/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160627.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 127 Headlines 1906 COLLINS: "Inestroza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA ACE AMERICAN: "Morgan" Sues Over Additional Premiums ALBANY MOLECULAR: Motion to Dismiss "Gauquie" Class Suit Pending ALLERGAN PLC: "United Food" Files Anti-trust Suit AMERICAN EQUITY: Pegs Litigation Liability at $11.1 Million AMERICAN FAMILY: Ruling From N.D. Ill. in "Krug" Suit Appealed AMOUN INC: "Soriano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Heard Appeal ARKANSAS: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Gerke" Class Action ASTA FUNDING: Parties Continue to Discuss Global Settlement AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Opposed Motion to Vacate Judgment BANCO BRADESCO: Violated Securities Laws, "Bryan" Suit Claims BANCORP INC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Fletcher" Pending BARCLAYS BANK: Kessler Topaz & Robbins Geller to Lead Class Suit BARCLAYS PLC: Appeals Ruling From "Strougo" Securities Suit BERKSHIRE HILLS: Faces Depositors' Class Suit in Massachusetts BIG TEN: Sued in Ill. Over Concealing Football Players Injuries BIG TEN: "Strinko" Sues Over Football Health Hazard CAPITAL ONE: Must Defend Against "Rogers" TCPA Suit CENERGY INTL: "Wright" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Novoa" Settlement Has Final Court Okay CHIASMA INC: Made False Disclosure Over Mycapssa Methodology CHINA XD: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaint CHUNG CHUN: "Tobias" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA COLLEGE NETWORK: Cal. Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Bid CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Has Conditional Certification COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Taylor Files Appeal From "Buckley" Suit Ruling DAVID BOONE: "Adams" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA DUANE READE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in "Jacob" Suit DUROLITE INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims v. Owners Barred by Bankruptcy EOS HOLDINGS: "DiGiorgio" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA EVERI HOLDINGS: Class Certification Motion Pending GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Appeal Pending GENERAL MOTORS: Marro Appeals Ruling From Teachers Class Suit HELPING HANDS: "Prishlyak" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages HESKA CORPORATION: Still Defends "Fauley" Suit in N.D. Ill. HOLY CROSS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Termination of Pension Plan HOME CARE: "Dillow" Suit Seeks Monetary Relief Under FLSA IMMUNOMEDICS, INC: Sued in N.J. Over Securities' Inflated Prices IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Class Actions IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case IMPAX LABORATORIES: Generic Drug Pricing Class Action Ongoing IMPAX LABORATORIES: 2 AWP Class Suits Ongoing in Philadelphia INNERWORKINGS INC: Agreement in Principle Reached INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing to Approve Deal Not Yet Set INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Court Tosses "Reznik" Vacation Wages Suit INTREXON CORPORATION: Faces Hoffman and Gibrall Class Actions J2 GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Motions Pending in Paldo Sign Case J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Pending J2 GLOBAL: Settlement in LEO and Dancel Cases Awaits Approval JAGUAR ENERGY: Combs Appeals Ruling From Labor Suit to 10th Cir. JAKKS PACIFIC: "Melot" Class Suit Still in Early Stages JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Friedman" Class Suit KCG MANAGEMENT: "Carbajal" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL: "Chisolm" Suit Denied Class Action Status KMART CORPORATION: "Hautur" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA LEASING ENTERPRISES: 5th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Defending Class Suit in New York MDL 2295: $18 Million Class Action Settlement Pending MITEL NETWORKS: "Solak" Sues overt Shady Merger Deal MODEL N: Calif. Class Action Settlement Wins Approval MONEY MUTUAL: Court Denies Defendants' Discovery & Deposition Bid MONGE SERVICES: "Tobar" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA NATIONAL DEBT: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA NEOVASC INC: Sued in D. Mass. Over Violations of Exchange Act NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Today NIMBLE STORAGE: Schwartz and Goldstein Lawsuits Consolidated NYC BUILDERS: "Ferrari" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA PACIFIC GATEWAY: "Hochstetler" Settlement Wins Final Approval PEAKS PROPERTIES: Violated Disabilities Act, "Foster" Suit Claims PEVETO COMPANIES: "Herron" Suit Denied Conditional Certification PHO HUYNH: "Tam" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA PHOENIX COMPANIES: Updates on Shareholder Litigation PHOENIX COMPANIES: Updates Consent Solicitation Litigation PK PROMOTIONS: "Haas" Suit Seeks Overtime Wage Under FLSA PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Updates on Line 901 Incident Actions RED WING: "Zajac" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Withheld Tips RESOURCE CAPITAL: Motion to Dismiss Complaint Remains Pending SAMI'S PITA: "Alhassan" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Hall" Suit SEVERN TRENT: Lowrimore Appeals E.D. Okla. Ruling to 10th Circuit SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL: "Shelton" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SUFFOLK COUNTY: "Smith" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay TARGET CORP: Just Appeals Minnesota Court Ruling to 8th Circuit TATE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Court Grants Bid to Substitute Plaintiffs TERRAPIN ENERGY: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA TESCO CORPORATION: Arbitrators Dismissed Employees' Claims TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Appeal Ongoing TEXAS: Inmates' Amended Class Certification Bid Okayed TREMCO INC: Slippery Rock Must Amend Class Suit, Court Says TRI BORO: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA TRUECAR INC: Still Defends NY Lanham Act Litigation TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Federal Securities Litigation Ongoing TRUECAR INC: Initial Status Conference in "Rose" Case Rescheduled TVC OPUS I: Settlement in "Siegal" Suit Has Preliminarily Okay U.S. WELL SERVICES: "Decker" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for January 2017 in "Morgate" Suit UNITED PARCEL: Ontario Class Suit Remains Pending VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over 2.0L TSI Engines Tensioner Defect WASHINGTON EMPLOYEES CREDIT: Court Narrows "Wodja" Suit WEB.COM GROUP: Calif. Class Action Dismissed WEIGHT WATCHERS: Defending Against "Roberts" Case in N.Y. WILLIS TOWERS: Plaintiffs Seek $1.7 Million in Attorneys' Fees WILLIS TOWERS: Inks Settlement Over Stanford Litigation WISCONSIN: Court Keeps Order Dismissing Suit v. Corrections Dept. WORLD WRESTLING: Dispositive Motions Due Aug. 1 in Singleton Case WORLD WRESTLING: No Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of "Ganues" Case WU'S PANDA: "Landa" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA YAHOO! INC: Motion to Dismiss "Buch" Lawsuit Pending ********* 1906 COLLINS: "Inestroza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MARVIN INESTROZA, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. 1906 COLLINS, LLC d/b/a Baoli Vita, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22110-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime and minimum wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, while employed by Baoli, INESTROZA routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week (except for some weeks in 2015 and in 2016) without being compensated at a rate of not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which he was employed. 1906 Collins serves sushi & wine in a clubby setting with garden patio. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. Andres Rivera-Ortiz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503 5131 Facsimile: (888) 270 5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com andres@saenzanderson.com ACE AMERICAN: "Morgan" Sues Over Additional Premiums ---------------------------------------------------- Stephen Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ace American Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00705-BJD- MCR (M.D. Fla., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, restitution and injunctive relief pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Defendant is accused of fraudulent, deceptive, and unconscionable collection of additional charges above and beyond the advertised and contractual premium for optional insurance coverage sold with car rentals. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND LAW PLLC 62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209 Orlando FL 32814 Tel: 407-603-6031 Email: firm@ednormand.com ed@ednormand.com ALBANY MOLECULAR: Motion to Dismiss "Gauquie" Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Albany Molecular Research, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains pending. On November 12, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John Gauquie v. Albany Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv- 6637, was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's August 5, 2014 announcement of its financial results for the second quarter of 2014, including that the OsoBio New Mexico facility experienced a power interruption in July 2014, which would have a material impact on the Company's results. The complaint alleges that the price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014, and seeks certification as a class action, unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint was amended on March 31, 2015 to request certification of a class of investors during the period between August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014. On October 2, 2015, the Company submitted a motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ALLERGAN PLC: "United Food" Files Anti-trust Suit ------------------------------------------------- United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health And Welfare Trust, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allergan PLC, Actavis, PLC, Impax Laboratories, Inc., Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02810-CMR (E.D. Pa., June 8, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and all other relief available under federal antitrust laws, state antitrust laws, and state consumer protection laws. The action accuses Defendants of conspiring to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of generic digoxin or doxycycline. Plaintiff indirectly purchased, paid, and/or provided reimbursement for these products made by one or more Defendants at supracompetitive prices. 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. 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. 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. Allergan PLC is a $23B diversified global pharmaceutical company into global generics, dermatology and aesthetics, CNS, eye care, urology, gastro-intestinal, cystic fibrosis, cardiovascular and infectious diseases. It is based in Dublin, Ireland and U.S. Administrative Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey, USA. Actavis plc is a pharmaceutical corporation with its global headquarters in Dublin, Ireland, and with administrative headquarters in New Jersey. Mylan, Inc. is a global generics and specialty pharmaceutical company based in the Netherlands. Plaintiff is represented by: Gary I. Smith HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA, 19106 Tel. (215) 985-3270 Fax. (215) 985-3271 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Steven N. Williams, Esq. Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Joyce Chang, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 - and - Steven L. Stemerman, Esq. Sarah Grossman-Swenson, Esq. DAVIS COWELL AND BOWE LLP 595 Market St., Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94015 Tel: (415) 597-7200 Fax: (415) 597-7201 Email: stem@debsf.com sgs@debsf.com AMERICAN EQUITY: Pegs Litigation Liability at $11.1 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the estimated litigation liability in a class action lawsuit at March 31, 2016 is $11.1 million. The Company said, "We were a defendant in a purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar claims." "The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by us. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulated to certification of the case as a class action for settlement purposes only. Notice of the terms of the settlement was mailed to the members of the class on October 7, 2013 and settlement claim forms were due from members of the class on or before December 6, 2013. "On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held regarding the fairness of the settlement. On January 29, 2014, the District Court signed a final order approving the settlement and finding the settlement is fair and represents a complete resolution of all claims asserted on behalf of the class. On January 30, 2014, a final judgment was entered dismissing the case on the merits and with prejudice. "On February 28, 2014, a member of the class filed an appeal of the District Court's approval of the terms of the settlement agreement with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's approval of attorneys' fees and its approval of the settlement agreement. On March 2, 2016, the same class member filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 6, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. On April 15, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate, returning the matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. "The estimated litigation liability at March 31, 2016 is $11.1 million. While review of the claim forms has been stayed due to the appeal and it is difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that will ultimately result from the completion of the claims process, the $11.1 million litigation liability represents our best estimate of probable loss with respect to this litigation. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter described above, there can be no assurance that such litigation, or any other pending or future litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations." AMERICAN FAMILY: Ruling From N.D. Ill. in "Krug" Suit Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Daniel Krug filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled Daniel Krug v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-04532, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The lawsuit arose from insurance-related disputes. The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Krug v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 16-2491, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth Boulevard St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com Defendant-Appellee American Family Mutual Insurance Company is represented by: Heather Harrison, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 311 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 212-6500 E-mail: heather.harrison@faegrebd.com AMOUN INC: "Soriano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- Celso Soriano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amoun Inc. and Saleh Zonfol, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04257-ALC (S.D.N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Amoun Inc. operates as Amoun Mediterranean Kitchen & Lounge, a Mediterranean restaurant owned by Saleh Zonfol located at 406 E. 73rd Street, New York, New York 10021, where Soriano was employed as a delivery worker. Soriano regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without appropriate minimum wage or overtime compensation. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Second Circuit Heard Appeal ---------------------------------------------- AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has heard plaintiffs' appeal of a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "We and certain of our officers were defendants in related putative securities class action lawsuits filed in February 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purported to represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013. On April 24, 2014, the court issued an order consolidating the related actions, appointing lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of co-lead counsel. On September 4, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief. The lead plaintiffs asserted the Section 11 claim on behalf of persons or entities who purchased our Series A preferred stock in or traceable to our public offering on June 5, 2013, and did not sell those shares of Series A preferred stock prior to December 12, 2013. On October 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which was granted with prejudice on September 29, 2015. On October 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which appeal was heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on April 18, 2016. We believe the allegations in this action to be unfounded and will vigorously pursue our defenses; however, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential range of loss, if any." ARKANSAS: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Gerke" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Lisa White Hardwick of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment dismissing a class action petition in the case captioned, JONATHAN GERKE, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, et al., Respondents, Case No. WD78991 (Mo. App.). Jonathan Gerke, Jarid Ward, Julie Kenny, and Kimberly Guardado (Appellants) asserted that they were bringing the action on behalf of themselves and a class of "All Missouri residents, currently residing in the Missouri counties of Jackson, Johnson, Cass, Clay, or Platte, who, while not charged with and convicted of a municipal violation, the penalty for which was the assessment of a warrant fee and/or failure to appear fee, paid a warrant fee and/or a failure to appear fee to a Municipal Defendant during the period from January 1, 2005 to the date the Court certifies this Class Action under Supreme Court Rule 52.08. Excluded from the Class is the judge to whom this case is assigned, the putative class attorneys, the Municipal Defendants' elected officials and representatives, all those who validly and timely opt-out of the certified class, and all those persons who have lawsuits pending against, or who have settled their claims against the Municipal Defendants for the same or similar claims as set forth herein." They alleged that the City of Kansas City, the City of Grandview, the City of Lee's Summit, the City of Raytown, the City of Independence, the City of Grain Valley, the City of Buckner, the City of Blue Springs, the City of Greenwood, the City of Lone Jack, the City of Lake Lotawana, the City of Oak Grove, and the City of Lake Tapawingo (the Cities) were municipal corporations that assessed and collected a warrant fee or failure to appear fee for an individual's failure to appear on his or her municipal court date. The amount of this fee varied between the Cities and ranged from $25 up to $149.50. Appellants alleged that each of them paid such a fee. Appellants sought relief under several theories. In Count I, they asked for a judgment declaring (1) whether the assessment and/or collection of the unauthorized fees was in violation of Missouri law; (2) whether the Cities had the authority to assess and collect the unauthorized fees; and (3) whether Appellants and the putative class members were entitled to recover the unauthorized fees that they paid. In Counts II and III, Appellants sought repayment of the unauthorized fees under theories of unjust enrichment and money had and received. On appeal, Appellants contend their petition stated claims for declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, and money had and received based upon their having paid an illegal warrant fee and/or a failure to appear fee to the Cities and, furthermore, that the claims were not barred by the affirmative defenses of estoppel and waiver. In her Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/hTNLk1 from Leagle.com, Judge Hardwick found that Appellants failed to plead all of the facts necessary to demonstrate their right to declaratory relief and that the lower court properly dismissed the claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received. ASTA FUNDING: Parties Continue to Discuss Global Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Asta Funding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are continuing to discuss a global settlement. In June 2015, a punitive class action complaint was filed against the Company, and one of its third-party law firm servicers, alleging violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") and state law arising from debt collection activities and default judgments obtained against certain debtors. The Company filed a motion to strike the class action allegations and compel arbitration or, to the extent the court declines to order arbitration, to dismiss the RICO claims. On or about March 31, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion. The Company filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A mediation session was held in July 2015, at which the Company agreed to settle the action on an individual basis for a payment of $13,000 to each named plaintiff, for a total payment of $39,000. Payment was made on or about July 24, 2015. The third- party law firm servicer has not yet settled and remains a defendant in the case. The plaintiffs' attorneys advised that they are contemplating the filing of another punitive class action complaint against the Company alleging substantially the same claims as those that were asserted in this matter. In anticipation of such an eventuality, the Company agreed to non-binding mediation in order to reach a global settlement with other putative class members, which would avert the possibility of further individual or class actions with respect to the affected accounts. To date, the parties have attended two mediation sessions and are continuing to discuss a global settlement. In connection with such discussions, the current settlement demand from plaintiffs is $4 million and the current counteroffer from the Company and its third-party law firm servicer is $3.875 million (which would be split equally between the Company and the law firm servicer). The Company and law firm servicer have also offered, as part of the current counteroffer, to cease collection activity on the affected accounts. Accordingly, the Company has set up a reserve for settlement costs of $2.0 million during the three months ended March 31, 2016, which has been included in general and administrative expenses in the Company's consolidated statement of operations. Asta Funding, Inc., together with its wholly owned significant operating subsidiaries Palisades Collection LLC, Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC ("Palisades XVI"), VATIV Recovery Solutions LLC ("VATIV"), ASFI Pegasus Holdings, LLC ("APH"), Fund Pegasus, LLC ("Fund Pegasus"), GAR Disability Advocates, LLC ("GAR Disability Advocates"), CBC Settlement Funding, LLC ("CBC") and other subsidiaries, not all wholly owned, is engaged in several business segments in the financial services industry including structured settlements through its wholly owned subsidiary CBC, funding of personal injury claims, through its 80% owned subsidiary Pegasus Funding, LLC ("Pegasus"), social security and disability advocates through its wholly owned subsidiary GAR Disability Advocates , LLC and the business of purchasing, managing for its own account and servicing distressed consumer receivables, including charged off receivables, and semi- performing receivables. AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Opposed Motion to Vacate Judgment ------------------------------------------------------- Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has opposed lead plaintiffs' motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's judgment. Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and certain of its former officers and members of its board of directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. The amended complaint generally alleged that the Company and certain of its present and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's TIVO-1 study in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. The consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations. The Company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in the Company's favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They have also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's judgment, which we have opposed. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. Aveo is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted therapeutics for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. BANCO BRADESCO: Violated Securities Laws, "Bryan" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BRYAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. BANCO BRADESCO S.A., LUIZ CARLOS TRABUCO CAPPI, ALEXANDRE DA SILVA GLšHER, and JULIO DE SIQUEIRA CARVALHO DE ARAUJO, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:16-cv-04155 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act. The Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows: A. Determining that the instant action may be maintained as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and certifying Plaintiff as the Class representative; B. Requiring Defendants to pay damages sustained by Plaintiff and the Class by reason of the alleged acts and transactions; C. Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class prejudgment and postjudgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs; and D. Awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Banco Bradesco provides banking and financial products and services to individuals, companies, and corporations and institutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686 1060 Facsimile: (212) 202 3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com BANCORP INC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Fletcher" Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court ruling on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint is pending. On July 17, 2014, a class action securities complaint captioned Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. A consolidated version of that class action complaint was filed before the same court on January 23, 2015 on behalf of Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System under the caption of In Re The Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 26, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint against Bancorp, Betsy Z. Cohen, Paul Frenkiel, Frank M. Mastrangelo and Jeremy Kuiper, which alleges that during a class period beginning January 26, 2011 through June 26, 2015, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had wrongfully extended and modified problem loans and under-reserved for loan losses due to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's operations and credit practices were in violation of the BSA, and (iii) as a result, Bancorp's financial statements, press releases and public statements were materially false and misleading during the relevant period. The amended consolidated complaint further alleges that, as a result, the price of Bancorp's common stock was artificially inflated and fell once the defendants' misstatements and omissions were revealed, causing damage to the plaintiffs and the other members of the class. The complaint asks for an unspecified amount of damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. This litigation is in its preliminary stages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on November 23, 2015. Oral argument on the defendants' motion was held on January 29, 2016 and a court ruling on the motion is pending. "We have been advised by our counsel in the matter that reasonably possible losses cannot be estimated. We believe that the complaint is without merit and we intend to defend vigorously," the Company said. BARCLAYS BANK: Kessler Topaz & Robbins Geller to Lead Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the motion for class certification, appointed Askelson as class representative and Kessler Topaz and Robbins Geller as co-class counsel in the case captioned, In re BARCLAYS BANK PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 09 Civ. 1989 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.). In early 2009, purchasers from the four offerings filed several class action complaints alleging Defendants made material misrepresentations in the offering materials that, when later disclosed, resulted in the decline in the shares' value, in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. One such suit, brought by Beverly Pellegrini on April 8, 2009, dealt with the Series 5 offering. Pellegrini v. Barclays Bank Plc, 09 cv 3608. In December 2009, the Court consolidated the cases, including the Pellegrini case, and appointed Marshall Freidus, Stewart Thompson and Dora Mahboubi as lead plaintiffs. On February 12, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC). The CAC includes named plaintiff Martin Ettin, who allegedly acquired Series 5 shares "issued pursuant or traceable to" the April 8, 2008 offering. The CAC alleges that the offering materials contained materially false and misleading statements because Barclays (i) failed to timely and adequately disclose and write down its exposure to risky credit market assets; (ii) failed to comply with applicable accounting standards and SEC requirements; and (iii) misleadingly assured investors that Barclays' extensive risk management practices helped it avoid such credit market risks. On January 5, 2011, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the CAC. In the motion, Dennis Askelson -- the lone remaining lead plaintiff in the protracted litigation -- moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to certify a class of all purchasers in the April 8, 2008 public offering of Series 5 American Depositary Shares ("ADS") by Barclays Bank Plc. Defendants object on grounds that (i) Askelson lacks Article III standing; (ii) Askelson is not an adequate class representative; and (iii) if certified, the class period should end no later than August 7, 2008. In his Opinion and Order dated June 9, 2016 available at https://is.gd/klNH2w from Leagle.com, Judge Crotty held that (i) Askelson has Article III standing; (ii) the Rule 23 requirements (including adequacy) are satisfied; and (iii) narrowing the class period at this time is not appropriate. The Court appointed Askelson to represent the class, and Kessler Topaz and Robbins Geller as co-class counsel. The parties are directed to appear at a status conference on July 27, 2016 at 11:15 a.m. Marshall Freidus, et al. are represented by Andrew J. Brown, Esq. -- andrewb@rgrdlaw.com -- Eric I. Niehaus, Esq. -- ericn@rgrdlaw.com -- Lucas F. Olts, Esq. -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Christopher D. Stewart, Esq. -- cstewart@rgrdlaw.com -- Darren J. Robbins, Esq. -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. -- DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- and David C. Walton, Esq. -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq. -- azivitz@ktmc.com -- Margaret E. Onasch, Esq. -- monasch@ktmc.com -- Sharan Nirmul, Esq. -- snirmul@ktmc.com -- and Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq. -- jdancona@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Barclays Bank PLC, et al. are represented by David Harold Braff, Esq. -- braffd@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Alain Peller, Esq. -- pellerm@sullcrom.com -- Menachem David Possick, Esq. -- possickm@sullcrom.com -- Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr., Esq. -- tomainom@sullcrom.com -- Thomas Charles White, Esq. -- whitet@sullcrom.com -- and Yavar Bathaee, Esq. -- bathaeey@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL, LLP Barclays Capital Securities Limited, et al. are represented by Jay B. Kasner, Esq. -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- and Scott D. Musoff, Esq. -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP BARCLAYS PLC: Appeals Ruling From "Strougo" Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Barclays PLC, Robert Diamond, Antony Jenkins, Barclays Capital Inc. and William White filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Strougo v. Barclays PLC, Case No. 14-cv- 5797, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Plaintiffs assert violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The appellate case is captioned as Strougo v. Barclays PLC, Case No. 16-1912, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee Joseph Waggoner is represented by: Phillip C. Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com - and - Tamar Weinrib, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP 600 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: taweinrib@pomlaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee Mohit Sahni is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Tamar Weinrib, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP 600 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com taweinrib@pomlaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee Barbara Strougo is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP 600 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com Defendants-Appellants Barclays PLC, Robert Diamond, Antony Jenkins, Barclays Capital Inc. and William White are represented by: Jeffrey Thomas Scott, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-3082 E-mail: scottj@sullcrom.com BERKSHIRE HILLS: Faces Depositors' Class Suit in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company and the Bank were served on April 28, 2016, with a complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint claims to have been filed on behalf of a purported class of the Bank's depositors, and alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder, among other matters. The complaint seeks, in part, compensatory, consequential, and statutory damages. The Company and the Bank deny the allegations contained in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. BIG TEN: Sued in Ill. Over Concealing Football Players Injuries --------------------------------------------------------------- RAYMOND GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG TEN CONFERENCE and THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05986 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of Ohio State student athletes. According to the complaint, during the course of a college football season, athletes can receive more than 1,000 impacts greater than 10g's (gravitational force) and, worse yet; the majority of football related hits to the head exceed 20g's. Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of long term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia, depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), Parkinson's disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological events that could slowly strangle and choke their brains. Unfortunately, for decades, Defendants Big Ten and the NCAA knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions, concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from playing college football, but actively concealed this information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur" college football. Mr. Griffin, individually and on behalf of the Class, asks the Court to: A. Certify this case as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above, appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative, and appoint his counsel as Class Counsel; B. Declare that Defendants' actions, as set out above, constitute negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment; C. Award all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages caused by Defendants' conduct, including without limitation damages for past, present, and future medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, and other damages. Further, Plaintiff and the Class will likely incur future damages caused by Defendant' misconduct; D. Award Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees; E. Award Plaintiff and the Class pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent allowable; F. Enter injunctive and/or declaratory relief as is necessary to protect the interests of Plaintiff and the Class; and G. Award such other and further relief as equity and justice may require. The Big Ten Conference, formerly Western Conference and Big Nine Conference, is the oldest Division I collegiate athletic conference in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589 6370 Facsimile: (312) 589 6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (844) 456 4823 E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com BIG TEN: "Strinko" Sues Over Football Health Hazard --------------------------------------------------- Steve Strinko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Big Ten Conference and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 05988 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out-of-pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to warn collegiate players of the health hazards of playing football. Big Ten is a collegiate athletic conference with its principal office located at 5440 Park Place, Rosemont, Illinois 60018, and with member institutions in over ten states, including Illinois. NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: 312.589.6370 Fax: 312.589.6378 Email: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. 329 Bryant Street San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: 415.212.9300 Fax: 415.373.9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Jeff Raizner, Esq. RAIZNER SLANIA LLP 2402 Dunlavy Street Houston, TX 77006 Tel: 844.456.4823 Fax: 713.554.9098 Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com CAPITAL ONE: Must Defend Against "Rogers" TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Stay in the case captioned, DANA ROGERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-4016-TWT (N.D. Ga.). The Plaintiffs, Dana Rogers, Pamela Martin, and Sandra Roberts, bring this putative class action against the Defendant, Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendant made unwanted phone calls to their cell phone numbers in violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on behalf of themselves and the class of all others similarly situated. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed for lack of standing. Article III standing requires an actual or imminent injury that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to the challenged action, and redressable by a favorable ruling. In the alternative, the Defendant moves to stay the matter pending the outcome of a Supreme Court decision and a decision by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In his Opinion and Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/pXjf6X from Leagle.com, Judge Thrash, Jr. concluded that the Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support standing because the Plaintiffs allege that the calls were made to their personal cell phone numbers, they have suffered particularized injuries because their cell phone lines were unavailable for legitimate use during the unwanted calls. As to the motion to stay, the Court found that judicial economy does not warrant a stay. Dana Rogers, Pamela Martin and Sandra Roberts are represented by Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. -- aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON & RADBIL, PLLC -- and Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq. -- mehrlich@counselpress.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., is represented by Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq. -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Eileen M. Hunter, Esq. -- eileen.hunter@FaegreBD.com -- and Erin Leigh Hoffman, Esq. -- erin.hoffman@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP -- and Andrew G. Phillips, Esq. -- aphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS LLP CENERGY INTL: "Wright" Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------- Isaac Wright, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cenergy International Services, LLC, Defendant, Case 4:2016-cv-00580 (M.D. Pa., April 5, 2016), has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on June 8, 2016, Case No. 4:16-cv-01627. Defendant is a corporation headquartered in Houston, Texas, providing various services at natural gas drilling sites. Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Tel: (215) 884-2491 Email: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com Defendant is represented by: Jean E. Novak, Esq. STRASSBURGER MCKENNA GUTNICK & GEFSKY 444 Liberty Avenue, Suite 2200 Pittsburgh PA 15222 Tel: 412-281-5423 Email: jnovak@smgglaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: "Novoa" Settlement Has Final Court Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted final approval of the class action settlement and attorneys' fees and costs, and plaintiffs' enhancement awards in the case captioned, LUIS NOVOA, MICHAEL ALVAREZ, BRIAN BELOTE-DINFORD, and TREVOR GRANT, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-01302- BAM (E.D. Cal.). On June 3, 2016, Plaintiffs move for (1) Final Judgment and Order Approving Class Action Settlement; and for (2) Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Plaintiffs' Enhancement Awards. In his Memorandum and Order dated June 6, 2016 available at https://is.gd/vRK5mQ from Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe found that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable and approved final certification of a class of "All individuals who worked for Charter Communications, LLC in California, who received a paycheck at any time between July 5, 2012 and March 24, 2013 for performing work in the field, including as Broadband Technicians, Broadband Installers, Installation Technicians, Repair Technicians, Service Technicians, System Technicians, Field Auditors, or Quality Assurance Inspectors." The Court found that the services provided by CPT Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator were for the benefit of the Class, and the cost of $14,000 is fair, reasonable, and appropriate for reimbursement. The Markham Law Firm, Kershaw Cook & Talley, Aequitas Law Group and United Employees Law Group as Class Counsel are awarded with attorneys' fees of $130,000 and litigation fees of $17,504.90. The Court approved Service Awards in the amount of $5,000 to Plaintiff Novoa, and $2,500 to Plaintiff Alvarez, $2,500 to Plaintiff Belote-Dinford and $2,500 to Plaintiff Grant. Luis Novoa is represented by Autumn E. Love, Esq. -- al@rossandsilverman.com -- Joseph Cho, Esq. -- jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com -- and -- Ronald H. Bae, Esq. -- rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP, Stuart C. Talley, Esq. -- stuart@kctlegal.com -- KERSHAW CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP, Walter L. Haines, Esq. -- walter@whaines.com -- UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC -- and -- David Roger Markham, Esq. -- dmarkham@markham-law.com -- THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM Michael Alvarez, Brian Belote-Dinford and Trevor Grant are represented by David Roger Markham, Esq. -- dmarkham@markham- law.com -- and -- Peggy J. Reali, Esq. -- preali@markham-law.com - - THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM, Walter L. Haines, Esq. -- walter@whaines.com -- UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC, Joseph Cho, Esq. -- jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com -- and Ronald H. Bae, Esq. -- rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP -- and Stuart C. Talley, Esq. -- stuart@kctlegal.com -- KERSHAW CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP Charter Communications, LLC is represented by Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq. -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- and Paul Berkowitz, Esq. -- pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP -- and Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq. -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP CHIASMA INC: Made False Disclosure Over Mycapssa Methodology ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN J. GERNETH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHIASMA, INC., MARK W. LEUCHTENBERGER, and MARK J. FITZPATRICK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11082 (D. Mass., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations relating to false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about July 15, 2015 (IPO) and/or on the open market between July 15, 2015 and April 17, 2016, pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company's lead product candidate is oral octreotide, or Mycapssa, for the treatment of acromegaly, a condition that results in the body's production of excess growth hormone. As of June 2015, prior to Chiasma's IPO, the Company had completed a multinational Phase 3 clinical trial of Mycapssa and submitted a new drug application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval for marketing and sale of Mycapssa. Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Chiasma's Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for Mycapssa was not sufficient to demonstrate efficacy and secure FDA approval; (ii) Chiasma's supervision of its suppliers was not sufficient to prevent deficiencies that would delay FDA approval of Mycapssa; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Chiasma's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Chiasma, a late-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on developing and commercializing oral forms of therapies for patients suffering from orphan diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Steven Harte, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398 5600 Facsimile: (617) 507 6020 E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com Steven@blockesq.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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 pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697 6484 Facsimile (212) 697 7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com CHINA XD: Plaintiffs Seek to Amend Complaint -------------------------------------------- China Xd Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs have moved the Court for leave to amend the class action complaint. The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv- 5359 (GBD), respectively. On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 17, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of a class of all persons other than the defendants who purchased the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014, both dates inclusive. Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Company and two of its officers made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that the individual defendants are liable because they allegedly controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions were made. The lead plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On March 23, 2016, the Court entered an Opinion and Order dismissing the Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice. On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to amend the Complaint. Management believes the proposed amendment is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. CHUNG CHUN: "Tobias" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ALBERTO RIVAS TOBIAS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. CHUNG CHUN SOON DAE INC. d/b/a BYUNGCHUN SOONDAE and KANG WON LEE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02955-WFK-VMS (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wage, (2) unpaid overtime compensation, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaint, throughout his employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked 12 hours per day, from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., for 6 days per week. The Plaintiff was required to work without any lunch break on a daily basis and he was not required to clock in or out. Defendants operate "Byungchun Soondae" restaurant through CHUNG CHUN SOON DAE INC. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Xee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: info@leelitigation.com COLLEGE NETWORK: Cal. Appeals Court Rejects Arbitration Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- Presiding Judge Judith McConnell of the California Court of Appeals affirmed the order denying The College Network's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, BERNADETTE MAGNO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. THE COLLEGE NETWORK, INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. D067687 (Cal. App.). Plaintiffs Bernadette Magno, Rosanna Garcia, and Sheree Rudio brought a consumer fraud and breach of contract action against The College Network, Inc. (TCN). Plaintiffs sued TCN in February 2014, seeking equitable and monetary relief. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, filed in October 2014, asserted statutory claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code, Sections 1750 et seq.) and Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, Sections 17200 et seq.) and common law misrepresentation and breach of contract claims. Plaintiffs alleged that in 2012, following an investigation into the clinical component of the program at CSU, ISU had suspended enrollment into its LVN to B.S. in nursing program. Plaintiffs alleged TCN and other defendants concealed this information and misrepresented that enrolling in the program would enable Plaintiffs to qualify for entrance into ISU's nursing program. Plaintiffs alleged each of them had paid program deposits and loan payments based on these representations. Plaintiffs requested compensatory damages and injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief. In December 2014, TCN moved to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs opposed TCN's motion, arguing the arbitration provision in the purchase agreement was unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The trial court issued a tentative ruling prior to the hearing, granting TCN's motion to compel arbitration. However, on December 31, 2014, following oral argument, the court denied TCN's motion to compel, overruling most of TCN's evidentiary objections and finding the arbitration provision procedurally and substantively unconscionable. On appeal, TCN argues the arbitration provision in Plaintiffs' purchase agreements is valid and enforceable and contends the trial court erred when it ruled the provision unconscionable. Alternatively, TCN argues that if the forum selection clause is unconscionable, the court abused its discretion in voiding the arbitration provision altogether rather than severing the objectionable provisions and enforcing the remainder. In his Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/7Ap6ZU from Leagle.com, Judge McConnell concluded the trial court correctly determined the arbitration provision to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in voiding the provision in its entirety. The College Network is represented by Adam T. Hoover, Esq. -- adhoover@reichradcliffe.com -- and Richard J. Radcliffe, Esq. -- rjr@reichradcliffe.com -- REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER Bernadette Magno, et al. are represented by Hannah J. Bingham, Esq. -- Hannah@BinghamLawOffices.com -- LAW OFFICES OF HANNAH J. BINGHAM CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the case captioned, DAVID B. AHR, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES, INC., and CP MEDICAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:15- CV-1464-J-34JBT (M.D. Fla.). On September 9, 2015, Ahr filed the action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Convergent and CP Medical. In the Complaint, Ahr asserted one count alleging that both Convergent and CP Medical had committed numerous violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq. (FDCPA) "by sending the 8/17/15 Letter to Ahr to collect the alleged Flagler obligation," and by sending letters containing "identical material terms" to members of the purported classes. On November 6, 2015, Convergent filed its Motion to Dismiss and Transfer Venue. See generally Motion to Dismiss and Transfer Venue. In the portions of the Motion to Dismiss and Transfer Venue in which Convergent requested dismissal, Convergent argued both that Ahr did "not allege that Convergent misidentified itself, as required to state a claim under Sec. 1692e(14)" and that the Complaint was a shotgun pleading. On November 16, 2015, CP Medical filed a separate motion to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that Ahr "did not allege CP Medical sent the letter or had any input into the content of the letter," but rather, "apparently sought to hold CP Medical vicariously liable for Convergent's alleged conduct." In her Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/A4nRip from Leagle.com, Judge Howard said she is unwilling to find Ahr's claim wholly lacking in merit due to the absence of legal authority at the early stage of the proceedings. David B. Ahr is represented by Christopher B. Hall, Esq. -- chall@hallandlampros.com -- HALL & LAMPROS -- and -- Tracy Lynne Markham, Esq. -- avhnfl@msn.com -- AVOLIO & HANLON, PC Convergent Healthcare Recoveries, Inc. is represented by Barbara Fernandez, Esq. -- bfernandez@hinshawlaw.com -- David P. Hartnett, Esq. -- wharnett@hinshawlaw.com -- and -- West Allan Holden, Esq. -- wholden@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP CP Medical, LLC is represented by Dayle Marie Van Hoose, Esq. -- dvanhoose@sessions.legal -- and -- Rachel A. Morris, Esq. -- rmorris@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Has Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gray H. Miller of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in the case captioned, PHILIP E. ASHCRAFT and CHRISTOPHER D. GANDARA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORE LABORATORIES, LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. H-16-823 (S.D. Tex.). Defendant Core Laboratories, LP provides reservoir management services to the petroleum industry. Defendant ProTechnics, a division of Core Laboratories, specializes in providing imaging analysis and diagnostics. On December 6, 2010, ProTechnics hired Philip E. Ashcraft as a Field Service Representative. At the time Plaintiffs filed the pending motion, Ashcraft was still employed in this capacity. On July 18, 2012, ProTechnics hired Christopher D. Gandara as a Field Service Representative. Gandara's employment was terminated on March 20, 2015. At the time Plaintiffs began working for Protechnics, they were required to work substantial overtime hours but were paid only a salary and a bonus without overtime compensation. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of West Virginia against Protechnics, Core Laboratories, and John Kalika seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit both individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons. In the motion, Plaintiffs seek conditional certification for a class of "All employees of ProTechnics, a division of Core Laboratories, LP, working from ProTechnics's facility located in Parkersburg, West Virginia as Field Service Representatives or performing the duties of Field Service Representatives from March 16, 2012[,] until November 8, 2014. " In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ZEq3Fu from Leagle.com, Judge Miller found that Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of class certification and certified the proposed class. Philip E. Ashcraft and Christopher D. Gandara are represented by: Maria W. Hughes, Esq. Mark Goldner, Esq. HUGHES & GOLDNER 10 Hale St Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: (304)400-4816 Core Laboratories LP is represented by Ethel J. Johnson, Esq. -- ethel.johnson@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS; and Richard F. Shearer, Esq. -- rshearer@shb.com -- SHOOK HARDY & BACON COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Taylor Files Appeal From "Buckley" Suit Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff June Taylor filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Randall Buckley, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans Incorporated, Case No. 2:08-cv-01200-RSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 25, 2015, District Court Judge Ricardo S. Martinez denied on May 20, 2015, a renewed motion for class certification finding that the motion was not timely. The Order is available at http://bit.ly/1Jhkk8Efrom Leagle.com. The Case was filed under the Washington Consumer Protection Act alleging that Countrywide changed the terms of a home mortgage refinance transaction without informing the Plaintiff before they closed the deal. The appellate case is captioned as Randall Buckley, et al v. Countrywide Home Loans Incorporated, Case No. 16-35494, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant June Taylor is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com Defendant-Appellee Countrywide Home Loans Incorporated is represented by: Brooks Russell Brown, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2500 Facsimile: (213) 623-1673 E-mail: bbrown@goodwinprocter.com - and - Tim J. Filer, Esq. FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 447-2904 Facsimile: (206) 749-1939 E-mail: tim.filer@foster.com - and - Thomas Hefferon, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 346-4000 E-mail: thefferon@goodwinprocter.com DAVID BOONE: "Adams" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- DUSTIN ADAMS, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVID BOONE OILFIELD CONSULTING & EP ENERGY CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01566 (S.D. Tex., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to workers, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff seeks: 1. An order allowing this action to proceed as a representative collective action under the FLSA; 2. Judgment awarding Plaintiff and the other Putative Class Members all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses under the FLSA; 3. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest rate allowable by law; and 4. All such other and further relief to which Plaintiff and the other Putative Class Members may show themselves to be justly entitled. David Boone Oilfield Consulting (DBOC) staffed out workers to EP Energy Corporation. Defendants misclassified these workers as independent contractors and failed to pay them overtime compensation as required by federal law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a "Flowback Operator" and has been employed by Defendants since approximately May 2014. DBOC is a staffing company. It provides the energy industry with specialized energy personnel, including Flowback Operators. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751 0025 Facsimile: (713) 751 0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877 8788 Facsimile: (713) 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com DUANE READE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in "Jacob" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Duane Reade's motion to decertify the class and the collective action in the case captioned, MANI JACOB, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DUANE READE, INC. and DUANE READE HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-0160 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs in the case allege that Duane Reade, Inc., and Duane Reade Holdings failed to compensate assistant store managers (ASMs) for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Court conditionally certified a FLSA collective action on January 27, 2012, and it certified a NYLL class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on March 20, 2013. In August 2013, the court granted in part a motion for reconsideration, partially decertifying the class as to damages but allowing it to proceed as to liability. Defendants appealed, and on February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed the court's class certification determination by summary order. In the motion, Duane Reade seeks decertification of both the Rule 23 class and the FLSA collective action. In his Opinion and Order dated June 9, 2016 available at https://is.gd/w2VZkW from Leagle.com, Judge Oetken held that fairness and procedural considerations weigh in favor of certifying the collective action. As with the Rule 23 class, for most opt-in plaintiffs, "pursuing the litigation individually would be a hindrance rather than a boon." Further, as the Court has certified a Rule 23 class, allowing the FLSA collective action to proceed as well is fair and procedurally efficient. Mani Jacob and Lesleena Mars are represented by Adam T. Klein, Esq. -- atk@outtengolden.com -- Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. - jms@outtengolden.com -- Lewis M. Steel, Esq. -- lmsteel@outtengolden.com -- Michael Joseph Scimone, Esq. -- mjs@outtengolden.com -- Molly Anne Brooks, Esq. -- mab@outtengolden.com -- Paul W. Mollica, Esq. -- pwm@outtengolden.com -- Rachel Megan Bien, Esq. -- rmb@outtengolden.com -- and Sally Jasmine Abrahamson, Esq. -- sja@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP The Plaintiffs are also represented by: Seth Richard Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP 1100 King St Port Chester, NY 10573 Tel: (914)934-9200 Ousmane Diop, et al. are represented by Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. -- jms@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN,LLP Duane Reade, Inc., Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. and Walgreen Co. are represented by Craig Robert Benson, Esq. -- cbenson@littler.com -- Christine Lee Hogan, Esq. -- clhogan@littler.com -- and Stephen Andrew Fuchs, Esq. -- sfuchs@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C DUROLITE INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Wins Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey grants final certification of the settlement class and collective action, approves the settlement agreement, and awards litigation costs and expenses in the case captioned, LAWRENCE SHEINBERG and GILES HAZEL, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT SORENSEN, et al., Defendant, Case No. 00- 6041 (CCC) (D.N.J.). Plaintiffs Lawrence Sheinberg and Giles Hazel are former non-union employees of Duro-Test, a now-insolvent lighting manufacturer that owned and operated a manufacturing plant in Cliflon, New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege that all of Duro-Test's assets were transferred to Defendant Litronics and, as a result, Duro-Test's plant closed without any notice to the Duro-Test workers on February 18, 2000. Plaintiffs contend Defendants (1) failed to pay wages, sales commissions, and benefits; (2) failed to make health insurance premium payments and maintain health coverage; and (3) failed to provide timely notice of the Duro-Test plant closing. Plaintiffs sue for breach of fiduciary, statutory, and common law duties. The Named Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals (Plaintiffs) against Defendants Robert Sorensen (Sorensen), Durolite International, Inc. (Durolite), and Litetronics International, Inc. (Litetronics) (Defendants), for paychecks and commission checks they or their co-workers were due when the Duro-Test Corporation (Duro-Test) plant in Clifton, New Jersey was closed without notice. The Court granted preliminary certification of the settlement class and collective action and preliminary approval of the settlement on October 23, 2015. The Settlement Classes consist of 273 former non-union employees of Duro-Test. The Settlement Agreement provides that Defendants will pay a gross settlement amount of $100,000. The Settlement Amount is inclusive of all Class Member payments as well as attorneys' costs and expenses. In the motion, the partied seek final approval of the settlement agreement and certification of class action. Stark & Stark, the current class counsel, seeks $40,000 in attorneys' costs, thereby leaving a net award of $60,000 to be partitioned between and among the Class Plaintiffs. In her Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/giomMf from Leagle.com, Judge Cecchi held that for the purposes of settlement only, the members of the FLSA collective action who submitted a Claim form have satisfied the requirements for FLSA collective action certification and that the requested award of costs is reasonable because the class counsel has provided documentation showing that its costs total $47,645.61. Lawrence Sheinberg and Giles Hazel are represented by Martin P. Schrama, Esq. -- mschrama@stark-stark.com -- STARK & STARK, PC Robert Sorensen et al. are represented by Gerald Krovatin, Esq. -- gkrovatin@krovatin.com -- KROVATIN KLINGEMAN LLC ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Claims v. Owners Barred by Bankruptcy ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Defendants' Status Report and Motion to Dismiss and/or Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned, ARLOS MEJIA, JUAN MARTINEZ-ROJAS, and SEBASTIAN PEREZ, Plaintiffs, v. ELIASEN ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., TODD ELIASEN, MICHELLE ELIASEN, FLORIDA LANDSCAPE MGT, LLC, and RONALD WEBB, Defendants, Case No. 8:15-CV- 209-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla.). On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs Arlos Mejia, Juan Martinez-Rojas, and Sebastian Perez filed a putative class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act against Defendants Eliasen Environmental, Inc., Florida Landscape MGT, LLC, Ronald Webb, Todd Eliasen, and Michelle Eliasen. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement reflecting that they reached an accord with Defendants Florida Landscape MGT, LLC and Ronald Webb. Pursuant to the terms of that settlement, each Plaintiff was paid $500.00 and counsel for Plaintiffs was paid $1,000.00. At the direction of the Court, the settling parties sought approval from the Court and the Court approved the settlement. Thereafter, on June 24, 2015, Michelle Eliasen and Todd Eliasen filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy explaining that they filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The Court accordingly stayed and administratively closed the case as to the bankrupt defendants and directed that the parties file periodic status reports with respect to the bankruptcy case. On November 23, 2015, Todd and Michelle Eliasen received their Chapter 7 discharge and the Eliasens moved for an order dismissing the action with prejudice and closing the case. In her Order dated June 6, 2016 available at https://is.gd/JVCaJN from Leagle.com, Judge Covington found that the claims asserted in the action against Todd and Michelle Eliasen are barred by the Chapter 7 discharge. Arlos Mejia, Juan Martinez-Rojas and Sebastian Perez are represented by: Bradley Abraham Tobin, Esq. TOBIN LAW GROUP, PL Urban Centre 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33609 Tel: (813) 452-6199 - and - Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP PA 1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Eliasen Environmental, Inc. is represented by: Sarah J.M. Smith, Esq. JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, FL 33756 Tel: (727)461-1818 Todd Eliasen and Michelle Eliasen are represented by: Alberto F. Gomez, Jr., Esq. Sarah J.M. Smith, Esq. JOHNSON, POPE, BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS, LLP 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, FL 33756 Tel: (727)461-1818 EOS HOLDINGS: "DiGiorgio" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN DIGIORGIO and PHILIP CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly, the Plaintiffs, v. EOS HOLDINGS, INC., and COLLECTO, INC. d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-11069 (D. Mass., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Massachusetts Labor Law. According to the complaint, EOS requires or permits Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours per week but fails to credit and compensate them for all of their overtime hours. The Defendants are Massachusetts corporations that provide debt management and resources recovery services at regional call centers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 3261 Facsimile: (617) 488 2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Susan H. Stern, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447 8888 Facsimile: (561) 447 8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com sstern@shavitzlaw.com - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245 1000 Facsimile: (646) 509 2057 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com EVERI HOLDINGS: Class Certification Motion Pending -------------------------------------------------- Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case, Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al. The Company is currently involved in one lawsuit related to Everi Games Holding's former charity bingo operations in the State of Alabama, which the Company believes is not material from a damages perspective. The lawsuit is currently pending in federal court and includes claims related to the alleged illegality of electronic charity bingo in the State of Alabama. Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County, Alabama. On June 3, 2010, Everi Games Holding and other manufacturers were added as defendants. The plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of White Hall, allege that Everi Games participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the complaint under Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs requested that the court certify the action as a class action. On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division. The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome. GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Appeal Pending -------------------------------------------------- Galectin Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Plaintiff's appeal seeking review of the dismissal order and final judgment is pending. Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in certain press releases and other public statements in violation of the federal securities laws and seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any obligation to respond to the complaints currently on file, and providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended complaint after it is filed by a lead plaintiff(s) to be appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff'). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on May 8, 2015. The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Class Action Individual Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. The Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual Defendants and one of the Company's shareholders face liability for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on June 26, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the Court dismissed the putative class action with prejudice and entered a final judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal seeking review of the dismissal order and final judgment. The appeal has been docketed and is currently pending. Galectin Therapeutics Inc. (the "Company") is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that is applying its leadership in galectin science and drug development to create new therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer. GENERAL MOTORS: Marro Appeals Ruling From Teachers Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Movant Donald C. Marro filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled New York State Teachers' Retirement System v. General Motors Company, et al., Case No. 14-cv-11191, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint. The appellate case is captioned as New York State Teachers' Retirement System v. General Motors Company, et al., Case No. 16- 1821, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Action was brought by investors alleging, among other things, that the Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omitting material information about GM's product warranty and recall liabilities, internal controls and commitment to safety. Lead Plaintiff New York State Teachers' Retirement System, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, achieved a settlement of the Action for $300 million in cash resolving all claims in the Action. The Settlement Class consists of: all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired General Motors Company ("GM") common stock during the period from November 17, 2010 through July 24, 2014, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. Plaintiff-Appellee New York State Teachers' Retirement System is represented by: Sharon Sue Almonrode, Esq. E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com epm@millerlawpc.com - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. James Abram Harrod, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1538 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: sgraziano@blbglaw.com jim.harrod@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com Defendants-Appellees General Motors Company, Daniel F. Akerson, Nicholas S. Cyprus, Christopher P. Liddell, Daniel Ammann, Charles K. Stevens, III, Mary T. Barra and Thomas S. Timco are represented by: Timothy A. Duffy, Esq. Robert J. Kopecky, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 E-mail: tim.duffy@kirkland.com robert.kopecky@kirkland.com - and - Raymond Wade Henney, Esq. HONIGMAN, MILLER, SCHWARTZ & COHN LLP 660 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2290 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 465-7410 Facsimile: (313) 465-7411 E-mail: rhenney@honigman.com Defendant-Appellee Gay P. Kent is represented by: Michael P. Cooney, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 Telephone: (313) 568-6800 E-mail: mcooney@dykema.com - and - Thomas H. Trapnell, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 39577 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (313) 568-6712 E-mail: ttrapnell@dykema.com - and - Guy T. Petrillo, Esq. PETRILLO KLEIN AND BOXER LLP 655 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 370-0331 E-mail: gpetrillo@pkbllp.com HELPING HANDS: "Prishlyak" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages ----------------------------------------------------------- Olga Prishlyak, on behalf of herself and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Helping Hands Attendant Services (A Division of Community Home Care Referral Services, Inc.), Barry Weiss and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:16-cv- 02969 (E.D. N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law; liquidated damages; reasonable attorney fees and costs; and such other and further relief. Defendants are in the home healthcare industry where Plaintiff was a full-time Home Attendant. She claims to be denied overtime pay and wage statements. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Islannd Ave., 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Tel: 718-339-0856 HESKA CORPORATION: Still Defends "Fauley" Suit in N.D. Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------- Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company still defends a class action by Shaun Fauley in Illinois. The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court Northern District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Heska Corporation and its wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries sell advanced veterinary diagnostic and other specialty veterinary products. HOLY CROSS: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Termination of Pension Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- CORINNE BUTLER and ANDREA FITZSIMMONS, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL ("HCH"), SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM ("SINAI"), WAYNE LERNER, DIANE HOWARD, JOHN R. BALL, M.D, BARBARA FAHEY, SATYA AHUJA, M.D., CHIA HUANG, M.D., LARRY MARGOLIS, SIVARAMAPRASAD TUMMALA, M.D., HOWARD BERMAN, GARY J. NIEDERPRUEM, SHARON ROSSMARK, YOGI AHULUWALIA, M.D., JOHN BENEVIDES, CHARLES BROWN, DANIEL CANTRELL, ALAN H. CHANNING, JOHN DANAHER, M.D., LESLIE DAVIS, MARK J. FRISCH, AIDA GIACHELLO, NEAL GOLDSTEIN, ALBERT GRACE, JONATHAN JONAS, GARY KELLER, KENNETH A. LUCCIONI, ROBERT MARKIN, GLORIA MATERRE, BRET MAXWELL, WAYNE PIERCE, MAURICE SCHWARTZ, ROBERT SHAKNO, BEN SOLDINGER, ALAN SOLOW, ROBERT STEELE, STEVE TOPEL, TERRY HEAT, and JOHN and JANE DOES, each an individual, 1-40, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05907 (N.D. Ill., June 6, 2016), asks the Court for: (1) a declaration that their pension plan is an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)-covered plan; (2) a declaration that the Plan was not properly terminated under ERISA and therefore continues to be an ERISA-covered plan; (3) an order reforming the Pension Plan, and requiring that the Pension Plan be funded, administered, and terminated in compliance with ERISA; (4) a declaration that HCH is obligated to comply with the terms of the Plan and provide each member of the Class the full amount of benefits provided under the Plan; (5) a declaration that Sinai, as the sole corporate member of HCH, is part of a controlled group that is jointly and severally liable along with HCH for any unfunded benefits under the Plan; and (6) an order requiring HCH to pay civil penalties to the Class in the same statutory daily amount for each member of the Class. Holy Cross Hospital is one of the largest hospitals in Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Karen L. Handorf, Esq. Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Julie G. Reiser, Esq. Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408 4600 E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com myau@cohenmilstein.com jreiser@cohenmilstein.com mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Ron Kilgard, Esq. Keller Rohrback, LLP Seattle, WA - and - Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq. DeBofsky & Associates P.C. 200 W. Madison St., Suite 2670 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 561 4040 E-mail: mdebofsky@debofsky.com HOME CARE: "Dillow" Suit Seeks Monetary Relief Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda Dillow, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Home Care Network, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00612-TSB (S.D. Ohio, June 6, 2016), seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendant's willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). Home Care employed Ms. Dillow and the putative class members as home healthcare workers who provided companionship services for the elderly, ill, or disabled. From January 1, 2015 until about March 2016, Home Care compensated Ms. Dillow and the putative class members at "straight time" rather than time-and-a-half for overtime hours (i.e., hours worked in excess of 40 per week). Home Care is Ohio and Indiana's comprehensive home care agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. Eric Kmetz, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC Easton Town Center 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604 8759 Facsimile (614) 583 8107 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com www.msdlegal.com - and - Michael D. Lore, Esq. MICHAEL D. LORE, P.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 782-5291 Fax: (713) 758-0345 E-mail: mlore@lorefirm.com IMMUNOMEDICS, INC: Sued in N.J. Over Securities' Inflated Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA FERGUS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMMUNOMEDICS, INC., CYNTHIA L. SULLIVAN, PETER P. PFREUNDSCHUH and DAVID GOLDENBERG, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03335-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Accord to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to (i) deceive the investing public, including Plaintiff and other Class members; (ii) artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Immunomedics securities; and (iii) cause Plaintiff and other members of the Class to purchase or otherwise acquire Immunomedics securities and options at artificially inflated prices. Immunomedics, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune, and other diseases. Among other product candidates, the Company is developing the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) sacituzumab govitecan IMMU-132 (IMMU-132), which is in Phase II trials for treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer and small-cell and non-small-cell lung cancers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623 3000 Facsimile: (973) 623 0858 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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 pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is ongoing and no trial date has been scheduled in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions. From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the other generic defendants. On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the other generic defendants. On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On February 11, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery is ongoing and no trial date has been scheduled in the Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. From June 2014 to February 2016, 14 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re- filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor (indirect) purchaser plaintiffs. On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the "Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.). On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be bound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints. On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a second consolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved to dismiss certain state law claims. On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend. The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended complaints and the Company has filed its answer. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Generic Drug Pricing Class Action Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that discovery has not commenced in the so-called Generic Drug Pricing Class Action. On March 2, 2016, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, in concert with others, engaged in a conspiracy to fix, maintain, and stabilize the price of digoxin in violation of federal and state antitrust law. To date, eight additional putative class action complaints containing similar allegations have been filed against the Company. On March 25, 2016, the Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust and the NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund filed complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 4, 2016, Pipe Trade Services MN filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 25, 2016, Edward Carpinelli filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 27, 2016, Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 2, 2016, Nina Diamond filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 5, 2016, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On May 6, 2016, Minnesota Laborers Health & Welfare Fund filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Discovery in these proceedings has not commenced. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: 2 AWP Class Suits Ongoing in Philadelphia ------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company is defending two AWP class action lawsuits. On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan and others similarly situated filed a class action against several generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs. The case has since been removed to federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. By virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the suit has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third party payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain generic drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under the laws of other states in addition to Pennsylvania. On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory judgment. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. INNERWORKINGS INC: Agreement in Principle Reached ------------------------------------------------- InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of its intention to restate certain historical financial statements, an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities, relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual defendants dispute the claims. On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims relating to the inside sales initiative. On March 18, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The settlement, which remains subject to Court approval, provides for payment to the class of $6.0 million, including plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in exchange for a full and final release; the settlement also includes a denial of liability or any wrongdoing by the Company and the individual defendants. The settlement payment will be fully paid by the Company's insurance carrier. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing to Approve Deal Not Yet Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit has moved for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, but the Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on that motion. On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014. The lawsuits alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claimed that the January 9, 2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the order of the Court. The lead plaintiff was seeking unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24, 2015. On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint on April 13, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. On September 14, 2015, the defendants opposed the plaintiff's class certification motion. The plaintiff filed its reply to the defendants' opposition on October 14, 2015, to which the defendants filed a sur-reply on November 10, 2015. Oral arguments on the class certification motion were held on January 20, 2016. On May 2, 2016, the Company reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff to seek Court approval of a proposed resolution. The proposed settlement contemplates payment of $55 million, of which $10 million will be funded by the Company's insurers. Under the proposed settlement, the defendants do not admit any liability. The defendants also continue to deny all allegations against them and to maintain that the suit has no merit. It is anticipated that the settlement will not have a material impact on the Company's business. The plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on May 5, 2016, but the Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on that motion. Following preliminary approval of the settlement, a notice will be sent to class members with information regarding the terms of the settlement, the plan for allocation and distribution of the settlement funds, claim procedures and the final settlement approval hearing. It is anticipated that the process will take several months. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat non-viral, progressive liver diseases. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Court Tosses "Reznik" Vacation Wages Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, YAKOV REZNIK, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-02419-YGR (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Yakov Reznik (Reznik) brings the putative class action against Defendant International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) for failure to pay earned vacation wages and "personal choice holiday" wages upon termination. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges four claims: violation of California Labor Code sections 227.3 (failure to pay vested vacation wages), 226 (inaccurate wage statements), and 203 (waiting time penalties), as well as a claim for unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. In her Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/J4FaNi from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers found that Reznik has failed to raise a disputed issue of fact material to his claim that he was not paid all vested vacation at his final rate of pay upon separation from IBM. Yakov Reznik is represented by Peter Mark Hart, Esq. -- hartpeter@msn.com -- LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART; Tina Mehr, Esq. -- tmehr@marlinsaltzman.com -- and Stanley Donald Saltzman, Esq. -- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP International Business Machines Corporation is represented by Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Esq. -- cnasser@jonesday.com -- Matthew W. Lampe, Esq. -- mlampe@jonesday.com -- Allison Elizabeth Crow, Esq. -- acrow@jonesday.com -- and Wendy C. Butler, Esq. -- wbutler@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY INTREXON CORPORATION: Faces Hoffman and Gibrall Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Intrexon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in May 2016, two purported shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v. Intrexon Corporation et al. and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 12, 2015 and April 20, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The complaints name as defendants the Company and certain current Company officers (the "Defendants"). The complaints allege, among other things, that, in violation of the federal securities laws, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements in its periodic reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed during the Class Period with respect to the Company's business, operations and prospects. The basis for the plaintiffs' claims derives from the April 21, 2016 report published on the Seeking Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that these putative class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. Intrexon designs, builds and regulates gene programs, which are DNA sequences that consist of key genetic components. J2 GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Motions Pending in Paldo Sign Case -------------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that summary judgment motions in the case by Paldo Sign and Display Co. are pending. On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former employee as additional defendants in an existing putative class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13- cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of a j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), was added. On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims. The summary judgment motions are pending. J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------ j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the appeal is pending in a multi-district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of defendants. While claims against some defendants have been settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14- 1611). The appeal is pending. J2 GLOBAL: Settlement in LEO and Dancel Cases Awaits Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement in the LEO and Dancel cases remains subject to court approval. On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles ("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class action against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and consolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO, which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff. On June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, the parties in the case brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentative class-based settlement that remains subject to court approval. JAGUAR ENERGY: Combs Appeals Ruling From Labor Suit to 10th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michael Combs filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Combs v. Jaguar Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-CV-00815-REB-NYW, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado - Denver. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The appellate case is captioned as Combs v. Jaguar Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 16-1250, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Combs is represented by: Brian Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com Defendant-Appellee Jaguar Energy Services, LLC, is represented by: Erich L. Bethke, Esq. SENN VISCIANO CANGES P.C. 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 298-1122 Facsimile: (303) 296-9101 E-mail: EBethke@SennLaw.com - and - Matthew L. Hoeg, Esq. ANDREWS KURTH LLP 600 Travis, Suite 4200 Houston, TX 77002-0000 Telephone: (713) 220-4200 Facsimile: (713) 238-7328 E-mail: matthewhoeg@andrewskurth.com JAKKS PACIFIC: "Melot" Class Suit Still in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------- JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the "Melot" class action lawsuit remains in the early stage. On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett (collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company (collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the "Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointed. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial projections and performance as part of its public filings and earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the TAC and that motion was argued on July 22, 2015; after argument it was taken on submission and a decision has not been issued. "We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit, and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations," the Company said. The Company is a worldwide producer and marketer of children's toys and other consumer products, principally engaged in the design, development, production, marketing and distribution of its diverse portfolio of products. JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Friedman" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Richard Friedman and Carla Hirschhorn filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Friedman v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 15-cv-5899, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of securities laws. The appellate case is captioned as Friedman v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., Case No. 16-1913, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellants Richard Friedman and Carla Hirschhorn are represented by: Helen Davis Chaitman, Esq. CHAITMAN LLP 465 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (888) 759-1114 E-mail: hchaitman@chaitmanllp.com Defendants-Appellees JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JP Morgan Securities LLC, JPMorgan Securities Ltd., John Hogan, and Richard Cassa are represented by: John Ford Savarese, Esq. WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 403-1235 E-mail: jfsavarese@wlrk.com KCG MANAGEMENT: "Carbajal" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO CARBAJAL, LEONEL PERALTA, GERONIMO MACHADO, JUAN TAPIA, NATALIO MACHADO, SANTOS MACHADO, ERIK ZAVALA, AND HUGO BALBOA, on behalf of themselves, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs v. KCG MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND MARK KROG, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06005 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages and unlawful deductions, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and the Illinois Employee Classification Act (ECA). The Defendants employed Plaintiffs at varying rates of pay in both the winter and summer seasons from approximately 2013 through early 2016. Throughout their employment during all seasons, Plaintiffs customarily worked over 40 hours per week, yet were paid at their straight rate of pay for all hours worked, including those over forty in a workweek. KCG Management is a snow plowing company in Schaumburg Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tom Geoghegan, Esq. DESPRES, SCHWARTZ, & GEOGHEGAN, LTD. 77 W. Washington St. Room 711 Chicago, IL, 60602 Telephone: (312) 372 2511 - and - Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784 3541 KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL: "Chisolm" Suit Denied Class Action Status ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied Plaintiff's Motion for Joinder and Class Action Status in the case captioned, DON SURVI CHISOLM, Plaintiff, v. CPL. HAROLD CAMPBELL, OFC. BRONSON, and DIRECTOR BRYAN P. STERLING, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-4943-RBH-TER (D.S.C.). Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Plaintiff alleges that on June 29, 2015, he and several other inmates were being driven to Kirkland Correctional Institution (KCI) by Cpl. Harold Campbell for medical treatment. Plaintiff alleges that Director Bryan P. Sterling is liable for Plaintiff's injuries arising out of his transport by Cpl. Campbell because Sterling "is the executor and approver" of the policy that requires all South Carolina Department of Correction (SCDC) transport vehicles except for buses to be equipped with seatbelts. In his motion, Plaintiff seeks to join the present action with three other cases filed by other Plaintiffs arising out of the same events on June 29, 2015: Johnson v. Stirling, Case No. 1:15- cv-4942-RMG-SVH;Norris v. Stirling, Case No. 1:15-cv-4961-JFA-SVH; and Inman v. Stirling, 1:15cv-4962-JMC-SVH. In his Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/4AGI3a from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers, III held that Plaintiff fails to address any of the prerequisites set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) for class certification. Cpl. Harold Campbell, Ofc Bronson and Bryan P. Sterling are represented by Harry Cooper Wilson, III, Esq. -- cooper.wilson@hoodlaw.com -- Robert H. Hood, Esq. -- bobby.hood@hoodlaw.com -- and Benjamin Houston Joyce, Esq. -- ben.joyce@hoodlaw.com -- HOOD LAW FIRM KMART CORPORATION: "Hautur" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- GINA HAUTUR & CAROL GURNISH, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. KMART CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-03226 (W.D.N.Y., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover (i) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek, as required by law, and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, Defendant scheduled Plaintiff Hautur to work at least 48 hours per week (not including lunch), and she worked a minimum of 48 hours per week, but was not paid for the hours worked in excess of 40. Kmart is a nationwide retailer of electronics, toys, clothing, bedding, furniture & home decor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934 9200 Facsimile: (914) 934 9220 E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com Fran@klafterolsen.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429 2294 Facsimile: (202) 429 2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com nmigliaccio@masonlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545 1199 Facsimile: (212) 532 3801 E-mail: david@legalroth.