/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160713.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 13, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 139 Headlines A&S ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Louis" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA AECOM: Settlement Reached in Class Action v. Australian Unit AKORN INC: Still Defends Shareholder Action in Illinois ALIBABA GROUP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Christine Asia Suit ALIBABA GROUP: Briefing on Demurrer to Be Completed in July 2016 AMERICAN HONDA: "Pfeiffer" Sues Over Lack of Auto-Off Feature ASCENA RETAIL: ANN Inc. Merger Litigation Dismissed BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Fund Files Antitrust Lawsuit Over SSAs BELL MOBILITY: Settles 911 Class Action for $1 Million BOOT BARN: Wage-And-Hour Class Action Filed in California BUTTE, CA: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA CAPITAL ONE: "Roberts" Sues Over Overdraft Fees CASALE CONSTRUCTION: Sued in Del. Over Home Construction Defects CHARLESTON MIYABI: "Stone" Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns CHINA CERAMICS: Settles Class Action Litigation CODE REBEL: Aegis Identity Terminated Merger Agreement CONN'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Granted in Part COOPER COMPANIES: Still Defends Contact Lens Manufacturer Suits COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Motor Fuel Suit Ongoing COVISINT CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Securities Action DALE STEIN: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Pregnancy Discrimination DEBBIE SCHULTZ: Bernie Sanders' Supporters File Class Action DENVER PARENT: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 27 DES MOINES: Residents Await Franchise Fee Settlement Refunds DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in RMBS Suit in New York DEUTSCHE BANK: No Discovery Yet in BlackRock Suit DIAKON LOGISTICSA: "Johnson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay DJI TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Falsified Drone's Return Home Feature DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Certification Discovery Ongoing EMERA INCORPORATED: Says NMGC Case Settlements Not Material EMERA INCORPORATED: Defending Suits Over TECO Acquisition ENDURANCE ROUSTABOUT: "Provencio" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ENERGY DRILLING: "Lee" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay FACEBOOK INC: "Huhn" Suit Removed to D.N.J. FORD AUSTRALIA: Unhappy Customers Seek Refunds GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over Drivers' Contractor Status HALYARD HEALTH: "Jackson" Sues Over Share Price Drop HHGREGG INC: Oral Argument Held June 29 in Class Action Appeal HOME DEPOT: U.S. Financial Institution Class Actions Ongoing HP INC: Oral Argument Held in Cement & Concrete Suit IBIO INC: Settlement Funded by Insurance Carrier INCH CONSTRUCTION: James Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Wage Act INOVALON HOLDINGS: "Patel" Sues Over Share Price Drop IRON MOUNTAIN: Court Dismissed Class Action ITC HOLDINGS: Bid for Summary Disposition in Merger Suit Denied ITC HOLDINGS: Deal Reached in Guerra, Mehrotra & Severance Suits INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 8 Final Approval Hearing Set JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Reached Settlement in Capacitor Suit KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 12 Preliminary Hearing Set KOHLS CORPORATION: 19 TCPA Suits Consolidated in MDL 2736 L.F. DONNELL INC: "Fisher" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA LINCOLN-WAY NORTH: Bond Investors Urged to Join Class Action LOGMEIN INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Discontinued Free App LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Class Action MASSACHUSETTS: Four Bridgewater Staff Banned Amid Class Action MEDIVATION INC: "Stewart" Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty MENTOR GRAPHICS: Robbins Geller Appointed as Lead Counsel MERCHANT DATA: "Kinney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay MERCY HEALTH: Faces "Alban" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Disability Advocates File Suit MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Lfoundry Case MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Airbag Suit NINE ENERGY: "West" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay NOTIS GLOBAL: Court Continued Final Fairness Hearing to August 15 O&J RESTAURANT: "Picado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay OI S.A.: Defendant in 66 Civil Class Actions by Attorney General OI S.A.: Defendant in Class Action by Federal Prosecutor's Office PARTNERS FEDERAL: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Draft Fee Program PDQ TRANSPORTATION: "Terrel" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay PEOPLES BANK: Faces "Langston" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation PHOTOMEDEX INC: Merger Deal with DS Healthcare Terminated POST FOODS: "Wu" Alleges Carcinogen in Wheat Products POST FOODS: "Stephenson" Alleges Carcinogen in Wheat Products PRINCE GEORGE, WA: Carraway Sex Scandal Prompts Class Action QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Thoma Bravo Merger QUALITY SYSTEMS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal QUALITY SYSTEMS: "Foss" Action Stayed Pending Appeal QUALITY SYSTEMS: July 28 Hearing on Summary Adjudication Bid RENTOKIL NORTH: Sued in Cal. Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements SEIU HEALTHCARE: Union Members Lose Class Certification Bid SIGNET JEWELERS: Motion For Protective Order Pending SIGNET JEWELERS: Opt-In Collective Action Conditionally Certified SIGNET JEWELERS: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari SIGNET JEWELERS: Delaware Supreme Court Affirmed Case Dismissal SOLAR BEAR: "Izquierdo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Marchelos" Class Suit Still Pending in N.Y. STACCA RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Minimum, OT Pay SUTTER WEST: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Objectors Appeal Settlement Approval SYNCREON TECHNOLOGY: Faces "King" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation TARGET CORPORATION: Faces Police Retirement System Action TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages THRIVE MARKET: Sanchez Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code TRANSAMERICA: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action for $3.8 Million TRANSUNION: Updates on Bankruptcy Tradeline Litigation TRANSUNION: Stay in Miller Litigation Lifted TRANSUNION: Court Certified National Class in "Henderson" Suit UBER TECHNOLGIES: Seeks Consolidation of 11 TCPA Suits UNIGROUP INC: "Judge" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA VALLEJO, CA: Faces "Mustard" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA VALVE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Illegal Betting VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Klein Class Action for $10 Billion VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canadian Vehicle Owners Await Compensation VOLKSWAGEN: U.S. Justice Dep't Gathers Emissions Scandal Evidence WALT DISNEY BENEFIT PLANS: Sued Over Pension Fund Mismanagement WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Bid to Dismiss "Epstein" Suit Underway XURA INC: Israeli Optionholder Class Action Pending YAHOO INC: Must Face Class Action Over Unsolicited SMS Messages ********* A&S ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Louis" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Mythsuka Louis and other similarly situated individuals, v. A&S Entertainment, LLC, d/b/a The Office; Claudette M. Pierre; and Gregory Pierre, Case 1:16-cv-22832-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A&S Entertainment LLC is a Florida Limited Liability and is approximately six years old. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin R. Saenz, Esq. Edward R. Rosenberg, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com ed@saenzanderson.com AECOM: Settlement Reached in Class Action v. Australian Unit ------------------------------------------------------------ AECOM said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that as previously disclosed in AECOM's prior periodic reports, in 2005 and 2006 AECOM's Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd ("AECOM Australia"), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a tolled motorway tunnel project in Australia that resulted in a securities class action lawsuit filed in 2012 against AECOM Australia and others in the Federal Court of Australia. The parties have agreed to a settlement made without admission and that is conditional on Federal Court approval. This conditional settlement is not expected to have a material impact to the financial results of AECOM. AKORN INC: Still Defends Shareholder Action in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company continues to defend a shareholder and derivative litigation. On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., at el., in the federal district court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944. The complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. and VersaPharm, Inc. A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v. Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 15- cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015, makes similar allegations and seeks unspecified damages. On August 24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff appointed in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation. No motions or answer have been filed in the case. ALIBABA GROUP: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Christine Asia Suit ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Colleen McMahon on June 27, 2016, issued an amended Memorandum Decision and Order granting, in full, Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Christine Asia Co. Ltd. et al v. Ma et al., Case No. 1:15-md-02631 (S.D.N.Y.). Alibaba Group Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that, "In January 2015, we were named as a defendant in the first of seven putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, Central District of California and Northern District of California. The operative complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who acquired our American Depositary Shares from October 21, 2014 through January 29, 2015, inclusive. The complaints assert claims under the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934." "In June 2015, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered transfer of the actions in the Central District of California to the Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the four actions before that court. In June 2015, the Panel ordered transfer of the action pending in the Northern District of California to the Southern District of New York. All of the actions are now pending in the Southern District of New York under the master caption, Christine Asia Co., Ltd. et al. v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al., No. 1:15-md-02631-CM (S.D.N.Y.) and related cases. "The Southern District of New York has appointed a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel on behalf of the putative class pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. "In June 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with our initial public offering and various other public statements contained misrepresentations regarding our business operations and financial prospects, and failed to disclose, among other things, regulatory scrutiny by the SAIC prior to our initial public offering. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that we should have disclosed a 2014 SAIC anti-counterfeiting initiative in the e-commerce market, a July 16, 2014 administrative guidance meeting we had with the SAIC that was later the subject of a self-described "white paper" issued and then withdrawn by the SAIC, and the alleged impact of the sale of counterfeit goods on our financial results. Plaintiffs assert claims against our company and Executive Chairman Jack Yun Ma, Executive Vice Chairman Joseph C. Tsai, then Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu and Chief Financial Officer Maggie Wei Wu for violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the United States Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and costs. "In July 2015, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Briefing on the motion was complete on September 2015. The parties are awaiting the court's decision." ALIBABA GROUP: Briefing on Demurrer to Be Completed in July 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alibaba Group Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that in the California State Consolidated Securities Act Actions, briefing on the demurrer is expected to be complete in July 2016. The Company said, "In October 2015, we were named as a defendant in the first of three securities class action lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County. The three actions were consolidated in October 2015, and plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on March 25, 2016. The consolidated action is captioned Gary Buelow, et al. v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, et al., No. CIV-535692 (San Mateo Sup. Ct.). The consolidated action is brought on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased Alibaba American Depositary Shares pursuant or traceable to the IPO. