute of limitations. On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was denied on February 27, 2015. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits. On November 24, 2015, the trial court ruled that the defendants had a duty to disclose the amount of insurance available at the settlement approval hearings and that the defendants breached that duty. On February 22, 2016, the court rescheduled the trial date to May 16, 2016. Thereafter, the parties settled this matter in principle, subject to formal documentation and court approval. We have accrued our current estimate of loss with respect to this litigation. ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Court Consolidated 8 Maryland Cases ------------------------------------------------------- Armour Residential Reit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has issued an order consolidating eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designating counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Tender Offer and Merger (collectively, the "Transactions"): (1) Stourbridge Investments Ltd. v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), filed March 8, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (2) Timothy Lenell v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2016 CA 000164), filed March 8, 2016 in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for Indian River County, Florida; (3) Alexander Vartanov v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001593), filed March 10, 2016, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (4) Robert Curley v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001659, filed March 14, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (5) Antonio Rado and Craig and Amanda Hosler v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001684), filed March 15, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (6) Curtis Heid v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16- 001706), filed March 16, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (7) Robert Aivasian v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001808), filed March 22, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; (8) Neil Harmon v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001812), filed March 22, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland; and (9) Benjamin C. Washington, et al. v. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24-C-16-001829), filed March 23, 2016 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual Defendants") and Acquisition as defendants. The Lenell, Curley, Heid and Harmon suits also name ACM as an additional defendant. All suits except for the Harmon suit also name JAVELIN as an additional defendant. The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. On April 25, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designating counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. "On April 6, 2016 we completed our acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of JAVELIN pursuant the Transactions, for cash consideration of $85.2 million. Subsequently JAVELIN became a wholly-owned subsidiary of ARMOUR. The acquisition expands and diversifies our investment portfolio. JAVELIN's complementary assets provide us with investment opportunities in Non-Agency MBS," the Company said. Each of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and the Individual Defendants believes that the claims made in these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend such claims vigorously; however, there can be no assurance that any of ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM or the Individual Defendants will prevail in its defense of any of these lawsuits to which it is a party. An unfavorable resolution of any such litigation surrounding the Transactions may result in monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs and the putative class of former stockholders of JAVELIN, and the cost of defending the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be substantial. Such litigation could also substantially divert the attention of the Individual Defendants and ARMOUR's, JAVELIN's and ACM's management and their resources in general. Due to the preliminary nature of all nine suits, ARMOUR is not able at this time to estimate their outcome. Armour Residential Reit, Inc. is a Maryland corporation formed to invest in and manage a leveraged portfolio of MBS and mortgage loans. AUTOLIV, INC: Settles with Truck and Equipment Dealers Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has reached an agreement to settle with the truck and equipment dealers class for a non-material amount. The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti- competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors were named as defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between June 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and were consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases sought to represent four purported classes -- direct purchasers, auto dealers, end-payors, and, as of the filing of the last class action in June 2015, truck and equipment dealers -- who purchased occupant safety systems or components directly from a defendant, indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems, or through purchases of replacement parts. More information on the MDL is available at: http://www.autopartsclass.com/index In May 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives of the three classes of plaintiffs then pending in the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay: $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims regarding their U.S. purchases that were or could have been asserted on behalf of the three classes in the MDL. In January 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the direct purchaser class settlement, which had been reduced to approximately $35.5 million because of opt-outs, and in December 2015, the MDL court granted final approval of the auto dealer class settlement. A final fairness hearing for the end-payor class settlement was scheduled for May 11, 2016. Two individuals and one insurer have opted-out of all of the pending end-payor class settlements, including the Company's settlement. The insurer has informed the settling defendants that it intends to pursue claims as an indirect purchaser of replacement parts. The class settlements do not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt-out of the settlements or the unasserted claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. In March 2015, the Company, without admitting any liability, reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims that were not covered by the direct purchaser class settlement. The total amount of these additional settlements was $81 million. Autoliv expensed during the first quarter of 2015 approximately $77 million as a result of these additional settlements, net of existing amounts that had been accrued in 2014. In April 2016, the Company reached an agreement to settle with the truck and equipment dealers class for a non-material amount. The settlement is subject to court approval following notice to the class and the opportunity for class members to object to or opt out of the settlement. Interim Liaison Counsel for the Proposed EndPayor Plaintiff Classes: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Devon P. Allard, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, Michigan 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dpa@@millerlawpc.com Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Proposed End-Payor Plaintiff Classes: Steven N. Williams, Esq. Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq. Elizabeth Tran, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com etran@cpmlegal.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Bernard Persky, Esq. William V. Reiss, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: hsalzman@robinskaplan.com bpersky@robinskaplan.com wreiss@robinskaplan.com - and - Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Terrell W. Oxford, Esq. Omar Ochoa, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 754-1900 Facsimile: (214)754-1933 E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com oochoa@susmangodfrey.com - and - Chanler A. Langham, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 651-6666 E-mail: clangham@susmangodfrey.com Autoliv is represented by: Peter Kontio, Esq. Alston & Bird 1201 W. Peachtree Street, Suite 4000 Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Tel: 404-881-7000 Fax: 404-253-9690 - and - Joanne Geha Swanson, Esq. Fred K. Herrmann, Esq. Dwayne D. Stresman, Esq. Kerr Russell & Weber 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48226-3406 Tel: 313-961-0200 AUTOLIV, INC: 4 Antitrust Class Actions Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the remaining four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. The Company believes that a loss is probable with respect to these Canadian antitrust cases and accrued an amount for the period ended March 31, 2016 related to these claims that is not material to the Company's results of operations. There is currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian occupant safety systems class actions. These actions have been stayed pending proceedings in certain earlier-filed auto parts cases. The Company cannot predict or estimate the duration or ultimate outcome of Canadian antitrust cases. B. BRAUN: To Pay Up to $7.8MM for Selling Contaminated Syringes --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that federal prosecutors say a drug and medical device manufacturer has agreed to pay up to $7.8 million for selling contaminated syringes. Authorities announced on May 18 that B. Braun will avoid criminal charges in exchange for implementing procedures to improve oversight of its suppliers. The company will pay $4.8 million in penalties and forfeited profits, plus up to $3 million in restitution. The settlement comes in response to the sale of contaminated syringes that prosecutors say led to an outbreak of bacterial infections and at least five deaths. The B. Braun-branded syringes were manufactured by another firm. B. Braun says it's committed to patient safety and has agreed to undertake compliance measures related to monitoring of third-party manufacturers. The company is based in Melsungen, Germany. Its U.S. headquarters are in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. BANCORPSOUTH, INC: Has Agreement to Settle N.D. Fla. Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on January 5, 2016, the Bank entered into an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed on May 18, 2010 by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit challenged the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order of debit card and ATM transactions. The suit also made a claim under Arkansas' consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was seeking to recover damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief. As a result of this agreement, the Company recorded an expense of $16.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015, representing amounts to be paid in connection with the settlement net amounts the Company had already accrued for this legal proceeding in previous periods. The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court approval. Pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement, in the first quarter of 2016 the amounts accrued for settlement were paid into settlement escrow funds. The Company can provide no assurance that such approval will occur in any specific time frame or at all. BANCORPSOUTH, INC: No Class Certified in Tennessee Action --------------------------------------------------------- Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that no class has been certified in a class action lawsuit in Tennessee. On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaint has subsequently been amended to add the former President and Chief Operating Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning the Company's expectation that it would be able to close two merger transactions within a specified time period and the Company's compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements. On July 10, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims concerning the Company's expectations about the closing of the mergers. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. No class has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. BANKRATE INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $20MM ------------------------------------------------------- Bankrate, Inc. on May 17 disclosed that it has reached a proposed agreement, subject to Court approval, to settle the private securities class action pending against the Company and certain current and former officers of the Company. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Bankrate would pay a total of $20 million in cash to a Settlement Fund to resolve all claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bankrate stock between October 27, 2011 and October 9, 2014. The proposed settlement further provides that Bankrate denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. Approximately 70% of the settlement fund is expected to be paid from insurance proceeds. If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice to the Class members will be sent with information regarding the allocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund and instructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on the Settlement Fund. About Bankrate, Inc. Bankrate is an online publisher, aggregator, and distributor of personal finance content. Bankrate aggregates large scale audiences of in-market consumers by providing them with proprietary, fully researched, comprehensive, independent and objective personal finance and related editorial content across multiple vertical categories including mortgages, deposits, credit cards, senior care and other categories, such as retirement, automobile loans, and taxes. Its flagship sites Bankrate.com, CreditCards.com, and Caring.com are leading destinations in each of their respective verticals and connect its audience with financial service and senior care providers and other contextually relevant advertisers. Bankrate also develops and provides content, tools, web services and co-branded websites to over 100 online partners, including some of the most trusted and frequently visited personal finance sites such as Yahoo!, CNBC, Investopedia and MarketWatch. In addition, Bankrate licenses editorial content to leading news organizations such as The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The New York Times. BRAVO BRIO: "Husein" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Mamdooh Husein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00435-DW (W.D. Mo., May 14, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and expert fees, and all such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked as a server/bartender for the Defendant's restaurant located at 502 Nichols Rd, Kansas City, MO 64112. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group operates upscale Italian restaurants named "Brio." Defendant allegedly denied minimum and overtime pay to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hodgson, Esq. THE EMPLOYEE & LABOR LAW GROUP OF KANSAS CITY, LLC 3699 SW Pryor Rd. Lee's Summit, MO 64082 Tel: (816) 945-2122 Fax: (816) 945-2120 Email: mike@elgkc.com - and - Mark A. Jess, Esq. Christie Jess, Esq. John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. JESS, LLC Kansas City Livestock Exchange Building 1600 Genessee, Suite 842 Kansas City, MO 64102-5639 Email: mark.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com christie.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com john.z@employeerightslawfirm.com BUFFALO WILD: Suit by Former Employees Ongoing ---------------------------------------------- Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit by two former employees. The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York state law against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The claim alleges that we have a policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible for tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of the FLSA and New York state law. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We believe a loss is reasonably possible, but we are currently unable to reasonably estimate the amount of loss." As of March 27, 2016, Buffalo Wild Wings owned and operated 603 company-owned restaurants, including 596 Buffalo Wild Wings(R), 5 R TacoTM, and 2 PizzaRev(R) restaurants in the United States and Canada. Buffalo Wild Wings also franchised an additional 587 restaurants, including 580 Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants and 7 R Taco restaurants. C. R. BARD: Class Suit Pending Over Hernia Product -------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, approximately 40 federal and 60 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 100 plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the United States, are currently pending against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently, other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014. As of March 31, 2016, all but one of the putative class actions pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining putative class action pending against the company has not been certified and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to the three putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 40 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 40 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. The company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. C. R. BARD: Update on Women's Health Product Claims --------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 12,875 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the company's surgical continence products for women. With respect to a majority of these lawsuits, the company believes that two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company, have an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product defect liability. In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims". The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in one Canadian putative class action. In March 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded by the company. The company expects administration of those settlements to take place over the next several quarters. In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV District Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million, which was upheld by the Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product Claims. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV District Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders") (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre- Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuing through the second quarter of 2015. In February 2015, the WV District Court appointed a Special Master to assist with settlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV District Court issued an order staying the requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered by the WHP Pre-Trial Orders, which stay could be modified at the court's discretion. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional cost in future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. The WV District Court may also order that the company prepare additional cases for trial, which could result in material additional costs in future periods. As of March 31, 2016, the company reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 6,845 Women's Health Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during 2014 and 6,285 during 2015. The company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law firms, which have not been included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. The company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts, the company anticipates additional trials over the next 12 months. In addition, one or more possible consolidated trials may occur in the future. In July 2015, as part of the agreement, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss without prejudice their previously filed litigation with respect to Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the company. The approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 660 generic complaints involving women's health products where the company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints, determine whether any of those cases involve the company's women's health products. In addition, the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include approximately 1,070 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. During the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs' law firms, the company has learned, and may in future periods learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the company. While the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. C. R. BARD: Update on Filter Product Claims ------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of March 31, 2016, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 375 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi- District Litigation ("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi- District Litigation for all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the District of Arizona. There are approximately 345 lawsuits that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL. The remaining approximately 30 lawsuits are pending in various state courts across the country. In March 2016, a Canadian class action was filed against the company in Quebec. The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted in a judgment for the company. During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments with respect to such claims within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The approximate number of lawsuits set forth above do not include approximately 75 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the company. The company expects that additional trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months. While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. The company designs, develops, manufactures, packages, distributes and sells medical, surgical, diagnostic and patient care devices. CANADA: May 31 Veterans Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- Toth v. Her Majesty the Queen Court No. T-1068-14 The Federal Court has certified the case as a class action. If you are a former member of the Canadian Forces who was entitled to receive Earnings Loss Benefit or Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit, or a war veteran who was entitled to receive War Veterans Allowance, and the amount of your benefits were reduced because of disability payments under the Pension Act, you may be a member of the class. If you are a spouse, dependant, survivor, or orphan of an individual entitled to receive one or more of these benefits, you may also be a member of the class. If the action succeeds or is settled, your entitlement will depend on your individual circumstances. WHAT IS THE CLASS ACTION ABOUT? The new Veterans Charter created two benefits payable to qualified Canadian Forces members, veterans and their families: Earnings Loss Benefit ("ELB") and Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit ("CFIS"). Individuals who were eligible for, applied for, or received a disability pension under the Pension Act before June 1, 2006, and who received ELB or CFIS, had the amount of their disability pension deducted from their ELB and/or CFIS payments. Similarly, recipients of War Veterans Allowance ("WVA") payments under the War Veterans Allowance Act had the amount of their disability payments deducted from their WVA on or after April 17, 1985. The class action seeks, among other things, a declaration that the deduction of disability benefits from ELB, CFIS and WVA was discriminatory on the basis of disability contrary to s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The class action seeks a refund of all disability benefits deducted and/or damages. WHO ARE THE CLASS MEMBERS? The Federal Court has defined the class as follows: (a) all Canadian Forces members and veterans, and their spouses, dependants, survivors, and orphans who received a reduced Earnings Loss Benefit or Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit between April 1, 2006 and May 29, 2012, or received no benefit at all during that time, because of the deduction of disability benefit entitlements under the Pension Act; and (b) all veterans, their spouses, dependants, survivors, and orphans who, between April 17, 1985 and May 29, 2012, received a reduced allowance under the War Veterans Act or did not receive a veterans allowance at all because of the deduction of disability benefit entitlements under the Pension Act. The person who brought the lawsuit and who is a class member and the representative plaintiff is Raymond Michael Toth c/o Malcolm Ruby, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, 100 King St. W., Suite 1600, Toronto, ON, M5X 1G5 WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO TAKE PART? All class members have the right to participate in the class action. You are automatically included in the class action unless you opt-out of participating. You do not need to do anything if you wish to participate. If you wish to opt-out you must do so by completing an opt-out notice available from Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP. Your opt-out notice must be received no later than May 31, 2016. If you opt-out, you will not be affected by any decision the Court makes on the common issues in the class action, and will not be eligible to receive any payment from a settlement or judgment in favor of the class. Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP can be reached at: 100 King St. W., Suite 1600, Toronto, ON, M5X 1G5 Attn: Malcolm Ruby Tel: 416-862-4314 Fax: 416-862-7661 Email: Veterans@gowlingWLG.com Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP can help you confirm whether you are a class member. When contacting Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP please provide as much of the following as possible: -- Your name, address, telephone and/or email -- The dates of your service in the Canadian Forces -- The date upon which you commenced receiving ELB, CFIS, or WVA. -- The amount by which your ELB, CFIS or WVA was reduced by your disability benefits. DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING? You do not need to pay any legal fees directly out of your pocket. If the case is unsuccessful, no legal fees will be charged. By agreement with the representative plaintiff, a scaled legal fee of up to 30% of any amount received may be paid to class counsel. If any settlement, judgment, or other benefits is obtained, class counsel shall apply to the Federal Court for approval of its fees. WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS? Malcolm Ruby and Erica Maidment, Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, 100 King St. W., Suite 1600, Toronto, ON, M5X 1G5 Michael Drapeau and Joshua Juneau, Michael Drapeau Law Office, 192 Somerset West, Ottawa ON K2P 0J4 WHERE CAN I FIND MORE INFORMATION? For more information or to opt-out of the class action, please contact Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP at the address above. CARESCOPE LLC: Abstention Doctrine Not Applicable in Torres Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of California denied defendants' motion to dismiss or alternatively to stay proceedings in the case ANTONETT TORRES, on behalf of all current and former employees and the State of California Plaintiff, v. CARESCOPE, LLC (dba VOICE OF SENIORS), BIANCA VUE, and FRANK SIM Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-00198-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.) On August 22, 2014 Tamara Hayward filed a lawsuit against Carescope LLC (Carescope) in Sacramento Superior Court (Hayward Action) on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employees. Hayward alleges that defendant Carescope failed to pay in conformance with California Labor Code and Wage Orders. Plaintiff Antonett Torres filed an action against Carescope on January 26, 2015, and filed a first amended complaint May 8, 2015, (FAC). In the FAC plaintiff alleges defendants systematically failed to pay plaintiff and similarly situated individuals, in conformance with federal and state law. Plaintiff filed eight claims for relief: 1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a) (FLSA) Overtime Wages to Class; 2) failure to pay state minimum wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1194.2, 1197(a), and Wage Orders; 3) failure to pay state overtime and double time wages in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, and Wage Orders; 4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226, 226.6, and Wage Orders; 5) failure to pay all wages owed upon discharge in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, and 203; 6) failure to allow inspection or copying of employee records in violation of California Labor Code Sections 226(b), 1174, and 1175; 7) unfair competition in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.; and 8) violation of the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act pursuant to Labor Code Sections 2698, et seq. Plaintiff seeks to represent two classes of caregivers. First, plaintiff seeks to represent an opt-in FLSA Class of all caregivers who have been employed by defendants within three years of the filing of the original complaint. Second, plaintiff seeks to represent a Rule 23 Class of all caregivers who are or have been employed by defendants within four years of the filing of the FAC. Defendants contend that plaintiff's case should be dismissed or in the alternative stayed pending the resolution of the Hayward action pursuant to the Colorado River abstention doctrine. Judge Nunley denied defendants' motion to dismiss or alternatively to stay proceedings. A copy of Judge Nunley's order dated May 10, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/BHWrAIfrom Leagle.com. Antonett Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley S. Mallison -- stanm@themmlawfirm.com -- Eric Sebastian Trabucco -- etrabucco@themmlawfirm.com -- Hector Rodriguez Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Joseph Donald Sutton -- JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Marco A. Palau -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- at Mallison & Martinez Defendants, represented by Sharon B. Futerman -- sharon.futerman@llg-law.com -- at Levangie Law Group CENERGY INTERNATIONAL: "Derrick" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Salary ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Derrick, individually and for others similarly situated, v. Cenergy International Services, LLC & Shell Oil Company, Case No. 4:16-cv-01352 (S.D. Tex., May 12, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cenergy International Services LLC staffs out workers, including the Plaintiff, to Shell Oil Company. Derrick worked for Defendants as an HSE Tech, which Shell classifies as an independent contractor or consultant, thus denying the conventional pay and benefits as well as overtime premium. Shell Oil Co., a subsidiary of UK-based Royal Dutch Shell, is headquartered in Houston, Texas and is one of America's largest oil and natural gas producers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com CLEAN HARBORS: Petition to Remove "Gibson" Suit Filed ----------------------------------------------------- A petition has been filed seeking removal of the class action lawsuit captioned Carla Gibson, Windell Lawson, Joyce Powell, Jeff Rogers, Kathy Wood, and Lillie Woods, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01035-SOH (W.D. Ark., May 9, 2016). The case asserts personal injury claims. Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. provides hazardous waste disposal, emergency response, lab chemical packing, recycling, household hazardous waste, and vacuum services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen P. Roberts, Esq. P.O. Box 280 Camden, AR 71701 Telephone: (870) 836-5310 Facsimile: (870) 836-9662 E-mail: allen@aprobertslaw.com - and - David P. Price, Esq. PRICE LAW FIRM P.O. Box 765 Magnolia, AR 71754 Telephone: (870) 234-4781 Facsimile: (870) 234-7751 E-mail: dplaw4781@sbcglobal.net - and - Phillip A. Stone, Esq. VICKERY & SMART, PLLC 315 E. Main El Dorado, AR 71730 Telephone: (870) 862-5565 Facsimile: (870) 863-5889 E-mail: pstone@southarklaw.com - and - Robert L. Depper Jr., Esq. DEPPER LAW FIRM 101 West Main, Suite 200 El Dorado, AR 71730-5685 Telephone: (870) 862-5505 Facsimile: (870) 862-7591 E-mail: bdepper@suddenlinkmail.com - and - Samuel E. Ledbetter, Esq. MCMATH WOODS P.A. 711 West Third Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 396-5410 Facsimile: (501) 374-5118 E-mail: sam@mcmathlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John S. Cherry Jr., Esq. BARBER, MCCASKILL, JONES & HALE, P.A. 400 West Capitol Ave., 2700 Regions Center Little Rock, AR 72201-3414 Telephone: (501) 372-6175 Facsimile: (501) 375-2802 E-mail: jcherry@barberlawfirm.com CLIFFS NATURAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for June 30 -------------------------------------------------------- Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a settlement hearing is currently scheduled for June 30, 2016, in the class actin lawsuit by the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and Its Division of Investment. The Company said, "In May 2014, alleged purchasers of our common shares filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against us and certain former officers and directors of the Company. The action is captioned Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and Its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV- 1031. As amended, the action asserts violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements or omissions during the period of March 14, 2012 to March 26, 2013, regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine in Qu‚bec, Canada, and the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend, and that the alleged misstatements caused our common shares to trade at artificially inflated prices." "The parties have successfully mediated this dispute and reached a settlement in principle, subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice and court approval. The lawsuit had been referred to our insurance carriers, who have funded the entire $84 million settlement amount into an escrow account as we await the court's decision regarding approval. "The settlement hearing is currently scheduled for June 30, 2016. The settlement of this lawsuit, if approved, will have no impact on our financial position or operations." CLIFFS NATURAL: "Rosenberg" Settlement Has Final Court OK --------------------------------------------------------- Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has entered a final order approving the settlement in the "Rosenberg" class action lawsuit. The Company said, "In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the depositary shares issued by Cliffs in a public offering in February 2013 filed a putative class action, which is captioned Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., and after a round of removal and remand motions, is now pending in the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, No. CV-14-828140. As amended, the suit asserts claims against us, certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, and several underwriters of the offering, alleging disclosure violations in the offering documents regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine, the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook, and about the progress of our former exploratory chromite project in Ontario, Canada." "The parties successfully mediated this dispute and reached a settlement agreement in principle, subject to definitive documentation, notice to class members and court approval. The settlement provides for a payment to the proposed class of $10 million, which has been deposited into escrow by the insurance carriers. "On April 14, 2016, the court determined that the documentation was complete and the notice provided was appropriate, and the court entered a final order approving the settlement." COLORADO: DOC Faces "Atkerson" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Atkerson, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Colorado Dept of Corrections, Rick Raemisch, Roger Werholtz, Tony Carochi, Aristedes Zavaris, Joe Ortiz, John Suthers, State of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, CDOC Director of Clinical Services, CDOCClinical Services Management Team, J. Russell, Associate Director of The Offices of Legal Services for CDOC, Dr. Walker, Dr. Cabling, Corrections Corporation of America, Damon Henninger, Judy Brezindine, CMC-AHCC HAS, and John or Jane Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv-01102-GPG (D. Colo., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for civil rights violations. Colorado Dept of Corrections is the principal department of the Colorado state government that operates the state prisons. Mark Atkerson is a pro se Plaintiff. COLORADO: DOC Faces "Lujan" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Felix D. Lujan, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, Rick Raemisch, Roger Werholtz, Tony Carochi, Aristedes Zavaris, Joe Ortiz, John Suthers, State of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, CDOC Director of Clinical Services, CDOCClinical Services Management Team, J. Russell, Associate Director of The Offices of Legal Services for CDOC, Dr. Walker, Dr. Cabling, Corrections Corporation of America, Damon Henninger, Judy Brezindine, CMC-AHCC HAS, and John or Jane Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv-01102-GPG (D. Colo., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for civil rights violations. Colorado Department of Corrections is the principal department of the Colorado state government that operates the state prisons. Felix D. Lujan is a pro se plaintiff. CR ENGLAND: "Fozard" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Chandler Fozard, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C.R. England, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01334-B (N.D. Tex., May 13, 2016) seeks overtime wages due with liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and prejudgment and post-judgment interest on all compensation due under the Fair Labor Standards Act. C.R. England, Inc. is a trucking company, providing transportation and logistics services to customers throughout the country where Fozard was employed as a commercial truck driver. He claims to be denied overtime pay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benton Williams Ii Timothy M. Dortch Benton Williams Ii COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 712-9500 Fax: (214) 712-9540 Email: micah.dortch@cooperscully.com benton.williams@cooperscully.com - and - Tom Carse, Esq. CARSE LAW FIRM 6220 Campbell Road, Ste. 401 Dallas, TX 75248 Telephone: (972) 503-6338 Facsimile: (972) 503-6348 Email: tom@carselaw.com CRST VAN: Can Recoup $4.7MM Legal Fees From EEOC, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court on May 19 ruled unanimously in favor of an Iowa trucking company that was trying to recover $4.7 million in legal fees from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after a class action lawsuit against the company was thrown out. The justices said lawyers for CRST Van Expedited Inc. may be able to recoup the money under a law that awards fees to the winning party. They returned the case to a lower court for further review. The EEOC sought relief for hundreds of female employees who were allegedly sexually harassed at work. An appeals court said the agency erred by suing before properly investigating their claims. The appeals court said the trucking company couldn't recover legal fees because the claims were dismissed without a ruling on the merits. But the high court reversed. DEJA VU SHOWGIRLS: "Garcia" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zurina Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Deja Vu Consulting, Inc., DV Saginaw, LLC, Deja Vu Showgirls, Deja Vu Showgirls of Tampa, LC and Harry Mohney, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01193-SCB-TBM (M.D. Fla., May 12, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid back wages, minimum wages. overtime wages, and an additional equal amount of liquidated damages. The plaintiff further seeks to obtain declaratory relief, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and a claim for retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate under the trade name Deja Vu Showgirls where Garcia worked as an exotic dancer. She claims her only compensation was tips from patrons. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam B. Kenner, Esq. KENNER & CUMMINGS PLLC, Suite 2410 175 SW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 384-7205 Fax: (305) 384-7371 Email: adam@kennercummings.com DEL TACO: "Tomasulo" Plaintiff Mulls Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------ Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 22, 2016, that the plaintiff in the "Tomasulo" class action wishes to file an amended complaint. On April 23, 2015, a purported class action and derivative complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F. Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J. Duchossois, Ari B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn, Del Taco Holdings, Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"), was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Circuit Court"), relating to the then proposed Business Combination pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The Complaint, which purported to be brought as a class action on behalf of all of the holders of the Company's common stock, generally alleged that the Company's pre-merger directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by facilitating the then proposed Business Combination and in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. The Complaint also alleged that the Company's preliminary proxy statement that was filed with the SEC on April 2, 2015 is materially misleading and/or incomplete. The Complaint further alleged that DTH and Levy Acquisition Sponsor LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's pre-merger directors. The Complaint sought (a) a declaration that the Company's pre-merger directors breached their fiduciary duties; (b) injunctive relief enjoining the Business Combination until corrective disclosures were made; (c) compensatory and/or rescissory damages; and (d) an award of costs and attorney's fees. The Company previously reached a settlement in principle of all claims asserted in the Complaint, subject to negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and approval by the Circuit Court. To date, the parties have been unable to finalize a definitive settlement agreement. The Plaintiff has informed the Court that he wishes to file an amended complaint revising his claims, and the Court gave Plaintiff until May 5, 2016 to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in Calif. Managers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 22, 2016, that discovery has been completed in a class action on behalf of California general managers. In July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks to its California general managers. Discovery has been completed and the parties are preparing their motions for and opposition to class certification. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. DEL TACO: Discovery Underway in Calif. Hourly Employees' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 22, 2016, that a former Del Taco employee filed in March 2014 a purported class action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Ramanathan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, Stefan Krause, Juergen Fitschen, Anshuman Jain, John Cryan, and Marcus Schenck, Case No. 1:16-cv-03539 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 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. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft provides investment, financial, and related products and services worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com DOW CHEMICAL: Settles Plutonium Claims for $375 Million ------------------------------------------------------- Dan Elliott, writing for The Associated Press, reports that thousands of homeowners have reached a $375 million settlement over their claims that plutonium releases from a nuclear weapons plant in Colorado damaged their health and devalued their property, officials said on May 19. A federal judge must approve the agreement before it officially ends the 26-year legal battle between the residents and two corporations that ran the Rocky Flats plant for the federal government. Perched on a wind-swept mesa west of Denver, Rocky Flats manufactured plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads until it closed in 1989 because of safety and environmental concerns. It's the most prominent of Colorado's Cold War relics, which also included a nerve gas manufacturing site east of Denver. Few details of the settlement were available. The lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Merrill Davidoff, said the agreement has been submitted to the judge overseeing the case but no documents have been made public. Mr. Davidoff said he couldn't comment further and that none of the individual plaintiffs wanted to speak. The agreement was first reported by The Denver Post. The lawsuit, filed in 1990, named Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International Corp., which operated the plant for the Energy Department. Dow was in charge from the 1950s until 1975, when Rockwell took over and ran it until it closed. Dow and Rockwell Automation -- which emerged as a co-defendant after sales and spinoffs at Rockwell International -- both said they expect the Energy Department to repay them in full for their share of the settlement. The Energy Department said in a statement it is liable for some claims, but spokesman Bart Jackson could not immediately say whether it would be the full amount. The companies said Rockwell's share was $244 million and Dow's was $131 million. "Dow believes this settlement is the right decision for the company and its shareholders," company spokeswoman Rachelle Schikorra said. The lawsuit took years to go to trial. In 2006, a jury found the companies had damaged nearby land and hurt residents' health. In 2008, a judge ordered the companies to pay a combined $925 million. An appeals court overturned the verdict and the award on Sept. 3, 2010, saying the homeowners hadn't proved that plutonium releases from the plant had hurt their health or their property. The court said a decline in property value can't be considered damage. The case had been appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeal has been dropped. After a $7 billion cleanup that took 10 years, most of the 8- square-mile property became a wildlife refuge managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The most heavily contaminated area remains off-limits to the public. DURHAM SCHOOL: Faces "Shann" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Donisha Shann and Terrilyn Russel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Durham School Services, LP and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC620301(Cal. Super. Ct., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Durham School Services, LP provides contract school bus services in Texas, California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Treana Allen, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: kmhoney@mahoney-law.net tallen@mahoney-law.net EXPEDIA, INC: HomeAway.com Faces "Arnold" Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action suit was filed on March 15, 2016, against HomeAway.com, Inc. related to its recent implementation of a service fee. Arnold v. HomeAway.com, Inc., Case No. 1-16-cv-00374 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). The putative class is comprised of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway's websites. The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. EXPEDIA, INC: HomeAway.com Faces "Seim" Suit in Texas ----------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action suit was filed on April 15, 2016, against HomeAway.com, Inc., which also related to the implementation of a service fee. Seim v. HomeAway, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00479 (U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas). The putative class is comprised of homeowners that list their properties on HomeAway's websites. The complaint asserts claims against HomeAway for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and other state consumer protection statutes. EXTREME NETWORKS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- Extreme Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that motions for appointment of lead plaintiff have been filed, and were scheduled to be heard on May 5, 2016, in the case, In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 23 and 29, 2015, complaints were filed for violations of securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and three of its current or former officers (Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil). Subsequently, the cases were consolidated. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding Extreme Networks' current financial condition and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek damages of an unspecified amount on behalf of a class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock from November 4, 2013 through April 9, 2015. Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff have been filed, and were scheduled to be heard on May 5, 2016. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the claims. Extreme Networks is a provider of network infrastructure equipment and offer related services contracts for extended warranty and maintenance to the Company's enterprise, data center and service provider customers. EXXONMOBIL: Challenges Virgin Islands AG's Subpoena in Tex. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bastasch, writing for the Libertarian Republic, reports that Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker told a D.C.- based libertarian think tank he would be withdrawing a subpoena he sent the group in April as part of a broader investigation into ExxonMobil's global warming stance -- and in the same email threatened more legal actions against the group. "Attorney General Walker's subpoena of us is an outrageous violation of our First Amendment rights, and its sole purpose is to shut down debate," Sam Kazman, senior counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said of Mr. Walker's threat of more legal action. Linda Singer, an attorney with the class action law firm Cohen Milstein representing Mr. Walker, emailed CEI on May 13 to tell the group Mr. Walker would be withdrawing his subpoena for decades of documents. Ms. Singer went on, however, to say Mr. Walker would reissue the subpoena "if OAG intends to move to compel your client's compliance with the subpoena in its current form." CEI has asked D.C.'s Superior Court to fine Mr. Walker for violating the group's First Amendment rights, and the think tank is asking for attorneys fees and other sanctions to be placed on Walker. "Mr. Walker's statement that he will end his D.C. court action, but may launch a new one whenever the mood strikes him, is the height of arrogance and demonstrates that he still doesn't recognize the harm he has unlawfully inflicted," Mr. Kazman said. Mr. Walker's abandoning of his current investigation into CEI comes as the attorneys general of Texas and Alabama intervene in a lawsuit Exxon filed against a separate subpoena Mr. Walker sent to the company earlier this year. Exxon is challenging Mr. Walker's subpoena in Texas court, and now has the backing of two prominent state AGs. Interestingly enough, the AGs' brief focuses on Singer's handling of Mr. Walker's investigation into Exxon's alleged misleading of the public on global warming. The AGs argue hiring a law firm specializing in class action lawsuits that could make millions of dollars if Exxon settles with Mr. Walker. "We agree with ExxonMobil that serious jurisdictional concerns exist, but to protect the fundamental right of impartiality in criminal and quasi-criminal investigations, we intervene," the AGs wrote. "Thus, the use of contingency fees is highly suspect in criminal cases and, more generally, when fundamental rights are at stake." Ms. Singer, the former attorney general for the District of Columbia, has made Cohen Milstein millions working with mostly Democratic attorneys general in class action lawsuits against various industries. The New York Times wrote 2014 article how Singer goes about getting AGs to sue -- or threaten to sue -- all sorts of industries for huge sums of money. Her firm pays the upfront legal costs in exchange for a share of the rewards -- usually between 15 to 25 percent of a settlement. Ms. Singer, for example, won a massive settlement with Bank of america in 2009, netting Nevada an extra $38 million. As part of their contingency-fee, her firm got an extra $5.6 million, according to the Times. Ms. Singer's history with Mr. Walker suggests her firm could stand to gain millions if they convince Exxon to settle. Ms. Singer recently handled a case for the Virgin Islands AG against Hess Oil over the closure of a refinery in the Virgin Islands. That settlement and the resulting sale of the refinery netted the Virgin Islands government $800 million. Ms. Singer's handling of the case on what's called a contingency-fee basis netted her firm $15 million, according to Exxon's legal filing. Exxon's attorneys believe Ms. Singer is handling the case against them for Mr. Walker on a contingency-fee basis. FACEBOOK INC: Faces KBC Asset Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- KBC Asset Management NV and ERSTE-Sparinvest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., individually an 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. 12325 (Del. Ch. Ct., May 12, 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: Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. Christopher P. Quinn, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, PA 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DA 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3500 E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com jgorris@friedlandergorris.com cquinn@friedlandergorris.com - and - Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. Lawrence P. Eagle, Esq. David J. Stone, Esq. J. Brandon Walker, Esq. Todd H. Henderson, Esq. BRAGAR EAGLE & SQUIRE, PC 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 308-5858 E-mail: squire@bespc.com eagel@bespc.com stone@bespc.com walker@bespc.com henderson@bespc.com FAY SERVICING: Faces "Bowles" Class Suit in District New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Fay Servicing, LLC, American Modern Home Insurance Company, and Southwest Business Corporation. The case is captioned Barbra Bowles and Latasha Jackson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fay Servicing, LLC, American Modern Home Insurance Company, and Southwest Business Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-02714-CCC-JAD (D.N.J., May 13, 2016). Fay Servicing, LLC is a specialty mortgage debt management company that provides servicing solutions for performing and non- performing mortgages. American Modern Home Insurance Company operates an insurance company that protects financial institutions and their customers with products and services supporting mortgage and collateralized loan portfolios, and customized loan and lease tracking. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC 363 Bloomfield Avenue, Suite 2C Montclair, NJ 07042 Telephone: (973) 259-6990 Facsimile: (866) 848-1368 E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com FERROGLOBE PLC: Anticipates Further Discussions with Insurers ------------------------------------------------------------- Ferroglobe PLC said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Globe anticipates further discussions with insurers toward reaching a final agreement with the Insurers on reimbursement for a portion of the settlement fund and a final allocation of the attorneys' fee and expense award in the litigation related to the business combination. On March 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Globe's shareholders ("Globe Shareholders") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Fraser v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10823-VCG, named as defendants Globe, the members of its board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Gordon Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Ferroglobe ("Merger Sub") and the Company. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Globe directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best price possible for Globe Shareholders, that the proposed merger consideration to be received by Globe Shareholders is inadequate and significantly undervalued Globe, that the Globe directors failed to adequately protect against conflicts of interest in approving the transaction, and that the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deters competitive offers. The complaint also alleged that Globe, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The action sought to enjoin or rescind the Business Combination, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 1, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned City of Providence v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG, named as defendants Globe, the members of its board of directors, its Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Globe's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential alternative transaction. The complaint further alleged, among other things, that Globe's Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company, breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating the Business Combination Agreement, and, in the case of the Executive Chairman, by entering into a voting agreement in favor of the Business Combination Agreement, out of self-interest. The action sought to enjoin the Business Combination, to order the board of directors to obtain an alternate transaction, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 10, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 478 Pension Fund v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10899-VCG, named as defendants Globe, the members of its board of directors, its Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company. The complaint made identical allegations and sought the same relief sought in City of Providence v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG. On April 21, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Cirillo v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10929-VCG, named as defendants Globe, its board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Globe's directors, aided and abetted by Globe, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company, breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential alternative transaction. The action sought to enjoin or rescind the Business Combination, disclosure of information, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated these four actions under the caption In re Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10865-VCG (the "Action"). The Court further designated the complaint filed in C.A. No. 10865-VCG as the operative complaint in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Globe from convening a special meeting of Globe Shareholders to vote on the proposal to adopt the Business Combination Agreement or consummating the Business Combination. In addition, Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings, and supporting brief, in which they requested that the Court schedule a trial in this action before the Globe Shareholders vote on the Business Combination. Defendants, including Globe, filed an opposition brief in which they objected to Plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings to the extent it seeks expansive discovery and an expedited trial on the merits in lieu of a preliminary injunction hearing. Subsequently, the parties reached agreement on the scope of expedited discovery. On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint, realleging, among other things, that Globe's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential alternative transaction. The amended complaint further alleged that, among other things, Globe's preliminary proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 6, 2015, was materially misleading and incomplete, and that Globe's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to Globe Shareholders in connection with the Business Combination. The amended complaint sought, among other relief, an order enjoining the Defendants from consummating the proposed Business Combination; a declaration that the disclosures contained in the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus are deficient; damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 26, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 10, 2015, the parties to the Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which outlined the terms of an agreement in principle to settle the Action. Based on the terms of the MOU, the parties to the Action entered into a formal stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") on October 30, 2015. The Stipulation provided that the settlement would be subject to certain conditions, including final court approval of the settlement, final certification of a settlement class, and closing of the Business Combination. Upon satisfaction of these conditions, a $32.5 million aggregate cash payment would be paid after the closing of the Business Combination by the combined companies on a pro rata basis to the holders of shares of Globe common stock (other than the defendants in the Action and certain related persons) as of the close of business on the business day immediately prior to completion of the Business Combination. The Stipulation also provided that the Defendants would implement governance amendments for the benefit of Globe's shareholders following completion of the Business Combination. Defendants further agreed to pay or cause to be paid such attorneys' fees and expenses as may be awarded by the Court to Plaintiffs' Counsel for their efforts in prosecuting the Action, as well as the costs of administering the settlement. The Stipulation included a release of all claims against the Defendants and their advisors relating to or arising from the Action. On December 23, 2015, the parties to the Business Combination Agreement completed the Business Combination. On February 10, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to approve the proposed settlement, including final certification of the settlement class, and Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court approved the settlement, including final certification of the settlement class, and awarded Plaintiffs' Counsel $9,989,376.73 in attorneys' fees and expenses. Following court approval of the settlement, Globe paid $32.5 million into a settlement fund to be held for the benefit of the settlement class. With respect to the attorneys' fee and expense award, Globe's Insurers paid eighty-five percent of the award and Globe paid the remaining fifteen percent of the award. Globe anticipates further discussions with the Insurers toward reaching a final agreement with the Insurers on reimbursement for a portion of the settlement fund and a final allocation of the attorneys' fee and expense award. FIRST NIAGARA: Has Deal to Settle KeyCorp Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Delaware federal court action has reached an agreement to settle a class action lawsuit. On October 30, 2015, the Company and KeyCorp ("KeyCorp") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, the Company will merge with and into KeyCorp (the "Merger"), with KeyCorp as the surviving corporation in the Merger. The Merger Agreement was approved by the Board of Directors and shareholders of each of the Company and KeyCorp. Since the announcement of the Merger, eight shareholders of the Company have filed separate putative class action complaints challenging the Merger. Six complaints were filed in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County (the "Court"); these complaints were subsequently consolidated into a single action entitled In re First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Case No. 812908/2015 (the "New York Action"). One complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery, Delaware, and one was filed in United States District Court, District of Delaware. The complaints were brought against the Company, each of its directors individually, and KeyCorp. All of the lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin or rescind the Merger, and to obtain an award of costs and attorneys' fees and damages for the alleged fiduciary breaches. On March 8, 2016, First Niagara, each of its directors and KeyCorp entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the New York Action. The memorandum of understanding reflects the plaintiffs' and the defendants' agreement in principle to settle the New York Action and release the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to the approval of the Court. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, plaintiffs' counsel also has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. If the Court approves the settlement contemplated by the agreement in principle, the New York action will be dismissed with prejudice. Also on or about March 8, 2016, defendants and the plaintiff in the matter pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery agreed to stay the proceedings in light of the settlement of the New York Action. On or about March 14, 2016, the plaintiff and defendants in the Delaware federal court action reached an agreement to settle that action, and on March 31, 2016, the Court entered an order of dismissal. None of the settlements will affect the merger consideration to be paid to First Niagara's stockholders in connection with the Merger. First Niagara, KeyCorp and the other defendants deny all of the allegations made by plaintiffs in each of the actions and believe the disclosures in the Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless, First Niagara, KeyCorp and the other defendants have agreed to settle the New York Action and the action brought in the District of Delaware in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation. First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. (the "Company") is a Delaware corporation and a bank holding company, subject to supervision and regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve"), serving both retail and commercial customers through our bank subsidiary, First Niagara Bank, N.A. (the "Bank"), a national bank subject to supervision and regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the "OCC"). FIRSTMERIT CORP: 5 Lawsuits Filed by Shareholders ------------------------------------------------- FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that five putative derivative and class action lawsuits have been filed by separate shareholders of FirstMerit Corporation ("FirstMerit") relating to the proposed merger between Huntington Bancshares, Inc. ("Huntington") and FirstMerit. Two of those lawsuits were filed in the Summit County Common Pleas Court, Ohio: W. Patrick Murray v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, Case No. CV-2016-02-0917, was filed on February 11, 2016; and The Robinson Family Trust v. Paul Greig, Case No. CV-2016-02-0981, was filed on February 17, 2016 (the "State Court Lawsuits"). On April 14, 2016, the State Court Lawsuits were consolidated. The State Court Lawsuits consolidated complaint alleges that the individual directors of FirstMerit breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed merger that allegedly undervalues FirstMerit, allegedly provides the directors with benefits not afforded FirstMerit shareholders, and allegedly includes deal protection devices to ensure that the proposed merger will be consummated. The consolidated complaint also alleges that the directors approved a Registration Statement on S-4, filed on March 4, 2016, (the "Registration Statement") that omits material information about the proposed merger. It also alleges that Huntington aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the proposed merger, an award of fees and costs, and other equitable relief. The other three lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio: Wojno v. FirstMerit Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-461, was filed on February 26, 2016; Wilkinson v. FirstMerit Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-723, was filed on March 23, 2016; and Hafner v. Greig, Case No 5:16-cv-762, was filed on March 28, 2016 (the "Federal Court Lawsuits"). On April 8, 2016, the parties to the Federal Court Lawsuits filed a stipulation that, among other things, would consolidate the actions and designate a consolidated complaint. The stipulation remains pending. Each complaint in the Federal Court Lawsuits makes similar allegations to the State Court Lawsuits consolidated complaint, and also alleges that the directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by approving the Registration Statement. The Hafner complaint also alleges that Huntington violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with the Registration Statement. Each complaint in the Federal Court Lawsuits seeks similar relief to the State Court Lawsuits consolidated complaint. On April 13, 2016, the defendants in the State Court Lawsuits filed a motion to stay the State Court Lawsuits pending the resolution of the parallel Federal Court Lawsuits. The motion to stay remains pending. FITBIT INC: Investors Group Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California granted Fitbit Investor Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case BRIAN H. ROBB, Plaintiff, v. FITBIT INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00151-SI (N.D. Cal.) Fitbit, Inc. (Fitbit) manufactures fitness-tracking devices. Among these devices are the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge, both of which include heart rate trackers that purport to monitor users' heart rates. On June 18, 2015, Fitbit completed its initial public offering but on January 5, 2016, a consumer class action suit was filed in the district against Fitbit, alleging that Fitbit's heart rate monitoring system on the Charge HR and Surge were dangerously inaccurate and posed serious health risks to users. On January 11, 2016, plaintiff Brian Robb brought a class action suit for violation of the federal securities laws against Fitbit, James Park, and William Zarella. He brought claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k and 77o and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. On March 11, 2016, George Diaz, Fitbit Investor Group, comprised of individuals Timothy Flynn, Jesse M. Koth and Kelley Koth, Viet Tran, and Mark Cunningham, Bright Agyapong, Teamsters Local 282 Trust Funds, and Institutional Investor Group, comprised of City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System, Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust, and Chester County Employees Retirement Fund, filed their respective motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. Fitbit Investor Group also seeks the appointment of co- lead counsel Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP. Judge Illston granted Fitbit Investor Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and grants its motion for appointment of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP and Pomerantz LLP as co-lead counsel. A copy of Judge Illston's order dated May 10, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/EaA3Fffrom Leagle.com. Brian H. Robb, Plaintiff, represented by J Alexander Hood -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Jeremy A Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Marc Gorrie -- mgorrie@pomlaw.com -- Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP Fitbit Inc., James Park and William R. Zerella, Defendants, represented by Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- Anna Erickson White -- awhite@mofo.com -- Ryan M. Keats -- rkeats@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster LLP George Diaz, Movant, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr -- brohr@faruqilaw.com -- at Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP Fitbit Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeremy A Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP; Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Bright Agyapong, Movant, represented by Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- at Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP Teamsters Local 282 Trust Funds, Movant, represented by Ira M. Press -- ipress@kmllp.com -- Robert J. Gralewski, Jr. -- bgralewski@kmllp.com -- Thomas Elrod -- telrod@kmllp.com -- at Kirby McInerney LLP Institutional Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jennifer Lauren Joost -- jjoost@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP; Thomas L Laughlin, IV -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott LLP FLY LEASING: Faces Gerald Margolis Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Fly Leasing Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Gerald Margolis filed on March 25, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting that Fly Leasing Limited, Colm Barrington (our Chief Executive Officer), and Gary Dales (our Chief Financial Officer) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, particularly concerning our accounting with respect to intangible assets and liabilities for aircraft acquired with in-place leases. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of attorney's fees, expert fees and other costs. The Company said, "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and intend to defend it; however, failure by us to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been recorded for these claims. The costs associated with defending and resolving the lawsuit and ultimate outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from the conduct of our business, will depend upon many unknown factors and management's view of these factors may change in the future." Fly Leasing Limited is a Bermuda exempted company that was incorporated on May 3, 2007, under the provisions of Section 14 of the Companies Act 1981 of Bermuda. Fly Leasing is principally engaged in purchasing commercial aircraft which it leases under multi-year contracts to a diverse group of airlines throughout the world. FORD MOTOR: Settles Class Action Over Broken Spark Plugs -------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Ford and Lincoln owners who experienced spark plugs breaking when trying to change the plugs have claim benefit deadlines approaching after Ford agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit. Without admitting guilt, Ford agreed to settle the lawsuit after owners said it cost a fortune to replace the spark plugs. Some owners paid more than $1,000 to have repair facilities use special tools to remove the broken spark plugs. The class-action lawsuit alleges spark plugs get stuck inside the cylinder heads in Ford and Lincoln vehicles equipped with 5.4- liter 3-valve engines. Owners report that trying to remove the spark plugs often causes the plugs to break off, making it impossible to remove the plugs without the needed tools. The consolidated class-action lawsuit settlement includes the following Ford and Lincoln vehicles sold or leased in the U.S., all equipped with 5.4-liter 3-valve engines: -- 2004-2008 Ford F-150 -- 2005-2008 Ford F-250 and F-350 -- 2005-2008 Ford Expedition -- 2005-2008 Lincoln Navigator -- 2006-2008 Lincoln Mark LT The consolidated lawsuit, Ford Motor Co. Spark Plug and 3-Valve Engine Products Liability Litigation, was granted final settlement approval in January 2016, but affected owners of the Ford and Lincoln vehicles must file claims and submit the proper documentation to receive benefits. Ford Spark Plugs Claim Benefit Deadlines -- If your Ford or Lincoln spark plugs were replaced before October 23, 2015, the deadline for submitting a claim is August 25, 2016. -- If your spark plugs were replaced on or after October 23, 2015, the deadline for submitting claims is February 27, 2017. Ford Spark Plugs Lawsuit Eligibility Guidelines Every eligible owner who spent more than $300 in parts and labor to replace eight spark plugs in a vehicle with less than 120,000 miles will be eligible for reimbursement on a percentage of the amount paid over $300. The amount of reimbursement will depend upon the cost incurred by the owner and by the documentation the owner can provide. The documents an owner kept will be important to receive reimbursement. Those documents can consist of copies of receipts or other documentation that shows the following: -- The services performed. -- The identity of the repair facility that replaced the spark plugs. -- The date of service. -- The amount paid. -- The vehicle identification number (VIN). -- The mileage on the vehicle. Owners whose first spark plug replacement occurred after 120,000 miles but prior to December 22, 2015, are also eligible for reimbursement if they provide the information listed above and do the following: Identify the Ford dealership that instructed them to wait to have the spark plugs in the vehicle replaced and the approximate date on which this information was told to the owner. Provide dealership service records establishing the vehicle was taken to a Ford dealership between 90,000 and 120,000 miles. If an owner can't submit the proper documents to prove the work performed on the spark plugs, it's possible to still file a claim to receive reimbursement up to $50. The choice whether to pay undocumented claims will be left to the claims administrator. It should be noted that Ford and Lincoln owners with vehicles that have more than 120,000 miles and who have not yet had the spark plugs replaced are not eligible for reimbursement. Owners who file a claim and accept Ford's offer will be releasing Ford and its suppliers from all claims contained in the lawsuit. This simply means accepting the settlement benefits prevents an owner from suing Ford over the spark plug problems. FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Powershift Transmission ----------------------------------------------------------- Josie Taylor, writing for ABC News, reports that a law firm has launched a class action on behalf of about 60,000 Australian Ford owners, claiming vehicles containing an automatic "PowerShift" transmission are potentially dangerous. The lawsuit alleges the six-speed, double-clutch transmission used in some Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport models is not safe, fails to comply with Australian consumer law, and has had a clear pattern of problems. The claim alleges some drivers have experienced sudden acceleration, delay in downshifts, delayed acceleration, and difficulty in stopping whilst braking. Manual vehicles are not part of the lawsuit. One Ford Fiesta owner Kelly Richards, who is part of the class action, believes the transmission on her car caused an engine fire that destroyed the vehicle. "It wasn't driving properly and shuddering when accelerating. An independent mechanic identified the transmission as the problem," Ms Richards said. "Then my father-in-law was taking a short trip when the engine began to smoke. Quite quickly, the entire front of the car was engulfed in flames. It was a frightening experience and the car was a write-off." The law firm said it had nearly 2,000 car owners already registered in the class action. "We're asking the court to consider ordering a full refund for the purchase price, a range of damages ensuing from repair costs and out-of-pocket expenses, and aggravated damages," principal of Bannister Law, Charles Bannister said. Ford Australia said it had not received any legal documents and would not comment on pending litigation in any case. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: "Cappello" Sues Over Underfunded Pension Plan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lorraine Cappello and Jeffrey O'Barski, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Franciscan Alliance, Inc., Franciscan Alliance Pension and Benefits Committee, and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00290 (N.D. Ind., May 12, 2016) seeks: -- preliminary and permanent injunction removing Defendants as fiduciaries -- penalties -- declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary and appropriate, including enjoinment -- equitable relief including surcharge, disgorgement of profits, equitable lien, constructive trust, and -- attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Cappello worked at the Franciscan St. James Health - Olympia Fields hospital as a switchboard operator until 2008. She is currently a participant in the Franciscan Alliance Pension Security Plan. O'Barski was employed by Franciscan St. Anthony Health - Crown Point hospital until January 2009 where she worked as a cook. She is currently a participant in the Franciscan Alliance Pension Security Plan. Defendants allege that the Franciscan Alliance Pension Security Plan was underfunded. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin E. Warren, Esq. SOPKO, NUSSBAUM, INABNIT & KACZMAREK 210 South Michigan Street South Bend, IN 46601 Telephone: (574) 234-3000 Facsimile: (574) 234-4220 Email: Kevinw@sni-law.com - and - Edward W. Ciolko, Esq. Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 Email: eciolko@ktmc.com mgyandoh@ktmc.com jsjohnson@ktmc.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Mark P. Kindall, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel: (860) 493-6292 Fax: (860) 493-6290 Email: rizard@izardnobel.com mkindall@izardnobel.com GANNETT CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Clark" Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Ramona Clark and Dylan Schlossberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No. 2016CH06603 (Ill. Ch., Ct., May 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. Gannett Co., Inc. operates a media and marketing company with a portfolio of broadcast, digital, mobile and publishing companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: brichman@edelson.com erapp@edelson.com - and - Stefan L. Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 1072 Madison A venue, Suite 1 Lakewood, NJ 08701 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 20 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has scheduled a hearing on July 20, 2016 to consider final approval of the settlement in a securities class action lawsuit. In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer and its then current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. "On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint," the Company said. "On May 1, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. We engaged in mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015, continuing into the first quarter of 2016, and previously accrued $25 million in connection with this matter, which was the amount of our self-insured retention on our executive and organizational liability insurance program." "On March 11, 2016, in connection with the mediation, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 1, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement. The settlement provides for a full release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit. We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, but we are settling the lawsuit to avoid the burden, risk and expense of further litigation. The agreement provides for a settlement payment to the class of $219 million, inclusive of all plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs, of which $150 million will be paid by our insurance carriers, and $69 million pre-tax will be paid by Genworth. "Our payment was made into an escrow account during the first quarter of 2016. We also incurred additional legal fees and expenses of approximately $10 million pre-tax, for a total additional pre-tax incurred amount of $79 million in the first quarter of 2016. "On April 13, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, provisional certification of the class for settlement purposes only, and issuance of notice to settlement class members. The settlement remains subject to final court approval. The Court has scheduled a hearing on July 20, 2016 to consider final approval of the settlement. "In the event the settlement is approved by the court, it will exhaust all coverage available to Genworth under our 2014 executive and organizational liability insurance program. Therefore, Genworth does not have coverage under the program to pay any future settlements or judgments in relation to litigation brought during the 2014 policy year, including the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid Granted in Hialeah Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case by City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System. In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer and its then current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. "On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint," the Company said. "On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's June 16, 2015 order denying our motion to dismiss which the court denied on March 3, 2016." "On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which we opposed. On March 7, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. We intend to vigorously defend this action. "We have exhausted all coverage under our 2014 executive and organizational liability insurance program applicable to this case; therefore, there is no insurance coverage for Genworth with respect to any settlement or judgment amount related to this litigation." GODADDY INC: Johnson & Vines Files False Advertising Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- On March 18, 2016, consumer fraud class action attorneys, including Christopher D. Jennings of the Johnson & Vines Law Firm, filed a lawsuit against GoDaddy, Inc., for violation of various consumer protection and false advertising laws based on its alleged misrepresentation of its "Dedicated Server" hosting platform for customers. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of "all individuals or entities who purchased or subscribed to 'Dedicated Server' services provided by GoDaddy from October 2014 to the present and received a 'virtualized' server." The plaintiffs seek both compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the class, as well as injunctive relief to prevent future misrepresentation on behalf of GoDaddy. According to the lawsuit, GoDaddy sells differing types of server access, including "virtual private servers" and "dedicated servers." The dedicated server is represented to be assigned to just one customer and not shared or used by others and cost substantially more than GoDaddy's virtual private servers. The lawsuit claims that GoDaddy's dedicated server, however, actually allows several separate servers to run on and share the resources of one physical server, meaning that customers who purchase a dedicated server subscription are actually paying a premium for what is, in essence, just a virtual private server. "Under the law, when companies are alleged to engage in practices that harm consumers, a class action lawsuit is a means by which those consumers can seek compensated for their damages" said attorney Chris Jennings. "The complaint filed against GoDaddy seeks both a refund for customers who spent money on these services, as well as an order prohibiting the company from engaging in similar conduct in the future." GoDaddy responded to the complaint by filing an answer on May 13, 2016. Other attorneys representing the plaintiffs include Kathryn Honecker of Rose Law Group in Scottsdale, Arizona, Stephen R. Basser and Samuel M. Ward of Barrack Rodos & Bacine in San Diego, John G. Emerson and David G. Scott of Emerson Scott in Houston and Little Rock, Arkansas. The case is pending in the US District Court for the District of Arizona, case no. 2:16-CV-00746-DGC. GRO-WELL BRANDS: Judge Narrows Claims in "McMillan" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part Gro-Well Brands' motion to dismiss in the case GLENN McMILLAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, and GRO-WELL BRANDS, INC., Defendants, No. 1:15-cv- 00695 DAD SMS (E.D. Cal.) Glenn McMillan purchased bags of Premium Mulch from Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (Lowe's), a retail store in Bakersfield, California. Premium Mulch is a private-label product retailed exclusively at Lowe's stores. Gro-Well Brands, Inc. (Gro-Well) manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells Premium Mulch to Lowe's under a contractual agreement. Lowe's directs, controls, and participates in the manufacturing and packaging of the Premium Mulch. Lowe's developed the textual and graphic content on a standard, uniform bag, and Gro-Well prints the content and representations on the bags. At the direction and under the control of Lowe's, Gro-Well implements and utilizes a standard mechanized process for distributing a uniform amount of mulch in each bag. Lowe's and Gro-Well both knew the actual uniform amount of mulch distributed in each bag. McMillan filed a putative class action against defendants Lowe's and Gro-Well alleging that they misrepresented the quantity of mulch contained in the private-label Premium Mulch bags. The complaint asserts six causes of action: (1) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq.; (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq.; (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500 et seq.; (4) violation of the consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices acts of each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia; (5) fraudulent misrepresentation; and (6) unjust enrichment. Defendant Lowe's filed a motion to dismiss on June 22, 2015 and defendant Gro-Well filed a motion to dismiss on July 27, 2015. On January 20, 2016, the court denied Lowe's' motion to dismiss. Gro-Well contends that the complaint fails to state a plausible claim, because it does not expressly reference the California Fair Packaging and Labeling Act or allege plaintiff measured the mulch using standards and procedures consistent with the CFPLA. In addition, Gro-Well argues the complaint fails to plead facts supporting the elements of justifiable reliance and intent to deceive, fails to state a cognizable claim for unjust enrichment and fails to establish standing for the requested injunctive relief. Alternatively, Gro-Well asks the court to equitably abstain from adjudicating plaintiff's claims, because, it argues, the provisions of the CFPLA are better enforced by state administrative agencies than by the court. District Judge Mueller granted in part and denied in part Gro- Well's motion to dismiss. The court granted Gro-Well's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief with leave to amend and denied Gro-Well's motion in all other respects. An amended complaint shall be filed within 14 days of the date the order is filed. A copy of Judge Mueller's order dated May 4, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/2cBvcEfrom Leagle.com. Glenn McMillan, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. De Re -- matt@attorneyzim.com -- Thomas A. Zimmerman -- tom@attorneyzim.com -- at Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C.; Todd M. Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Meghan George -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com -- at Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Neil K. Gilman -- ngilman@hunton.com -- Phillip J. Eskenazi -- peskenazi@hunton.com -- at Hunton & Williams LLP Gro-Well Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric M. Roberts - - eric.roberts@dlapiper.com -- Todd Michael Noonan -- todd.noonan@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP GTX CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Over Construction Contract Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sunrise Electrical Services LLC d/b/a Sunrise Mechanical Services, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GTX Construction Associates, Corp. and Giovanni Napolitano a/k/a John Napolitano, Case No. 600387/2016 (N.Y., Super. Ct., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide full payment for a construction project to repair and upgrade the HV AC system at the Theodore Roosevelt Old Orchard Museum, located in Oyster Bay, New York. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq. FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 248-1700 E-mail: info@forchellilaw.com HARRIS AND ZIDE: "Harper" Settlement Has Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case JOYCE HARPER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE LAW OFFICE OF HARRIS AND ZIDE LLP, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01114-HSG (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs filed suit against The Law Office of Harris and Zide LLP for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. (FDCPA), and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1788, et seq. (RFDCPA), for failing as a matter of pattern and practice to provide certain required disclosures during debt collection. Plaintiffs allege that defendant, acting to collect debts from the putative class on behalf of Bank of America (BOA), failed to provide the exact disclosure required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(4), which requires that debt collectors send certain validation notices to debtors when attempting to collect a debt that advise debtors about their rights to dispute the debt and to request, in writing, that the debt collector provide verification of the debt. Plaintiffs allege that defendant failed to inform them that verification of their purported debt could be requested in writing only, thereby insinuating that an oral request for verification of the debt is valid. Plaintiffs sought statutory damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees. Defendant answered the complaint on June 17, 2015. Plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss BOA from the action and filed a notice of class action settlement on September 17, 2015. The parties have reached a settlement regarding plaintiffs' claims and seek required court approval. Plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on November 2, 2015. Judge Gilliam granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and the parties are directed to implement the proposed class notice plan. Salient terms of the settlement: (A) Monetary Relief: Each class member will receive $10 regardless of the ultimate size of the class. Given the currently estimated class size, the class will receive an aggregate payment of $11,570. Plaintiffs will receive an additional $1000 each as statutory damages awarded under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(2)(A). To the extent that any funds remain after all claims are paid, Bay Area Legal Aid will receive the balance as a cy pres recipient. (B) Injunctive Relief: Defendant will no longer use the language quoted in the class definition in its initial debt collection communications. (C) Release: The class will release Defendant and any associated persons or entities from any and all known and unknown claims that arise out of or relate to the use of the language quoted in the class definition from Defendant's initial debt collection communications. (D) Attorneys' Fees and Costs: Plaintiffs will file an application after final settlement approval for attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed $45,000. Defendant will not oppose an application for fees and costs totaling no more than $25,000. Settlement is not contingent on the outcome of this fee application, which remains subject to the discretion of the Court. A copy of Judge Gilliam's order dated May 4, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/n29gn1from Leagle.com. Joyce Harper, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron David Radbil -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- at Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC; Corinne Deveza Orquiola -- corquiola@consumerlawcenter.com -- at Krohn and Moss; Ryan Scott Lee - ryan@ryanleepllc.com -- at Law Offices of Ryan Lee, PLLC The Law Office of Harris and Zide LLP, Defendant, represented by John Willard Sheller -- jsheller@hinshawlaw.com -- Renee Choy Ohlendorf -- rchoy@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in the case, In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder." "The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses. "On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the District Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. "On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. "On February 15, 2008, the District Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the District Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel. "On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class. "On July 3, 2008, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and the defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008. "On September 5, 2012, the District Court heard oral arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the District Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. "The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") and, on June 23, 2015, the District Court's ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals, which was denied on August 26, 2015. The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review on November 24, 2015, which was denied by the District Court on February 29, 2016. Discovery in this matter is ongoing." The Company is engaged in the design and engineering of connected products and solutions for automakers, consumers and enterprises worldwide, including audio, visual and infotainment systems, enterprise automation solutions and software services. Its brand names are AKG(R), AMX(R), Crown(R), Harman/Kardon(R), Infinity(R), JBL(R), JBL Professional, Lexicon(R), Mark Levinson(R), Martin(R), Revel(R), Soundcraft(R) and Studer(R) brand names. HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------- HealthSouth Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has scheduled a hearing for May 19, 2016 to consider the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by stockholders. The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed March 28, 2003 by several individual stockholders in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v. HealthSouth Corp. The plaintiffs allege that we, some of our former officers, and our former investment bank engaged in a scheme to overstate and misrepresent our earnings and financial position. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. This case was stayed in the Circuit Court on August 8, 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 9, 2010 to which we responded with a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010." "During a hearing on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to dismiss certain claims against us. Instead, on March 9, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former officers to the lawsuit. "On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to request certification as a class action. One of those named officers has repeatedly attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most recently on December 11, 2012. We filed our latest motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013. "On September 27, 2013, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. On November 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed another amended complaint to assert new allegations relating to the time period of 1997 to 2002. "On December 10, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds the plaintiffs lack standing because their claims are derivative in nature, and the claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations. The court has scheduled a hearing for May 19, 2016 to consider our motion to dismiss. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this case. Based on the stage of litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as we understand them, the nature of the underlying claim, the results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of the defense we continue to mount, we do not believe an adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment or settlement of this case." HF FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------ HF Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, that the Company has entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of litigation arising out of its merger agreement with Great Western Bancorp, Inc. On November 30, 2015, HF Financial Corp., a Delaware corporation ("HF") and Great Western Bancorp, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Great Western") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement"). Under the merger agreement, HF will merge with and into Great Western with Great Western surviving the merger (the "merger"). On April 7, 2016, HF filed a definitive proxy statement (the "definitive proxy statement") in connection with the merger, which HF mailed to its stockholders on or about April 7, 2016. On December 14, 2015, Shiva Y. Stein, a purported HF stockholder, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint against HF, each of the members of the HF board and Great Western in the Circuit Court of Minnehaha County, South Dakota (the "Court") purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of HF. The complaint was subsequently amended on March 7, 2016. The complaint asserts that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by purportedly failing to take adequate steps to enhance HF stockholder value as a merger candidate, by not acting independently to protect the interests of HF stockholders and by failing to make adequate disclosure in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 as filed on March 3, 2016. The complaint further asserts that HF and Great Western aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff seeks (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained as a class action; (ii) injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger; (iii) in the event the merger is consummated, rescission of the transaction or rescissionary damages; (iv) an order directing the Defendants to account to the plaintiff for damages because of alleged wrongdoing; (v) an award to plaintiff of costs and disbursements including attorneys' and experts' fees; and (vi) other relief as may be just and proper. On April 5, 2016, the plaintiff submitted its Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court has set a hearing date for April 27, 2016. The Defendants believe these claims are without merit. On April 22, 2016, the defendants to the aforementioned litigation entered into the MOU with counsel for the plaintiff, pursuant to which HF has agreed to make disclosures concerning the merger set forth below. In accordance with the terms of the MOU, the plaintiff has agreed to stay the proceeding and to withdraw its request for a preliminary injunction. In addition, the MOU contemplates that, subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery by plaintiff's counsel, the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to HF's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court 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 that were or could have been brought in any actions challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to HF's stockholders prior to the Court's final approval of the settlement. The MOU will not affect the amount of the consideration to be received by any HF stockholder in the merger. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The MOU may be rendered null and void, if, among other reasons, (i) the Court fails to enter a final order and judgment approving the settlement, or (ii) the merger agreement is terminated by the parties thereto or the merger is not consummated for any reason. The defendants each have denied, and continue to deny, all of the allegations of wrongful or actionable conduct asserted in the complaint, and the HF board vigorously maintains that it diligently and scrupulously complied with its fiduciary duties, that the definitive proxy statement is complete and accurate in all material respects and that no further disclosure is required under applicable law. The defendants are entering into the MOU and the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the cost, burden, distraction and expense of having to defend this litigation further. Nothing in the MOU, any settlement agreement or any public filing is or shall be deemed to be an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the materiality under any applicable law of any of the additional information contained herein or in any public filing associated with the proposed settlement of the complaint. ICTS INTERNATIONAL: Facing Class Action by Former Employee ---------------------------------------------------------- A former employee is seeking class action status and payment of back wages, ICTS International N.V. 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. ICTS International N.V. was registered at the Department of Justice in Amstelveen, Netherlands on October 9, 1992. ICTS and subsidiaries (collectively referred to as "ICTS" or "Company") operate in three reportable segments: (a)corporate (b) aviation security and other aviation services and (c) technology. The corporate segment does not generate revenue and contains primarily non-operational expenses. The airport security and other aviation services business provide security and other services to airlines and airport authorities, predominantly in Europe and the United States. The technology segment is predominantly involved in the development and sale of identity security software to financial and other institutions, in Europe and the United States. INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Action Against BOH Holdings ------------------------------------------------------------- Independent Bank is defending against a legal proceeding it inherited in connection with its acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on April 15, 2014, Independent Bank Group, 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. Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts previously unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers. Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially indicated that a "loss" has not yet occurred or that the claims are not covered by the policies. However, Independent Bank is continuing to pursue insurance coverage for these claims, as well as for the reimbursement of defense costs, through the initiation of litigation and other means. Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. This is complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising from, this case. The Company operates 42 full service banking locations, with 24 located in the Dallas/North Texas region, 7 located in the Austin/Central Texas region and 11 in the Houston region. INGRAM MICRO: Faces "Scheiner" Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------- Ingram Micro Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that a putative stockholder class action suit captioned Scheiner v. Ingram Micro Inc. et al., 30-2016-00839447-CU-SL-CXC CXC, was filed on March 8, 2016, in the Superior Court in Orange County, California. The complaint names as defendants Ingram Micro, its directors, Tianjin Tianhai and Merger Subsidiary. The complaint asserts that Ingram Micro's directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in negotiating and approving the merger agreement, by agreeing to supposedly unfair deal protection devices and by allegedly acting in a self-interested manner. The complaint also generally alleges that Tianjin Tianhai, Ingram Micro and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted such purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification and injunctive relief blocking consummation of the merger. Ingram Micro and the other defendants have not yet responded to the complaints. Ingram Micro believes this action is without merit. Ingram Micro Inc. and its subsidiaries are primarily engaged in the distribution of information technology ("IT") products, commerce and fulfillment services and mobile device lifecycle services worldwide. Ingram Micro Inc. and its subsidiaries operate in North America; Europe; Asia-Pacific (which includes Middle East and Africa); and Latin America. INSPERITY, INC: Worksite Employee Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company intends to defend against the Worksite Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation. In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and our third party discretionary trustee of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan available to eligible worksite employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on behalf of Plan participants. This suit generally alleges that the Company's third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries and by making imprudent investment choices. "We believe we have meritorious defenses and we intend to vigorously defend this litigation," the Company said. Insperity, Inc., provides an array of human resources ("HR") and business solutions designed to help improve business performance. INSULET CORP: Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., remains outstanding. Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were voluntarily dismissed. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345, which remains outstanding, alleges that the Company (and certain executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of loss, in connection with this matter. INTEL CORP: Motion for Reconsideration Scheduled in May 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------ Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is scheduled for hearing in May 2016. The Company said, "At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat the allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against us by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that we engaged in various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by, among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher prices for computers containing our microprocessors." "All of the federal and state class actions other than the California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In July 2010, the Special Master denied the MDL plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of members who purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by us. "In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third Circuit denied in October 2014. "In December 2014, we filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims of the remaining individual plaintiffs. We subsequently negotiated a settlement of the claims and the case was dismissed in September 2015. "All California class actions were consolidated in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. In March 2008, the plaintiffs in the California actions moved for class certification, which we opposed. "In February 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' request for leave to retain a new expert and to amend their previous motion for class certification. In March 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' amended class certification motion, and plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which is scheduled for hearing in May 2016. Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these matters." INTEL CORP: McAfee Shareholder Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation continues to defend the McAfee, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, according to Intel's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016. The Company said, "On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08." "In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. "In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's appeal in December 2014. Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously." IXIA: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 29 ------------------------------------------------------- IXIA said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, that as Ixia (the "Company") has previously disclosed, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015, relating to the proposed settlement of the securities class action, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System, et al. v. Ixia, et al., that is currently pending against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court"). On February 29, 2016, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and scheduling a hearing for the Court to consider final approval of the proposed settlement on July 29, 2016. That order directed that the Company file the Publication Notice of Proposed Settlement of Securities Class Action and Settlement Hearing describing the settlement (the "Notice") as an attachment to a current report on Form 8-K within 60 days after entry of the order. Accordingly, pursuant to that order, the Company is filing the Notice as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K (this "Form 8-K"). KENNEDY KRIEGER: "Myers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Myers, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01422-GLR (D. Md., May 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. is in the business of providing various forms of healthcare. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq. Joseph E. Spicer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com jspicer@nicholllaw.com L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: EoTech Class Actions in Early Stages -------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 25, 2016, that the EoTech Class Actions are in the early stages. In December 2015 and February 2016, three putative class action complaints against the Company were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and the United States District Court of the District of Oregon. The complaints allege that the Company's EoTech business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights, and seek monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses based on claims including breach of warranty, fraud, violation of state consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment. These cases have been consolidated into a single, putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. In March 2016, two additional putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which assert similar claims against the Company. The Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to these actions and intends to defend against them vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss that may be incurred in connection with these matters because the proceedings are in their early stages. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Underway in Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 25, 2016, that discovery has commenced in the securities class action. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. On March 30, 2016, the District Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against the Company's officers and allowed the claim against the Company to proceed to discovery. Discovery has commenced. The Company believes the claim lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. LACOSTE USA: Sued Over the Americans with Disabilities Act Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Lacoste USA, Inc. d/b/a Lacoste, Case No. 1:16-cv-21694-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Lacoste USA, Inc. operates a clothing company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 Facsimile: (786) 513-7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com LAMBCORP: Texas Homeowners File Class Action Over Fraudulent Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Claims Journal reports that thousands of Texas homeowners victimized by severe weather may also be victims of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving door-to-door solicitors, public insurance adjusters and attorneys, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in Dallas. The lawsuit claims that individuals, companies and law firms purportedly representing residents with property damage insurance claims are actually operating a pyramid scheme to collect unlawful and fraudulent fees that can make completing the repairs almost impossible. According to court documents, the scheme typically begins when a door-to-door solicitor working on behalf of a roofing contractor claims that his company can get the homeowner's insurance company to pay for property damage, such as a new roof. After the initial insurance payment arrives, the solicitor keeps the funds and brings in a so-called "public adjuster" to inspect the home and seek additional payment from the insurance company, charging a fee of 10 percent of the total claim plus other expenses. The solicitor also tells the homeowner that a lawyer must be hired to get still more payments from the insurance company, adding a 25 percent to 40 percent fee for any recovery. Having never met or even spoken with the homeowner, the attorney then files a lawsuit against the insurer without the homeowner's knowledge, agrees to a mediation, and settles the matter without the approval of or consultation with the homeowner. When a settlement check finally arrives, the payment often is not enough to pay for roof repairs because of deductions to cover the fees and expenses of the attorney, public adjuster and solicitor. "This is a very real and deceitful scheme that is carried out in this state every day by those who are supposed to be helping homeowners, not ripping them off," said attorney Mark Ticer, who represents Dallas resident Juan Guerra in the lawsuit. Mr. Guerra was approached in 2014 by a representative of Arlington-based roofing contractor Lambcorp, who said the company could handle his insurance claim for a new roof. Guerra turned over the payment from his insurer to Lambcorp, which demanded that he hire Arlington-based National Claims Negotiators LLC, a public adjusting firm, and the San Antonio law firm of Speights & Worrich to obtain additional payments from his insurer insurer. Mr. Guerra still has not received the new roof he was initially promised by the solicitor, nor have the insurance proceeds taken by Lambcorp been returned to him. "This lawsuit is bringing to light an elaborate web of conspirators and con artists who are lining their pockets at the expense of innocent and unsuspecting homeowners, with a goal of bringing accountability, honesty and integrity back into the system," said attorney Van Shaw of the Law Offices of Van Shaw in Dallas, co-counsel for Mr. Guerra and the proposed class. Dallas attorney Steven Badger -- sbadger@zelle.com -- of Zelle LLP has been vocal on behalf of the insurance industry in responding to the dramatic increase in hail damage lawsuits. In addition to his work defending insurance companies, Mr. Badger represents a group of homeowners in a class action lawsuit against North Texas roofing contractor Lambcorp alleging the unauthorized practice of public adjusting and other improper conduct. The Guerra class action was filed as an intervention into Mr. Badger's lawsuit, as it also named Lambcorp as a defendant. Messrs. Ticer and Shaw say the lawsuit also exposes a troubling increase in Texas of an illegal practice called barratry, which includes the improper solicitation of potential cases by individuals not associated with the lawyer handling the matter. "Such conduct is unfortunately becoming increasingly common, but Texas law provides victims of barratry a private right of action against the violating lawyers," said Mr. Ticer. "The allegations of solicitation and barratry set forth in Guerra's lawsuit are typical of what those of us involved in defending these lawsuits believe is going on all across Texas," Mr. Badger said. Mr. Badger expects to see additional barratry lawsuits filed in the months ahead. "Each and every week I am contacted with concerns about Texas attorneys and their door-to-door canvassers following the same model described in the Guerra lawsuit." Mr. Badger said he is encouraged to see well-known plaintiffs' attorneys like Mark Ticer and Van Shaw taking steps to address apparent illegal conduct by other attorneys. "Mark and Van should be commended for their willingness to take on this important issue." The case is Guerra v. Jorge Garcia, Vivian Armas, et al., No. DC- 15-03338, in the 134th District Court in Dallas. LEAR CORP: Settlement with End-Payor Purchasers Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the settlement agreement between the Company and the class of end-payor purchasers remains subject to the final approval of the District Court. Beginning on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in several United States federal district courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court"). In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to litigate the Consolidated Cases, the Company entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreements"), under which the class plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases will release the Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of action. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it violated no laws in connection with these matters. Because the conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly relates to periods prior to the Company's emergence from bankruptcy proceedings in 2009, the Settlement Agreements provide that the aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist of $370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of reorganization. The Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27, 2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by the District Court on July 1, 2014. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of auto dealers received the final approval of the District Court on December 7, 2015. The Settlement Agreement between the Company and the class of end-payor purchasers remains subject to the final approval of the District Court, which will be decided following the provision of notice to purported class members and a hearing to confirm the fairness of the settlement. Lear is a leading Tier 1 supplier to the global automotive industry. It supplies seating, electrical distribution systems and electronic modules, as well as related sub-systems, components and software, to virtually every major automotive manufacturer in the world. LEGEND UPPER: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Jacinto Reyes Silva, Panfilo Espinobarros, Salvador Reyes Silva, Sergio Candia, Sixto Galando, and Victoriano Rogelio, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Legend Upper West, LLC d/b/a Legend Upper West, Min Xing Wang, and Dinggen Wang, Case No. 1:16-cv-03552 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a Chinese restaurant located at 258 West 109th Street, New York, New York 10025. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that peer-to-peer financial platform LendingClub Corp. has been hit with a pair of securities fraud class actions as its stock spirals on reports that it masked the true nature of its business model. Block & Leviton attorneys Lesley Weaver, Jeffrey Block and Jacob Walker filed suit on May 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, aiming to recover more than $1.3 billion in market value that was lost in the wake of the disclosures. That followed a similar suit filed on May 16 by Jennifer Pafiti and a team of lawyers at Pomerantz. That complaint, also filed in the Northern District, did not put a dollar figure on investor losses, but noted that the company's stock as of early last week was down roughly 75 percent from the price at its initial public offering in 2014. A spokesman for LendingClub declined to comment. No lawyers have yet entered an appearance for the company. Representatives of Fenwick & West, which handled the company's IPO, could not immediately be reached for comment. The two suits rest on slightly different theories. The Block & Leviton case argues that LendingClub misled investors because it did not disclose that the company and its executives were invested in a separate company called Cirrix Capital, that itself invested in LendingClub loans on the company's platform. Rather than being a "neutral middleman" without exposure to the underlying risk of its loans, the company had "instead turned itself into just another bank," the suit says. It alleges that this structure left Lending Club exposed to credit risk, and hid the fact that the company itself was driving lending activity. The company's links to Cirrix were reported by news outlets after it fired CEO Renaud Laplanche, and later disclosed by the company in public filings. The Pomerantz case focuses more on the chief reason for Mr. Laplache's termination -- the fact that the company sold an investor $22 million in loans that were made to consumers with low credit scores, in violation of the investor's instructions. After this came to light, the complaint says, "LendingClub's stock suffered a precipitous decline in market value, thereby causing significant losses and damages to plaintiff and other class members." LG DISPLAY: Reached Settlement Except as to Motorola and Costco --------------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of April 28, 2016, LG Display has reached settlement with each of the plaintiffs, except as to Motorola and Costco Wholesale Corp. After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed against LG Display, LG Display America and other TFT-LCD panel manufacturers in the United States and Canada alleging violation of respective antitrust laws and related laws. In a series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action lawsuits in the United States were transferred to the Northern District of California for pretrial proceedings, which we refer to as the MDL Proceedings. In March 2010, the federal district court granted the class certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and granted in part and denied in part the class certification motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. In January 2011, 78 entities (including groups of affiliated entities) submitted requests for exclusion from the direct purchaser class. In April 2012, ten entities (including groups of affiliated companies) submitted requests for exclusion from the indirect purchaser class. In addition, since 2010, the attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed complaints against LG Display, alleging similar antitrust violations as alleged in the MDL Proceedings. In June 2011, LG Display reached a settlement with the direct purchaser class, which the federal district court approved in December 2011. In July 2012, LG Display reached a settlement with the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs and with the state attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin, which was approved by the federal district court in April 2013 and, in the case of the state attorneys general actions, by their respective state governments. LG Display has since reached settlement with each of the attorneys general that had filed action. In addition, in relation to the MDL Proceedings, in 2009, ATS Claim, LLC (assignee of Ricoh Electronics, Inc.), AT&T Corp. and its affiliates, Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola"), and Electrograph Technologies Corp. and its subsidiary filed separate claims in the United States, and all of the actions were subsequently consolidated into the MDL Proceedings. In 2010, TracFone Wireless Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc. and its affiliates, Target Corp., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Old Comp Inc., Good Guys, Inc., RadioShack Corp., Newegg Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Sony Electronics, Inc. and its affiliate, SB Liquidation Trust and the trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed separate claims in the United States. In 2011, the AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust on behalf of All American Semiconductor Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation of America, Jaco Electronics, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and its affiliate, T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., Tech Data Corporation and its affiliate filed similar claims in the United States. In 2012, ViewSonic Corp., NECO Alliance LLC, Rockwell Automation LLC, Proview Technology Inc. and its affiliates filed similar claims. In November 2013, Acer America Corporation and its affiliates filed similar claims in the United States. The cases were transferred to the MDL Proceedings for pretrial proceedings. In December 2012, Sony Europe Limited and its affiliate filed similar claims in the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom. As of April 28, 2016, LG Display has reached settlement with each of the plaintiffs, except as to Motorola and Costco Wholesale Corp. In July 2013, the Motorola case was remanded to the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "NDIL Court"). In September 2013, LG Display and defendants in the Motorola case submitted a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment ruling on the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act ("FTAIA") to the NDIL Court. In January 2014, the NDIL Court granted defendants' motion for reconsideration based on the FTAIA and Motorola appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (the "7th Circuit Appeals Court"). In November 2014, oral hearing took place before the 7th Circuit Appeals Court for the Motorola case, and the 7th Circuit Appeals Court affirmed the NDIL Court's decision. In March 2015, Motorola filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. In June 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States denied Motorola's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. In July 2015, the NDIL Court dismissed LG Display from the Motorola case. In July 2013, the Costco case was remanded to the District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "WDWA Court"). In September 2014, jury trial for the Costco case commenced in the WDWA Court. In October 2014, the jury rendered a verdict of approximately US$36.7 million for Costco Wholesale Corp. against LG Display and AU Optronics. In June 2015, the court entered judgment in favor of Costco Wholesale Corp. for US$61.9 million (including treble damages and offset), and LG Display filed combined motions for (i) judgment as a matter of law; (ii) in the alternative, a new trial; and (iii) amendment of findings in bench trial. In March 2016, the WDWA Court denied LG Display's combined motions and we filed notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. LG DISPLAY: TFT-LCD Class Suits in Canada Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is currently defending class action complaints in Canada. In 2007, class action complaints were filed against LG Display and other TFT-LCD manufacturers in Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class in May 2011. "In April 2014, we appealed the class certification decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which upheld the lower court's decision in an order dated December 2015. LG Display is currently defending against their claims. The actions in Quebec and British Columbia have been held in abeyance," the Company said. LG DISPLAY: Decision in Israel Class Action Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action complaint was filed in December 2013 in the Central District in Israel. In June 2015, the Company filed a motion to cancel leave to serve process, which was denied in March 2016. In April 2016, the Company appealed this decision. LIBERTY OILFIELD: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Harris, individually and for others similarly situated, v. Liberty Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01116 (D. Colo., May 14, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota Law. Liberty provides a variety of oilfield support services to oilfields in Colorado, North Dakota and Wyoming. Harris was a field engineer at their Colorado site. He claims to have been denied overtime wages for hours in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants are represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com LIFEPOINT HEALTH: District Court Order Under Appeal --------------------------------------------------- LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named defendants in 26 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014, and 2 putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama. These lawsuits allege that patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center underwent improper interventional cardiology procedures. One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21, 2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any Company-owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding the medical necessity of that procedure. The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015 also in the Circuit Court for Dallas County, Alabama, seeks certification of a class of individuals that underwent an interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut. This action asserts, among other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the RICO violation and attorneys' fees. In March 2015, the Company removed this action to the U.S. District Court in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending resolution of these motions. On April 17, 2015 the court entered an order granting the requested stay of discovery. On November 17, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Alabama filed a Report and Recommendation that the RICO claim be dismissed with prejudice, and that the court not exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, resulting in those claims being dismissed without prejudice. By Order dated March 28, 2016, the United States District Court Judge adopted in full the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate, dismissing with prejudice the RICO claim and refusing to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. In a filing made April 7, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. M/A-COM TECHNOLOGY: Confidential Resolution in "Alvarez" -------------------------------------------------------- M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit by Philip Alvarez has reached a final and confidential resolution of the matter. The Company said, "On March 10, 2015, Philip Alvarez, a former employee of Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. ("Mindspeed") filed a putative class action lawsuit against Mindspeed in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange. On April 24, 2015, Alvarez filed a First Amended Complaint adding our subsidiary M/A- COM Technology Solutions Inc. as a defendant. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Alvarez and certain other employees who designed and manufactured hardware systems for Mindspeed or M/A- COM Technology Solutions Inc. between March 10, 2011 and the present were misclassified as exempt employees under California law. The lawsuit seeks recovery of alleged unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest period premiums, penalties and attorneys' fees. "We dispute the allegations of the lawsuit," the Company said. On June 15, 2015, Mindspeed removed the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand, which Motion was denied in an Order dated September 9, 2015. The parties have reached an agreement for the dismissal of all class action allegations and claims in the action, as well as certain other claims against Mindspeed and M/A-COM Technology Solutions Inc. and Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint effectuating this agreement. Accordingly, the only claims remaining in the action were those of Alvarez on an individual basis. Subsequently, the parties reached a final and confidential resolution of the matter. M/A-COM Technology is a provider of high-performance analog semiconductor solutions that enable next-generation Internet applications, the cloud connected apps economy, and the modern, networked battlefield across the radio frequency (RF), microwave, millimeterwave and photonic spectrum. MARATHON PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs Seek $2 Million Reimbursement ------------------------------------------------------------ Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the litigation relating to the MarkWest Merger, the plaintiffs filed an application for reimbursement of approximately $2 million of legal fees and expenses. In July 2015, a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims challenging the MarkWest Merger was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by a purported unitholder of MarkWest. In August 2015, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by plaintiffs who purport to be unitholders of MarkWest. On September 9, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into one action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, now captioned In re MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholder Litigation. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the individual members of the board of directors of MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. (the "MarkWest GP Board"), MPLX, MPLX GP, MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MPLX, asserting in connection with the MarkWest Merger and related disclosures that, among other things, (i) the MarkWest GP Board breached its duties in approving the MarkWest Merger with MPLX and (ii) MPC, MPLX, MPLX GP, and Sapphire Holdco LLC aided and abetted such breaches. On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss all claims with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs, but the Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for a mootness fee by the plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On March 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an application for reimbursement of approximately $2 million of legal fees and expenses. "We intend to vigorously defend against any application for a mootness fee and do not expect the resolution of such matter to have a material adverse effect," the Company said. Marathon is an independent petroleum refining and marketing, retail and midstream services company. MAXWELL & MORGAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Malcolm" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edris Malcolm and Rosario Torres, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Maxwell & Morgan PC, Case No. 2:16- cv-01473-GMS (D. Ariz., May 13, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Maxwell & Morgan PC operates a law firm located at 4854 E Baseline Rd # 104, Mesa, AZ 85206. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC 5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 565-1327 E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com MCS CLAIM: Illegally Collects Debt, "Smith" Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Essence Smith, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. MCS Claim Services, Inc. and Daniel P. Colucci, Case No. 1:16-cv-02439 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. MCS Claim Services, Inc. operates an insurance agency located at 23 Frost St #150, Westbury, NY 11590. Essence Smith is a pro se plaintiff. MEDICENTRES: July 7 Class Action Settlement Approval Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- If you were a patient at a Medicentre clinic either Edmonton or Calgary between May 2, 2011 and September 19, 2013, you may be affected by a settlement. A settlement has been reached in the Class Action with respect to the loss of a laptop computer containing names, dates of birth, Alberta Health Care Number and Alberta Health-Diagnostic Codes ("Personal Information"). Compensation may be available for the following claims: (a) Actual out of pocket costs incurred for credit monitoring or identify theft protection purchased on or before December 18, 2015 directly and solely as a result of the loss of the Personal Information; (b) Registration Costs for an Equifax Credit Monitoring and Identity Theft Insurance Program; (c) Compensation for medically recognized psychological or psychiatric conditions caused or aggravated directly and solely as a result of the loss of the Personal Information, with supporting documentation from a physician or other healthcare professional as may be acceptable to the Claims Administrator; and (d) Out of Pocket costs incurred as a result of actual identity theft which occurred on or before December 18, 2015 related directly and solely to the loss of the Personal Information. The proposed settlement must be approved by the court. An application to approve the settlement will be heard in Edmonton, Alberta on July 7, 2016 at 1:00 p.m. Class members who wish to make submissions regarding the settlement must act by June 30, 2016. Proposed Distribution of the Settlement Funds At the settlement approval application, the court will be asked to approve a protocol for distribution of the settlement funds. After the approval application, a further notice will be distributed regarding the process and deadline for filing a claim. To ensure that you receive this notice, please register online at www.jameshbrown.com or www.darcydeacon.com Class Counsel& Legal Fees The law firms of D'Arcy Deacon and James H. Brown and Associates are Class Counsel. Class Counsel and legal fees and disbursements must be approved by the court. Class Counsel will request approval of legal fees of up to CDN$200,000.00, plus disbursements of CDN$38,694.93 and applicable taxes, to be paid out of the settlement funds. QUESTIONS? Visit www.jameshbrown.com or call 1-800-616-0088 or visit www.darcydeacon.com or call 1-855-656-1495, or email rmallett@jameshbrown.com or cdocken@darcydeacon.com MERCEDEZ BENZ: "Ferrari" Amended Complaint Due May 31 ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California granted defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend in the case STEVE FERRARI, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES- BENZ USA, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-04379-YGR (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs brought a putative class action against defendants Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Autobahn, Inc., David Ahlheim, and Sonic Automotive Inc., alleging claims for violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1961 et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), California Business & Professions Code section 17500, the False Advertising Law ("FAL"); intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and negligence. Defendants Autobahn, Inc., David Ahlheim, and Sonic Automotive Inc. filed their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC separately filed its motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Judge Gonzalez granted the motion with leave to amend. Plaintiffs shall file their second amended complaint later than May 31, 2016 and defendants shall respond within 21 days thereafter. A copy of Judge Rogers's order dated May 10, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/BpKK0Ofrom Leagle.com. Steve Ferrari, Plaintiffs, represented by Herman Franck -- franckherman@hotmail.com -- Elizabeth Betowski -- elizabeth.francklaw@gmail.com -- at Franck and Associates Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert B. Hawk -- robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP AUTOBAHN, INC., David Ahlheim and SONIC AUTOMOTIVE INC., Defendants, represented by Bruce Grant Nye -- bnye@adamsnye.com -- Georges A. Haddad -- ghaddad@adamsnye.com -- at Adams Nye Becht LLP MILLER ENERGY: "Hull" Suit Alleges Accounting and Reporting Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel R. Hull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Deloy Miller, Scott M. Boruff, David J. Voyticky, Catherine A. Rector, David M. Hall, Merrill A. McPeak, Gerald Hannahs, Charles M. Stivers, Don A. Turkleson, Bob G. Gower, Joseph T. Leary, William B. Richardson, Marceau N. Schlumberger, Paul W. Boyd, Williams Financial Group, Maxim Group LLC, Northland Capital Markets, Aegis Capital Corp., National Securities Corporation, Dominick & Dominick, LLC, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., I-Bankers Securities, Inc. and MLV & Co. LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00232 (E.D. Tenn., May 12, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Act of 1933. Defendants are accused of financial accounting and reporting fraud, as well as audit failures, related to the valuation of certain oil and gas assets acquired by Miller Energy, an oil and gas company headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee. Miller Energy purchased assets located in Alaska, along with the assumption of certain liabilities during a competitive bid in a bankruptcy proceeding in December 2009. Miller Energy subsequently reported those assets at an overstated value. Miller Energy Resources, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation With its principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee. It is engaged in the exploration, development, production, and drilling of oil and gas resources in Alaska. Deloy Miller, Scott M. Boruff, David J. Voyticky, Catherine A. Rector, David M. Hall, Merrill A. McPeak, Gerald Hannahs, Charles M. Stivers, Don A. Turkleson, Bob G. Gower, Joseph T. Leary, William B. Richardson, Marceau N. Schlumberger and Paul W. Boyd served as board of directors of Miller Energy. Williams Financial Group, Maxim Group LLC, Northland Capital Markets, Aegis Capital Corp., National Securities Corporation, Dominick & Dominick, LLC, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. Inc., I-Bankers Securities, Inc. and MLV & Co. LLC are underwriters of the Miller transaction. The Defendants are represented by: James Al Holifield, Jr., Esq. HOLIFIELD & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C 11907 Kingston Pike, Suite 201 Knoxville, TN 37934 Tel: (865) 566-0115 Fax: (865) 566-0119 Email: Aholifield@hapc-law.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London ECIA 9ET MOBILEIRON, INC: Class Suit Dismissed; No Sum Paid -------------------------------------------------- MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that MobileIron paid no money to the plaintiffs or their attorneys in connection with the dismissal of a class action. On May 1, 2015, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The action was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 13, 2015 and April 22, 2015. It asserted claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.The complaint sought, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. An amended complaint was filed on September 28, 2015. On February 22, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting MobileIron's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and on March 15, 2016 the Court dismissed the case. MobileIron paid no money to the plaintiffs or their attorneys in connection with the dismissal of the action. MobileIron invented a purpose-built mobile IT platform for enterprises to secure and manage mobile applications, or apps, content and devices while providing their employees with device choice, privacy and a native user experience. MOBILEIRON, INC: Corrected Consolidated Complaint Filed ------------------------------------------------------- MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have filed a corrected consolidated complaint, which no longer names the underwriters or investors as defendants. On August 5, 2015, August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of its officers, directors, underwriters and investors, captioned Schneider v. MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. and Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al, which were subsequently consolidated under the case caption In re MobileIron Shareholder Litigation. The actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased the Company's securities issued pursuant or traceable to the Company's registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial public offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint seeks among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On April 12, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated complaint, which no longer names the underwriters or investors as defendants. The Company intends to defend this litigation vigorously. MobileIron invented a purpose-built mobile IT platform for enterprises to secure and manage mobile applications, or apps, content and devices while providing their employees with device choice, privacy and a native user experience. MOL GLOBAL: Preliminary Settlement Approval Sought -------------------------------------------------- Mol Global, Inc. said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement has been filed with the Court. Between November 24, 2014 and December 2, 2014, three putative class actions were commenced against, among others, the Company and certain of its officers and directors, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Freedman v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9357 (WHP), Grodko v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9397 (WHP) and Jewell v. MOL Global, Inc., et al., 14 CV 9493 (WHP). Each asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of investors who acquired the Company's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between October 9, 2014 and November 20, 2014, and/or who acquired ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 9, 2014 Initial Public Offering. The Freedman and Grodko actions also assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On December 22, 2014, plaintiffs voluntary dismissed the Grodko action. Motions for lead plaintiff were due on or about January 23, 2015. On May 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on July 7, 2015 and a second consolidated amended complaint was filed on October 7, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint was fully briefed as of December 21, 2015. The parties entered into a stipulation and settlement agreement dated April 11, 2016 to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The settlement is subject to court approval. A motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement was filed with the Court on April 12, 2016. MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Counsel Does Not Violate Protective Order ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, said the court cannot conclude on record and argument that the plaintiffs' counsel violated the protective orders in the case SEAN L. GILBERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MONEYMUTUAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-01171-JSW (LB) (N.D. Cal.). The MoneyMutual, LLC defendants produced information as "Highly Confidential" in the related state case Pham v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA and as "Protected Material" in the current lawsuit. Generally, both protective orders provide that the plaintiffs can use such confidential information only for prosecuting the litigation. The plaintiffs and the MoneyMutual defendants agreed that the contact information could be used in the current case subject to the terms of the Pham protective order but later they entered into a protective order that a receiving party may use protected material that is disclosed or produced by another party or by a non-party in connection with the case only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the litigation. Defendant David Johnson contends that the plaintiffs' counsel is misusing the contact information to file arbitrations against Mr. Johnson and other defendants who successfully moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs' counsel made a representation before the court that he is not violating the protective orders because he is not using confidential information to solicit clients within the meaning of California Rule of Professional Conduct 1-400. A discovery dispute was made whether the practice of plaintiffs' counsel violates the protective order's requirement that the plaintiffs' counsel can use confidential information only in the present litigation. Magistrate Judge Beeler orders the plaintiffs' counsel to do what he has agreed to do and that is not to solicit clients through use of the contact information disclosed by the MoneyMutual defendants or Mr. Johnson. A copy of Judge Beeler's order dated May 10, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/ICbTC8from Leagle.com. Sean L. Gilbert, Plaintiff, represented by: Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. Law Offices of Andrew C. Simpson P.C. 14 AB Church Street Christiansted, VI 00820 Telephone: 340-719-3900 Facsimile: 340-719-3903 - and - Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq. Lakeshore Law Center 18340 Yorba Linda Blvd, Suite 107-610 Yorba Linda, CA 92886-4058 Telephone: 714-854-7205 Facsimile: 714-854-7206 - and - Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. The Spencer Law Firm 2727 Camino Del Rio #140 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: 619-233-1313 Keeya Malone, Kimberly Bilbrew and Charmaine B. Aquino Plaintiffs, represented by: Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. Law Offices of Andrew C. Simpson P.C. 14 AB Church Street Christiansted, VI 00820 Telephone: 340-719-3900 Facsimile: 340-719-3903 - and - Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq. Lakeshore Law Center 18340 Yorba Linda Blvd, Suite 107-610 Yorba Linda, CA 92886-4058 Telephone: 714-854-7205 Facsimile: 714-854-7206 MoneyMutual, LLC, Selling Source, LLC, Montel Brian Anthony Williams, Glenn McKay, Partner Weekly, LLC, Brian Rauch, John Hashman, Samuel W. Humpreys, Douglas Tulley, Alton F. Irby, III, Defendants, represented by Donald J. Putterman -- dputterman@plglawyers.com -- Michelle Lee Landry -- Mlandry@plylaw.com -- Tobias George Snyder -- tsnyder@plylaw.com -- at Putterman Landry Yu LLP David A. Johnson, Defendant, represented by Ashley Brooke Vinson Crawford -- avinson@akingump.com -- Reginald David Steer -- rsteer@akingump.com -- at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Kirk Chewning, Defendant, represented by Ashley Brooke Vinson Crawford -- avinson@akingump.com -- at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld NASTASI & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Construction Contract Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Island Diversified, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Anthony J. Nastasi, Christopher Black, Nastasi & Associates, Inc., and New England Construction Company, Inc., Case No. 607312/2015, (N.Y., Sup. Ct., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide full payment for the labor, materials and equipment the Plaintiff provided at the Viacom Entrance Lobby Project. The Defendants operate a commercial construction company in Hauppauge, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Parshhueram T. Misir, Esq. FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010 Uniondale, NY 11553 Telephone: (516) 248-1700 E-mail: info@forchellilaw.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former Players File Concussion Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Solomon, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that former college football players at Penn State, Auburn, Georgia, Oregon, Utah and Vanderbilt are suing the NCAA, their former conference and -- in some instances -- their former school over how their concussions were treated. Six class-action lawsuits filed on May 17 represent the start of the next wave of concussion litigation in college sports, even as the NCAA finalizes a $75 million settlement from a different lawsuit related to concussions. Chicago attorney Jay Edelson, who is leading this latest effort to sue the NCAA, said 40 to 50 class-action lawsuits will eventually get filed on behalf of tens of thousands of ex-football players. "The goal of the suits is to get people who are injured financial compensation -- something that hasn't happened as of yet," Mr. Edelson said. A federal judge in Illinois gave preliminary approval in January to the NCAA's settlement from a 2011 lawsuit brought by former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington over how the association handled concussions. The judge had one significant caveat: Athletes could still sue their university, conference and the NCAA as a class under certain terms, meaning the NCAA didn't receive the blanket immunity it sought. Mr. Edelson fought the Arrington settlement for two years because he said it changed from a lawsuit about personal injuries into one strictly about medical monitoring. Under the proposed Arrington settlement, the NCAA will create a $70 million fund to test thousands of current and former athletes for brain trauma and put aside $5 million for concussion research. The settlement doesn't pay medical costs for ex-players suffering from brain injuries. Arrington, one of the named plaintiffs, opposed the settlement and other plaintiffs signed off on it. Mr. Edelson's current batch of lawsuits tries to include groups of ex-players at individual schools going back 50 to 60 years until 2010. The end date is 2010 because that's when the NCAA passed legislation requiring schools to have a concussion management plan and return-to-play protocols. The NCAA and a player's conference are defendants in all of the May 17 cases. Some of the lawsuits don't name the university as a defendant because state schools often have sovereign immunity from liability, Mr. Edelson said. "We thought the most efficient case was to file one large suit against the NCAA, and they blocked that and said in order to proceed, we have to file on behalf of classes only comprised of one school and one sport," Mr. Edelson said. "I think they were betting we didn't have the resources to do that. We do. We sue Facebook and Google. The NCAA isn't any more intimidating than those companies." Mr. Edelson said about 10 law firms are working on the concussions cases. Most of the lawsuits will be against universities with wealthy football programs and likely will get filed in batches about every other week, he said. The first lawsuits were filed separately in various districts around the country, often avoiding the jurisdiction of the ex- player's university. In some cases, the jurisdiction was where the named plaintiff currently lives or where the NCAA or conference is located. The initial batch of plaintiffs are: * Penn State -- Robert Samuels (defensive back, 1988-89), James Boyd (safety, 1997-2001) and Eric Ravotti (linebacker, 1990-94) are suing Penn State, the NCAA and Big Ten in the Northern District of Illinois. Boyd was a Jim Thorpe Award semifinalist in 2000. Their suit generically says that all three men currently suffer with their cognitive functioning, such as loss of memory and mood swings. * Auburn -- Joseph Miller (linebacker, 1996-98) is suing the NCAA and SEC in the Southern District of Indiana. The suit claims he would hit players so hard "that he would see stars or black out, lose balance, and try to shake it off." Mr. Miller began to lose his memory, struggled with depression and anxiety, and sought treatment, according to the suit. * Georgia -- Ronald Hermann (walk-on defensive end, 1984-86) is suing the NCAA and SEC in the Northern District of California. The suit claims Hermann suffered "numerous concussions" and it briefly described an incident in which he "saw stars" after a hit on a kickoff. Today, Mr. Hermann's loss of memory "is particularly challenging, and he has sought out medical treatment in an effort to find answers that Defendants failed to provide," according to the suit. * Oregon -- Daniel Cook (offensive lineman, 1971-73) is suing the NCAA and Pac-12 in the Northern District of California. The suit claims Cook was knocked out "as many as 15 to 30 times" and on four occasions lost consciousness lasting two to three minutes. Cook has been diagnosed with dementia and lives with family members for extend periods of time, according to the suit. * Vanderbilt -- Brandon Walthour (linebacker, 1999-2002) is suing Vanderbilt, the NCAA and SEC in the Middle District of Florida in Orlando. Mr. Walthour suffered "several" concussions and now has cognitive functioning problems, such as loss of memory, mood swings, sensitivity to light and blackouts, according to the suit. * Utah -- Richard Seals (defensive lineman, 1995-99) is using the NCAA and Western Athletic Conference in the District of Utah Central Division. He had nine sacks as a senior. The suit claims Seals now has cognitive functioning problems, such as loss of memory and mood swings. What is being alleged? The lawsuits allege negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. For decades, the NCAA, schools and conferences knew about debilitating long-term dangers of concussions and sub- concussive injuries "but actively concealed this information to protect the very profitable business of 'amateur' college football," the suits claim. The defendants are accused of encouraging players to return to play after suffering concussions. What are the plaintiffs hoping to obtain? All of the lawsuits are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, including for past, present and future medical expenses. The lawyers are seeking "reasonable" litigation costs and attorneys' fees. Will these class actions succeed? It remains to be seen. To get class certification, lawyers must show there is commonality among the plaintiffs' claims that supersede any questions affecting individuals. Mr. Edelson's lawsuits state that common questions include whether the NCAA, conference and/or school had a duty to enact rules related to concussions and adequately warn and educate players about the dangers and symptoms of brain injuries. Mr. Edelson fought for two years with Steve Berman and Joseph Siprut, the lead attorneys for the Arrington plaintiffs who settled with the NCAA. Mr. Edelson claimed the Arrington attorneys left billions of dollars on the table by abandoning the personal-injuries claims. Mr. Berman has repeatedly defended the settlement and said documents weren't found showing the NCAA covered up the risks of concussions, such as what might have been found with the NFL, which settled its concussion cases for $900 million. "The NCAA doesn't have the revenues," Mr. Berman told CBS Sports last July. "They don't make profits and the schools don't profit to the extent the NFL does, and I don't think they're as worried about the PR harm because I think the NFL was worried there were going to be tons of documents that showed they hid it. I don't think the NCAA was worried about that. We didn't find scores of documents saying, 'Wow, look at all these players walking around concussed. We need to keep it from them.'" Still, there was damaging information that emerged from the Arrington lawsuit. For instance, an internal NCAA survey from 2010 showed that 50 percent of responding schools didn't require a concussed athlete to see a physician. About half of the schools in the survey said they would return an athlete to the same competition after suffering a concussion. Mr. Berman has also previously said that the NFL's approximately 4,500 personal injury claims represented a much larger group of ex-players to leverage in a settlement than in the NCAA case. "In this case, there are very few individual cases out there," Mr. Berman said in 2014. "There's not a groundswell suggesting even a need for a class action like in the NFL." Mr. Edelson claims he has about 1,000 clients available to sue "just about any school we want" in this round of concussion litigation. He has created a website in which former players can contact the lawyers to join cases. Terms of the NFL's settlement allow ex-NFL players to pursue claims against the NCAA and/or universities. Some ex-players interested in suing might have to weigh whether to join a class-action or