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884 2491 Facsimile: (215) 884 2492 LEASING ENTERPRISES: 5th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida affirmed in part a district court decision in the case captioned, GIULLIAN STEELE; RAUL ALEMAN; YURY X. BASTOS; JARROD DENYER; SUSAN McMILLAN; ET AL, Plaintiffs-Appellees Cross-Appellants, v. LEASING ENTERPRISES, LIMITED, Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee, Case No. 15-20139 (5th Cir.). Leasing Enterprises, Limited owns Perry's Restaurants, LLC, which operates a number of restaurants, primarily in Texas. Plaintiffs- Appellees constitute a class of servers employed by Perry's. In August 2009, Plaintiffs initiated the collective action. In their third amended complaint, they alleged that Perry's had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by charging its servers the 3.25% offset fee. Following a bench trial, the district court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that Perry's' 3.25% offset violated the FLSA because the offset exceeded Perry's' credit card issuer fees. The court also held that Perry's' cash-delivery expenses could not be included in the offset amount because "the restaurant's decision to pay its servers in cash is a business decision, not a fee directly attributable to its cost of dealing in credit" and that Perry's had failed to prove fees related to cancellation of transactions and manual entry of credit card numbers, and therefore could not rely on these amounts to justify the amount of its offset. Finally, the court held that Perry's may not include other expenses, such as costs associated with bookkeeping and reconciliation of cash tips, in the offset amount because those costs are incurred as a result of ordinary operations only indirectly related to Perry's' tip policy. The court concluded that even if it included all of Perry's' indirect costs, the 3.25% offset fee exceeded Perry's' total costs. On appeal, Perry challenges the district court's liability holding under the FLSA and its decision to certify the second class. Plaintiffs cross-appealed, challenging the district court's holdings that Plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney's fees, liquidated damages, or an extension of the limitations period from two to three years. In her Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/NJ4lRJ from Leagle.com, Judge Higginson affirmed the district court's holding that Perry's violated 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(m) because the deduction exceeded the direct costs of collecting credit card tips for Perry's' tipped employees. The district court did not err by certifying a second conditional class, declining to award Plaintiffs liquidated damages, and concluding that Perry's did not willfully violate the FLSA but concluded that the district court did abuse its discretion by declining to award Plaintiffs attorney's fees. MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Defending Class Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------- MagicJack Vocaltec Ltd said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a purported class action lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2016, against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Vento ("Mr. Vento"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Jose Gordo ("Mr. Gordo"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo made false and misleading statements regarding the financial performance and guidance during the alleged class period of November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Vento and Gordo violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the court deems proper. The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against it and the Company does not believe that the outcome of this legal proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows. Because the case is at a preliminary stage, the Company cannot estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages, if any. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack devices and other magicJack products and services. MDL 2295: $18 Million Class Action Settlement Pending ----------------------------------------------------- PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation are waiting for the Court to approve a settlement agreement, whereby the Company would pay $18 million to resolve the MDL action. The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May 20, 2014. In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle under which the parties have agreed to seek court approval of class certification and the proposed settlement. In April 2016, the parties sought preliminary Court approval of a settlement agreement, whereby the Company would pay $18 million to resolve the MDL action. The Company had fully accrued for the settlement amount as of December 31, 2015. PRA Group's primary business is the purchase, collection and management of portfolios of nonperforming loans. MITEL NETWORKS: "Solak" Sues overt Shady Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------- John Solak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Peter A. Leav, Martha H. Bejar, Gary J. Daichendt, Robert J. Frankenberg, John A. Kelley, Jr., D. Scott Mercer, Betsy S. Atkins, Mitel Networks Corporation and Meteor Two, Inc., Defendants. v. Case No. 5:16-cv-03128 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2016), seeks rescinding of a merger, enjoinment from consummating acquisition, reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff is a stockholder of Polycom, Inc., a Delaware corporation with principal executive offices located at 6001 America Center Drive, San Jose, California. Polycom offers open, standards-based unified communications and collaboration solutions for voice, video and content sharing. The Polycom Board had agreed to sell Polycom to Mitel, a Canadian corporation providing cloud, mobile and enterprise communications and collaboration solutions. The deal allegedly undervalues Polycom and the decision to sell Polycom in exchange for $12 per Polycom share will prevent Plaintiff from realizing the benefits of the Company's impressive financial results and continuing growth. Peter A. Leav, Martha H. Bejar, Gary J. Daichendt, Robert J. Frankenberg, John A. Kelley, Jr., D. Scott Mercer and Betsy S. Atkins serves in the Polycom Board. Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 525-3990 Fax: (619) 525-3991 Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com MODEL N: Calif. Class Action Settlement Wins Approval ----------------------------------------------------- Model N, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a court in California has approved the settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit. On September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, purported securities class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the initial public offering (IPO). The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased the Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. On March 2, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits. On November 4, 2015, all parties reached a mutually acceptable resolution by way of a mediated settlement. The Company does not believe that its portion of the settlement amount will be material to its results of operations. On April 4, 2016, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo approved the settlement. Model N, Inc. (Company) was incorporated in Delaware on December 14, 1999. The Company is a provider of revenue management solutions for the life science and technology industries. MONEY MUTUAL: Court Denies Defendants' Discovery & Deposition Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, SEAN L. GILBERT, et al., Plaintiff, v. MONEY MUTUAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-01171-JSW (LB) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants' motion for discovery and deposition from the plaintiffs' counsel, Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq. On December 10, 2015, the moving defendants' counsel attended a dinner in Las Vegas with an attorney named Tim Muir, who represents Scott Tucker and entities affiliated with Mr. Tucker. Mr. Muir told the defendants' counsel about a consulting arrangement with the plaintiffs' class counsel, Mr. Wilens. The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has charged Mr. Tucker (and Mr. Muir) with operating an unlawful Internet payday lending enterprise in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962(c), and The Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1611, and the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") charged him civilly based on the same conduct with violations of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a), TILA's disclosure requirements (implemented in 12 C.F.R. Sec. 1026), and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1693(k)(1) (implemented in 12 C.F.R. Sec. 1005.10(e)(1)). The defendants seek to depose Mr. Wilens in aid of a motion to disqualify him, not only about the Tucker arrangement, but also about any other similar offers or arrangements that Mr. Wilens proposed in this or other cases or situations. The defendants argue that if Mr. Wilens entered into a forbearance agreement with Mr. Tucker, then "it creates a clear conflict of interest between Mr. Wilens and the class to the extent that he may have disregarded claims held by potential class members in favor of his own pecuniary interests." In his Order dated June 9, 2016 available at https://is.gd/CQYifL from Leagle.com, Judge Beeler held that the motion be denied because document discovery and the plaintiffs' counsel's declaration illuminate the issue sufficiently to allow the defendants to file a motion to disqualify class counsel. Sean L. Gilbert, et al. are represented by Andrew C. Simpson, Esq. -- asimpson@coralbrief.com -- LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW C. SIMPSON P.C., Jeffrey Neil Wilens, Esq. -- jeff@lakeshorelaw.org -- LAKESHORE LAW CENTER and Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. -- jps@spencerlaw.net -- THE SPENCER LAW FIRM MoneyMutual, LLC et al. are represented by Donald J. Putterman, Esq. -- dputterman@plylaw.com -- Michelle Lee Landry, Esq. -- Mlandry@plylaw.com -- and Tobias George Snyder, Esq. -- tsnyder@plylaw.com -- PUTTERMAN LANDRY YU LLP David A. Johnson, Defendant is represented by Ashley Brooke Vinson Crawford, Esq. -- avinson@akingump.com -- Danielle C. Ginty, Esq. -- dginty@akingump.com -- and Reginald David Steer, Esq. -- rsteel@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP MONGE SERVICES: "Tobar" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JOAQUIN HUMBERTO GONZALEZ TOBAR 309 Tompkins Lane Waldorf, MD 20602 (Charles County), on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. MONGE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a M. MONGE SERVICES, INC. 1037 Wales Drive La Plata, MD 20646 (Charles County), JUAN MAURICIO MONGE CHICAS a/k/a JUAN MAURICIO MONGE- CHICAS a/k/a Juan Monge a/k/a Juan Chicas 1037 Wales Drive La Plata, MD 20646 (Charles County), ROSA IDALIA MONGE a/k/a ROSA MONGE a/k/a ROSA GRANADOS 1037 Wales Drive La Plata, MD 20646 (Charles County), BRIAN MAURICIO MONGE GRANADOS a/k/a BRIAN MONGE a/k/a BRIAN GRANADOS, 1037 Wales Drive La Plata, MD 20646 (Charles County), the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01961-TDC (D. Md., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover damages for Defendants' willful failure to pay overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Maryland Wage and Hour Law (MWHL), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (MWPCL), Defendants employed Plaintiff as a painter in Maryland. Defendants paid Plaintiff a daily salary, irrespective of the actual hours worked by Plaintiff in a day or week. As a result, Defendants denied Plaintiff overtime wages. MONGE SERVICES is in painting and paper hanging industry in La Plata. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zelikovitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC 519 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 803 6081 Facsimile: (202) 683 6102 E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com NATIONAL DEBT: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ LUIS ALBERTO ALVAREZ, JR., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC, DANIEL TILIPMAN, and ALEX KLEYNER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16- cv-04156-CM (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, the value of his converted property, and reasonable attorney fees and cost incurred in this action, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff for overtime pay in accordance with the FLSA and NYLL; and failed to provide wage notices and proper statements under NYLL. National Debt focuses on credit card debt relief and settlement. The Plaintiff is represented by: Liane Fisher, Esq. Michael Taunbenfeld, Esq. SERRINS FISHER LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 571 0700 E-mail: liane@serrinsfisher.com michael@serrinsfisher.com NEOVASC INC: Sued in D. Mass. Over Violations of Exchange Act ------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO GROBLER, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEOVASC INC., ALEXEI MARKO, and CHRISTOPHER CLARK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11038-RGS (D. Mass., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages in connection with Plaintiffs' purchases of Neovasc securities, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the NEOVASC stock price. As a result of the fraud, the Company has lost a substantial portion of its value. The Plaintiff brought this federal securities class action against Neovasc and certain of its officers and/or directors for violations of the federal securities laws. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, seeks judgment: a) Declaring this action to be a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Class; b) Awarding Plaintiff and the other members of the Class damages in an amount which may be proven at trial, together with interest thereon; c) Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Class pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs; and d) Awarding such other relief as this Court deems appropriate. Neovasc is a specialty medical device company that develops, manufactures and markets products for the rapidly growing cardiovascular marketplace. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. White III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Telephone: (561) 394 3399 Facsimile: (561) 394 3382 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Today ------------------------------------------------------------ Netsol Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Court has scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for June 27, 2016. On July 25, 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and certain of its current or former officers and/or directors, which have been consolidated under the caption Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA (SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed consolidated amended complaints, which asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a result of the Company's motions, the Court now has dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims except those related to the scope of the Company's release of its next generation product, NFS Ascent(TM), during the narrow proposed class period of October 24, 2013 to November 8, 2013. The Company has filed an answer and affirmative defenses denying the remaining claims. On February 26, 2016, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement to fully resolve the consolidated class action lawsuit, and filed a motion seeking the Federal Court's approval of the settlement. On March 28, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice to class members. The Court also scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for June 27, 2016. The Company expects the cost of settlement to be fully covered by its insurers. The Company believes that plaintiffs' allegations are meritless and, in the event that the Court does not approve the parties' settlement, it intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. If the settlement is not approved and the litigation continues, at this stage of the litigation the Company is unable to form a professional judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. NIMBLE STORAGE: Schwartz and Goldstein Lawsuits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ There are presently two shareholder derivative actions pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain current and former directors and officers of nominal defendant Nimble Storage, Inc.: Schwartz v. Vasudevan, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00892-YGR; and Goldstein v. Vasudevan, et al., Case No. 5:16-CV-02238-YGR. There also are three putative class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws filed against Nimble and certain Nimble officers pending in this district: Vikramkumar v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-05803-YGR; Guardino v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-05991-YGR; and Madhani v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00629-YGR. In a Stipulation and Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/5aUxgo from Leagle.com, District Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers consolidated the cases, Schwartz v. Vasudevan, et al.; Goldstein v. Vasudevan, et al., for all purposes, including pre-trial proceedings and trial, into one action. The Court designated Johnson & Weaver, LLP, and Frank J. Johnson, Esq., as Lead Counsel, which will be responsible for coordinating all activities and appearances on behalf of plaintiffs and for the dissemination of notices and orders of the Court. Sheldon Schwartz is represented by Adam Todd Hoover, Esq. -- adhoover@reichradcliffe.com -- and Marc Gene Reich, Esq. -- mgreich@reichradcliffe.com -- REICH RADCLIFFE AND KUTTLER LLP -- and Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. -- jml@jlclasslaw.com -- LIFSHITZ & MILLER Arthur Goldstein is represented by Frank James Johnson, Esq. -- frankj@johnsonandweaver.com -- JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP Suresh Vasudevan, et al. are represented by Deborah Kang, Esq. -- dkang@fenwick.com -- Felix Shih-Young Lee, Esq. -- flee@fenwick.com -- Michael M. Davis-Wilson, Esq. -- mdaviswilson@fenwick.com -- Michael Scott Dicke, Esq. -- mdicke@fenwick.com -- and Susan Samuels Muck, Esq. -- smuck@fenwick.com -- FENWICK & WEST LLP NYC BUILDERS: "Ferrari" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALFREDO FERRARI, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiff, v. NYC BUILDERS INC., ANTHONY QUINN, and ADAM, [LNU], the Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the Plaintiff, throughout his employment, he was paid an hourly wage of $17.00 per hour. He was always paid straight- time, including all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members were similarly compensated at straight-time hourly rates, without any overtime compensation. NYC Builders is residential and commercial contractor serving Manhattan, Brooklyn and throughout New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Xee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: info@leelitigation.com PACIFIC GATEWAY: "Hochstetler" Settlement Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned, RACHEL HOCHSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-04748-TEH (N.D. Cal.). On October 5, 2015, Plaintiffs Rachel Hochstetler (Hochstetler) and Cirena Torres (Torres), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. At the hearing, the Court ordered the parties to submit, on or before January 11, 2016, supplemental briefing regarding the following aspects of their proposed Settlement: (1) the exclusion of Electronic Goods from the type of goods that may be purchased with the Gift Cards that comprise the $800,000 Settlement Fund; (2) the limitation of one $100 Gift Card per Settlement Class member; (3) Class Notice through only the posting of a Short-Form Notice at each cash register in each of the PGC Included Stores; and (4) the charities selected to receive any residual funds from the Settlement Fund. The parties timely submitted a supplemental response, supporting declaration, and notices addressing these four concerns. On February 2, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the Settlement. On May 6, 2016, Hochstetler and Torres, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Settlement Class, filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. Also on May 6, 2016, Hochstetler, Torres, and Class Counsel filed a Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs to Class Counsel and Incentive Payments to the Class Representatives. In his Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/9xgxT4 from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson found that the terms of the proposed Settlement are fair, adequate, and reasonable and comply with Rule 23(e) and Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The Court appoints Roman Zak as plaintiffs Hochstetler and Torres as the Class Representatives and attorney Chant Yedalian of Chant & Company A Professional Law Corporation as Class Counsel. Rachel Hochstetler and Cirena Torres are represented by Chant Yedalian, Esq. -- chant@chant.mobi -- CHANT & COMPANY Pacific Gateway Concessions LLC is represented by Mara Elizabeth Rosales, Esq. -- mara@rosaleslawpartners.com -- and Robert Durston Sanford, Esq. -- rsanfordlaw@gmail.com -- ROSALES LAW PARTNERS LLP PEAKS PROPERTIES: Violated Disabilities Act, "Foster" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leland Foster, individually, and on behalf of individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PEAKS PROPERTIES, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16- cv-12048-BAF-RSW (E.D. Mich., June 6, 2016), seeks to recover injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). PEAKS PROPERTIES, LLC owns a Twin Peaks located at 1111 W 14 Mile Rd, Madison Heights, MI 48071 in Oakland County. Plaintiff previously patronized Defendant's restaurant as a place of public accommodation. According to the complaint, the Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings. The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. Valerie J. Fatica, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center 4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222 Toledo, OH 43615 Telephone: (419) 241 9661 Facsimile: (419) 241 9737 E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net valeriefatica@gmail.com PEVETO COMPANIES: "Herron" Suit Denied Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, JAMES HERRON, Plaintiff, v. PEVETO COMPANIES, LTD. and PEVETO HOLDINGS, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. H-15-766 (S.D. Tex.), District Judge Gray H. Miller of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied plaintiff James Herron's motion for conditional certification of a collective action, for notice to potential plaintiffs, and for production of information necessary for notice and motion for continuance and to extend deadlines in the amended scheduling order. On March 24, 2015, Herron brought the action for unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants operate a brake, oil, and alignment services business under the assumed name of Brake Check in approximately 40 locations in Texas, including Harris County, Texas. Herron worked for Defendants as a Manager in Training and Service Manager between August 25, 2014 and December 31, 2014. Herron now alleges that Defendants have violated the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, "by misclassifying the Managers in Training and Service Managers at its stores and failing to pay them for overtime." On April 4, 2016, Herron filed a motion for conditional certification of a collection action, for notice to potential plaintiffs, and for production of information necessary for notice. On May 12, 2016, Herron filed a motion for continuance and to extend the deadlines in the court's amended scheduling order. Herron's motion to conditionally certify a collective action is denied without prejudice to resubmission if Herron is later able to submit more persuasive information showing that other similarly situated employees want to join the lawsuit, Judge Miller said in his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/dUtRt0 from Leagle.com. James Herron is represented by Jennifer Jackson Spencer, Esq. -- JSpencer@SpencerScottLaw.com -- SPENCER SCOTT PLLC Peveto Companies, Ltd. is represented by: Barry A. McClenahan, Esq. Shan Marie Egliskis, Esq. THE MCCLENAHAN LAW FIRM 1901 NW Military Hwy # 218 San Antonio, TX 78213 Tel: (210)525-9600 Peveto Holdings, L.L.C. is represented by: Shan Marie Egliskis, Esq. THE MCCLENAHAN LAW FIRM 1901 NW Military Hwy # 218 San Antonio, TX 78213 Tel: (210)525-9600 PHO HUYNH: "Tam" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------- TAM THANH CAO and CHINH THI NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PHO HUYNH HIEP I, INC; PHO HUYNH HIEP II, INC.; PHO HUYNH HIEP III, INC.; PHO HUYNH HIEP 4, INC.; PHO HUYNH HIEP V, INC.; PHO HUYNH HIEP 6, INC.; SEN HUYNH; LIEU THI TRAN; PHONG HOANG HUYNH; and KEVIN SON HOANG HUYNH, the Defendants, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv- 03011 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2016), seeks restitution and compensation on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated employees for unpaid wages, including meal and rest period premiums, overtime premiums, statutory penalties, and interest. The Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Labor Code, and Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants who were not compensated for their work or provided compliant meal and rest breaks. The Defendants operate a chain of restaurants known as "Pho Huynh Hiep" and "Kevin's Noodle House" throughout the Bay Area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tomas E. Margain, Esq. Huy Tran, Esq. Betty Duong, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP 84 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 790 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 317 1100 Facsimile: (408) 351 0105 E-mail: Tomas@JAWLawGroup.com Huy@JAWLawGroup.com Betty@JAWLawGroup.com PHOENIX COMPANIES: Updates on Shareholder Litigation ---------------------------------------------------- The Phoenix Companies, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on the shareholder litigation. On September 28, 2015, Phoenix entered into a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by Nassau. On October 26, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder of Phoenix in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut challenging the proposed merger transaction. The lawsuit alleges that the individual members of Phoenix's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Phoenix shareholders by agreeing to the proposed merger transaction for inadequate consideration and through an allegedly flawed sales process, and that the defendant companies -- Phoenix, Nassau and Davero Merger Sub Corp. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Nassau) -- aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The plaintiff in the action, which was styled Thomas White v. The Phoenix Companies, Inc., et. al., No. HHD-CV15--6063180-S (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford), sought, among other things, an order enjoining the merger and, in the event the merger is completed, rescission and/or damages as a result of the alleged violations of law, as well as fees and costs. From late November to early December 2015, Phoenix and the plaintiff engaged in arm's-length negotiations for the expedited production of certain documents. On December 10, 2015, Phoenix and the other defendants executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiff providing for settlement of the suit based on certain supplemental disclosures to be released to Phoenix shareholders in advance of the December 17, 2015 shareholder vote. The settlement reflected in the MOU is subject to certain confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs in the litigation and subject to the approval of the Court, among other things. The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the litigation. The MOU outlines the terms of the agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the litigation. The parties to the MOU will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the Court for final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. The stipulation of settlement will provide for, among other things, the conditional certification of the Litigation as a non opt-out class action. The stipulation of settlement will provide for the release of any and all claims arising from the merger, subject to approval by the Court. The release will not become effective until the stipulation of settlement is approved by the Court. In connection with the settlement, subject to the ultimate determination of the Court, counsel for plaintiff may receive an award of reasonable fees. Neither this payment nor the settlement will affect the consideration to be received by Phoenix stockholders in the merger or the timing of the anticipated closing of the merger. There can be no assurance that the settling parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the settling parties were to enter into the stipulation. In such event, or if the merger is not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. In January 2016, named-plaintiff, Thomas White, and non-party, Stephen Bushansky, a member of the putative class, moved to substitute Stephen Bushansky as plaintiff, which motion was granted. PHOENIX COMPANIES: Updates Consent Solicitation Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- The Phoenix Companies, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on the so- called Consent Solicitation Litigation. On February 8, 2016, plaintiff Kenneth Roth filed a putative class action complaint ("Complaint") in New York Supreme Court (New York County) (the "Court") against The Phoenix Companies, Inc. ("Phoenix") and U.S. Bank National Association in its capacity as indenture trustee (the "Trustee"), Index No. 650634/2016 (the "Litigation"), relating to a January 7, 2016 consent solicitation launched by Phoenix in connection with its 7.45% Quarterly Interest Bonds due 2032 (the "Consent Solicitation"). The Complaint asserts claims against Phoenix for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, a temporary restraining order, a preliminary and permanent injunction, and a declaratory judgment. In addition to damages, costs, and attorneys' fees, the Complaint asks the Court to temporarily restrain, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Consent Solicitation or, alternatively, declare that the proposed supplemental indenture is null and void. The Complaint further alleges that the Trustee breached its fiduciary duty to bondholders by, inter alia, allowing the Consent Solicitation to be issued. Phoenix believes that the lawsuit is without merit and that no additional or amended disclosure is required to supplement the Consent Solicitation, and that no changes to the proposed supplemental indenture are required, under applicable laws; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Phoenix agreed, pursuant to the terms of a MOU, to: (a) revise the proposed Fourth Supplemental Indenture to make available to bondholders certain information in connection with Phoenix's reporting obligations under Section 704, as amended by the Fourth Supplemental Indenture, (b) make available financial statements and related information of Phoenix not only to current bondholders but also to prospective bondholders, securities analysts and market makers, as detailed in the supplemental disclosures to the Consent Solicitation, and (c) make certain other supplemental disclosures to the Consent Solicitation. On February 24, 2016, the parties to the Litigation (the "Settling Parties") entered into the MOU providing for the settlement of the Litigation, subject to the approval of the Court, among other things. The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue vigorously to deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Litigation. The MOU outlines the terms of the Settling Parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Litigation. The parties to the MOU will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the Court for final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. The stipulation of settlement will provide for, among other things, the release of any and all claims arising from or relating to the Consent Solicitation, subject to approval by the Court. The release will not become effective until the stipulation of settlement is approved by the Court. In connection with the settlement, subject to the ultimate determination of the Court, counsel for plaintiff may receive an award of reasonable fees. Neither this payment nor the settlement will affect the consent fee to be received by consenting Phoenix bondholders in the Consent Solicitation. There can be no assurance that the Settling Parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the Settling Parties were to enter into the stipulation. In such event the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. PK PROMOTIONS: "Haas" Suit Seeks Overtime Wage Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- GEORGIANNE HAAS and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PK PROMOTIONS, LLC, dba LOGOTOLOGY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01549-B (N.D. Tex., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an embroidery worker from March 2014 to April 18, 2016. Plaintiff worked approximately 46 hours per week and was paid approximately $13.00 per hour, but was not paid the extra halftime overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA. PK Promotions is a small organization in the business services industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq. URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC 5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 145E Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (214) 420 3366 Facsimile: (214) 206 9802 E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com urquidezlawfirm@gmail.com PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Updates on Line 901 Incident Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, provided updates on litigation related to Line 901 Incident. The Company said, "In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release from our Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following the release, we shut down the pipeline and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, subject to continued shoreline monitoring. The cause of the release remains under investigation. Our current "worst case" estimate of the amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum volume of oil that we believed could have been spilled based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935 barrels." "As a result of the Line 901 incident, several governmental agencies and regulators have initiated investigations into the Line 901 incident, various claims have been made against us and a number of lawsuits have been filed against us. We may be subject to additional claims, investigations and lawsuits, which could materially impact the liabilities and costs we currently expect to incur as a result of the Line 901 incident. "On May 21, 2015, we received a corrective action order from the United States Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ("PHMSA"), the governmental agency with jurisdiction over the operation of Line 901 as well as over a second stretch of pipeline extending from Gaviota Pump Station in Santa Barbara County to Emidio Pump Station in Kern County, California (Line 903), requiring us to shut down, purge, review, remediate and test Line 901. On June 3, 2015, the corrective action order was amended to require us to take additional corrective actions with respect to both Lines 901 and 903, and on November 13, 2015, the corrective action order was further amended to require the purge and shutdown of Line 903 between Gaviota and Pentland (as amended, the "CAO"). Among other requirements, the CAO also obligates us to conduct a root cause failure analysis with respect to Line 901 and present remedial work plans and restart plans to PHMSA prior to returning Line 901 and 903 to service; the CAO also imposes a pressure restriction on Line 903 and requires us to take other specified actions with respect to both Lines 901 and 903. We intend to continue to comply with the CAO and to cooperate with any other governmental investigations relating to or arising out of the release. Excavation and removal of the affected section of the pipeline was completed on May 28, 2015. Line 901 and Line 903 have been purged and are not currently operational. No timeline has been established for the restart of Line 901 or Line 903. On February 17, 2016, PHMSA issued a Preliminary Factual Report of the Line 901 failure, which contains PHMSA's preliminary findings regarding factual information about the events leading up to the accident and the technical analysis that has been conducted to date. By virtue of its statutory authority, PHMSA has the power and authority to impose fines and penalties on us and cause civil or criminal charges to be brought against us. While to date PHMSA has not imposed any such fines or penalties or pursued any such civil or criminal charges with respect to the Line 901 release, there can be no assurance that such fines or penalties will not be imposed upon us, or that such civil or criminal charges will not be brought against us, in the future. "On September 11, 2015, we received a Notice of Probable Violation and Proposed Compliance Order from PHMSA arising out of its inspection of Lines 901 and 903 in August, September and October of 2013 (the "2013 Audit NOPV"). The 2013 Audit NOPV alleges that the Partnership committed probable violations of various federal pipeline safety regulations by failing to document, or inadequately documenting, certain activities. On October 12, 2015, the Partnership filed a response to the 2013 Audit NOPV. To date, PHMSA has not issued a final order with respect to the 2013 Audit NOPV, nor has it assessed any fines or penalties with respect thereto; however, we cannot provide any assurances that any such fines or penalties will not be assessed against us. "In late May of 2015, on behalf of the EPA, the United States Attorney for the Department of Justice, Central District of California, Environmental Crimes Section ("DOJ") began an investigation into whether there were any violations of federal criminal statutes in connection with the Line 901 incident, including potential violations of the federal Clean Water Act. We are cooperating with the DOJ's investigation by responding to their requests for documents and access to our employees. The DOJ has already spoken to several of our employees and has expressed an interest in talking to other employees; consistent with the terms of our governing organizational documents, we are funding our employees' defense costs, including the costs of separate counsel engaged to represent such individuals. In addition to the DOJ, the California Attorney General's Office and the District Attorney's Office for the County of Santa Barbara are also investigating the Line 901 incident to determine whether any applicable state or local laws have been violated. On August 26, 2015, we also received a Request for Information from the EPA relating to Line 901 and we are in the process of responding to such request. While to date no civil or criminal charges with respect to the Line 901 release have been brought against PAA or any of its affiliates, officers or employees by PHMSA, DOJ, EPA, California Attorney General or Santa Barbara County District Attorney, and no fines or penalties have been imposed by such governmental agencies, there can be no assurance that such fines or penalties will not be imposed upon us, our officers or our employees, or that such civil or criminal charges will not be brought against us, our officers or our employees in the future, whether by those or other governmental agencies. "Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims line and we are processing those claims for payment as we receive them. In addition, we have also had eight class action lawsuits filed against us, seven of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release, including potential classes such as persons that derive a significant portion of their income through commercial fishing and harvesting activities in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from businesses that are dependent on marine resources from Santa Barbara County, retail businesses located in historic downtown Santa Barbara, certain owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release. "There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, deny the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters. "In addition, three unitholder derivative lawsuits have been filed by certain purported investors in the Partnership against the Partnership, certain of its affiliates and certain officers and directors. Two of these lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and the other was filed in State District Court in Harris County, Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in gross mismanagement and made false and misleading statements, among other similar allegations, in connection with their management and oversight of the Partnership during the period of time leading up to and following the Line 901 release. The plaintiffs claim that the Partnership suffered unspecified damages as a result of the actions of the various defendants and seek to hold the defendants liable for such damages, in addition to other remedies. The defendants deny the allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits. "We have also had two lawsuits filed against us in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware wherein the respective plaintiffs seek to compel the production of certain books and records that purportedly relate to the Line 901 incident, our alleged failure to comply with certain regulations and other matters. "In addition to the foregoing, as the "responsible party" for the Line 901 incident we are liable for various costs and for certain natural resource damages under the Oil Pollution Act, and we also have exposure to the payment of additional fines, penalties and costs under other applicable federal, state and local laws, statutes and regulations. To the extent any such costs are reasonably estimable, we have included an estimate of such costs in the loss accrual described below. "Taking the foregoing into account, as of March 31, 2016, we estimate that the aggregate total costs we have incurred or will incur with respect to the Line 901 incident will be approximately $269 million, which estimate includes actual and projected emergency response and clean-up costs, natural resource damage assessments and certain third party claims settlements, as well as estimates for fines, penalties and certain legal fees. This estimate considers our prior experience in environmental investigation and remediation matters and available data from, and in consultation with, our environmental and other specialists, as well as currently available facts and presently enacted laws and regulations. We have made assumptions for (i) the expected number of days that monitoring services will be required, (ii) the duration of the natural resource damage assessment and the ultimate amount of damages determined, (iii) the resolution of certain third party claims and lawsuits, but excluding claims and lawsuits with respect to which losses are not probable and reasonably estimable, and excluding future claims and lawsuits, (iv) the determination and calculation of fines and penalties, but excluding fines and penalties that are not probable and reasonably estimable and (v) the nature, extent and cost of legal services that will be required in connection with all lawsuits, claims and other matters requiring legal or expert advice associated with the Line 901 incident. Our estimate does not include any lost revenue associated with the shutdown of Line 901 or 903 and does not include any liabilities or costs that are not reasonably estimable at this time or that relate to contingencies where we currently regard the likelihood of loss as being only reasonably possible or remote. We believe we have accrued adequate amounts for all probable and reasonably estimable costs; however, this estimate is subject to uncertainties associated with the assumptions that we have made. For example, the amount of time it takes for us to resolve all of the current and future lawsuits, claims and investigations that relate to the Line 901 incident could turn out to be significantly longer than we have assumed, and as a result the costs we incur for legal services could be significantly higher than we have estimated. In addition, with respect to fines and penalties, the ultimate amount of any fines and penalties assessed against us depends on a wide variety of factors, many of which are not estimable at this time. Where fines and penalties are probable and estimable, we have included them in our estimate, although such estimates could turn out to be wrong. Accordingly, our assumptions and estimates may turn out to be inaccurate and our total costs could turn out to be materially higher; therefore, we can provide no assurance that we will not have to accrue significant additional costs in the future with respect to the Line 901 incident. "As of March 31, 2016, we had a remaining undiscounted gross liability of $104 million related to this event, the majority of which is presented as a current liability in "Accounts payable and accrued liabilities" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. We maintain insurance coverage, which is subject to certain exclusions and deductibles, in the event of such environmental liabilities. Subject to such exclusions and deductibles, we believe that our coverage is adequate to cover the current estimated total emergency response and clean-up costs, claims settlement costs and remediation costs and we believe that this coverage is also adequate to cover any potential increase in the estimates for these costs that exceed the amounts currently identified. Through March 31, 2016, we had collected, subject to customary reservations, $112 million out of the approximate $186 million of release costs that we believe are probable of recovery from insurance carriers, net of deductibles. Therefore, as of March 31, 2016, we have recognized a receivable of approximately $74 million for the portion of the release costs that we believe is probable of recovery from insurance, net of deductibles and amounts already collected. A majority of this receivable has been recognized as a current asset in "Trade accounts receivable and other receivables, net" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. We have substantially completed the clean-up and remediation efforts, excluding long-term site monitoring activities; however, we expect to make payments for additional costs associated with restoration and monitoring of the area, as well as natural resource damage assessment, legal, professional and regulatory costs, in addition to fines and penalties, during future periods. RED WING: "Zajac" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Withheld Tips -------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Zajac, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Red Wing, LLC, Cecil Crowley, individually, Dianne Crowley, individually and John Doe 1-10, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01856-PMD (D.S.C., June 8, 2016), seeks damages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Red's is a South Carolina limited liability company maintaining offices and agents in the county of Charleston, state of South Carolina and operates a restaurant "Red's Ice House" owned by Cecil Crowley and Dianne Crowley. Zajac was employed by Red's as a server and bartender and claims to be paid below minimum wage rates and that her tips with illegally withheld. Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce E. Miller, Esq. BRUCE E.MILLER, P.A. 147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603 Charleston, SC 29412 Tel: 843.579.7373 Fax: 843.614.6417 Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com RESOURCE CAPITAL: Motion to Dismiss Complaint Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Resource Capital Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss anamended complaint remains pending. In September 2015, Daren Levin filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015. In November 2015, the Court appointed Douglas Drees as the lead plaintiff in the action, and thereafter entered a stipulation and order directing the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. In February 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the Company and certain of its officers and directors materially misrepresented certain risks of its commercial loan portfolio and its processes and controls for assessing the quality of its portfolio. Based on these allegations, the amended complaint asserts claims for violation of the securities laws and seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. In April 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains pending. SAMI'S PITA: "Alhassan" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ FERAS ALHASSAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAMI'S PITA BAKERY, INC. a Florida Corporation, and SAMI CHEBAB, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01490-EAK-MAP (M.D. Fla., June 9, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff was hired as a baker in August, 2015 and was paid an hourly rate. The Plaintiff worked overtime, but Defendants allegedly did not pay overtime pursuant to the FLSA. Sami's Pita is a bakery. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, #600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223 5505 Facsimile: (813) 257 0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Hall" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Holly Hall, Paul Danner, Valerie Simo, Joyce Kuhl and Elaine Browne filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled Holly Hall, et al. v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00660-CAB-RBB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 30, 2016, the Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo dismissed the Case after finding that the Plaintiffs failed to address the problems identified this past December when the Court granted them leave to amend their complaint. The consolidated complaint began as three separate class actions brought against SeaWorld by consumers, who bought tickets to attend the Company's parks in San Diego, San Antonio and Orlando. The Plaintiffs claimed that had they known the theme park mistreated its orcas they would have never purchased tickets. The appellate case is captioned as Holly Hall, et al. v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 16-55845, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellants Holly Hall, Paul Danner, Valerie Simo, Joyce Kuhl and Elaine Browne are represented by: Steve Berman, Esq. Robert F. Lopez, Esq. Shayne Christopher Stevenson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com robl@hbsslaw.com shaynes@hbsslaw.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Ave. Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com Defendant-Appellee Seaworld Entertainment, Inc., is represented by: Rebecca E. Bazan, Esq. John Morgan Simpson, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001-4501 Telephone: (202) 662-0200 E-mail: rebecca.bazan@nortonrosefulbright.com john.simpson@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Gregory S. Gabriel, Esq. Lawrence Y. Iser, Esq. Kristen Louise Spanier, Esq. KINSELLA WEITZMAN ISERKUMP & ALDISERT LLP 808 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 566-9800 Facsimile: (310) 566-9869 E-mail: ggabriel@kwikalaw.com liser@kwikalaw.com kspanier@kwikalaw.com - and - Michelle C. Pardo, Esq. FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI LLP 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20004-2615 Telephone: (202) 662-4553 Facsimile: (202) 662-4643 E-mail: michelle.pardo@nortonrosefulbright.com SEVERN TRENT: Lowrimore Appeals E.D. Okla. Ruling to 10th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Tara Lowrimore filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled Lowrimore v. Severn Trent Environmental, et al., Case No. 6:15-CV-00475-RAW, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma - Muskogee. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 25, 2016, Judge Ronald A. White granted Severn Trent's motion to dismiss the Case. A full-text copy of Judge White's May 16, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/GQpuhV from Leagle.com. The Action was brought on behalf of "a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities residing in and/or located in the city of Hugo, Oklahoma, and all surrounding area which are serviced by the Hugo Water Treatment Plant operated under the contract between Severn Trent and the Hugo Municipal Authority." The petition sought "actual and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $10,000," restitution and injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as Lowrimore v. Severn Trent Environmental, et al., Case No. 16-7047, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant Tara Lowrimore is represented by: Billy Don Griffin, Esq. Jon Williford, Esq. GRIFFIN, REYNOLDS & ASSOCIATES 210 South East 89th Street Oklahoma City, OK 73149 Telephone: (405) 721-9500 E-mail: billy@griffinreynoldslaw.com jon@griffinreynoldslaw.com Defendant-Appellee Severn Trent Environmental Services, Inc., is represented by: Timila S. Rother, Esq. Erin Potter Sullenger, Esq. Mary Ellen Ternes, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: (405) 272-5226 E-mail: timila.rother@crowedunlevy.com erinpotter.sullenger@crowedunlevy.com maryellen.ternes@crowedunlevy.com SOUTH SHORE HOSPITAL: "Shelton" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Arrion L. Shelton, on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. South Shore Hospital, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06011 (N.D. Ill., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover back pay equal to the amount of all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. South Shore operates a hospital where Plaintiff worked as a nurse. Shelton claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 853-1450 SUFFOLK COUNTY: "Smith" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- David Smith, Dawn Ruggiero and Jodi Pagel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. County of Suffolk, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02951 (E.D. N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Plaintiffs worked for the Suffolk County Police Department as Public Safety Dispatchers. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neil H. Greenberg, Esq. NEIL H. GREENBERG AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 314 Westbury, NY 11590 Tel: (516) 228-5100 TARGET CORP: Just Appeals Minnesota Court Ruling to 8th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Thomas J. Just filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit titled Thomas J. Just v. Target Corporation, Case No. 0:15-cv-04117-DWF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 3, 2016, District Court Judge Donovan Frank dismissed the Action by granting the Target's motion to dismiss earlier in May. The Plaintiff alleges that the popular retail chain included "impermissible" and "extraneous" information in a background check disclosure. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, if an employer intends to obtain a report about a job applicant, the employer must notify the applicant. Such notification must be in a separate document without any unrelated information. The appellate case is captioned as Thomas J. Just v. Target Corporation, Case No. 16-2708, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Christopher Daniel Jozwiak, Esq. Shawn J. Wanta, Esq. BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP 100 S Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 252-3570 E-mail: cjozwiak@baillonthome.com sjwanta@baillonthome.com Defendant-Appellee Target Corporation is represented by: Katie Connolly, Esq. Donald Marion Lewis, Esq. Sarah B.C. Riskin, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS, PA 400 One Financial Plaza 120 S. Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 305-7500 E-mail: kconnolly@nilanjohnson.com dlewis@nilanjohnson.com sriskin@nilanjohnson.com TATE SCHOOL DISTRICT: Court Grants Bid to Substitute Plaintiffs --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffie McNeal, Jessie Mae Carter, Pearlene McGhee, Adell Davis, Timothy Lee, and Minnie Mae Moore filed on April 27, 1970, a complaint on behalf of their children, also named in the complaint, alleging that the Tate County School District (District) and its Board of Education were operating an unconstitutional dual education system. The same plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the same substantive allegations on June 8, 1970. On August 4, 1970, United States District Judge Orma R. Smith entered an order enjoining the District from operating a dual system and directing the operation of a "unitary school system as required by the Supreme Court of the United States." The desegregation case is before the Court on: (1) the motion of Tate County School District to expedite review of its motion to modify attendance zone lines; (2) the motion of Jessie Edwards, and a group of other concerned citizens and parents of children attending schools within the Tate County School District, for an enlargement of time to respond to the motion to modify; and (3) the motion for substitution of certain parents of children who are current students in the Tate County School District. In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/6UMSRz from Leagle.com, District Judge Debra M. Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted the motion for substitution, concluding that injustice would occur if substitution was not allowed and that the proposed plaintiffs identified in the motion to substitute have standing to pursue the action. The Court denied as moot the motion for intervention because the motion is untimely, and because the proposed plaintiffs do not have standing because they have failed to identify an injurious and remediable action of the district and because the proposed modification would not injure them. The Court also denied as moot the motion for extension finding it prudent to supplement the record on these topics by requesting additional briefing from the District and Plaintiffs, reserving the right to set the matter for hearing if the Court deems such necessary. The motion to expedite is granted in part as appropriate as to altering attendance zones in the case and denied as impossible as to the time for briefing expended on the other motions. The case is captioned, KELLY McNEAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TATE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-04748- TEH (N.D. Miss.). Tate County School District, et al. are represented by: Jamie Ferguson Jacks, Esq. JACKS LUCIANO, P.A. 150 N Sharpe Ave, Cleveland, MS 38732 Tel: (662)843-6171 - and - John Thomas Lamar, III, Esq. Leon E. Hannaford, Jr., Esq. John Thomas Lamar, Jr., Esq. LAMAR & HANNAFORD, P.A. 214 S Ward St, Senatobia, MS 38668 Tel: (662)562-6537 TERRAPIN ENERGY: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM F. ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TERRAPIN ENERGY SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01346-CBS (D. Col., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff seeks: a. an Order certifying this class action under Rule 23 for the purposes of the claims under New Mexico law; b. an Order certifying this case as a collective action for the purposes of the FLSA claims; c. an Order finding Defendant liable for violations of state and federal wage laws with respect to Plaintiff and all FLSA and NMMWA Class Members covered by this case; d. a Judgment awarding all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, treble damages, to Plaintiff and all FLSA and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA) Class Members covered by this case; e. a Judgment awarding Plaintiff and all FLSA and NMMWA Class Members covered by this case their costs of this action; f. a Judgment awarding Plaintiff and all FLSA and NMMWA Class Members covered by this case their attorneys' fees; g. a Judgment awarding Plaintiff and all FLSA and NMMWA Class Members covered by this case pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law; and h. For all such other and further relief as may be necessary and appropriate. The Plaintiff was typically scheduled to work 12 hour shifts for weeks at a time. Regardless of the actual amount of hours worked, Plaintiff never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a single work week. Terrapin is an oil field services company providing directional drilling services throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson Lindsay R. Itkin Andrew Dunlap Jessica M. Bresler FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: 713-751 0025 Facsimile: 713-751 0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713-877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com TESCO CORPORATION: Arbitrators Dismissed Employees' Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Tesco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that arbitrators have dismissed the employees' claims with prejudice. The Company participated in an arbitration, based on the Company's dispute resolution process, with 38 current and former employees (the "Employees") who had worked or are working in various states. The Employees claimed that they were owed unpaid overtime wages including liquidated damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act and the applicable state laws of various states, including New Mexico and Colorado. The case was assigned to a three-judge panel of arbitrators. On October 22, 2015, an arbitration panel agreed that the case could proceed as a class action. The Company settled the matter with the Employees through a signed settlement agreement. The Company submitted a proposed dismissal order to the arbitrators and the arbitrators dismissed the Employees' claims with prejudice on May 3, 2016. At March 31, 2016 and as of the date of this report, the Company maintains an estimated reserve for potential exposure. TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Appeal Ongoing ----------------------------------------- Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs' appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending. In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint made claims against Tesla and our CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk made false and/or misleading representations and omissions, including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013 and November 17, 2013. On September 26, 2014, the trial court, upon the motion of Tesla and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and thereafter issued a formal written order to that effect. The plaintiffs have appealed from the trial court's order, and that appeal is pending. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. TEXAS: Inmates' Amended Class Certification Bid Okayed ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned, KEITH COLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al., Defendants, Case No. D067687 (S.D. Tex.). The named Plaintiffs are six inmates who live in the Wallace Pack Unit, a medical and geriatric prison operated by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Plaintiffs claim that the conditions inside the Pack Unit -- in particular, the lack of climate control leading to the prisoners' prolonged exposure to extreme heat during the summer months -- violate their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They also bring claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that TDCJ has refused to make reasonable accommodations for prisoners with disabilities that render them especially vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat. Plaintiffs seek to certify one General Class and two subclasses. An evidentiary hearing was held on the matter on May 27, 2016, June 1, 2016, and June 2, 2016, during which time the Court heard from four expert witnesses. In his Memorandum and Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/t698DP from Leagle.com, Judge Ellison concluded the Plaintiffs satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. David Bailey, Marvin Ray Yates, Keith Cole and Nicholas Diaz are represented by Wallis Anne Nader, Esq. -- wallis@texascivilrightsproject.com -- James C. Harrington, Esq. -- james@texascivilrightsproject.com -- and Nicholas Krause, Esq. -- nicholas@texascivilrightsproject.com -- TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT, Scott Charles Medlock, Esq. -- smedlock@edwardslawok.com -- and Jeffrey S. Edwards, Esq. -- medwards@edwardslawok.com -- THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM They are also represented by: Brian Rolland McGiverin, Esq. DIETZ, LAWRENCE & MCGIVERIN 2221 Hancock Dr Austin, TX 78756 Tel: (512)387-0718 Jackie Brannum, Richard Elvin King, Dean Anthony Mojica, Ray Wilson and Fred Wallace are represented by Andrew D. Pennebaker, Esq. -- dpennebaker@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- Jeremy L. Doyle, Esq. -- doyle@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- and Nathan M. Smith, Esq. -- nsmith@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- REYNOLDS FRIZZELL LLP, James C. Harrington, Esq. -- james@texascivilrightsproject.com -- TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT -- and Scott Charles Medlock, Esq. -- smedlock@edwardslawok.com -- and Jeffrey S. Edwards, Esq. -- medwards@edwardslawok.com -- THE EDWARDS LAW FIRM They are also represented by: Michael C. Singley, Esq. SINGLEY LAW FIRM 4131 Spicewood Springs Rd #3 Austin, TX 78759 Tel: (512)334-4302 - and - Brian Rolland McGiverin, Esq. DIETZ, LAWRENCE & MCGIVERIN 2221 Hancock Dr, Austin, TX 78756 Tel: (512)387-0718 Brad Livingston, Roberto M. Herrera and Texas Department of Criminal Justice are represented by: Amanda Marie Kates, Esq. Cynthia Burton, Esq. Derek Josef Kammerlocher, Esq. Daniel Christopher Neuhoff, Esq. Kevin Andrew Moczygemba, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202)353-1555 - and - Matthew J. Greer, Esq. Patricia M. Tulinski, Esq. OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL 200 N Broadway Ave # 200 Tyler, TX 75702 Tel: (903)595-6900 TREMCO INC: Slippery Rock Must Amend Class Suit, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted, in part, a motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations in the case captioned, SLIPPERY ROCK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TREMCO, INC., WEATHERPROOFING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and RPM INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-1020 (W.D. Pa.). On August 4, 2015, plaintiff Slippery Rock Area School District filed a diversity action against defendants Tremco, Inc. (Tremco), Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc. (Weatherproofing), and RPM International, Inc. On December 23, 2015, after defendants filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike class allegations, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On January 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint for count I: fraudulent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania common law; count II: intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania common law; count III: fraudulent concealment under Pennsylvania common law; and count IV: negligence under Pennsylvania common law. In the motion, the defendants argue plaintiff failed to plausibly allege claims for fraudulent concealment and negligence and its class allegations are insufficient, and, therefore, should be stricken from the second amended complaint. In her Opinion dated June 9, 2016 available at https://is.gd/wnMW13 from Leagle.com, Judge Conti held that Plaintiff in the second amended complaint does not plausibly allege that plaintiff and defendants had a fiduciary relationship or any additional facts that plausibly show defendants' alleged omissions with respect to the quality of their products was "extreme" or "shocking" and gave rise to a duty to disclose to plaintiff that the products were not superior or premium. With respect to the alleged high failure rates of defendants' roofing products, the allegations in the second amended complaint are not substantively different from the allegations in the first amended complaint. The court will grant defendants' motion to strike class allegations and plaintiff's class allegations will be stricken from the second amended complaint. Plaintiff may seek leave of court to file a third amended complaint that is consistent with the rules of law discussed in the opinion. SLIPPERY ROCK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT are represented by D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. -- ahpierce@aaronpiercelaw.com -- PEIRCE LAW OFFICES, N. Scott Carpenter, Esq. -- scarpenter@cstriallaw.com -- and Rebecca E. Bell-Stanton, Esq. -- rstanton@cstriallaw.com -- CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER PC TREMCO, INC., et al. are represented by James M. Jones, Esq. -- jmjones@jonesday.com -- Roy A. Powell, Esq. -- rapowell@jonesday.com -- Brian J. Murray, Esq. -- bjmurray@jonesday.com -- David Michael Belczyk, Esq. -- dmbelczyk@jonesday.com -- Katelyn M. Matscherz, Esq. -- kmmatscherz@jonesday.com -- and Meghan S. Bean, Esq. -- msbean@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY TRI BORO: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ Manuel Gomez, Carlos Sanango, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Tri Boro Waterproofing Inc., A. (first name unknown) Mahmood, Mohammad Iqbal, "John" (first name unknown) Iqbal, John Doe and Jane Doe No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02953 (E.D.N.Y., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaints, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Tri Boro is an interior construction company with its principal place of business at Long Island City, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com TRUECAR INC: Still Defends NY Lanham Act Litigation --------------------------------------------------- TRUECAR, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and deceptive acts or practices related to the Company's advertising and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs' dealerships to TrueCar Certified Dealers. On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 6, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to some, but not all, of the advertising and promotional activities challenged in the amended complaint. The Company believes that the portions of the amended complaint that survived the Company's motion to dismiss are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. "We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable," the Company said. TRUECAR INC: Appeal in Federal Securities Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ TRUECAR, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal in the Federal Securities Litigation remains pending. On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Federal Securities Litigation") by Satyabrata Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to name Scott Painter, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, and Michael Guthrie, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants named in the complaint. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. As amended, the complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's business practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) the Company acts as a dealer and broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in violation of various states' laws that govern car sales (i.e., the issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's registration statements, prospectuses, quarterly and annual reports, financial statements, SEC filings, press releases, and other statements and documents were materially false and misleading at times relevant to the amended complaint and putative class period. The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to July 23, 2015. On October 19, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 9, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its entirety. On January 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. "We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable," the Company said. TRUECAR INC: Initial Status Conference in "Rose" Case Rescheduled ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRUECAR, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the initial status conference in the lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose will be rescheduled for another date. On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the "California Consumer Class Action"). The complaint asserts claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA Litigation. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers defined as "[a]ll California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable statute of limitations." On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference, which was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was not held on April 13, 2016, and will be rescheduled for another date. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. "We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of March 31, 2016 or December 31, 2015, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable," the Company said. TVC OPUS I: Settlement in "Siegal" Suit Has Preliminarily Okay -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval the settlement agreement in the case captioned, STEVEN SIEGAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. G. THOMAS GAMBLE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03570-RS (N.D. Cal.). In his Order dated June 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/33nK89 from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that the Settlement agreement meets all the prerequisites of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for class certification. The Court preliminary certified a class of "All persons and entities who purchased securities issued by or on behalf of TVC Opus I Drilling Program, L.P., directly or indirectly, personally or through aggregators (the Settlement Class). Excluded from the Settlement Class are all defendants in the Siegal Action, including their parent companies and subsidiaries, and members of their nuclear families, and any member of the judiciary presiding over this action." The Court appointed CPT Group, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator, Edward S. Zusman, Kevin K. Eng, and Markun Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP as Counsel for the Settlement Class, and Steven Siegal, James Rybicki, David Groblebe, individually and as General Partner of Grobco II, and Christian Wipf as Settlement Class Representatives. The parties are directed to file all papers in support of the application for final approval of the settlement, and/or any papers in response to any valid and timely objections no later than September 15, 2016. Steven Siegal, James Rybicki, David Groblebe and Christian Wipf are represented by Edward Scott Zusman, Esq. -- ezusman@mzclaw.com -- and Kevin K. Eng, Esq. -- keng@mzclaw.com -- MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP -- and John R. Fabry, Esq. -- peter.fabry@luther-lawfirm.com -- FABRY LAW FIRM G. Thomas Gamble is represented by James Mark Neudecker, Esq. - jneudecker@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP Loren J. Miller, Henry Lowenstein and Paul W. Bateman are represented by Simona Gurevich Strauss, Esq. -- gstrauss@stblaw.com -- and Stephen Patrick Blake, Esq. -- sblake@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER BARTLETT LLP U.S. WELL SERVICES: "Decker" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- DARREN DECKER and DAVID RUPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:2016-cv-00755 (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2016), seeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA), the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Ohio Constitution and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA): a. designation of this action as an FLSA collection action. b. certification of the Ohio Class as a class action, and the appointment of Plaintiff Decker and his counsel to represent the Members of the Ohio Class. c. certification of the Pennsylvania Class as a class action pursuant and the appointment of Plaintiff Rupp and his counsel to represent the members of the Pennsylvania Class. d. a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful under the FLSA, PMWA, OMFWSA. e. an injunction requiring Defendant to cease its unlawful practices under, and comply with, the PMWA and OMFWSA. f. an award of unpaid wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week at a rate of time and one-half the regular rate of pay due under the FLSA, PMWA and OMFWSA. g. an award of liquidated damages and/or punitive damages as a result of Defendant's willful failure to pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. h. an award of damages pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code of an amount equal to six per cent of the amount of the claim still unpaid and not in contest or disputed or two hundred dollars i. an award of statutory damages. j. an award of damages representing the employers' share of FICA, FUTA, state unemployment insurance, and any other required employment taxes. k. an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest. l. an award of costs and expense of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert feeds. m. such other relief as this Court deem just and proper. U.S. Well provides well stimulation services to the upstream oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 2500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 1918 Telephone: (412) 281 7229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470 3520 - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 429 2290 UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for January 2017 in "Morgate" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that trial is scheduled for January 2017 in the case, Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al. UPS and its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. Trial is scheduled for January 2017. * * * United Parcel Service, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, also provided updates the case by AFMS LLC. The Company said, "In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in federal court in the Central District of California in August 2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such negotiators. UPS and FedEx have moved for summary judgment. The Court granted these motions on April 30, 2015, entered judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx, and dismissed the case. On May 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company also said, "The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") has an open civil investigation of our policies and practices for dealing with third-party negotiators. We have cooperated with this investigation. We deny any liability with respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from these matters including: (1) the DOJ investigation is pending; (2) the Court granted our motion for summary judgment; and (3) plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity." UNITED PARCEL: Ontario Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend one outstanding class action lawsuit in Ontario. The Company said, "In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario." "There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity." VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over 2.0L TSI Engines Tensioner Defect ------------------------------------------------------------- UMAR ELLAHIE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, AUDI AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, and AUDI OF AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03319-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., June 8, 2016), seeks redress for Defendants' violations of California's consumer fraud statutes and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act in relation to 2.0L TSI Engines Tensioner Defect. The Plaintiff also seeks to recover monetary costs associated with attempting to repair such defect, and recovery for Defendants' breach of implied warranty, and common law fraud. The case arose from Defendants' failure, despite their longstanding knowledge of a material design defect, to disclose to Plaintiff and other consumers that the Class Vehicles' 2.0L TSI engines contain timing chain tensioners that are defective and fail prematurely (Tensioner Defect). The Tensioner Defect can cause engine failure while the Class Vehicles are in operation at any time and under any driving condition or speed. This exposes the driver and occupants of the Class Vehicles, as well as others who share the road with them, to an increased risk of accident, injury, or death. Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in Herndon, Virginia The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (909) 557 1250 E-mail: JGS@mccunewright.com MDS@mccunewright.com JBK@mccunewright.com - and - Paul Scarlato, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 342 0700 Facsimile: (484) 580 8729 E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com WASHINGTON EMPLOYEES CREDIT: Court Narrows "Wodja" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Defendant Washington State Employees Credit Union's (WSECU) motion to dismiss in the case captioned, TODD WODJA, individually and on behalf of all other individually situated, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. C15-5693 BHS (W.D. Wash.). On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff Todd Wodja (Wodja) filed a class action complaint against WSECU asserting claims for breach of contract, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA), RCW Chapter 19.86, unjust enrichment/restitution, money had and received, negligence, and Electronic Funds Transfer Act. According to the complaint, Wodja alleges that he was improperly charged overdraft fees. Wodja opened an account at WSECU. The account came with a debit card and access to automatic teller machines (ATMs). WSECU contends, and Wodja does not dispute, that the parties entered into a membership and account agreement. In addition, WSECU sent Wodja a separate, two-page document conveying information regarding WSECU's discretionary overdraft privilege policy and WSECU's overdraft services disclosure. WSECU seeks to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In his Order dated June 9, 2016 available at https://is.gd/hNzqad from Leagle.com, Judge Settle granted the motion to dismiss as to unjust enrichment claim because Wodja's breach of contract claim is based on interpretation of the contract, not impossibility or failure of the relevant contract; and denied as to breach of contract claim because Wodja has alleged sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. Todd Wodja is represented by A. Richard Dykstra, Esq. -- jebb@techsectorlaw.com -- and Richard H. Friedman, Esq. -- rickfriedman@hotmail.com -- FRIEDMAN RUBIN, Eddie Jae K. Kim, Esq. -- jkk@mccunewright.com -- and Richard D. McCune, Esq. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCUNE WRIGHT, LLP, Taras Kick Kihiczak, Esq. -- and Thomas Segal, Esq. -- THE KICK LAW FIRM Washington State Employees Credit Union is represented by: John T. Drake, Esq. Tim J. Filer, Esq. FOSTER PEPPER PLLC 618 W Riverside Ave #300 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509)777-1600 WEB.COM GROUP: Calif. Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------- Web.com Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on February 2, 2016 alleging that the Company violated the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Data Breach Act and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from the data breach discovered and disclosed by the Company in August 2015, and seeking unspecified monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other relief was voluntarily dismissed on March 4, 2016. WEIGHT WATCHERS: Defending Against "Roberts" Case in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that the Company is defending against the case, Raymond Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc. On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of contract and violations of the New York General Business Law. On February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court, Sothern District of New York. On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that, as a result of the temporary glitches in the Company's website and app in November and December 2015, the Company has: (1) breached its Subscription Agreement with its OnlinePlus members; and (2) engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section 350 of the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as his attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. WILLIS TOWERS: Plaintiffs Seek $1.7 Million in Attorneys' Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case, In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, plaintiffs have filed a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting an aggregate fee and expense award of at least $1.7 million. Five putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015), Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31, 2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB (filed on August 24, 2015). The Stein action was voluntarily dismissed on July 28, 2015. These complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Towers Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers Watson stockholders. The complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the Merger, and generally alleged that Towers Watson's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaints also alleged that Willis and the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the Merger aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Towers Watson directors. On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, and Cordell actions (the Mills action had not yet been filed) and any other actions then pending or thereafter filed arising out of the same issues of fact under the caption In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11270-CB. On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action and in Mills filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions from a preliminary proxy statement and prospectus for the Merger dated August 27, 2015. On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction, which motions plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew on October 19, 2015. On December 14, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On April 1, 2016, the court consolidated the Mills action into the consolidated action. On April 18, 2016, the court dismissed the consolidated action as moot, set a briefing schedule for plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' fee and expense application for June 28, 2016. On April 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting an aggregate fee and expense award of at least $1.7 million. Based on all of the information to date, the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The defendants intend to vigorously oppose plaintiff's fee and expense application. Willis Towers Watson provides both specialized risk management advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities, and services to small, medium and large corporations through its retail operations. WILLIS TOWERS: Inks Settlement Over Stanford Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has entered into a settlement in principle relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group ('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The 13 actions are as follows: * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants- appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9- 22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague. * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. We believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are likely to be reinstated. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar. On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala- Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court. * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order. As discussed above, on March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre- trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre- trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting standards. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and we have therefore increased our provisions by $50 million. The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford, which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Settlement-in-Principle. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company has agreed to the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if the settlement and the related bar orders are approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly- combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provides that the parties understand and agree that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation. Specifically, the parties to the Settlement Term Sheet are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc. and Willis of Colorado, Inc. (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the parties have agreed in principle to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford. If the settlement, including the bar orders described below, is approved by the Court and is not subject to further appeal, Willis North America Inc. will make a one-time cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made. The Company expects the Actions to be stayed pending final approval of the settlement agreement and bar orders. The timing of any final decision is subject to the discretion of the Court and any appeal, and the Court may decide not to approve the settlement. The Settlement Term Sheet also provides the parties' agreement to seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not. The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford- related litigation described above, and not just the Actions, including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the settlement. The settlement is also subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and other related documentation, notice to Stanford's investor claimants, and approval by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Willis Towers Watson provides both specialized risk management advisory, broking and consulting services on a global basis to clients engaged in specific industrial and commercial activities, and services to small, medium and large corporations through its retail operations. WISCONSIN: Court Keeps Order Dismissing Suit v. Corrections Dept. ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute in the case captioned, ROBERT L. TATUM, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD WALL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-1435 (E.D. Wis.). On May 5, 2016, the Court issued an order screening the plaintiff's class action complaint. The Court declined to certify a class because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Next, the Court determined that the plaintiff could not proceed on his claim against the 41 defendants alleging the Wisconsin Department of Corrections' custom of a "Blue Code of Silence" was the moving force behind his allegations because the plaintiff's conspiracy claim was implausible. Lastly, the Court found that the plaintiff's complaint against the 41 defendants violated Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20 insofar as it advanced unrelated claims against unrelated defendants. The Court directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint incorporating only properly related claims if he wanted to proceed and advised the plaintiff that failure to file an amended complaint might result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute. In the motion for reconsideration, the plaintiff contends that the Court erred because, (1) the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action since the plaintiff consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636; (2) the Court erroneously determined that the plaintiff's complaint allegations were implausible; (3) the Court directed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint and stated that if he failed to file an amended complaint the case might be dismissed for failure to prosecute; and (4) the Court denied class certification based on the plaintiff's pro se status. In his Decision and Order dated June 14, 2016 available at https://is.gd/W2cqSo from Leagle.com, Judge Randa held that the plaintiff has not shown that the Court's May 5, 2016, order contains a manifest error of law and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or before July 7, 2016. WORLD WRESTLING: Dispositive Motions Due Aug. 1 in Singleton Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso, discovery was to be completed by June 1, 2016 and dispositive motions filed by August 1, 2016. On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed, and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers. On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015. On January 16, 2015 a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes. On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum- selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015. On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint and, on November 16, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class actions. On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier, individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James, as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further allege that the injuries contributed to these former talents' deaths. WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum- selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which motions were granted by the respective courts. On November 23, 2015, amended complaints were filed in Frazier and Osborne, which the Company moved to dismiss on December 16, 2015 and December 21, 2015, respectively. Lastly, on June 29, 2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane Does seeking a declaration against these former performers that their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred. On September 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the Company opposed. The Court previously ordered a stay of discovery in all cases pending decisions on the motions to dismiss. On January 15, 2016, the Court partially lifted the stay and permitted discovery only on three issues in the case involving Singleton and LoGrasso. Such discovery is to be completed by June 1, 2016 and dispositive motions filed by August 1, 2016. On March 21, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum of decision granting in part and denying in part the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes, Singleton/LoGrasso, and McCullough lawsuits. The Court granted the Company's motions to dismiss the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits in their entirety and granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit except for the claim of fraud by omission. On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order dismissing the Windham lawsuit based on the Court's memorandum of decision on the motions to dismiss. On April 4, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court's decision not to dismiss the fraud by omission claim in the Singleton/LoGrasso lawsuit and, on April 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court dismissal of the Windham lawsuit. On April 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed notices of appeal of the Haynes and McCullough lawsuits. On April 27, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit. The Company intends to continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously. WORLD WRESTLING: No Appeal Filed Over Dismissal of "Ganues" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs in the cases by Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale and by Curtis Swanson did not appeal the dismissal of their cases. On July 26, 2014, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A. Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE's domestic television license. The complaint seeks certain unspecified damages. A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later entitled Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A. Barrios. Both lawsuits are purported securities class actions subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"). On September 23-24, five putative plaintiffs filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases pursuant to the PSLRA. Following a hearing on October 29, 2014, the Court issued an order dated November 5, 2014 appointing Mohsin Ansari as lead plaintiff and consolidating the two actions. On January 5, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Among other things, the amended complaint adds Stephanie McMahon Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson as named defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and, on March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motion, dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety and ordering that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs did not appeal. WU'S PANDA: "Landa" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELIAS HERNANDEZ LANDA, and RUBEN GALVAN MERENO, the Plaintiffs, v. XIONG WU and QI YONG CHEN, and WU'S PANDA HUT RESTAURANT, LLC the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00691 (E.D. Wisc., June 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Galvan a flat rate of $1,900 each month for the initial eight months of his employment, and subsequently paid him $2,200 each month, regardless of the number of hours worked. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs time and one-half premium compensation for each hour worked over forty hours in a workweek. Wu's Panda Hut Restaurant is a Chinese-food restaurant that provides dine-in, carry-out, and delivery services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Bykhovsky, Esq. BYKHOVSKY LAW LLC 4465 N. Oakland Ave., Ste. 110 Shorewood, WI 53211 Telephone: (414) 616 1655 E-mail: euegene@byklaw.com YAHOO! INC: Motion to Dismiss "Buch" Lawsuit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v. David Filo, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain of its current and former directors. The complaint asserts both derivative claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class action claims, purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated stockholders, relating to the termination of, and severance payments made to, our former chief operating officer, Henrique de Castro. The plaintiff alleges that certain current and former board members breached their fiduciary duties by enabling or acquiescing in the payment of severance to Mr. de Castro, and by allowing Yahoo to make allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the value of his severance. The plaintiff has also asserted claims against Mr. de Castro. The plaintiff seeks to recoup the severance paid to Mr. de Castro, an equitable accounting, disgorgement in favor of Yahoo, monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the action." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC Report. Yahoo! Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries, is a guide to digital information discovery, focused on informing, connecting, and entertaining users through its search, communications, and digital content products. ********* 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 * * *