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the United States Securities Act of 1933." "The consolidated complaint names our company, Executive Chairman Jack Yun Ma, Executive Vice Chairman Joseph C. Tsai, then Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu, Chief Financial Officer Maggie Wei Wu, Director Masayoshi Son, General Counsel and Secretary Timothy A. Steinert, and 34 separate underwriters of our initial public offering. It alleges that our company, our senior officers who signed the registration statement, and the underwriters made material misrepresentations in our initial offering materials similar to those alleged in the above federal consolidated complaint. "We filed a demurrer for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction in response to the consolidated complaint on May 6, 2016. Briefing on the demurrer is expected to be complete in July 2016." AMERICAN HONDA: "Pfeiffer" Sues Over Lack of Auto-Off Feature ------------------------------------------------------------- Janice Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04507 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2016), seeks restitution and damages, including enhanced damages, punitive damages, costs and disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded;, costs and attorneys' fees and such other or further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of implied/express warranty, fraudulent concealment and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiffs allege that Honda failed to install a switch off feature in their hands-free Bluetooth link after the car's ignition switch is turned off. Plaintiff is represented by: Lee M. Gordon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 Email: lee@hbsslaw.com - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com ASCENA RETAIL: ANN Inc. Merger Litigation Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2016, that the Court of Chancery in Delaware has entered an order dismissing the ANN Inc. Merger Litigation. In May 2015, plaintiff The Vladimir Gusinky Living Trust, a stockholder of ANN INC., ("ANN") filed a class action (the "Action") in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court of Chancery") against ANN's board members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. ("Ascena") and ANN were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants. The claimed breach derived from the execution of that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated May 17, 2015, by and among Ascena, Avian Acquisition Corp. and ANN, which was alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for shares of ANN common stock. The Action, among other things, sought to enjoin the merger, seek additional disclosure of facts relating to the merger in connection with the stockholder vote thereupon, obtain higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages. On August 6, 2015, as part of a tentative settlement of the Action, ANN filed a supplement on Form 8-K to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus to provide supplemental disclosures addressing the plaintiff's claims, pertaining to, among other things, the ANN financial advisor's fairness opinion and underlying financial analyses and certain financial forecasts prepared for ANN. On April 13, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing the stockholder action and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, relating to the supplemental disclosures to the June 16, 2015 Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Ascena has agreed to pay fees and expenses of $140,000 to plaintiff's counsel within 40 days after filing of this Form 8-K and plaintiff's counsel has agreed not to make any application to the Court for additional attorneys' fees and expenses. This fee has not been approved by or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery. Payment by Ascena of the foregoing fees and expenses will fully and finally resolve any remaining issues in the Action, and the parties have asked the Court to close the Action finally and for all purposes. BANK OF AMERICA: Pension Fund Files Antitrust Lawsuit Over SSAs --------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF BRISTOL PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself, and, in a representative capacity, on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC.; CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A.; CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK; CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC.; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC.; NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; HIREN GUDKA; AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU; SHAILEN PAU; BHARDEEP SINGH HEER; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS NOS. 1-100, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-05203 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2016), was brought under the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the common law of Unjust Enrichment, for, inter alia, treble damages, disgorgement and restitution, and costs of suit, for Defendants' alleged combination and conspiracy to restrain trade in Supra- sovereign, Sub-sovereign and Agency bonds ("SSAs"), from at least January 1, 2010 through April 27, 2014. Defendants are banking and/or financial services corporations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Burke, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-4565 Fax: (619) 233-0508 E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com - and - David R. Scott, Esq. Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: (860) 537-5537 Fax: (860) 537-4432 E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com alawrence@scott-scott.com - and - Donald A. Broggi, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. J. Alex Vargas, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Ave., 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Fax: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com pbarile@scott-scott.com avargas@scott-scott.com - and - Michael J. Guzman, Esq. KELLOGG HUBER HANSEN TODD EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: (202) 326-7900 Fax: (202) 326-7999 E-mail: mguzman@khhte.com BELL MOBILITY: Settles 911 Class Action for $1 Million ------------------------------------------------------ Katherine Barton, writing for CBC News, reports that Bell Mobility has agreed to pay a $1 million settlement after losing a 10-year class action lawsuit filed by James Anderson and his son Samuel. The Andersons were awarded $5,000 of that money. Now the question is how much the thousands of other northerners affected by the class action suit will get. It was in 2005 that Anderson signed a contract for a new cell phone with Bell Mobility -- at the time, the only cellular phone service provider in Yellowknife -- and learned of the 75 cent fee the company charged for 911 service. That service does not exist in any of the territories, except in the city of Whitehorse. According to his lawyers, Anderson's lawsuit is the first class action in all three territories to ever see the light of day. Reflecting, Anderson says he always knew the case had merits. "It defies logic to pay for a service that you don't receive and can't receive." The case has now finally come to a close. After losing at trial, and exhausting every appeal, Bell has agreed to pay $1,016,336.57. But it's unclear how much of that will go to northerners. Any Bell Mobility customer in the North with a contract prior to April 13, 2010 paid $9 a year for the 911 fee and was automatically included in the class action. The lawsuit estimated that could be up to 20,000 customers across the North. "We're a bit in the dark," said Keith Landy, one of Anderson's lawyers. "All of this information is in the records of Bell Mobility. We certainly don't know as someone outside that process." Bell is tasked with doing the math, so to speak. The company has 90 days to credit accounts of people who are still Bell Mobility customers. It will refund others by cheque to their last known address. Justice Ron Veale noted that the maximum each customer could receive is "less than $100." Though a small amount, the judge voiced concerns at a hearing in early June that affected customers, many of whom may have moved or are no longer a Bell customer, may not get their compensation. "[That's] why the judge imposed a reporting condition," Mr. Landy said. "Bell has to advise the court exactly who's been paid, when they've been paid, and how much they've been paid." Bell must file an affidavit with that information in court by April 2017. Any money leftover that doesn't make it to customers will be donated to the Stanton Territorial Hospital Foundation. At the hearing, a lawyer for Bell couldn't specify how many northern customers are included, but agreed that the 20,000 figure is in the ballpark. "I'm comfortable saying, Your Honour, that the significant majority of class members remain Bell Mobility subscribers," Robert Dean said. More than half of the $1 million settlement, almost $516,000, will go to Anderson's lawyers -- something Justice Veale said is far from a windfall. "I don't have any question but that [the lawyers] have earned their money in this particular case. It's been a long slog," he said in court. Anderson agrees, saying the risk of the case always fell on his legal team. "The cost to my son and myself was just a cost in time because the lawyers take all the risk in a class action suit. They run the chance of gaining nothing." Mr. Landy said the costs being paid to them is slightly more than half of the actual costs to litigate the case for about nine years. The judge also commended the Andersons for the service they provided for northerners. "You've been along for a long ride," Veale said. "I think you've done a very admirable job, and I thank you for bringing it forward." Veale also said the $5,000 awarded to Anderson was "well earned." Anderson says he'll split the "token award" with his son. He says he only ever expected to be reimbursed the "unfair and illegal fee," but says the award is "nice nevertheless." For him, the lawsuit was never about the money, but about corporations nickel and diming customers. What does Bell have to say? Anderson calls the win a "hollow victory," saying Bell's insistence on dragging out the case might dissuade the average Joe from taking on corporations. "I think it might be discouraging to others," he said. "Corporations have such deep pockets." Now he wants to know what Bell has to say for itself, and how deep those pockets were. Anderson would like to know how much the company paid to fight the case at every juncture, even when it was repeatedly losing. "I was a Bell shareholder at one time. . . certainly shareholders deserve an explanation and a true accounting." Through the years, Bell has always refused to comment on the case because it was before the courts. CBC requested an interview with Bell. The company responded with an emailed statement: "We've reached an agreement that the plaintiffs [the Andersons] consider fair and reasonable." Anderson's lawyer says anyone who believes they should receive a refund and has not heard from Bell, can contact his office. BOOT BARN: Wage-And-Hour Class Action Filed in California --------------------------------------------------------- Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 26, 2016, that on April 28, 2016, two employees, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, filed a wage-and-hour class action, which includes claims for penalties under California's Private Attorney General Act, in the Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 16 CE CG 01330, alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and statement of wages rules and regulations among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company intends to defend this claim vigorously. At present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss that may arise from this matter, but has recorded as of March 26, 2016 an amount for the estimated probable loss, which is not material to the audited financial statements. Depending on the actual outcome of pending litigation, charges in excess of such recorded amount could be recorded in the future, which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity. BUTTE, CA: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- DEBRA HOFFMAN, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF BUTTE, Defendant, Case 2:16- cv-01487-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., June 30, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone: (916) 446-4692 Fax: (916) 447-4614 CAPITAL ONE: "Roberts" Sues Over Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------- Tawanna M. Roberts, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, doing business as Capital One Bank, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04841- LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2016), seeks restitution of all overdraft fees paid, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains derived from misconduct, actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages;, pre- judgment interest, costs and disbursements in connection with this action including reasonable attorney fees and such other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and breach of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of New York General Business Laws. Defendants allegedly deduct a $35 overdraft fee automatically from the checking account linked to a debit card for transactions in excess of the current balance despite claims by the Plaintiff that this wasn't stipulated in their contract. Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurie Rubinow, Esq. James E. Miller, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER, SHAH, LLP 65 Main Street Chester, CT 06412 Telephone: (860) 526-1100 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 Email: lrubinow@sfmslaw.com Jmiller@sfmslaw.com - and - Hassan Zavareei, Esq. Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq. Andrew Silver, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com Jkaliel@tzlegal.com CASALE CONSTRUCTION: Sued in Del. Over Home Construction Defects -------------------------------------------- ------------------- JEROME PARSONS, COKILIAR BROWN-SMITH, TYNETTA CLEMENT, JASON HARRY, DOMINIQUE DARBY, STEPHANIE LAMBERT, MARK SEVEC, LONEDA KENNEDY, KEVIN MCCARTHY, BRANDON WITT, IVORY CHARLEMAGNE, ANDREW PFIEFER, MEGHAN ERDMAN, ALISHA MCCORD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CASALE CONSTRUCTION LLC, and CHRISTINA OVERLOOK LLC, the Defendants, Case No. N16C-06-220 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks prompt redress for significant construction defects plaguing in Plaintiffs' new homes. Most importantly, the houses are slowly sinking into the infamously unstable soil of Wilmington's waterfront area. The Properties suffer from serious construction defects that have resulted and will result in severe structural and physical instability, water and moisture penetration, deterioration, unattractiveness, loss in marketability and market value, and other dangerous conditions. These defects were allegedly caused by improper and deficient engineering, construction, materials, and workmanship, which failed to conform to applicable code provisions, accepted workmanship practices, manufacturers' instructions, and other relevant guidelines. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiffs have allegedly sustained, and will continue to sustain: substantial injury and damages to the value of the Properties; damage to their personal property; deprivation of the peaceful use, occupancy, and enjoyment of the Properties; damage from exposure to safety hazards; damage from mental grief and anguish; damage from an inability to sell the property; and damage from the expenditure of funds for repairs, corrections, and maintenance. Casale is a building construction company in Wilmington, Delaware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. Christopher H. Lee, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 West St., 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984 3800 CHARLESTON MIYABI: "Stone" Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns ------------------------------------------------------------ William Stone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Charleston Miyabi, Inc., Capital Japan, Inc. D/B/A Miyabi, United Will Kyoto USA, Inc., Koichiro Hirao, Individually, Koichiro Maeda, Individually and John Doe 1-10, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02129 (D.S.C., June 22, 2016), seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendants own and operate a Japanese Steak & Sushi Bar where Stone worked. He claims to receive below minimum wage rates and that tips were illegally withheld. Plaintiffs are 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 bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com CHINA CERAMICS: Settles Class Action Litigation ----------------------------------------------- China Ceramics Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer of ceramic tiles used for exterior siding and for interior flooring and design in residential and commercial buildings, on June 29 announced that the class action litigation brought against the Company and the individual defendants has been concluded and administration of the settlement will be supervised by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The Company previously disclosed that it had reached an agreement to settle the outstanding class action litigation. On February 6, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the class action litigation brought against the Company in consideration of the payment by the Company of $850,000, consisting of $310,000 payable in cash and $540,000 to be issued in the Company's common shares. On January 4, 2016, the Court held a final hearing to consider approval of the settlement, and on April 22, 2016, the Court issued its Memorandum and Order approving the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the number of shares of common stock represented by the $540,000 stock settlement amount is required to be determined based upon the average closing transaction price of the Company's common stock during the ten trading days preceding the date of the final hearing, or January 4, 2016. Therefore, under the terms of the settlement, the Company was obligated to issue 554,415 shares of common stock (which equates to 69,302 shares after the 1 for 8 reverse stock split recently implemented by the Company), which will be freely tradeable when distributed. Subsequent to the Court's final approval of the settlement, counsel for the lead plaintiffs sought to change the date for the determination of the number of shares issuable in the settlement, asking that the Court to substitute the date of the final order approving the settlement for the date of the final hearing currently in the settlement documents, over the objection of the defendants. The action suggested by counsel for the lead plaintiffs would have resulted in the issuance by the Company of substantial number of additional shares of the Company's common stock in the settlement since the market value of the Company's common stock had dropped in the time period since January 4, 2016. On June 20, 2016, the Court denied the request by the counsel for the lead plaintiffs to modify the terms of the settlement. As a result of the Court's order, the terms and provisions of the settlement remain unchanged. The Company previously delivered the cash and the stock payable in the settlement to the agent designated in the settlement documents. Therefore, the class action litigation has been concluded. The settlement is being administered by an independent agent appointed by the Court, and is being supervised by the Court. The Company does not expect to have any further involvement in the matter, and is not aware of the expected timing of the distribution of net settlement proceeds. About China Ceramics Co., Ltd. China Ceramics Co., Ltd. -- http://www.cceramics.com-- is a manufacturer of ceramic tiles in China. The Company's ceramic tiles are used for exterior siding, interior flooring, and design in residential and commercial buildings. China Ceramics' products, sold under the "Hengda" or "HD", "Hengdeli" or "HDL", the "TOERTO" and "WULIQIAO" brands, and the "Pottery Capital of Tang Dynasty" brands, are available in over 2,000 style, color and size combinations and are distributed through a network of exclusive distributors as well as directly to large property developers. CODE REBEL: Aegis Identity Terminated Merger Agreement ------------------------------------------------------ Code Rebel Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2016, that Aegis Identity Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Aegis") on May 17, 2016, provided a letter to Code Rebel Corporation that terminated the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 11, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Aegis, the Company and CR Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation wholly owned by the Company ("CRAC"). The Termination Notice stated that Aegis had a right under Article VII of the Merger Agreement to terminate the Merger Agreement because of certain specified events stated in the Termination Notice, including (i) the issuance by the SEC on May 6, 2016 of an Order of Suspension of Trading (the "Order") suspending the public trading of the Company's common stock, (ii) the filing of a class action lawsuit against the Company (and the likelihood that several more will soon be filed), and (iii) the likelihood that the Company will not be able to fulfill its covenants under the Merger Agreement. The Termination Notice stated that it does not constitute a waiver by Aegis of any rights or claims it may have against Code Rebel arising out of the Merger Agreement or any other matter. The material terms of the Merger Agreement and certain related agreements were summarized in the Original 8-K, and the Merger Agreement and related agreements were filed as exhibits to the Original 8-K. As reported by the Class Action Reporter, a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Code Rebel securities from August 17,2015 through May 5, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Code Rebel investors under the federal securities laws. CONN'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a Texas court has granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in the Securities Class Action Litigation. The Company said, "We and one of our current and one of our former executive officers are defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court"), In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). The Consolidated Securities Action started as three separate purported securities class action lawsuits filed between March 5, 2014 and May 5, 2014 in the Court that were consolidated into the Consolidated Securities Action on June 3, 2014. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities Action allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought." On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the plaintiffs to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling, and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 21, 2015. The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2015. The briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was fully briefed and the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion over the course of two days, on March 25, 2016 and March 29, 2016. On May 6, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion requesting the Court's decision be certified for interlocutory appeal to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court has not yet ruled on that motion. The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or outcome of any of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these claims. COOPER COMPANIES: Still Defends Contact Lens Manufacturer Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various courts around the United States. In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CooperVision and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaints which currently is pending, and the actions currently are in discovery. CooperVision denies the allegations and intends to defend the actions vigorously. "We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company said. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal in Motor Fuel Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 8, 2016, that the appeal in a class action lawsuit against motor fuel retailers remains pending. Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company, alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer. The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07 0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D. Cal.). On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments to class members. On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24, 2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement. A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 million in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to class representatives. A report and recommendation has been issued in favor of a fee award of $3.8 million, to which the Company is objecting. On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other defendants. The motion was denied on January 23, 2015. Final judgment was entered on September 22, 2015, and the Company has filed a notice of appeal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. COVISINT CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in Securities Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Covisint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the parties in a consolidated class action lawsuit have entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement to dismiss all claims with prejudice and settle the securities class action. The Company said, "Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us, our directors and former directors, and certain of our officers and former officers alleging violation of securities laws in connection with our IPO and seeking unspecified damages. These lawsuits were consolidated in the action entitled Desrocher v. Covisint Corporation, et al., No. 14-cv-03878 (the "Securities Class Action"). On October 14, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "Complaint") alleging violations of Regulation S-K and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act"). The Complaint alleges, among other things that the IPO's registration statement contained (1) untrue statements and omissions of material facts related to the Company's projected revenues for fiscal 2014, (2) materially inaccurate statements regarding the Company's revenue recognition policy, and (3) omissions of known trends, uncertainties, and significant risk factors as required to be disclosed by Regulation S-K. "On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement to dismiss all claims with prejudice and settle the Securities Class Action (the "Settlement"). The Settlement was reached after the Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss and granted class certification of a class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock in and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or about September 26, 2013, seeking to pursue remedies under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The Settlement, which is subject to Court approval, provides for a payment by the defendants of $8.0 million. The Company's uninsured portion of the settlement amount was $0.4 million, which was recorded as a liability as of March 31, 2016." DALE STEIN: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Pregnancy Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLE PRAGER, and all other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DALE STEIN & ASSOCIATES, O.D., P.C. d/b/a DRS. STJIN & GOLDSCHNEIDER; DALE STEIN; WAYNE GOLDSCHNEIDER and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-2392-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks judgment against the Defendants together with compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back pay, equitable front pay, equitable reinstatement, and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just, pursuant to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) alleging pregnancy discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation. According to the complaint, prior to going to work, the Plaintiff called Foley and told her that she was suffering from morning sickness and asked if there was anyone who could stay on the job so that Plaintiff could stay home that day. Plaintiff told Foley that she would be willing to come into work if no one else was available to cover for her. However, Foley told plaintiff that it was okay for her to stay home from work due to her morning sickness. The following day on February 4, 2016 at 8:30a.m., Foley called plaintiff and told her that Defendants were terminating her from her job because she called out of work. Dale Stein offers comprehensive eye care for the entire family. It also offers treatment of eye disease, refractive and cataract surgery. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727 9700 DEBBIE SCHULTZ: Bernie Sanders' Supporters File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Christian Datoc, writing for The Daily Caller, reports that more than 100 Bernie Sanders supporters have sued the Democratic National Committee and its chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz for fraud. The suit claims that Wasserman Schultz and the DNC "knowingly made false statements and omissions" that undermined the 2016 Democratic primary process. "Despite there being every indication that the 2016 Democratic primary would be contested by multiple candidates, including Sanders, the DNC Memo makes no mention of any Democratic candidate except Clinton, and builds the DNC's election strategy on the assumption that Clinton will be the nominee, with no doubts attached," reads the brief. The Broward Palm Beach New Times notes that the filing comes just after hacked DNC emails revealed the Committee had "been planning strategies to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump in the general election." DENVER PARENT: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 27 ------------------------------------------------------- Denver Parent Corporation and Venoco, Inc. said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing to approve a litigation settlement is scheduled for July 27, 2016. In August 2011 Timothy Marquez, the then- Chairman and CEO of Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against Venoco and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would affect the going private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware and three suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants Venoco and each of its directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in which they requested that the court determine among other things that (i) the merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions have been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware case. An Insurance Settlement Agreement and Release between all of Venoco's Director & Officer insurance carriers and all defendants ("Insurance Settlement") was executed on March 16, 2016. A Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement between plaintiffs and defendants ("Litigation Settlement") was also executed and filed with the Delaware Chancery Court. A hearing in that court to approve the Litigation Settlement is scheduled for July 27, 2016. The Litigation Settlement states that Venoco and/or the insurers will pay $19 million to be distributed to the class. The Insurance Settlement states that the insurers will pay $16.5 million of the $19 million Litigation Settlement amount. As a result of the Litigation Settlement, $19 million was recorded in the balance sheet within Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities, with $16.5 million recorded as a receivable, as it is an insurance recovery to be received pursuant to the Insurance Settlement. The portion that the Company will ultimately owe is $2.5 million which is recorded in the statement of operations within General and Administrative Expenses. DES MOINES: Residents Await Franchise Fee Settlement Refunds ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Tauscheck, writing for KCC, reports that Des Moines' franchise fee debate is close to its conclusion after nearly a decade, but Des Moines residents are still waiting for refunds from the franchise fee settlement. Those who paid a utility bill in the city between 2004 and 2009 may quality. The company that will disburse the money advises recipients to be patient, even though notices on size of refunds went out seven months ago. "Glad I don't have to pay the franchise fee anymore," said Lisa Kragnes, who sued the city of Des Moines over what was eventually ruled an illegal tax. She had high hopes the franchise fee would go away and utility customers would be reimbursed. Neither has happened. Customers are now paying more than ever after legislators ruled cities can collect franchise fees. The utility tax will eventually be 5 percent, but since more money is needed by the city to pay off the $40 million borrowed after losing the class action judgment, Des Moines will collect 7.5 percent for the next several years. "Well, I was wondering, 'Where's my refund?'" Eric Menz said. The lawyer for the city of Des Moines said the city paid the entire judgement of $40.1 million over two years ago. That money is currently under the control of Rust Consulting, of Faribault, Minnesota, which is managing and disbursing the refunds. Attorneys for the woman who started the class action suit on behalf of Des Moines customers took their fees through the appeals process, and all the way to the Supreme Court. That took some time, but how much the lawyers are getting has been settled and still no checks have been sent. "I've just about given up on even ever receiving it," Menz said. "I figure it'll be another year, 2 years, 3 years or probably when I'm dead." KCCI had that gentleman call the 800 number for the Des Moines franchise fee settlement. The man who answered the call said, "We are waiting for the court to issue an order for distribution, which will take place once they have completed the processing of all submitted claim forms." When asked when that will be, the representative said the process may take some time, and they have not been provided a time frame. DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in RMBS Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------- WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2011-C5 said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in a class action lawsuit against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC"). Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain RMBS trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against DBNTC and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims in connection with 62 trusts governed by Indenture Agreements. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA will have an opportunity to file new defensive motions with respect to the amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing. DEUTSCHE BANK: No Discovery Yet in BlackRock Suit ------------------------------------------------- WFRBS Commercial Mortgage Trust 2011-C5 said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that discovery has not yet commenced is a class action lawsuit by BlackRock plaintiffs against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC"). On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action in the Superior Court of California, Orange County that involves 513 trusts governed by PSAs, alleging three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 513 trusts. The complaint currently names only DBTCA as a defendant, even though DBTCA is the trustee for only one of the 513 trusts. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $85.1 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBTCA has not yet been served with the complaint. Discovery has not yet commenced. DIAKON LOGISTICSA: "Johnson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Diakon Logistics, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06776 (N.D. Ill., June 28, 2016), seeks restitution for all deductions taken, prejudgment interest on unpaid wages, and statutory damages for violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Diakon is a Delaware corporation doing business in Romeoville, Illinois and is in the business of providing the delivery of appliances, furniture, and other merchandise to its customers. Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver and claims to be denied overtime pay due to his misclassification as an independent contractor. Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. Marc J. Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL & DOLAN LTD. 150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1100 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel. (312) 878-3210 Fax (312) 878-3211 Email: bmanewith@msiegellaw.com msiegel@msiegellaw.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel. (617) 994 5800 Fax (617) 994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com bweber@llrlaw.com DJI TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Falsified Drone's Return Home Feature --------------------------------------------------------------- BRADLEY SCOTT TELLING, an individual; individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DJI TECHNOLOGY, INC. a Los Angeles company, and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC625051 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks to stop Defendants' unlawful attempt to advertise false or misleading information concerning their drones' abilities to "return" home. According to the complaint, DJI allegedly misleads its users by falsely advertising that their PHANTOM 3 drone has an automated "return home feature" when the drone exits a set range, or loses connection. This claim is false and misleading as the return home feature doesn't always bring the drone back to the preset GPS location, as found by Plaintiff. By advertising this information, DJI is systematically violating California's unfair competition law and California's prohibitions on false advertising. The Phantom 3 is DJI's aerial vision more fully realized: A tiny quadcopter drone with a professional-grade camera, endless configurability, user-friendly polish, and a price tag that won't require a new credit card. DJI sells easy-to-fly drones and aerial photography systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Cohen, Esq. Heather M. Mckeon, Esq. COHEN McKEON LLP 1910 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 440 Los Angeles, CA 90026 Telephone: (213)413 6400 Facsimile: (213)403 6405 E-mail: cohen@cohenmckeon.com mckeon@cohenmckeon.com DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The Street, citing Reuters, reports that DreamWorks Animation's (DWA) CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit over what a minority shareholder said was an "extraordinarily valuable" agreement he made as part of the planned $3.8 billion sale of the studio to Comcast (CMCSA). In April, Comcast agreed to pay $41 per share for DreamWorks and Karzenberg agreed to vote his controlling stock for the deal. The transaction is expected to close by the end of the year. The class action complaint from Ann Arbor City Employees Retirement System, which is a DreamWorks shareholder, says that Katzenberg breached his duty to minority shareholders by attaining a lucrative consulting deal for himself, Reuters said. When the deal closes, Mr. Katzenberg will be the chairman of DreamWorks New Media, which will oversee an online studio for teen content called Awesomeness TV and a 3-D animation business. "Had Katzenberg not received the extraordinarily valuable side deal, Comcast would have been required to increase the merger price to secure Katzenberg's support," the complaint said, according to Reuters. EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Certification Discovery Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the discovery related to class certification is ongoing. Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in various United States District Courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America, Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building Products LLC. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JTML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims. In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to which they agreed to settle all claims against them. On March 16, 2014, the court entered orders preliminarily approving USG and TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs. Initial discovery in this litigation is complete. Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgement. On February 18, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for summary judgement. The Company's motion for permission to appeal the summary judgement decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is pending. Discovery related to this class certification is ongoing. "At this stage we are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. American Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend itself against these claims," the Company said. EMERA INCORPORATED: Says NMGC Case Settlements Not Material ----------------------------------------------------------- Emera Incorporated said in its Form F-10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that the settlements in the New Mexico Gas Company ("NMGC") legal proceedings are not material to NMGC's financial position as of March 31, 2016. In February 2011, NMGC experienced gas shortages due to weather- related interruptions of electric service, weather-related problems on the systems of various interstate pipelines and in gas fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC, and high weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and high usage resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGC causing involuntary curtailments of gas utility service to approximately 28,700 customers (residential and business). In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas utility service curtailed during the early-February system emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to represent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities and governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the natural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does at NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class action filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff purporting to represent a class of all similarly situated New Mexico private businesses and enterprises. In September 2015, a settlement was reached with all the named plaintiff class representatives in both of the class actions. The settlements were on an individual basis and not a class basis. The settlements are not material to NMGC's financial position as of March 31, 2016. EMERA INCORPORATED: Defending Suits Over TECO Acquisition --------------------------------------------------------- Emera Incorporated said in its Form F-10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against class action lawsuits in connection with the acquisition of TECO Energy. On September 4, 2015, Emera and Merger Sub, entered into the Acquisition Agreement with TECO Energy which provides for, among other things, the acquisition by Emera of TECO Energy through the merger of Merger Sub with and into TECO Energy. Twelve securities class action lawsuits were filed against TECO Energy and its directors by holders of TECO Energy securities following the announcement of the Acquisition. Eleven suits were filed in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. They alleged that TECO Energy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Acquisition Agreement and sought to enjoin the Acquisition. In addition, several of these suits alleged that one or more of TECO Energy, Emera and an Emera affiliate aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The securities class action lawsuits have been consolidated per court order. Since the consolidation, two of the complaints have been amended. One of those complaints has added a claim against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty to disclose. The twelfth suit was filed in the Middle District of Florida Federal Court and has subsequently been voluntarily dismissed. TECO Energy also received two separate shareholder demand letters from purported shareholders of its stock. Both of these letters demanded that TECO Energy maximize shareholder value and remove alleged conflicts of interest as well as eliminate allegedly preclusive deal protection devices. One of the letters also demanded that TECO Energy refrain from consummating the transaction with Emera. Both of these demand letters have subsequently been withdrawn. In November 2015, the parties to the lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding with the various shareholder plaintiffs to settle, subject to court approval, all of the pending shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed Acquisition. As a result of the memorandum of understanding, TECO Energy made additional disclosures related to the proposed Acquisition in a proxy supplement. Per the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the parties will negotiate a settlement agreement and submit it to the court for approval after the Acquisition is complete. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into a stipulation of settlement. ENDURANCE ROUSTABOUT: "Provencio" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO PROVENCIO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ENDURANCE ROUSTABOUT LLC, Case 7:16-cv- 00257 (W.D. Tex., June 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Endurance Roustabout LLC provides a variety of services (including, backhoe services, steamer rentals, welding services, sandblasting, etc.) to customers in the oilfield industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 ENERGY DRILLING: "Lee" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Energy Drilling Company, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00936 (E.D. Tex., June 28, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Energy Drilling Company is a Mississippi corporation with its principal place of business in Natchez, Mississippi. It is a land drilling contractor currently operating nine drilling rigs in North and South Louisiana, East Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama. Lee worked as a rig watcher working on location near Rusk, Texas. Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Borsellino, Esq. Borsellino, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Ste. 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: 817.908.9861 Fax: 817.394.2412 Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com FACEBOOK INC: "Huhn" Suit Removed to D.N.J. ------------------------------------------- Jason Huhn, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-22363 (N.J. Super., May 26, 2016), was removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on June 22, 2016. Plaintiff's complaint alleges violation of the New Jersey Truth- in-Consumer, Contract Warranty & Notice Act regarding Facebook's "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities" which excludes liability or incidental or consequential damages. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. The Glapion Law Firm, LLC 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Defendant is represented by: Steven P. Benenson, Esq. PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN P.C. 100 Southgate Pkwy., PO Box 1997 Morristown, NJ 07962-1997 Tel: (973) 538-4006 Fax: (973) 538-5146 Email: spbenenson@pbnlaw.com FORD AUSTRALIA: Unhappy Customers Seek Refunds ---------------------------------------------- John Rolfe, writing for Daily Telegraph, reports that not only are thousands of unhappy customers confronting Ford in a class action, many are taking on the carmaker on their own -- and winning. Some, such as Rosalie Rostan, have obtained refunds in direct negotiation, while others are succeeding by holding the $67 billion company to account through consumer tribunals. After returning her car to the dealership five times in five weeks, Miss Rostan, of Melbourne, confronted the boss and got her money back. She recommended being proactive and persistent. "Don't give up," Miss Rostan, of Melbourne, said. News Corp Australia is aware of other consumers obtaining refunds after filing proceedings in their state's consumer tribunal. Their stories, however, cannot be told because they have been made to sign nondisclosure agreements, which may be unlawful. The Letchers, pictured, recently commenced action in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). When the Melbourne couple had first asked for a refund or replacement, they were told that couldn't happen. That too may be unlawful. It was put to them that they had to make a "contribution" towards a replacement. Under a "staff discount" offer, they were asked to find an extra $12,000. The Letchers told the dealership they were only willing to put in $2000. After a lengthy process through a Ford "case manager" and a "review panel", their dealership asked for $6500. That too was rejected and the Letchers, of Melbourne, were forced to head to VCAT, arguing their Focus Trend automatic has major failures, as defined by the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). They say it is not of "acceptable quality" because it is not "free from defects" or "durable" and that a reasonable person would not have bought it if they had known it would persistently shudder and need two clutch replacements inside 20,000km of use. "The way they have treated us, out of principle, we are going to fight this," Mr. Letcher said. Some owners who are considering action have expressed confusion about whether to commence proceedings against the dealership or Ford Australia. Go after both, said consumer law expert Mike Daniel of Resolve Litigation. "There is probably an advantage in bringing your claim against two parties," Mr. Daniel said. "You make more of a nuisance of yourself." Some owners who have tried to pursue Ford through a tribunal have been told they've run out of time. Mr. Daniel said the deadline for filing can be as little as three years from the purchase date. The ACL says the clock starts "when you become aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware of the problem". Mr. Daniel said even after three years it was not the end of the road: "You could bring a claim in the local court which has a six- year statute of limitations." The Consumer Action Law Centre said the time limit on legal action depended on what your legal claim was -- for a breach of consumer guarantees by the manufacturer under the ACL, it would be three years. "In Victoria, an owner has six years from when the cause of action arose to bring an action against the car yard in VCAT," a Consumer Action lawyer said. If VCAT finds in the Letchers favor they will be entitled to a refund. Today, Public Defender offers a step-by-step guide to pursuing a refund from Ford. About 70,000 people have bought the 2011-16 vehicles that are allegedly of unacceptable quality. GRUBHUB: Faces Class Action Over Drivers' Contractor Status ----------------------------------------------------------- Amina Elahi, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a new federal lawsuit claims Grubhub misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors across the country, the latest salvo in a legal battle that has spread across the gig economy. The Chicago-based food ordering and delivery company is also involved in a similar federal case in California that was filed last September. Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, is representing plaintiffs in both cases against Grubhub. Ms. Liss-Riordan recently settled a case with gig economy giant Uber for up to $100 million over alleged worker misclassification, representing about 385,000 drivers in California and Massachusetts. She has also represented workers in cases against Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash and others. "In recent years, there have been a number of companies that call themselves part of the on-demand economy . . . that dispatch their workforce using an app," Ms. Liss-Riordan said. "They somehow think that using an app to dispatch their workers allows them to avoid all the responsibilities of being an employer." Ms. Liss-Riordan said she has noticed more sharing economy companies choosing to classify their workers as employees rather than independent contractors, like Instacart, Shyp, Luxe Valey, Munchery, Eden and Honor. The new suit seeks class-action status. Ms. Liss-Riordan said she doesn't know the potential size of the Grubhub class, which could include drivers from all over the U.S. excluding California, but that she expects there could be tens of thousands of them. The cost to Grubhub, she said, could be "quite substantial" -- though she doesn't expect the case to match the scale of the Uber case. Six plaintiffs from Illinois, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New York and Connecticut alleged that they were treated as employees by Grubhub but denied overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours a week. They also said they didn't make minimum wage when they factored in the cost of fuel; the cost of owning, leasing and maintaining vehicles; and the cost of cellular data. "Grubhub has misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors and, in so doing, has committed wage and hour violations under a variety of federal and state statutes," the plaintiffs' lawyers wrote in a complaint, which was filed on June 28 in the U.S. District Court's Northern Illinois District. The suit requests permission to notify other Grubhub delivery drivers of the class action, compensation including all wages owed, costs and attorney's fees and an order that Grubhub comply with the Fair Labor Standard Act and appropriate state labor laws. Plaintiff Thomas Souran, of Chicago, alleged he was mistreated by Grubhub while he was driving for them from December 2014 until August 2015. He said Grubhub should have paid overtime and expenses; that he was bitten by a dog while delivering, wasn't covered by insurance and lost several days of work; and that he was forced out of a contract and terminated without notice. "Grubhub treated the drivers as outsiders, while they used corporate money (shareholder money) to throw parties, buy lunch and dinner for all employees and the drivers were the ones that were out in the cold and heat delivering and making it happen," Mr. Souran told Blue Sky Innovation in an email. Mr. Souran said he hopes all of Grubhub's independent contractors will be reclassified as employees and that the company will pay overtime and expenses. Grubhub declined to comment specifically on the lawsuit, citing company policy against talking about pending litigation. However, in an emailed statement, a company spokeswoman said Grubhub works "around the lives of our delivery drivers." "We believe that the delivery partners who decide to contract with Grubhub value the ability to earn income while enjoying the freedom of a flexible work schedule," the statement said. "Additionally, while our delivery business is rapidly growing -- we're currently in 50 markets -- most restaurants on the Grubhub platform manage their own delivery operations." HALYARD HEALTH: "Jackson" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Ronald Jackson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Thomas J. Falk and Mark A. Buthman, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05093 (S,D, N.Y., June 28, 2016), seeks damages, reasonable attorney and expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief for violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Halyard Health is a spin off of Kimberly-Clark, a manufacturer of personal care, consumer tissue, and professional products. It provides health and healthcare supplies and solutions worldwide through healthcare providers and third-party distribution channels. Defendants failed to disclose that its MICROCOOL surgical gowns consistently failed effectiveness tests and failed to meet industry standards and knowingly provided defective MICROCOOL surgical gowns to U.S. workers during the Ebola crisis. Its surgical gowns were allegedly prone to leaks. On this news, Halyard stock fell $1.21, or 4.3%, to close at $26.95 on May 2, 2016. Plaintiff currently owns common stock of Halyard and lost substantially. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq, POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com HHGREGG INC: Oral Argument Held June 29 in Class Action Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- hhgregg, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has completed the appeal briefing process and oral argument was scheduled for June 29, 2016. The Company is the defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned, Dwain Underwood, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gregg Appliances, Inc. and hhgregg, Inc., filed in the Superior Court in Marion County, Indiana, where a former employee alleged that the Company breached a contract by failing to correctly calculate his (and other class members) incentive bonus. On July 9, 2014, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification, and on July 17, 2015, the judge granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, although no finding on damages was made. The Company's interlocutory appeal was accepted on October 23, 2015. The Company has completed the appeal briefing process and oral argument was scheduled for June 29, 2016. If the Company does not ultimately prevail in this case, the potential liability is approximately $2.4 million based on those individuals included in the class, excluding potential interest and other fees which cannot be determined at this time. The Company believes the loss is not probable, and thus, as of March 31, 2016, a liability has not been recorded for this matter. HOME DEPOT: U.S. Financial Institution Class Actions Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 1, 2016, that the U.S. financial institution class actions remain ongoing. The Company said, "In fiscal 2015, the four major payment card networks made claims against the Company for costs that they assert they or their issuing banks incurred in connection with the Data Breach. The Company entered into settlement agreements with all four networks in fiscal 2015. In addition, a total of 57 putative class actions were filed in the U.S. on behalf of customers and financial institutions and in Canada on behalf of customers allegedly harmed by the Data Breach. The U.S. class actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the "District Court"). In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company agreed in principle to settlement terms that will resolve and dismiss the claims asserted in the U.S. customer class actions, and in the first quarter of fiscal 2016, the Company agreed in principle to settlement terms that will resolve and dismiss claims asserted in the Canadian customer class actions. Both settlements are subject to final approval by the respective courts. The U.S. financial institution class actions remain ongoing." HP INC: Oral Argument Held in Cement & Concrete Suit ---------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that oral argument has been scheduled for July 7, 2016, in a class action lawsuit. Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September 9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9, 2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 24, 2013. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant filed its opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. HP filed its answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. Oral argument has been scheduled for July 7, 2016. IBIO INC: Settlement Funded by Insurance Carrier ------------------------------------------------ iBio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement in a class action lawsuit has been funded by the Company's insurance carrier. On October 24, 2014, a putative class action captioned Juan Pena, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The action alleged that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer made certain statements in violation of federal securities laws and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On February 23, 2015, the Court issued an order appointing a new lead plaintiff. On April 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint in the same matter captioned Vamsi Andavarapu, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Situated v. iBio, Inc., Robert B. Kay, and Robert Erwin. The action alleged that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its President made certain statements in violation of federal securities laws and sought an unspecified amount of damages. On May 6, 2015, the Company, Mr. Kay, and Mr. Erwin filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On September 15, 2015, after voluntary mediation, the Plaintiffs and the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the Company entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that provides, among other things, for settlement payments totaling $1,875,000 in exchange for the releases described therein. That stipulation was filed with the Court on December 18, 2015 and, on April 21, 2016, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the case. The settlement has been funded by the Company's insurance carrier. INCH CONSTRUCTION: James Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Wage Act --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WOODLEY & KEVIN DEAN, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INCH CONSTRUCTION INC. and JOSEPH GREEN, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 16213-A (Mass. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks and award for the value of all unpaid wages for compensable working time, including Off- the-clock work, non-discretionary treble damages and attorney fees, damages as a result of the retaliatory termination, and any other relief as the law and justice requires, including interest and costs. The Plaintiff alleges that they were required to work certain off- the-clock, hours for zero dollars in wages. The Plaintiff and those similarly situated allege that the Defendant's unlawful and inexplicable failure to furnish earned wages for each and every hour actually worked is a violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, and each member is entitled to all compensation not properly remitted, non-discretionary treble damages, and an award of attorney's fees. Inch Construction is a heavy construction equipment rental business in Dedham, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Bace, Esq. BACE LAW GROUP. LLC PO Box 93 16 Boston. MA 02114 Telephone: (508) 922 8328 E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com INOVALON HOLDINGS: "Patel" Sues Over Share Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------- Jyotindra Patel and Smita Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., Keith R. Dunleavy, Thomas R. Kloster, Denise K. Fletcher, Andre S. Hoffmann, Lee D. Roberts, William J. Teuber Jr., Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC and William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05065 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2016), seeks damages, interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities Act of 1933. Inovalon provides cloud-based data analytics platforms for health insurance plans, pharmaceutical companies, researchers and others in the healthcare industry. During its IPO, their Registration Statement failed to disclose the substantial revenues the Company derived from sales in the City of New York and the State of New York, considering substantial corporate tax reforms that had significantly increased Inovalon's purportedly 39% effective tax rate to 43% and thus negatively impacted Inovalon's then current and future financial results. Plaintiffs purchased Inovalon shares traceable to the IPO and lost substantially. Denise K. Fletcher, Andre S. Hoffmann, Lee D. Roberts and William J. Teuber Jr. were, at the time of the IPO, members of Inovalon's Board of Directors. Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC and William Blair & Company, L.L.C. were underwrites of the IPO. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq, POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: 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 Email: peretz@bgandg.com IRON MOUNTAIN: Court Dismissed Class Action ------------------------------------------- Iron Mountain Incorporated said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, that a Court has approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal entered into by the parties, which dismissed a class action as moot. On September 28, 2015, a purported stockholder of Iron Mountain Incorporated, or Iron Mountain, filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or the Court, captioned Shurnicki v. Iron Mountain, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 11549-CB, or the Action. The complaint named as defendants Iron Mountain and the members of its board of directors. The complaint alleged that the Iron Mountain directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose certain material information in the Iron Mountain Preliminary Schedule 14A relating to Iron Mountain's proposed acquisition of Recall Holdings, Ltd., or the Transaction. The lawsuit sought, among other relief, a preliminary injunction and recovery of the costs of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. On October 13, 2015, plaintiff's counsel and defendants' counsel executed a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, memorializing the terms of an agreement in principle pursuant to which Iron Mountain agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Transaction in its Definitive Schedule 14A, or Definitive 14A, and plaintiff agreed to dismissal of the Action with prejudice and the release of certain claims. On October 14, 2015, Iron Mountain filed its Definitive 14A with the supplemental disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On April 28, 2016, following a series of rulings by the Court in other actions challenging mergers, plaintiff and defendants agreed to supersede and replace the MOU with an agreement that plaintiff would voluntarily dismiss the Action on the basis that it was mooted by the supplemental disclosures contained in the Definitive 14A. After determining to replace the MOU with an agreement that plaintiff would voluntarily dismiss the action, plaintiff's counsel and defendants' counsel engaged in arm's-length discussions regarding the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to plaintiff's counsel. Iron Mountain has agreed to pay plaintiff's counsel a fee of $195,000 and to reimburse plaintiff's counsel for expenses of no more than $5,000, for a total payment to plaintiff's counsel of no more than $200,000. On June 1, 2016, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal entered into by the parties, which dismissed the Action as moot, and dismissed the claims asserted in the Action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff Roberta Shurnicki and without prejudice as to the other members of the purported class. The Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment or amount of the agreed-upon fee to plaintiff's counsel or its reasonableness. ITC HOLDINGS: Bid for Summary Disposition in Merger Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2016, that a court has denied a motion for summary disposition filed by ITC and ITC's board of directors in a class action lawsuit. On February 9, 2016, ITC Holdings Corp. ("ITC") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended or modified from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") with Fortis Inc. ("Ultimate Parent"), FortisUS Inc. ("Parent") and Element Acquisition Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into ITC (the "Merger"), with ITC continuing as the surviving corporation and a subsidiary of Parent. As disclosed in ITC's definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 16, 2016 (as amended or supplemented from time to time, the "proxy statement/prospectus"), purported shareholders of ITC have initiated legal actions challenging the Merger. The plaintiffs in the Guerra, Mehrotra, and Severance actions have sought voluntary dismissal of their claims and alerted the federal court that, rather than proceed with litigation, they will seek a "mootness fee" for certain of the supplemental disclosures. ITC intends to oppose any application for fees submitted by the plaintiffs. On March 4, 2016, an action captioned Alan Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., No. 2016-151852-CB was filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan (the "Poland Action"). The complaint names as defendants a combination of ITC and the individual members of the ITC board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that (i) ITC's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger Agreement (including, but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, care and independence), (ii) ITC's directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder value and claims that the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (iii) a combination of Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks class action certification and a variety of relief including, among other things, enjoining defendants from completing the proposed Merger, unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an order directing that related cases be consolidated with the Poland Action under the caption In re ITC Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On April 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding Merger Sub and FortisUS as defendants and naming ITC as nominal defendant. The amended complaint asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the original complaint, but also alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus is allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omits material facts that are necessary to render it non-misleading and also purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of ITC. On May 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On June 8, 2016, the Court denied a motion for summary disposition filed by ITC and ITC's board of directors. ITC believes that no further disclosure is required to supplement the definitive proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that the Poland Action may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the proposed Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, ITC wishes to voluntarily make supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, which are set forth below, in response to certain of the allegations. Nothing in these supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth. ITC and the other named defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Poland Action. ITC HOLDINGS: Deal Reached in Guerra, Mehrotra & Severance Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2016, that plaintiffs and defendants in the Guerra, Mehrotra and Severance actions have reached an agreement in principle to settle the actions and release the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to approval of the Court. ITC continues to believe that On February 9, 2016, ITC Holdings Corp ("ITC") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended or modified from time to time, the "Merger Agreement") with Fortis Inc. ("Ultimate Parent"), FortisUS Inc. ("Parent") and Element Acquisition Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into ITC (the "Merger"), with ITC continuing as the surviving corporation and a subsidiary of Parent. ITC is supplementing its disclosure regarding the Merger in connection with a proposed settlement of three of the four litigations brought by purported stockholders of ITC. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. ITC and the other named defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing alleged in all such litigation. As disclosed in ITC's definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2016 (as amended or supplemented from time to time, the "proxy statement/prospectus"), purported stockholders of ITC have initiated legal actions challenging the Merger. On February 26, 2016, an action captioned Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al., No. 2016-151709-CB was filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan. The complaint names as defendants a combination of ITC and the individual members of the ITC board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that (i) ITC's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger agreement (including, but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, care and independence), (ii) ITC's directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder value and claims that the merger agreement contains several deal protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (iii) a combination of Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek class action certification and a variety of relief including, among other things, enjoining defendants from completing the proposed merger transaction, unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (the "Court"), as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al., No 2:16-cv-10914. The federal complaint names the same defendants, asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the state court case. On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The amended complaint drops FortisUS, Fortis and Merger Sub as defendants and adds claims alleging that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because the proxy statement/prospectus is allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omits material facts that are necessary to render it non-misleading. On March 29, 2016, an action captioned Mehrotra v. Welch, et. al., No. 2016-152233-CB was filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan naming the individual members of the ITC board of directors, FortisUS and Merger Sub as defendants and asserting the same general allegations and seeking the same types of relief as the other state court actions. On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Mehrotra v. Welch, et al., No. 2:16-cv-11449. The federal complaint names the same defendants, asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the state court case. On April 8, 2016, an action captioned Harold Severance v. Joseph L. Welch, et. al., No. 2:16-cv-11293 was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by the purported shareholder who had previously sent a demand letter to ITC's board of directors on March 8, 2016. The complaint, which purports to bring claims both directly on behalf of the class and derivatively on behalf of ITC, names the individual members of ITC's board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub as defendants and ITC as nominal defendant, and asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the Guerra federal court action. Plaintiffs and defendants in these three actions have reached an agreement in principle to settle the actions and release the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to approval of the Court. ITC continues to believe that the Guerra, Mehrotra and Severance Actions are without merit and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws. However, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, ITC has determined to make certain supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement/prospectus as set forth below. Nothing in these supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth. ITC and the other named defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in these Actions. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 8 Final Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, that a Court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the proposed class action settlement on September 8, 2016. On May 23, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") issued an order preliminarily approving the previously announced agreement with the lead plaintiff to settle the purported securities class action litigation, styled In re: Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, pending against Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company" or "Intercept") and certain of its officers. The Court ordered that notice be provided to the class and preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, including the payment of $55 million, of which $10 million will be funded by the Company's insurers. This settlement payment is expected to be paid into escrow by June 7, 2016, with distribution to the class to occur after the Court has finally approved the settlement and a plan of allocation of those proceeds. It is anticipated that the settlement will not have a material impact on Intercept's business. Under the proposed settlement, the defendants do not admit to any liability. The defendants also continue to deny all allegations against them and to maintain that the suit has no merit. The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the proposed settlement on September 8, 2016. Prior to the hearing, notice will be sent to class member with information regarding the terms of the settlement, the plan for allocation and distribution of the settlement funds and claim procedures. JEFFREY KATZENBERG: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------- ANN ARBOR CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG, INC., Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY KATZENBERG, the Defendant, Case No. 12507 (Del. Chancery Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks to recover damages caused by Jeffrey Katzenberg for breaching his fiduciary duties as the Company's controlling stockholder; breach of contract; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. DreamWorks is a studio that creates family entertainment, including animated feature films, television series and specials, live entertainment properties and related consumer products. Katzenberg owns 100% of DreamWorks' supervoting Class B common stock (Class B Stock), which provides him with approximately 60% of the Company's total voting power. The complaint notes that as purported consideration for his role with the post-closing company, Katzenberg will receive annual consulting fees of $1 and a one-time grant of profits interests granting him 7% of the profits from the JVs in perpetuity (Profit- Sharing Arrangement and, together with the Consulting Agreement, the Side Deal). The Profit-Sharing Arrangement is incredibly valuable to Katzenberg. AwesomenessTV has quadrupled in value in the last three years. If AwesomenessTV continues along even a remotely similar trajectory, Katzenberg will be entitled to a substantial amount of cash pursuant to the Profit-Sharing Arrangement. If DWA Nova realizes its potential, the Profit-Sharing Arrangement only becomes more valuable. The Side Deal constitutes disguised disparate merger consideration for Katzenberg. The Profit-Sharing Arrangement -- which provides Katzenberg the right to receive 7% of the JVs' profits in perpetuity -- is so valuable that it cannot credibly be characterized as compensation for a two-year consulting contract. Instead, the Profit-Sharing Arrangement is akin to an equity rollover into two of DreamWorks' most promising units without any of the downside risk typically associated with equity rollovers because Katzenberg also received $41 per share cash for all of his DreamWorks shares. The Side Deal violates the equivalent consideration provision in DreamWorks' certificate of incorporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Stuart M. Grant, Esq. Michael J. Barry, Esq. Joseph Christensen, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622 7000 - and - Jeremy Friedman, Esq. Spencer Oster, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 240 East 79th Street, Suite A New York, NY 10075 Telephone: (888) 529 1108 KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Reached Settlement in Capacitor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that on May 2, 2016, NEC TOKIN reached a preliminary settlement in two antitrust suits pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of California as In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD (the "Class Action Suits"). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, in consideration of the release of NEC TOKIN and its subsidiaries (including NEC TOKIN America, Inc.) from claims asserted in the Class Action Suits, NEC TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.3 million to a settlement class of direct purchasers of capacitors and a settlement class of indirect purchasers of capacitors. Payments will be made in installments, with the initial installment being due shortly after the execution of the definitive settlement agreement, subsequent payments due each year thereafter for three years, and a final, fifth payment due by December 31, 2019. KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 12 Preliminary Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd. said in its Form F-1 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2016, that a preliminary hearing in a class action lawsuit was scheduled by the court for September 12, 2016. The Company said, "On December 3, 2015, we announced that we received a lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit pursuant to the Class Action Lawsuits Law 5766-2006 (the "Motion") which was filed against us and our directors at the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division). The Motion is with respect to asserted claims for damages to the holders of our securities listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, arising due to the public offering of our initial public offering of our securities in the U.S. during November 2015." "In the Motion it was claimed that the class the petitioners are seeking to represent, namely, anyone holding our shares at the start of trading on November 22, 2015 exclusive of the respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any affiliates thereof and excluding anyone whose rights to our shares derive from ADS certificates issued in the U.S to such extent as derived therefrom; and any holders of our Series 2 TASE listed warrants as of the start of trading on November 22, 2015, exclusive of the respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any affiliates thereof (Purported Class). The total amount claimed from all defendants, if the Motion is certified as a class action, as set forth in the motion is approximately NIS 16.4 million. "In addition to this amount, the petitioners in the motion are seeking remedies in order to redress discrimination against the Purported Class owing to the dilution caused by the public offering, including the possibility that the Purported Class should be awarded from the Company amounts reflecting the losses of the Purported Class from a possible price increase in the shares of the Company following the announcement of the Phase III clinical trial results. "Under applicable Israeli law, a motion to approve a lawsuit as a class action initially needs to be approved as such by the court. Only after such approval is granted by the court, will the court proceed to the second stage of hearing the underlying claims of the class action lawsuit. We announced that we reject the claims asserted in the Motion. We have delivered our response to the court in accordance with applicable law, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled by the court for September 12, 2016. "We have been advised by our attorneys that the likelihood of the Company not incurring any financial obligation as a result of the class action exceeds the likelihood that the Company will incur a financial obligation. At this preliminary stage however, we are unable, with any degree of certainty, to make any other evaluations or any other assessments with respect to the Motion's probability of success or the scope of potential exposure, if any." KOHLS CORPORATION: 19 TCPA Suits Consolidated in MDL 2736 --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Ankcorn seeks transfer and consolidation of 19 suits filed against Kohl's Corporation for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 28, 2016, MDL No. 2736. The cases are: Putative Class Actions: Ankcorn v. Kohl's Corporation, No. 15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.), Spencer v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 14-cv-01646 (D. Nev.), Winner & Jennings v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-01541 (E.D. Pa.), Bawgus v. Kohl's, Department Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-00283 (E.D. Tn.), Beaty v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc, No. 16-cv-00164 (E.D. Wis.), Buzan et al. v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-00180 (E.D. Tex.), Cash v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-02456 (E.D. Ca.), Cook v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-00108 (M.D. Pa.), Douglas v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-01185 (M.D. Fla.), Hernandez v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc, No. 15-cv-01180 (E.D. Wis.), Humphrey v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-00812 (M.D. Fla.), Larsen v. Capital One Bank, N.A. and Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv-04510 (D. Min.), Levin v. Capital One Financial Corporation and Kohl's Corporation, No. 16-cv-03580 (D.N.J.), Case MDL No. 2736, Manning v. Kohl's Dept Stores, Inc, No. 16-cv-00315 (D. Con.), Maslaton v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv- 01663 (D.N.J.), McFadden v. Kohl's Corporation, No. 16-cv-01763 (E.D. Pa.), Montalbo v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 15-cv- 00482 (M.D. Fla.), Pritchard v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-01049 (M.D. Fla.), Simmons v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc, No. 16-cv-00150 (N.D. Fla.). Ankcorn is represented by: G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Tel: (323) 940-1700 Email: tom@mblawapc.com nick@mblawapc.com L.F. DONNELL INC: "Fisher" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JORDAN FISHER, 425 Garden Valley Drive, Boardman, Ohio 44512 Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. FLYNN, INC., c/o Its Statutory Agent 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400 Cleveland, OH 44114, DAVID A. FLYNN HOLDINGS, LLC, c/o Its Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114, DAVID A. FLYNN, c/o David A. Flynn, Inc., c/o Its Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114, L.F. DONNELL INC., dba Donnell Auto Group and Donnell Ford, c/o Its Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114, - and - JOHN DOE I, c/o David A. Flynn, Inc., c/o Its Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114 - and - JOHN DOE II, c/o David A. Flynn, Inc., c/o Its Statutory Agent, 2112 East Ohio Service Corp., 1360 East Ninth Street, Suite 400, Cleveland, OH 44114, Defendants, Case: 4:16-cv- 01681-BYP (N.D. Ohio, June 30, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. L F Donnell Inc. is a tire store in Youngstown, OH, offering tires for sale, tire repair, and auto services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. Allen C. Tittle, Esq. TITTLE LAW, LLC 2012 West 25th Street, Ste. 515 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-308-1522 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com tittle@tittlelawfirm.com - and - Thomas A. Downie, Esq. 