bring an individual suit. For instance, Bowling Green recently settled for $712,500 in an individual suit brought by former offensive lineman Cody Silk, who said he had two concussions but was allowed to participate in full-contact practices until suffering a third. The court initially rejected Silk's claims because he signed a release of liability to play football and assumed the risk of injury. Mr. Silk refiled the claim and a judge agreed that waivers of liability and releases don't relieve a proprietor from liability due to wanton or willful misconduct. Bowling Green said it settled only to avoid a trial and admitted no wrongdoing. "For some people, it may not be in their best interest to get into a class action if they get a lawyer and their damages are large enough," Mr. Edelson said. "For most student-athletes, this is really their only hope. The damages that a lot of people suffered aren't significant enough to get lawyers to file suits against an institution as big as the NCAA, who is going to throw millions of dollars at these cases." The NCAA will be in a "very difficult situation" by facing dozens of personal-injury lawsuits instead of just one, Mr. Edelson said. "They're going to have to try to win 50 different lawsuits, and I think that's hard for them to do in this climate," he said. "The sentiment about concussions has shifted a lot through the years, and I don't think they're going to be very excited when these cases start going to the juries." Penn State, Vanderbilt, the Big Ten, the SEC and the Pac-12 declined to comment, while the NCAA released the following statement to CBS Sports. "These cases appear to be yet another attempt by Mr. Edelson to interfere with efforts to move forward a settlement in the Arrington case," NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said. "The lawsuits reflect copycat activity and just because they keep repeating the same arguments does not make them true." NATURAL HEALTH: Rosen Firm, Levi & Korsinsky Named Co-Lead Attys ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm and Levi & Korsinsky LLP are leading a class action lawsuit against Natural Health Trends Corp., according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016. In January 2016, two purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and its top executives. On March 29, 2016, the court consolidated the purported class actions, appointed two Lead Plaintiffs, Messrs. Dao and Juan, and appointed the Rosen Law Firm and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as co-Lead Counsel for the purported class in the consolidated action. The court also ordered lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by April 29, 2016. The class action complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of certain of our stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Natural Health Trends Corp., Chris T. Sharng, and Timothy S. Davidson, and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Sharng and Davidson. The class action complaints allege, inter alia, that the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding the legality of its business operations in China, including running an allegedly illegal multi-level marketing business. The class action complaints seek an indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in these actions. NGU INC: Faces Win-Vent Suit Over Construction Contract Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Win-Vent Architectural Windows, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others entitled to share in the funds received by Citiquiet Inc. ("Citiquiet") and NGU Inc. d/b/a Champion Architectural Window and Door v. NGU Inc. d/b/a Champion Architectural Window and Door, Citiquiet Inc., Michael Lentin, and "John Doe No. 1" through "John Doe No. 100", Case No. ____ (N.Y. Super. Ct., May 12, 2016), arises from the failure and refusal of Citiquiet and Champion to pay for certain windows, sheet-metal, doors and related materials that Win-Vent provided, as well as other construction materials and labor supplied by the other trust fund beneficiaries, for its use at the Projects, and the unlawful diversion of said trust fund monies for non-trust purposes. The Defendants offer soundproof window treatments and services for residential and commercial clients in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq. CONSTANTINE T. TZIFAS, PLLC 286 Madison Avenue - Suite 1801 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 557-5052 NU SKIN: Final Settlement Approval Expected in Mid-2016 ------------------------------------------------------- Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that final court approval of a class action settlement is expected to occur in mid-2016. The Company currently has litigation pending in a purported class action lawsuit and derivative claim relating to negative media and regulatory scrutiny regarding the Company's business in Mainland China and the associated decline in the Company's stock price. As further discussed in Note 13, a settlement of the purported class action has been reached by the parties but remains subject to court approval. In addition, beginning in February 2014, five purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. In May 2014, the court issued an order consolidating the derivative actions, appointing plaintiffs Amos C. Acoff and Analisa Suderov as co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated action, and appointing the law firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. In July 2014, a consolidated derivative complaint was filed. The consolidated derivative complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duties for disseminating false and misleading information, failing to maintain adequate internal controls, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement against M. Truman Hunt, Ritch N. Wood, Steven J. Lund, Nevin N. Andersen, Neil H. Offen, Daniel W. Campbell, Andrew W. Lipman, Patricia A. Negr¢n, Thomas R. Pisano, and nominally against Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. The consolidated derivative complaint also purports to assert claims on behalf of Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. for breach of fiduciary duty for insider selling and misappropriation of information against Messrs. Wood, Lund and Campbell. The consolidated derivative complaint alleges that, inter alia, the defendants allowed materially false and misleading statements to be made regarding their sales operations in and financial results derived from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities, and that certain defendants sold common stock on the basis of material, adverse non-public information. In July 2015, the court stayed the derivative action pending a final resolution in the class action lawsuit and denied the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewing the motion when the stay is lifted. On February 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement Term Sheet (the "Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously reported putative securities class action consolidated lawsuit. The litigation was brought against the Company and certain of the Company's officers (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of a class consisting of persons or entities that publicly traded the Company's common stock during the period from May 4, 2011 through January 17, 2014 and were allegedly damaged thereby. The terms of the Agreement provide for, among other things, a settlement payment by, or on behalf of, the Company of $47 million, which the Company recorded as a short-term liability in its consolidated balance sheet. The settlement payment is expected to be entirely funded by the Company's insurers, and the Company recorded the corresponding amount as a short-term receivable in its consolidated balance sheet. There was no net impact on the Company's consolidated statement of income. The settlement remains subject to court approval and may be cancelled by the Defendants at their sole election in certain limited circumstances. Final court approval of the settlement is expected to occur in mid-2016 but could be delayed by circumstances beyond the Company's control. Upon final approval of the settlement by the court, the litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice. ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: $11-Mil. Class Action Deal Has Final OK --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John G. Koeltl on April 29, 2016, entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement reached in the securities class action lawsuit against Orthofix International N.V., Robert S. Vaters ("Vaters"), Brian McCollum ("McCollum"), and Emily V. Buxton ("'Buxton"). Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund is the Lead Plaintiff in the case. The Court finally certifies this Action as a class action with the Class defined as: "all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Orthofix International N. V. ("Orthofix") between March 2, 2010 and July 29, 2013, inclusive (the 'Class Period") and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are: (I) Defendants and members of the immediate family of any Defendant; (2) any entity in which any Defendant has or, during the Class Period, had a controlling interest; (3) the officers and directors of Orthofix during the Class Period; and (4) the legal representatives, agents, executors, heirs, successors, or assigns of any of the foregoing excluded persons or entities, who assert any interest in Orthofix common stock through or on behalf of any such excluded persons or entities." The Settlement creates a fund of $11,000,000 in cash that has been paid into an escrow account for the benefit of the Class pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, and that Class Members who submit acceptable Proof of Claim Forms will benefit from the Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of Lead Counsel. In a separate Order, the Court approved Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Lead Counsel's and Lead Plaintiffs Litigation Expenses. Specifically, Lead Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of 27.5% of the Settlement Fund, or $3,025,000; and $201,346.65 as reimbursement for Lead Counsel's litigation expenses (which fees and expenses shall be paid to Lead Counsel from the Settlement Fund). The Lead Plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension fund is awarded its expenses, including lost wages, in the amount of $1,853.60, which represents its reasonable costs and expenses directly related to the representation of the Class. Orthofix International N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that on August 14, 2013, a securities class action complaint against the Company, currently styled Tejinder Singh v. Orthofix International N.V., et al. (No.:1:13-cv-05696-JGK), was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York arising out of the then anticipated restatement of the Company's'prior financial statements. Since the date of original filing, the complaint has been amended. The lead plaintiff's complaint, as amended, purports to bring claims on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 2, 2010 and July 29, 2013. The complaint asserts that the Company and four of its former executive officers, Alan W. Milinazzo, Robert S. Vaters, Brian McCollum, and Emily V. Buxton (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5") by making false or misleading statements in or relating to the Company's financial statements. The complaint further asserts that the Individual Defendants were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for any violation by the Company of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act or Rule 10b-5. As relief, the complaint requests compensatory damages on behalf of the proposed class and lead plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. On March 6, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to Mr. Milinazzo and denied it with respect to the Company and the other Individual Defendants. On October 22, 2015, following negotiations facilitated by an independent mediator, the Company, the remaining Individual Defendants and their insurers reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class it purports to represent, to settle and release all claims with respect to this matter and to dismiss the action with prejudice subject to final court approval. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the Company, through its insurers, would make a payment to the plaintiff, and the class it purports to represent, to resolve all claims related to the matter, including any claims for plaintiff counsel's fees and expenses. On December 7, 2015, all parties to the action executed and filed with the Court a proposed settlement agreement whose terms are consistent with the agreement in principle. On December 18, 2015, the Court entered a preliminary approval order which, among other things, preliminarily approved the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, subject to final approval at the hearing scheduled for April 29, 2016. The Company has previously incurred and expensed fees and expenses in connection with this matter up to and exceeding its insurance policy deductible and its insurers have undertaken to cover the full amount of the settlement payment, if the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Court. The Company accrued both the amount of the settlement payment under the agreement in principle, and a corresponding insurance receivable from its insurers, with respect to these matters. A copy of the terms of the Settlement and plan of allocation is available at https://is.gd/Uc846S A copy of the Court's Order and Final Judgment is available at https://is.gd/QQre8g A copy of the Court's Fee ruling is available at https://is.gd/UvfAHQ Orthofix is a diversified, global medical device company. Counsel to Lead Plaintiff and the Class are: Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. Genevieve Fontan, Esq. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com dbunch@cohenmilstein.com gfontan@cohenmilstein.com - and - Carol V. Gilden, Esq. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: 312-357-0370 Fax: 312-357-0369 E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com Counsel to Orthofix: David Wertheimer, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLC 875 Third Avenue New Yor, NY 10022 Tel: 212-918-3000 Fax: 212-918-3100 The Claims Administrator is: Strategic Claims Services 600 N Jackson Street - Suite 3 Media, PA 19063 Phone: 866-274-4004 E-mail: info@strategicclaims.net OUTERWALL INC: Still Defends "Piechur" Action in Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit by Laurie Piechur. In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class certification. Redbox moved to dismiss all remaining claims on mootness grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion on December 11, 2014. The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. Oral argument was held November 10, 2015. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's rulings on January 11, 2016. Plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court on February 16, 2016, and Redbox filed an answer on March 8, 2016. "We continue to believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter should plaintiff seek further appellate review. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the Company said. Outerwall is provider of automated retail solutions offering convenient products and services that benefit consumers and drive incremental retail traffic and revenue for retailers. PANDORA MEDIA: Appeal in Flo & Eddie Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that te Company's appeal in the class action lawsuit by Flo & Eddie Inc. remains pending. On April 17, 2014, UMG Recordings, Inc., Sony Music Entertainment, Capitol Records, LLC, Warner Music Group Corp. and ABKCO Music and Records, Inc. filed suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint claims common law copyright infringement and unfair competition arising from allegations that Pandora owes royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. In October 2015, the parties reached an agreement ("pre-1972 settlement") whereby we agreed to pay the plaintiffs a total of $90 million. The settlement resolves all past claims as to our use of pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the plaintiffs and enables us, without any additional payment, to reproduce, perform and broadcast such recordings in the United States through December 31, 2016. This agreement was approved by our board of directors and executed on October 21, 2015. Pursuant to this settlement, we paid the plaintiffs $60 million in October 2015 and the plaintiffs dismissed the case with prejudice. As a result, cost of revenue - content acquisition costs increased by $65.4 million in the twelve months ended December 31, 2015, of which $57.9 million was related to a one-time cumulative charge to cost of revenue - content acquisition costs related to pre-1972 spins played through September 30, 2015. The remaining charge of $24.6 million will be recorded in cost of revenue - content acquisition costs in 2016 based on expected streaming of pre-1972 recordings over the period. The pre-72 settlement further requires that we make four additional installment payments of $7.5 million each. The first was paid in December 2015 and the second was paid in March 2016. The remaining two installments will be paid on or before July 1, 2016 and October 1, 2016. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute. This motion was denied, and we have appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the district court litigation has been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's review. Pandora is a music discovery platform offering a personalized experience for each of the Company's listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen to music -- whether through earbuds, car speakers or live on stage. PANDORA MEDIA: "Sheridan" Class Suits Remain Stayed --------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a class action lawsuit by the Sheridans remain stayed. The Company said, "On September 14, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges common law misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of California rights of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Ninth Circuit's review of Pandora's appeal in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Pandora Media, Inc., which involves similar allegations." "On September 16, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a second class action suit against Pandora Media, Inc. in the federal district court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of New York right of publicity, unfair competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On October 28, 2015 the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay the district court action pending the Second Circuit's review of Sirius XM's appeal in the Flo & Eddie et al. v. Sirius XM matter, which involves similar allegations. "On October 17, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a third class action suit against us in the federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois ("Third Class Action Suit"). The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion, and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit's decision. The motion to stay was denied, and the motion to dismiss remains pending. "On October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan, et al filed a fourth class action suit against us in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey ("Fourth Class Action Suit"). The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, unfair competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 29, 2015, Pandora filed a motion to dismiss and motion to stay the case pending the Second Circuit's decision. Both motions remain pending." Pandora is a music discovery platform offering a personalized experience for each of the Company's listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen to music -- whether through earbuds, car speakers or live on stage. PANERA BREAD: Defending Class Suits by Former Employees ------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread 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 29, 2016, that the Company continues to defend class action lawsuits by former employees. On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. In addition, more recently, several other purported class action lawsuits based on similar claims and seeking similar damages were filed against the subsidiary: on October 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of San Bernardino by Jazmin Dabney, a former subsidiary employee; on November 3, 2015 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California by Clara Manchester, a former subsidiary employee; and on November 30, 2015 in the California Superior Court, County of Yolo by Tanner Maginnis, a current subsidiary assistant manager. The Company believes its subsidiary has meritorious defenses to each of the claims in these lawsuits and is prepared to vigorously defend the allegations therein. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company's subsidiary will be successful, and an adverse resolution of any one of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which one or all of these lawsuits are resolved. The Company is not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuits. PAPA JOHNS: "Durling" Suit Seeks Minimum Pay, Recovery of Pay Cuts ------------------------------------------------------------------ William Durling, Chris Bellaspica, Tom Wolff, Michael Morris and Richard Sobol, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Papa John's International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-03592 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2016), seeks all required wages due, compensatory damages and liquidated damages, equitable and injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees and reimbursement of all costs and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor Law, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the Delaware Minimum Wage Act. Durling, Bellaspica, Wolff, Morris and Sobol worked as a part-time delivery drivers for a Papa John's Pizza store in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware respectively. They claim to have been denied minimum wages, subjected to illegal deductions and denied reimbursement for business related expenses. Papa John's International, Inc. is Delaware corporation and maintains its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Jeffersontown, Kentucky. It is a global pizza restaurant chain. The Defendants are represented by: Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Tel: (914) 298-3281 Email: jfrei-pearson@FBFGLaw.com - and - David J. Cohen STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 873-4836 Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: 312-233-1550 Fax: 312-233-1560 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com PIZZATI ENTERPRISES: Faces "Nieto" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Nieto v. Pizzati Enterprises, Inc., Pizzati Labor Services, Inc., Miriam Pizzati, and Maria Murillo, Case No. 2:16-cv-05352 (E.D. Lo., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants offers siding, roofing, stucco, gutters, painting, flooring, drywall, decking, and fencing projects in Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com - and - William H. Beaumont, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com - and - Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lordi" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony V. Lordi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Progressive Financial Services, Inc. and John Does 1- 25, Case No. 2:16-cv-02703-JMV-MF (D.N.J., May 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Progressive Financial Services, Inc. operates a debt collection firm in New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq. Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com jkj@legaljones.com RCI PLBG: Faces "Faulkner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Dwayne Faulkner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RCI PLBG, Inc. and Affinity Human Resources, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02401 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. RCI PLBG, Inc. operates a plumbing company located at 555 Ave of the Americas, New York, NY 10011. Affinity Human Resources, LLC operates staffing company located at 2870 West Lake Road Cazenovia, NY 13035. Dwayne Faulkner is a pro se plaintiff. RCN TELECOM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Portman" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Portman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Case No. 2016CH06580 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct. RCN Telecom Services, LLC provides consumer telephone and internet service. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICE, LLC 155 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Facsimile: (312) 729-5289 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com - and - Larry P. Smith, Esq. SMITHMARCO, P.C. 205 North Michigan A venue, Suite 2940 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 324-3532 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com REGEIS CARE: Faces "Richardson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Loren Richardson, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Regeis Care Center, LLC, Chaim Sieger, and Abraham Sieger, Case No. 1:16-cv-03538 (S.D.N.Y., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a nursing and rehabilitation center in Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis M. Leon, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com LML@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com RBS HOLDINGS: Distribution in Madoff Class Action Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- RBS Holdings N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the District Court on March 29, 2016, approved a preliminary distribution to successful plaintiffs in the Madoff-related class action against various Tremont entities which settled in 2011. RBS's share, estimated at $159 million, will be recognised in 2016 ROTONDA GOLF: Faces "Werman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Werman and Ronald Segui, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Rotonda Golf Partners, LLC, Rotonda Golf Partners II, LLC, William Stine and David Kelly, Case No. 2:16-cv- 00356-UA-CM (M.D. Cal., May 12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate golf courses on the West coast of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com SANDISK CORP: Summary Judgment Granted in Ritz Camera Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that in the Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust Class Action, the court has granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims. On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's ruling on the Company's petition. On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District Court. On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs. On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a named plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims. On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 22, 2015, the District Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once the class notice has been approved and the period for class members to opt out has expired. After the opt-out period expired, the Company renewed its motion for summary judgment. On April 29, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims. SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Antitrust Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that discovery remains stayed until after completion of the pleading stage in the federal antitrust class action against SanDisk, et al. On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD- 3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"), Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law. The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct, dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs allege that the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC . On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed. On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The appeals court denied the defendants' petition for rehearing and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District Court. On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. On February 27, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted, with leave to amend, on September 30, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss which is pending. Discovery remains stayed until after completion of the pleading stage. SANDISK CORP: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought --------------------------------------------------- Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the federal securities class action against SanDisk et al. Beginning on March 30, 2015, the Company and certain of its officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on March 30, 2015; Bowers v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 6, 2015; City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 27, 2015). Two of the complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 16, 2014 and April 15, 2015. The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. On September 30, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On February 22, 2016, the court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group"). On March 23, 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2016. SANDISK CORP: Merger Class Action Closed ---------------------------------------- Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that the merger-related shareholder class actions have been closed. Commencing on November 4, 2015, two alleged stockholders of SanDisk filed putative class actions captioned Michael Cloud v. SanDisk Corp., et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-287706, and Jaromir Koutnak v. Sanjay Mehrotra, et al., Case Number 1-15-cv-288079, each in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (together, the "California Actions"). The defendants are SanDisk, the members of SanDisk's board of directors, Western Digital, and Schrader Acquisition Corporation, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Western Digital ("Merger Sub"). The complaints in the California Actions allege that SanDisk's directors breached their fiduciary duties to SanDisk's stockholders in connection with the merger agreement and the transaction contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that the proposed merger arises out of a flawed process which resulted in an unfair price for SanDisk's shares and a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaints also allege that the terms of the merger agreement will deter other purported interested parties from coming forward with a superior offer. The California Actions further allege that SanDisk, Western Digital, or Merger Sub aided and abetted the SanDisk directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint adds allegations that defendants caused Western Digital to file a registration statement that contains misleading statements and omits other information about the proposed transaction. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining defendants from consummating the proposed merger, rescinding the proposed merger if it is consummated, awarding damages, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs. On February 26, 2016, the plaintiff in the Cloud action voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. On March 9, 2016, the plaintiff in the Koutnak action voluntarily dismissed his complaint without prejudice. Both cases are now closed. SANGHA SUNDIP SINGH: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Octaviano Juarez, Angel Mendez Mendez, Noe Moises Ramirez Salazar, Patricio Reyes Venegas, Alejandro Rivera Fonseca, Daniel Ramirez Cuevas, Sergio Gomez Gonzales, Arturo Santos, Abel Isidro B., Pablo Lopez Cruz, Angelina Isidro B., Honorina Cruz Salinas, Rolando Juarez Martinez, Manuel Juarez Ramirez And Juana Mayoral Silva, individually and on behalf of other current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Rafael Villafan, Demi AG INC. and Sangha Sundip Singh, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-at-00359 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest and penalties under California Labor Law, Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them for work they performed, failed to provide pay stubs, failed to pay Plaintiffs at the time of discharge, failed to provide tools and equipment, failed to allow the inspection or copying of employment records or personnel records, failed to allow inspection and failed to provide a written notice of terms and conditions of employment at the time of hire. Rafael Villafan operates as a farm labor contractor based in Fresno County. Demi AG, Inc. is a California Corporation located at 1625 Howard Rd. #249, Madera, CA 93637. It operates as a farm labor contractor. Sangha Sundip Singh owns vineyards in Selma, CA where Rafael Villafan and Demi AG, Inc. provided contractual labor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Estella M. Cisneros, Esq. Elizabeth A. Aakhus, Esq. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE INC. 3747 E. Shields Ave. Fresno, CA 93726 Tel: (559) 441-8721 Fax: (559) 441-0724 - and - Blanca A. Ba¤uelos, Esq. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. 145 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 Tel: (209) 946-0609 Fax: (209) 946-5730 - and - Aida S. Macedo, Esq. MILES SEARS & EANNI 2844 Fresno St. Fresno, CA 93721 Tel: (559) 486-5200 Fax: (559) 486-5240 SANGHA SUNDIP SINGH: "Juarez" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Octaviano Juarez, Angel Mendez Mendez, Noe Moises Ramirez Salazar, Patricio Reyes Venegas, Alejandro Rivera Fonseca, Daniel Ramirez Cuevas, Sergio Gomez Gonzales, Arturo Santos, Abel Isidro B., Pablo Lopez Cruz, Angelina Isidro B., Honorina Cruz Salinas, Rolando Juarez Martinez, Manuel Juarez Ramirez and Juana Mayoral Silva, individually and on behalf of other current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Rafael Villafan, Demi AG INC. and Sangha Sundip Singh, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00688-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest and penalties under California Labor Law, Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay them for work they performed, failed to provide pay stubs, failed to pay Plaintiffs at the time of discharge, failed to provide tools and equipment, failed to allow the inspection or copying of employment records or personnel records, failed to allow inspection and failed to provide a written notice of terms and conditions of employment at the time of hire. Rafael Villafan operates as a farm labor contractor based in Fresno County. Demi AG, Inc. is a California Corporation located at 1625 Howard Rd. #249, Madera, CA 93637. It operates as a farm labor contractor. Sangha Sundip Singh owns vineyards in Selma, CA where Rafael Villafan and Demi AG, Inc. provided contractual labor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Estella M. Cisneros, Esq. Elizabeth A. Aakhus, Esq. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE INC. 3747 E. Shields Ave. Fresno, CA 93726 Tel: (559) 441-8721 Fax: (559) 441-0724 - and - Blanca A. Ba¤uelos, Esq. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, INC. 145 E. Weber Avenue Stockton, CA 95202 Tel: (209) 946-0609 Fax: (209) 946-5730 - and - Aida S. Macedo, Esq. MILES SEARS & EANNI 2844 Fresno St. Fresno, CA 93721 Tel: (559) 486-5200 Fax: (559) 486-5240 SERVICE CORPORATION: "Samborksy" Case Sent to Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the claims in the case, Charles Samborsky, et al, individually and on behalf of those persons similarly situated, v. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., et al ; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District-Central Civil West Courthouse, have been sent to arbitration. This lawsuit was filed in April 2014 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on behalf of employees who worked as family service counselors in California since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for various violations of state laws regulating wage and hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief. The claims have been sent to arbitration. "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this lawsuit," the Company said. SINGING RIVER: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Anita Lee, writing for Sun Herald, reports that U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. made it clear to a packed courtroom May 16 that he is not looking for culprits, but instead must determine whether Singing River Health System can pay $150 million over 35 years to settle a pension failure that has jeopardized retirement payments to hundreds of current and former health system employees. Judge Guirola was set to decide after the hearing, which was expected to continue May 17, whether he should approve the settlement as fair and reasonable on behalf of 2,067 retirement plan members. The settlement amounts to $55 million SRHS failed to contribute to its pension plan from 2009-14, when the health system led employees to believe the contributions were being made. Paying over 35 years brings SRHS's total owed to almost $150 million with interest. The money will be used to pay monthly benefits to retirees. Attorney Steve Simpson, the court-appointed trustee now overseeing the retirement fund, said its health hinges on SRHS settlement payments, investments and interest earned. He said he has no way of telling retirees how much their checks will be each month. The settlement represents the amount SRHS failed to pay, not what is needed to fully fund retirement benefits going forward. "When people say, 'Can you tell me how much I will get?'" Mr. Simpson said, "I have to say, 'No.'" Under the proposed settlement, attorneys representing pension-plan members would receive legal fees of $6.4 million paid over four years. Attorney Jim Reeves of Biloxi is lead attorney for pension-plan members who struck the settlement deal with SRHS in a class-action lawsuit. During the hearing, Mr. Reeves told Judge Guirola that 94.6 percent of plan members are willing to accept the settlement. Attorney Harvey Barton of Pascagoula and Earl Denham of Ocean Springs represent more than 200 plan members who oppose settlement. They say monthly retirement payments and amounts are not guaranteed. The settlement also releases SRHS and Jackson County, which owns the health system, from further liability over the pension failure. Mr. Reeves presented testimony in favor of the settlement, calling SRHS's chief financial officer, Lee Bond, to testify. Bond said the hospital has cut spending over the past two years so that it is now operating at a slim profit. He believes SRHS can make the required annual settlement payments. Mr. Barton then asked Mr. Bond if one of his employees was shredding financial documents after plan members filed lawsuits over the pension failure in late 2014. Judge Guirola shook his finger at Mr. Barton, saying, "Now, wait a minute, I'm running this. " . . . Now, let's say they took documents to the shredder and shredded the dickens out of them. How is that going to help me determine whether this settlement is fair?" Judge Guirola said he was not presiding over the hearing to determine if there had been any wrongdoing, or if anyone should be removed from office over the pension failure. Several retirees in the packed courtroom moaned. Under the settlement terms, Jackson County will pay more than $13 million toward indigent care, freeing SRHS funds for annual settlement payments into the retirement fund. Trustee Simpson can amend the plan based on its financial position, including the amount paid in retirement benefits. But he would have to give plan members 60 days' notice and secure approval from Jackson County Chancery Court. Mr. Reeves' called several of his clients to testify about why they signed onto the settlement. They said they feared that SRHS would terminate the pension plan and they would receive no benefits. They also said they believe the settlement is fair to plan members. Messrs. Barton and Denham were set to call their witnesses May 17, including retirees who are suing SRHS in state court and oppose the settlement. SONUS NETWORKS: Motion to Dismiss Due June 20 --------------------------------------------- Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's Motion to Dismiss is due on June 20, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15- 02407), alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "District of New Jersey"), against the Company and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's Chief Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants"). On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed with the District of New Jersey by four other purported shareholders of the Company seeking status as lead plaintiff, the District of New Jersey appointed Richard Sousa as lead plaintiff (the "Plaintiff"). The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from October 23, 2014 to March 24, 2015, and seeks unspecified damages. The principal allegation contained in the Complaint is that the Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning the Company's fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance. On September 22, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer (the "Motion to Transfer") this case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Transfer on October 5, 2015, and the Company filed a reply to the Motion to Transfer on October 13, 2015. On March 21, 2016, the District of New Jersey granted the Company's Motion to Transfer. Thus, this case will now be litigated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") (Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-10657-GAO). The Plaintiff's amended and operative complaint (the "Amended Complaint") was due by May 4, 2016, and the Company's Motion to Dismiss is due on June 20, 2016. The Company believes that the Defendants have meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the Complaint and does not expect the results of this suit to have a material effect on its business or consolidated financial statements. Sonus Networks, Inc. is a provider of networked solutions for communications service providers (e.g., telecommunications, wireless and cable service providers) and enterprises to help them advance, protect and unify their communications and improve collaboration. SOUTHERN COPPER: Denies Allegations in "Lacey" Case --------------------------------------------------- Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has filed an answer denying allegations in the case, Carla Lacey and Barbara Siegfried, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation. A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in February 2016 relating to the 2012 acquisition of 99.999% of MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM Acquisition"), the Company's entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"), and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan Restructuring"). The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CIEM Acquisition, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company's charter. The Company has filed an answer denying these allegations. ST JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: "Garbaccio" Sues Over Underfunded Pension ----------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the case captioned Donna Garbaccio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center And Subsidiaries, St. Joseph's Healthcare System, Inc., John and Jane Does 1-20, Members of the Committee that administers the St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center Pension Plan, John and Jane Does 21-40, Members of the Executive Finance Committee of the Board of Trustees, each an individual and John and Jane Does 41-60, each an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02740-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., May 13, 2016), seeks revision of their benefit plan managed by the Defendants to comply with the regulations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The plaintiffs also seek disgorgement of any profits accumulated resulting from fiduciary breaches, civil monetary penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees and expenses as provided by ERISA. Defendant St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, by and through its subsidiaries and/or affiliates operates a healthcare conglomerate in New Jersey and provides healthcare services in the communities it serves. Garbaccio is a vested participant in the St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center Pension Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Lempert, Esq. Karen L. Handorf, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Kira L. Hettinger, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: slempert@cohenmilstein.com khandorf@cohenmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com khettnger@cohenmilstein.com - and - Laura R. Gerber, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Havila C. Unrein, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Tel.: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com hunrein@kellerrohrback.com STONEWOOD ALE HOUSE: "Marin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- David Marin individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stonewood Ale House and Louis J. Gatziolis, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05224 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages due, statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Defendants operate a restaurant called Stonewood Ale House located at 601 Mall Drive, Schaumburg, Illinois 60173 where the Plaintiff prepared and cooked food. Plaintiff allegedly did not receive meal breaks and was denied overtime pay. Defendants also allegedly altered and manipulated employee schedules to conceal any overtime hours worked by employees. The Defendants are represented by: Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Tel: 312-878-1302 Fax: (888) 270-8983 Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com SUNRUN INC: "Cohen" Securities Fraud Suit Removed to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- George Cohen, David Moss and Roxanne Xenakis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunrun Inc., Lynn Jurich, Robert Komn, Edward Fenster, Jameson McJunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Defendants, Case No. CIV538304 (Cal. Super. April 21, 2016), has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on May 12, 2016 under Case No. 3:16-cv-02570-WHA. Defendants are accused of misstatements and omissions in their Registration Statement during their initial public offering. Defendant claims that the price of Sunrun common stock was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the offering. Sunrun engages in the design, development, installation sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in the United States. Lynn Jurich, Robert Komn, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo and Richard Wong are members of the Board of Directors. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. are underwriters for the said offering. The Defendants are represented by: Anna Erickson White, Esq. Robert L. Cortez Webb, Esq. Su-Han Wang, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 Email: AWhite@mofo.com RWebb@mofo.com SWang@mofo.com SUNRUN INC: "Nunez" Class Suit Removed to N. Dist. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jackie L. Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrun Inc. ("Sunrun"), Lynn Jurich, Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson McJunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle, Eren Omer Atesmen, Reginald Norris, William Elmore, Foundation Capital VI, L.P., and Foundation Capital Management Co. VI, LLC, Case No. CIV 538593, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02573-LHK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Act. Sunrun Inc. is a provider of residential solar electricity and operates the "second largest fleet of residential solar energy systems" in the United States. The Defendant is represented by: Anna Erickson White, Esq. Robert L. Cortez Webb, Esq. Su-Han Wang, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: AWhite@mofo.com RWebb@mofo.com SWang@mofo.com SUNRUN INC: "Mancy" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Greg Mancy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Sunrun Inc. ("Sunrun"), Lynn Jurich, Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson McJunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle, Eren Omer Atesmen, Reginald Norris, William Elmore, Foundation Capital VI, L.P., and Foundation Capital Management Co. VI, LLC, Case No. CIV 538303, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02572-LHK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Act. Sunrun Inc. is a provider of residential solar electricity and operates the "second largest fleet of residential solar energy systems" in the United States. The Defendant is represented by: Anna Erickson White, Esq. Robert L. Cortez Webb, Esq. Su-Han Wang, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: AWhite@mofo.com RWebb@mofo.com SWang@mofo.com SUNRUN INC: "Pytel" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jeffrey L. Pytel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sunrun Inc. ("Sunrun"), Lynn Jurich, Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson McJunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle, Eren Omer Atesmen, Reginald Norris, William Elmore, Foundation Capital VI, L.P., and Foundation Capital Management Co. VI, LLC, Case No. CIV 538215, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02566 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Securities Act. Sunrun Inc. is a provider of residential solar electricity and operates the "second largest fleet of residential solar energy systems" in the United States. The Defendant is represented by: Anna Erickson White, Esq. Robert L. Cortez Webb, Esq. Su-Han Wang, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 E-mail: AWhite@mofo.com RWebb@mofo.com SWang@mofo.com TAMPA FOOD: "Evering" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kianna Evering, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tampa Food and Hospitality, Inc., Hospitality Company of Central Florida, Inc. and Louis Mendel, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01192-JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla., May 12, 2016), seeks minimum pay, back wages and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate Scores Gentlemen's Club & Prime Steakhouse located in Tampa, Florida where Evering worked as an exotic dancer. She claims her only compensation was tips from patrons. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam B. Kenner, Esq. KENNER & CUMMINGS PLLC, Suite 2410 175 SW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 384-7205 Fax: (305) 384-7371 Email: adam@kennercummings.com TARGET CORP: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") disclosed that on May 17, 2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client Police Retirement System of St. Louis ("St. Louis Police") against Target Corporation ("Target" or the "Company") (NYSE:TGT), and certain of its senior executives (collectively "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Target Corporation, No. 16-cv-01315 (D. Minn.), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-traded common stock of Target between February 27, 2013 and May 19, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated provisions of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's launch of its operations in Canada. Target operates general merchandise discount stores throughout the U.S. The Company sells a wide variety of household essentials, music and movies, electronics, clothing, and other items, through its traditional stores, its website, and via direct shipment from vendors or third-parties. The Company distributes its merchandise through a network of distribution centers that rely on sophisticated supply chain management infrastructure and information technology systems. On January 13, 2011, Target announced that it would expand its retail operations into Canada, with plans to open between 100 and 150 stores in the country during 2013 and 2014. Beginning on February 27, 2013, and continuing through the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly offered positive statements concerning Target's current and projected operations in Canada. In part because of the purported success that Target was slated to achieve during fiscal 2013 in its Canadian segment, Defendants also provided the Company's shareholders with strong financial and operational guidance for fiscal 2013. As a result of these misrepresentations, Target stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Unbeknownst to investors, Target's Canadian expansion encountered operational problems from the start. On May 20, 2014, prior to the trading session, news reports circulated that Target had fired Tony Fisher, the Company's president of Canadian operations, confirming that the string of weak results from Target's Canadian operations preceding Mr. Fisher's termination were not simply growing pains associated with normal store openings, but rather due to significant undisclosed operational issues. Eventually, after the Class Period on January 15, 2015, Target revealed the Company would discontinue its Canadian operations and that Target Canada Co. had filed for bankruptcy protection in Canada. Each of these disclosures caused a material decline in the price of Target stock. If you purchased or acquired publicly traded Target common stock during the Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota no later than July 18, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P. McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via email at fmcconville@labaton.com You can view a copy of the complaint online at: http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm St. Louis Police is represented by Labaton Sucharow -- http://www.labaton.com-- which represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally with collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion. Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half century of securities litigation experience, 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. Offices are located in New York, NY, and Wilmington, DE. TENET HEALTHCARE: Court Re-Opened Discovery in Antitrust Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court has re- opened discovery in the antitrust class action lawsuit filed by registered nurses in San Antonio. In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems, including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec.1 of the federal Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery. "Because these proceedings are at an early stage, it is impossible at this time to predict their outcome with any certainty; however, we believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations." "We will continue to seek to defeat class certification and vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations," the Company said. TEREX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought ------------------------------------------------- Terex 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 has received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits as follows: * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al. * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation. * On August 21, 2015, a purported Terex stockholder, Bernard Stern, filed a class action complaint challenging the Merger in the Delaware Chancery Court, and on August 26, 2015, a purported Terex stockholder, Joseph Weinstock, filed a class action complaint challenging the Merger in the Delaware Chancery Court. The complaints name as defendants Terex Corporation, Konecranes Plc, Konecranes, Inc., Konecranes Acquisition Company LLC and the members of the Board of Directors of Terex. On March 22, 2016, the plaintiff in the Stern action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of his action, which was approved by the Court. The first two lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the Company's securities and in the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in its favor. The lawsuit concerning the Merger seeks, among other relief, an order enjoining or rescinding the Merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs on the grounds that the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duty in connection with entering into the business combination agreement and approving the Merger. The complaint further alleges that Terex Corporation, Konecranes Plc, Konecranes, Inc. and Konecranes Acquisition Company LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Company's Board of Directors. It is possible that this complaint will be further amended to make additional claims and/or that additional lawsuits making similar or additional claims relating to the Merger will be brought, including a refiling of the lawsuit that was voluntarily dismissed. The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the securities lawsuit. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit. The lawsuit pertaining to the Merger is at a very early stage and by agreement with the plaintiff, the time for defendants to respond has not come due. TOTAL COMMUNITY: "Gallagher" Sues Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- Victoria Gallagher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Total Community Options, Inc., Total Longterm Care, Inc., Total Community Care, LLC, Total Longterm Care Solutions, LLC, Seniors! Inc., Innovative Care Management, Inc., Johnson Adult Day Program, Inc. and Total Community Options Foundation, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01115 (D. Colo., May 13, 2016) seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs resulting from negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy and violation of Colorado Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Defendants collectively conduct business as "InnovAge." Gallagher was employed by Defendants from 2005 through 2015. A cyber-security breach compromised the security of the private, sensitive, and confidential information including Social Security numbers, salary and financial information, tax information, first and last names, addresses, and tax form W-2 information of the Defendants' employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Kalish, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 730 17th Street, Suite 900 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-991-3075 E-mail: dkalish@hkm.com - and - Donald W. Heyrich, Esq. Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-838-2504 E-mail: dheyrich@hkm.com jrittereiser@hkm.com - and - Peter D. Stutheit, Esq. STUTHEIT KALIN LLC 308 SW 1st Avenue, Suite 325 Portland, OR 97204d Telephone: (503) 493-7488 Email: peter@peterstutheit.com TRANSAM TRUCKING: May Amend Answers to "Blair" Wage & Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale of the District of Texas granted defendant's motion to amend its answer in the case LARRY BLAIR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAM TRUCKING INC., Defendant, Case No. 09- 2443-EFM-KGG (D. Kan.) Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint on August 21, 2009, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA), and the Kansas Minimum Wage and Maximum Hours Law (KMWMHL). Defendant filed its initial Answer on October 14, 2009. Plaintiffs were subsequently granted leave to file an amended complaint, to which the defendant asked for a more definite statement, which was denied by Magistrate Judge Bostwick. The suit was subsequently stayed pending a decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in the matter of Brown v. Ford Storage and Moving Co. Inc., No. 09-101915-A. Magistrate Judge Gale entered a Scheduling Order on October 22, 2012. The case proceeded through discovery until the parties filed motions for summary judgment in April, 2013, regarding the threshold issue as to whether defendant had misclassified plaintiffs as independent contractors. The motions were denied by the District Court on November 13, 2013. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file their second amended complaint and the class was certified on August 20, 2015. A supplemental scheduling order was entered on September 18, 2015, which included a deadline of March 15, 2016, for motions to amend the pleadings. Defendant filed a motion for leave to amend its answer, to clarify its affirmative defenses that are related to those already asserted but that may fall under a different legal theory. Defendant contends that the amendment will allow it to preserve its defenses while putting plaintiffs on notice of the same. Plaintiffs argue that defendant's newly proposed affirmative defenses' assert unfounded legal positions that are futile as responses to plaintiff's lawsuit. A copy of Magistrate Judge Gale' memorandum and order dated May 4, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/hXxF8lfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs Larry Blair, Charlie Davis and Elhajj M. Alston are represented by: Athena M. Dickson, Esq. Eric W. Smith, Esq. Raymond A. Dake, Esq. Rik N. Siro, Esq. Siro Smith Dickson, PC 1621 Baltimore Avenue Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: 816-471-4881 - and - Mark A. Kistler, Esq. Michael F. Brady, Esq. Brady & Associates Law Office 10985 Cody Street, Suite 135 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: 913-696-0925 Facsimile: 913-696-0468 - and - Teresa A. Woody, Esq. 654 Belleview Ave. Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: 816-931-5919 Teresa A. Woody, Esq. also represents other plaintiffs. Nick Bryant, Plaintiff, Pro Se. TransAm Trucking, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brenda G. Hamilton -- bhamilton@sb-kc.com -- Frederick H. Riesmeyer, II -- friesmeyer@sb-kc.com -- Rachel H. Baker -- rbaker@sb-kc.com -- Shannon Cohorst Johnson -- sjohnson@sb-kc.com -- Sharon A. Coberly -- at Seigfreid Bingham, PC UNITED ONLINE: Faces "Akerman" Suit Over Proposed B. Riley Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morris Akerman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Online, Inc., Howard G. Phanstiel, James T. Armstrong, Robert Berglass, Kenneth L. Coleman, Kenneth Denman, Andrew D. Miller, Carol A. Scott, B. Riley Financial, Inc., and Unify Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 12321 (De. Ch., Ct., May 12, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public shareholders of United Online, to enjoin the proposed merger of United Online with B. Riley Financial, Inc. and Unify Merger Sub, Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. United Online, Inc. provides consumer services and products over the Internet under various brands, including NetZero, Juno, StayFriends, Trombi and MyPoints. B. Riley Financial, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides collaborative financial services and solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert D. Goldberg, Esq. BIGGS AND BATTAGLIA 921 N Orange St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 655-9677 E-mail: goldberg@batlaw.com - and - Aaron Brody, Esq. Michael Klein, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: abrody@ssbny.com mklein@ssbny.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Defend Against Sexual Assault by Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss in the case JANE DOE 1, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-04670-SI (N.D. Cal.) Since 2010, Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) has operated as a transportation network company. Individuals download Uber's smartphone application and then use the "App" to make a transportation request. Uber solicits and retains non-professional drivers to provide the car rides that customers order through the Uber App. One who wishes to drive for Uber applies online and uploads photos of a driver's license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Uber then performs a background check through a third party company. The check runs the driver's social security number through a database, capturing information dating back seven years. In February 2015, Doe 1 and her friends used the Uber App to arrange a car ride after they had gone to dinner and then to a party. Uber driver Abderrahim Dakiri confirmed that he was on his way, and picked up Doe 1 and her friends. After Dakiri dropped off Doe 1's friends first, Doe 1 gave Dakiri the address of her destination. Dakiri then began to sexually assault Doe 1. Dakiri parked the car in a remote area and continued to sexually assault Doe 1 until she was able to unlock the car door and run away. In August 2015, in Charleston, South Carolina, Doe 2 and a group of friends got a ride from Uber driver Patrick Aiello, after Doe 2's friend arranged the ride using Uber's App. On this incident Aiello drove the car to a remote parking lot off a highway area where he proceeded to viciously rape Doe 2 and threaten her with harm multiple times. Doe 2 was able to get onto the highway, crossed to the median, and then started running alongside the highway away from the parking lot. A car hit Doe 2's arm while she was waving for help. The car then stopped and called 911. Police took Doe 2 to the hospital, where she became suicidal and was transferred to a psychiatric unit for three days. Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 brought a tort suit against Uber for sexual assaults that plaintiffs allege they suffered at the hands of Uber drivers. Uber moved to dismiss the complaint on December 3, 2015. January 20, 2016, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint and brought six claims for relief: (1) negligence and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; (2) fraud; (3) battery; (4) assault; (5) false imprisonment; and (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs bring claims 3 through 6 against Uber under a theory of respondeat superior. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Uber moves to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Uber argues that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief as to all six of their claims. Uber asks that the court dismiss plaintiffs' prayer for punitive damages. Uber also seeks to seal an exhibit filed in support of its motion. District Judge Illston granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss. The court granted Uber's motion to dismiss the negligent hiring, supervision, and retention claim as it relates to Dakiri, without prejudice, but denied the motion as it relates to Aiello. The court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' fraud claim. The court denied Uber's motion to dismiss claims brought under a respondeat superior theory and denies Uber's motion to dismiss requests for punitive damages. The Court also denied Uber's motion to seal Exhibit 5 to the Cohen declaration. A copy of Judge Illston's order dated May 4, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/DJLJzDfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas H Wigdor -- dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com -- Jeanne M Christensen -- jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com -- Elizabeth J Chen -- echen@wigdorlaw.com -- Tanvir Haque Rahman -- trahman@wigdorlaw.com -- at Wigdor LLP; Jamie Cameron Couche -- jcouche@adplaw.com -- at Anderson and Poole, P.C. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Josh Alan Cohen -- jcohen@clarencedyer.com -- at Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP UNITED STATES: Judge Rules on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Margaret M. Sweeney of the Court of Federal Claims granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross motions for partial summary judgment in the case WILLIAM C. HARDY & BERTIE ANN HARDY et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 14- 388L (Fed. Cl.) On May 6, 2014, William C. Hardy, for himself and as representative of a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint alleging a Fifth Amendment taking. Plaintiffs are 112 individuals who collectively own 173 parcels of land adjacent to a railroad corridor in Newton County, Georgia. The land is situated between milepost E 65.80, at the point of the railroad line crossing Route 229 in Newborn, Georgia and milepost E 80.70, near the intersection of Washington Street, SW, and Turner Lake Road, SW, in Covington, Georgia, a distance of 14.9 miles. Plaintiffs have amended their complaint twice. In the second amended complaint, Mr. Hardy and the other 111 plaintiffs continue to assert, as their sole claim for relief, a Fifth Amendment taking. They assert that until 2013, defendant, the United States, held easements for railroad purposes that crossed their land. According to plaintiffs, defendant then authorized the conversion of the railroad rights-of-way to recreational trails pursuant to the National Trail Systems Act (Trails Act), conduct that resulted in a taking that violated the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to 101 of their parcels. Defendant cross-moves for partial summary judgment regarding the parcels of land identified in plaintiffs' motion, and also with respect to additional parcels that defendant identifies. Judge Sweeney granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties were directed to file a joint status report by no later than Monday, May 23, 2016, suggesting further proceedings. A copy of Judge Sweeney's opinion and order dated May 4, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/jx1yDYfrom Leagle.com. WILLIAM C. HARDY, BERTIE ANN HARDY, EMMA TRIMBLE and DOROTHY SCHAEFFER Plaintiffs, represented by Elizabeth A. Gepford McCulley -- mcculley@swm.legal -- at Stewart Wald & McCulley LLC GLORIA J. JACKSON, Plaintiff, Pro Se USA, Defendant, represented by Stephen Finn, U.S. Department of Justice - ENRD VOLKSWAGEN AG: Sued Over Defective Timing Belt Tensioning Systems ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that Volkswagen and Audi, which already face hundreds of suits over an alleged scheme to falsify diesel emissions, have been hit with a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey accusing the automakers of concealing defective timing belt tensioning systems in their vehicles. The defect can cause vehicles to lose power at any time, placing occupants at risk, according to the suit, filed in federal court in Newark on May 16. The suit claims that, based on pre-production testing, design failure mode analysis and consumer complaints to dealers, the defendants knew of the premature failure of the tensioning system in class members' vehicles but fraudulently concealed them from class members. In addition, according to the suit, the defendants knowingly omitted material facts about the defective tensioning system and its corresponding safety risk, and misrepresented to buyers the standard, quality or grade of class vehicles. Owners whose vehicles suffered failure of the timing belt tensioning system allegedly have had to pay thousands of dollars to make repairs or to replace the entire engine. The defendants did not reimburse class members for failures that occurred outside the vehicle's warranty periods, the plaintiffs claim. The suit brings claims on behalf of a nationwide class of owners or lessees of 2008 through 2013 Volkswagen and Audi vehicles with 2.0L TSI or 2.0L TFSI engines, and a subclass of New Jersey residents who owned or leased such vehicles. On behalf of the nationwide class, the suit brings claims of breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and implied warranty, violation of the Moss-Magnuson Warranty Act and unjust enrichment. The suit also brings a claim for violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act on behalf of the subclass of New Jersey owners. The engine with the allegedly faulty timing chain tensioner was sold in various Volkswagen Beetle, CC, EOS, Golf, GTI, Jetta, Passat, Golf R32, Rabbit, Routan, Tiguan and Toureg and Audi A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, TT, Q3, Q5 and Q7 models. Volkswagen has faced other suits over timing chain tensioners in the past, and it is also named in 763 suits that have been consolidated in the Northern District of California by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation over allegedly rigged emissions systems on cars with diesel engines. The named plaintiff in the timing chain tensioner case, David Zimand of Englewood, leased a 2009 Volkswagen Jetta in April 2009, and then purchased the car in 2012 when his lease ended. In March 2014, the car experienced tensioning system failure, which resulted in catastrophic failure of the engine, the suit says. He was forced to replace the camshaft, chain, chain tensioner, valves and numerous other engine parts, which he paid for out of pocket, and he was without a vehicle for two weeks, the complaint claims. A mechanical expert retained by the plaintiff's counsel said the defendants are replacing defective chain tensioners with redesigned tensioners, the suit claims. The suit was filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check in Radnor, Pennsylvania, with Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello of Roseland as local counsel. Joseph Meltzer of Kessler Topaz did not return a call about the suit. Volkswagen spokesman John Schilling and Audi spokesman Mark Clothier each said their companies do not comment on active litigation. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Awaiting Approval of Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Waste Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 28, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is awaiting action on its request for preliminary court approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit. On March 26, 2015, the Company acquired Deffenbaugh Disposal Inc. ("Deffenbaugh"). In May 2012 and December 2013, Deffenbaugh was named as a defendant in purported class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. These cases pertained to fuel, environmental and base rate charges included on invoices, generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair or were contrary to the customer service contracts. "We have agreed on settlement terms for both cases. We submitted a request for preliminary court approval during the fourth quarter of 2015 and are awaiting action on our request. The anticipated settlements will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. WILFRED AMERICAN: 2nd Cir. Remands "Salazar" Suit ------------------------------------------------- In 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, Docket No. 15-832-cv (2nd Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. Ana Salazar, Marilyn Mercado, Ana Bernardez, Jeannette Poole, Lisa Bryant, Cherryline Stevens, and Edna Villatoro brought the class action against Arne Duncan, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Education ("DOE"). The plaintiffs alleged that federal student loans were fraudulently procured on their behalf when the Wilfred American Educational Corporation's for-profit beauty schools falsely certified that the plaintiffs had an ability-to-benefit ("ATB") from the education they received from Wilfred. The plaintiffs alleged that the DOE's refusal to temporarily suspend collection of the student loan debt of putative class members, and refusal to send them notice of their potential eligibility for a discharge, was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the DOE's motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged a final agency action that may be subject to judicial review. Because the district court dismissed the complaint, it also denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. As a preliminary matter, the DOE argued that the case has become moot because all the named plaintiffs' Wilfred loans have now been discharged. The Second Circuit, however, held that the plaintiffs are entitled to judicial review because there is sufficient law to apply to the challenged agency decisions. "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 ATB. DOE's regulations and informal agency guidance direct that the DOE "shall" temporarily suspend collection on loans and notify borrowers of their possible eligibility for a discharge when the DOE has reliable information that a borrower "may be eligible" for dicharge," the appellate court stated. The Second Circuit therefore held that the plaintiffs' claims are judicially reviewable under the APA. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision, including consideration of the plaintiffs' class certification motion. A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 12, 2016 opinion is available at https://is.gd/UL27GP from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Eileen Conner, Esq. Beth E. Goldman, Esq. Jane Greengold Stvens, Esq. Danielle Tarantolo, Esq. Jason Glick, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Christina S. Poscablo, Esq. Ellen London, Esq. Emily E. Daughtry, Esq. Preet Bharara, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 86 Chambers Street / 3rd Floor New York City, NY 10007 XENCOR, INC: Paid Plaintiff's $950,000 Legal Award -------------------------------------------------- Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has paid a class action plaintiff's legal award of $950,000 net of insurance proceeds of $187,500. On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and Stockholder Consents. In general, the complaint alleged that the plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of the Company during the recapitalization and certain related transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period. On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief under Del. C. Section 205 (the 205 Petition) related to the corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015. On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the class action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class action, which the Company has done. On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Counter-Claim, along with the proposed Amended Counter- Claim and related documents. On October 5, the parties filed a Stipulation of Partial Settlement and related documents disclosing a settlement of the invalidity claims addressed in the complaint, the counter-claim and the proposed amended counter-claim including a request by plaintiff's counsel for reimbursement of legal fees up to $950,000. On October 7, 2015, Xencor filed the Amended Counter-Claim and related documents. On December 14, 2015, the Court entered an Order and Partial Final Judgment approving the settlement of the invalidity claims, validating each corporate act challenged in the complaint, dismissing with prejudice Count II of the complaint (the invalidity claims) and granting plaintiff's counsel a fee award. "We have paid the plaintiff's legal award of $950,000 net of insurance proceeds of $187,500 which has been reflected as a charge in our 2015 operations. We continue to recognize legal costs as incurred and any insurance proceeds when received," the Company said. Based on the nature of the remaining claim, the Company believes that it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of loss or a range of potential loss related to the claim; accordingly, no amount for any loss has been accrued at March 31, 2016. Xencor is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing engineered monoclonal antibodies to treat severe and life-threatening diseases with unmet medical needs. * Activist Organization Ready to Fight SA Mining Companies ---------------------------------------------------------- BERNAMA-NNN-SABC repots that the South Gauteng High Court here has handed down a landmark ruling which paves the way for more than 200,000 gold miners and their families to form part of a class action to claim compensation from South African mining companies for contracting silicosis. Speaking on the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) Morning Live program on May 16, activist organization Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) general secretary Anele Yawa said they were currently not sure whether the mining companies would appeal the ruling, go to trial or seek an out of court settlement. He added: "Whatever the companies decide, we are ready for them. Gone are the days when the poor are going to be victims of the rich and powerful because they can't afford to take them to court." Silicosis is a debilitating disease from the silica that the miners breathe in at the gold mines and exposure over a prolonged time causes silicosis. Mr. Yawa said mines had for a long time being allowed to get away with murder. "This historic case will force employers to adhere to safety regulations," he added. * Banks May Sue Federal Government Over New CFPB Consumer Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- David Lazarus, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that banks keep saying over and over that arbitration proceedings, as opposed to Blass-action lawsuits, are the best way for consumers to handle disputes. Yet faced with the prospect of no longer being able to deny consumers the right to sue them, the banking industry is expected to take the deliciously ironic step of suing the federal government. At issue is a proposed rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would prohibit financial-services firms from placing clauses in contracts stipulating that customers can only arbitrate disagreements. The clauses prevent customers from suing on an individual basis or from joining class-action lawsuits. "Signing up for a credit card or opening a bank account can often mean signing away your right to take the company to court if things go wrong," Richard Cordray, director of the federal agency, said after the proposed rule was announced this month . He called mandatory arbitration a "contract gotcha" that "denies groups of consumers the right to seek justice and relief for wrongdoing." Arbitration still could be required for individual grievances under the rule, but that's not a very big deal because few consumers file individual suits over small amounts. The big deal here is that financial firms no longer would be able to block consumers from coming together in class-action lawsuits. The bureau is now receiving public comment on the rule, which has been in the works for months. If finalized, it probably would take effect next year. The Republican head of the House Financial Services Committee has scheduled a hearing for May 18 on whether the rule is in the public's best interest. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), the committee chairman, called the bureau's proposal "a big, wet kiss" to trial lawyers. The banking industry, for its part, has yet to declare that a legal challenge is inevitable but is wasting no time in voicing opposition to what it sees as an unnecessarily heavy regulatory hand. "Consumers will get less and pay more if the CFPB's proposal to sideline arbitration and promote class actions is ultimately adopted," Rob Nichols, head of the American Bankers Assn., said in a statement. Law firm Morrison Foerster, which advises banks on regulatory matters, concluded in a note to clients that if the final rule is similar to what's now on the table, "it seems likely that the proposed rule will be challenged" in court. Other law firms have reached a similar conclusion. "Now the main event begins," said Alston & Bird after the proposed rule was issued. Morrison Foerster said banks would focus their challenge in part on the ideas that "consumers have a choice as to whether they want to enter into an arbitration agreement" and that "the procedures in arbitration and judicial proceedings are very similar." Here's the thing, though: Consumers don't and the procedures aren't. Christine Hines, legislative director for the National Assn. of Consumer Advocates, said consumers have no real choice when every service provider in an industry requires mandatory arbitration. She also pointed out that in arbitration, it's the company, not the consumer, who picks and pays for the arbitrator -- and the vast majority of rulings favor businesses. "Industry claims would be laughable if the issue wasn't so serious," Hines told me. "Bank customers will have meaningful choice when they can choose how to resolve disputes after they arise, not when arbitration is forced on them in the corporate fine print." She added: "It is supremely ironic that they want to sue an agency for seeking to restore people's ability to exercise the same right." Although the U.S. Supreme Court has given its seal of approval to arbitration clauses, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was empowered by the financial reform law enacted in 2010 to study and regulate their use by financial firms. This includes banks, credit card issuers, car-leasing companies and debt collectors. The proposed rule wouldn't affect nonfinancial businesses that also routinely use arbitration clauses, such as phone companies, pay-TV providers and rental car firms. A study by the bureau last year found that "very few consumers ever bring -- or think about bringing -- individual actions against their financial service providers either in court or in arbitration." It concluded that "class actions provide a more effective means for consumers to challenge problematic practices by these companies." A separate study by the advocacy group Public Citizen in 2007 found that over a four-year period, arbitrators ruled in favor of banks and credit card companies 94% of the time in disputes with California consumers. Banks and other critics of the proposed rule are correct when they observe that some lawyers abuse the class-action system. A 2014 settlement over the marketing of Duracell batteries, for example, awarded lawyers in the case about $5.7 million, while the more than 7 million class members were each eligible for awards of just $6 to $12. In March, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the settlement. Still, abuse of the system doesn't mitigate that class actions remain consumers' most powerful tool in addressing and curbing unfair business practices. If arbitration is such a preferable alternative to litigation, as banks insist, there should be little difficulty persuading people to make that choice. But it should be a choice, not a done deal foisted on consumers. I put that to the American Bankers Assn., asking how the industry would feel about allowing customers to decide for themselves the manner in which a dispute will be resolved. Nessa Feddis, the association's senior vice president for consumer protection and payments, replied that this would be a nonstarter. It's one system or the other, she said. If class actions are permitted, Ms. Feddis said, "banks are unlikely to retain arbitration as an option because of costs." She said that "it's not economical" for banks to continue covering arbitration fees if class actions are also part of the picture. Thus, in another ironic twist, the industry appears ready to spend millions of dollars pursuing legal action aimed at keeping its legal costs down. * Corporate Defendants Rethink Class Action Litigation Strategies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for companies trying to fend off costly class action lawsuits are rethinking longstanding legal strategies after businesses lost two key U.S. Supreme Court cases as well as their staunchest supporter on the bench. At the start of the court's term in October, the business community had reason to believe the justices would further pare back class action litigation after rulings spearheaded by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia favoring corporate defendants in prior years. But the term has defied expectations. The justices ruled against businesses in two of the three class action cases they considered, with the sole case won by a corporate defendant coming in a narrow decision favoring online people-search company Spokeo Inc. on May 16. And Scalia died in February, depriving companies of their most vigorous ally on the court in such cases. Lawyers representing employees and consumers now see the chance of a legal counterattack aimed at expanding the type of class action cases that courts will allow, with the possibility that the conservative Scalia will be replaced by a more liberal appointee. Without Scalia, "it's statistically harder to get the votes you need" on the Supreme Court, said Warren Postman, a lawyer with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's litigation arm. Lawyers for corporations will be "waiting to see how the court shapes up based on the next appointee," Mr. Postman added. Scalia's seat may remain vacant well into 2017. The Republican-led Senate has refused to act on Democratic President Barack Obama's nomination of centrist appellate judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. If Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton wins the Nov. 8 presidential election and gets to replace Scalia, she may choose a more liberal nominee. Scalia was a key voice for the court's conservative wing in curbing class action litigation, including victories for Wal-Mart in 2011 and Comcast Corp in 2013. There are signs that the uncertainty about Scalia's replacement and how long the court will be shorthanded is affecting companies' decisions on whether they will seek Supreme Court review of cases they lose in lower courts. DRI, a group that files friend-of-the-court briefs supporting companies in such cases, has received fewer requests for help since Scalia's death, indicating businesses are thinking twice before asking the high court to get involved, said William Jay, a lawyer in private practice who works with the group. Since Scalia's death, the court has declined to hear a series of class action appeals brought by companies. Plaintiffs' lawyers hope there will be a liberal majority on the court, currently split with four liberals and four conservatives, that would roll back recent pro-business rulings. "If Scalia is replaced by a justice who is far more progressive, there are some reasons to hope the court will revisit some of the extremely anti-consumer cases it has decided in recent years," said Paul Bland, executive director of consumer advocacy group Public Justice. Scalia's death did not affect the outcome of the three recent cases, which all had six justices in the majority. Scalia's vote may have affected the court's decisions on whether to hear such cases, with only four votes needed for the justices to consider an appeal. In the three class action cases decided this term, the court ruled against food producer Tyson Food Inc in March and advertising firm Campbell Ewald in January before the Spokeo decision. All three cases were "designed to further an anti-class-action agenda" but largely failed to achieve that goal, said Deepak Gupta, a lawyer who represents plaintiffs. * South African Gold Mining Industry Face $3.4BB Silicosis Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- David McKay, writing for Miningmx, reports that South Africa's gold mining industry could face up to $3.4bn in liabilities relating to a class action issued on behalf of mineworkers suffering from tuberculosis and silicosis. Commenting on the class action, which was certified by the High Court in Johannesburg on May 13, Investec Securities said its assumptions were ". . . a worse case scenario". The High Court certification paves the way for tens of thousands of mineworkers and former mineworkers suffering from silicosis and tuberculosis (TB) to sue the mining companies for damages, said BDLive earlier this month. "After examining legal prescripts, we reached a conclusion that there are sufficient issues to certify a class action where there would be two classes: the silicosis class; and the TB class," the deputy judge president of the High Court in Johannesburg, Phineas Mojapelo, said in court. Press reports put the number of claimants that could join the class action as between 100,000 and 500,000 and would include the families of now deceased miners as claims could reach back as far as 1965. The class action is against 32 gold mining companies, including AngloGold Ashanti, Sibanye Gold, Harmony Gold and Anglo American. "While we think this will take a long time to conclude, we note that should the class action succeed and if the damages are awarded are similar to those in previous cases, it could have a significant financial impact on the South African gold mining industry," said Nkateko Mathonsi and Andrew Snowdowne, Investec Securities analysts. Investec said the outcomes of such cases were "unpredictable", but it added that the liability may materialise if "the line of reasoning" was adopted earlier this year in which Anglo American and AngloGold Ashanti agreed to a $30m settlement with 4,388 miners affected by silicosis. In that settlement, Anglo American and AngloGold Ashanti agreed to pay R464m or $30m equal to an average of R106,000 per claimant. Investec worked on a settlement of R100,000 each for the class action claim. "Should this class action succeed it might encourage other health and environmental related class actions against the South African mining industry which could severely harm its interests," said the Investec analysts. "We expect, therefore, that the industry will defend this action robustly," they added. Gold mining companies Harmony Gold, Sibanye Gold and Gold Fields have said that owing to the developing nature of the issue they were unable to quantify the possible liability. AngloGold Ashanti has said, however, that were a judgment to go against it in the event of a major class action ". . . such matters would have an adverse effect on its financial position, which could be material." * U.S. Supreme Court & NLRB Arbitration, Waiver Clauses Clash ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert K. Neiman, Esq. -- rneiman@muchshelist.com -- of Much Shelist, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that although the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Federal Arbitration Act allows employers and others to include and enforce arbitration and class action waiver clauses in contracts, the National Labor Relations Board keeps ruling that such clauses in employment agreements are unenforceable and constitute an unfair labor practice. So what's an employer supposed to do? In previous bulletins, we have described how the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently enforced arbitration and class action waiver clauses in employment agreements and other commercial contracts. These clauses help employers avoid wage and hour and overtime class actions brought, for example, by a single disgruntled employee as the class representative. Instead, such claims must be arbitrated by each individual employee, helping to eliminate an employer's risk of huge jury verdicts and facing wage and hour class actions in court. Yet employers continue to read about NLRB decisions finding that arbitration agreements and class action waivers are illegal and unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act. Employees who oppose their employer's motion to compel arbitration have filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB, alleging that requiring employees to arbitrate constitutes an unfair labor practice, because such a requirement precludes employees from filing joint, class, or collective claims in court to address disputes regarding wages, hours, and other working conditions. A common misconception is that the NLRB has jurisdiction only over employers with unionized workforces. But the NLRB's jurisdiction also extends to non-unionized workplaces, because the NLRB has jurisdiction to protect "concerted activity" in any workplace. The conflict between the U.S. Supreme Court and the NLRB on arbitration and class action waiver clauses stems from the fact that no NLRB decisions finding such clauses unenforceable have yet made their way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rather, the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions upholding such clauses were appeals of lower-court decisions. Until an NLRB ruling finding that such arbitration and class action waiver clauses violate the NLRA is challenged in court, the NLRB seems intent on simply ignoring U.S. Supreme Court precedent. While waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve this conflict between its own decisions and those of the NLRB, employers who have already included arbitration and class action waiver clauses in their employment agreements or elsewhere should still consider seeking to compel arbitration and dismiss class actions. The benefits of arbitration and class action waivers are great, and relatively few employees bring unfair labor practice charges to the NLRB under such circumstances. For the same reason, employers considering including arbitration and class action waiver clauses in their employment agreements or elsewhere should still consider doing so. If an employee or group of employees challenges the enforceability of an arbitration and class action waiver clause, an employer has two options: the employer can either agree to refrain from enforcing such clauses, thus preventing the employee or group of employees from pursuing an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, or it can seek a court order compelling arbitration and, if applicable, barring a class action and asking the court to rule that the clauses do not violate the NLRA, thereby potentially pre- empting the employees from filing an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. Again, relatively few employees have bothered to seek from the NLRB relief from arbitration and class action waiver clauses. All lower courts must follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent and enforce arbitration and class action waiver clauses. Employers who already have adopted or who are considering adopting arbitration and class action waiver clauses are therefore likely to be successful in obtaining a court order compelling arbitration and barring any class actions, thereby reaping the benefits of such clauses. The upside of adopting and enforcing arbitration and class action waiver clauses in employee agreements outweighs the downside, but taking such a stance is not without risk. Employers should therefore consider these rewards and risks until the U.S. Supreme Court finally resolves the issue. ********* 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 * * *