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Phone: 440-973-9000 E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com LINCOLN-WAY NORTH: Bond Investors Urged to Join Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Felix Sarver, writing for mysuburbanlife.com, reports that an investors rights law firm is encouraging those who purchased Lincoln-Way District 210 bonds to join a class action lawsuit to recover their losses. The Rosen Law firm announced June 20 it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of investors of District 210 bonds after allegations surfaced that "materially misleading business information may have been issued to the investing public." The firm, which has offices in New York City, Los Angeles and Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, is asking investors of District 210's Series 2013A bonds and Series 2013B bonds to join the lawsuit. Superintendent Scott Tingley could not be reached on June 29. An email to board President Dee Molinare was not returned. Phillip Kim, a Rosen Law partner, said no investors have signed on thus far but it's still early. He didn't have a timeline for when the lawsuit could happen. The law firm's website lists Aug. 31 as the registration deadline for investors. "We'll have to wait and see," he said. District 210 is being investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to determine if any federal securities laws have been violated. The district has also received a federal subpoena for various documents regarding its former superintendent, Lawrence Wyllie, and the board. The Frankfort Square Park District received a federal subpoena on the controversial Superdog training facility operated at Lincoln-Way North High School. The SEC investigation follows an agreed-upon procedures report on bond proceeds, which showed improper accounting practices, as well as fund transfer issues that will require the district to increase its borrowing by $5 million to fix the matter. In April, the board acknowledged that a "proper system of checks and balances was not in place" and that Wyllie took unauthorized action. Rosen Law cites the downgrading of District 210's debt by Moody's and the SEC investigation in its announcement of the potential lawsuit. Because of its crippling financial problems, the board agreed last August to shut down Lincoln-Way North. The controversial decision caused residents -- the majority of whom were North parents -- to file a lawsuit against the district to keep the school open. A Will County judge dismissed the lawsuit in June after a roughly five-month legal fight. LOGMEIN INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Discontinued Free App ----------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq., of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that a judge in the Eastern District of California recently dismissed a class action filed against LogMeIn based on the company's decision to terminate its free app, which allowed users to access a remote desktop computer via a virtual private network. Handy v. LogMeIn, Inc., Case No. 1:14- cv-01355-JLT (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2016). The court held that Plaintiff failed to show that LogMeIn misrepresented the discontinuance of the free app or that it misled users into believing that the free app and paid subscription were "companion products" such that discontinuation of the app made the other products less valuable. LogMeIn's Products. LogMeIn offered a free app, as well as a second product, Ignition, which allowed users access to the app using a table or smartphone for a one-time fee of $29.99. In 2014, LogMeIn notified users of the free app and Ignition that it would no longer offer the free product and was planning to migrate all users to a paid subscription service, which offered a few extra amenities. Plaintiff -- a user of the free app and purchaser of Ignition -- brought suit under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL), alleging that the company failed to properly notify users that it would discontinue its products and that, had he known LogMeIn would do so, he would not have purchased Ignition. LogMeIn filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims and a motion for summary judgment. Since the court considered evidence outside the pleadings, it applied summary judgment standards and ruled in favor of LogMeIn. Failure to Identify Any Affirmative Misrepresentation. The court found that Plaintiff claimed the following: (1) LogMeIn led consumers to believe that the free app was being discontinued and that users had to pay for an annual subscription if they wanted to use the services provided by the app; and (2) LogMeIn led users to believe that the free app and the paid subscription were "companion services" and failed to inform users that the discontinuation of the free app would make the subscription app less valuable. The court rejected both theories. First, the court held that LogMeIn did not misrepresent its intention to discontinue its free app and the Ignition product. LogMeIn explained its migration plan and offered consumers a six-month free subscription to the new subscription-based service. It further explained that, regardless of whether users accepted the complementary subscription, they could continue to use Ignition until it was discontinued. This is exactly what Plaintiff did: he continued to use the Ignition product throughout 2014 and 2015. Because Plaintiff was not "tricked" by LogMeIn's statement and did not buy the new subscription-based product because of any alleged misrepresentation, he could not base a claim on this statement. The court noted: While he may be outraged by what he feels occurred to others, the Court is not clear why he believed that this outrage makes him aggrieved such that he can vindicate this grievance in this litigation. Second, the court held that Plaintiff failed to show that the free app and Ignition were "companion services" such that Ignition was less valuable without the free app. It noted that Plaintiff used the free app for more than a year before buying Ignition and then used Ignition for more than a year after the free app had been discontinued. The products, therefore, were not dependent on one another. Takeaway. Fraud-based claims under the UCL and FAL are subject to heightened pleading requirements. Plaintiffs must allege reliance on specific statements and injury in fact as a result. Courts are increasingly dismissing claims that fail to allege such individualized reliance and injury. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MOU Reached in Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2016, that the Companyt and the other defendants have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the lead plaintiffs to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action captioned In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company previously disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the "Form 10-Q"), that on April 27, 2016, it and the other defendants (the "Securities Class Action Defendants") had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "Securities Class Action MOU") with the lead plaintiffs to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action captioned In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "Securities Class Action Litigation"). Under the terms of the Securities Class Action MOU, the Company will contribute $26.0 million to a settlement fund (the "Securities Class Action Fund") that will be used to compensate individuals who purchased the Company's shares during the period from February 22, 2012 to February 27, 2015. In addition, under the terms of the Securities Class Action MOU, the Company will issue 1 million shares of its common stock to the Securities Class Action Fund with a value of approximately $16.0 million based on the $16.02 closing price of the Company's common stock on April 27, 2016. On May 17, 2016, the Company and the defendants (collectively, the "Derivative Defendants") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated as of May 16, 2016 (the "Derivative MOU") with the plaintiff's representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the derivative litigation matter described in the Form 10-Q and captioned In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation (the "Derivative Litigation Matter"). The Derivative MOU provides for the Company's insurance carriers to pay $26.0 million to the Company and for the Company to contribute all of these insurance proceeds into the Securities Class Action Fund. The Derivative Defendants will agree that the Company will not use any cash, other than these insurance proceeds, to resolve the Securities Class Action Litigation. The Company will pay the lead plaintiffs in the Derivative Litigation Matter legal fees of $5.0 million and expects to fund half of this amount from insurance proceeds. The Derivative MOU also provides for a process by which the Company will add a new member to the Board of Directors for one term and for the Company to make certain corporate governance changes such as, among other things, the adoption of a modified plurality voting policy for directors, stock holding guidelines, a clawback policy and a policy on lobbying and political contributions, and the creation of a regulatory affairs committee of the Board. The Company previously disclosed in the Form 10-Q that it had determined a probable loss had been incurred relating to the Securities Class Action Litigation and recognized a net charge to earnings of approximately $16.0 million within selling general and administrative expense in the first quarter of 2016. This expense was comprised of the loss contingency of approximately $42.0 million ($26.0 million cash and $16.0 common stock), net of expected insurance proceeds of approximately $26.0 million. The amount of loss associated with an issuance of shares of common stock will be determined based on the trading value of the shares on the date of issuance, which could increase the recognized loss if the trading value increases or result in a gain if the trading value decreases. While it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss greater than the recognized amounts, the Company is unable to determine a range of possible losses greater than the amount recognized. The Company also disclosed in the Form 10-Q that it had recorded $2.5 million ($5.0 million minus $2.5 million of expected insurance proceeds) in connection with the Derivative Litigation Matter within other current liabilities and selling, general and administrative expenses in the first quarter of 2016. The Company does not expect to record an additional loss relating to the Derivative Litigation Matter. Both the Securities Class Action MOU and the Derivative MOU are dependent on each other and are subject to the execution of definitive settlement agreements, court approvals and other contingencies. Therefore, there can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized by the parties and approved by the courts or as to the ultimate outcome of the Securities Class Action Litigation or the Derivative Litigation Matter. MASSACHUSETTS: Four Bridgewater Staff Banned Amid Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan Ransom, writing for Boston Globe, reports that four workers at Bridgewater State Hospital have been banned from all Department of Correction facilities during an investigation into the April suicide of a Bridgewater patient, according to officials. Leo Marino, a 43-year-old father, died April 8 after swallowing wads of toilet paper that had been given to him by Bridgewater's staff, despite the fact he had tried to kill himself the same way a day before. According to an investigation by the Disability Law Center, a federally funded watchdog group, several specially trained observers gave Mr. Marino "[an] arm's length or more of toilet paper seven times" within his final hour of life. Mr. Marino was to have around-the-clock supervision, which included a trained observer stationed outside his cell and correction officers monitoring live video of the inside of his cell, according to the report, released on June 27. The four workers who are the subject of the "administrative separation" are contract employees and are not subject to disciplinary action by the Department of Correction, according to spokesman Christopher Fallon. All are trained observers who were "involved at some point with monitoring Mr. Marino," Mr. Fallon said. The agency's investigation is ongoing, and no other staff have been disciplined, Mr. Fallon said. "The Department of Correction recognizes the challenges at Bridgewater State Hospital, we are working on a strategy to ensure the quality of care and level of safety patients at Bridgewater receive matches what patients would receive at any mental health facility," Mr. Fallon said on June 29 in a statement. Roderick MacLeish Jr., an attorney representing Bridgewater patients in a class-action lawsuit, called the suicide "a failure of multiple levels." "This was a loaded gun they handed to him," Mr. MacLeish said. "The [correction officers] and the specially trained observers were facilitators." An investigation by the Plymouth County district attorney's office is ongoing. Mr. Marino was committed to Bridgewater in January, after he was found incompetent to stand trial on charges he assaulted his fiancee. His brother, Joe, said he tried to kill himself several times at the Essex County Correctional Facility prior to being transferred to Bridgewater for an evaluation. In the weeks before his death, Mr. Marino, in the Intensive Treatment Unit, tried to commit suicide three times. He slit his wrists, tried to hang himself with a sheet, and swallowed wet toilet paper, according to his family. Bridgewater, a medium-security prison, is not licensed or accredited as a hospital. And while all patients have been charged with a crime, most have not been convicted. Many have been sent to the facility for psychiatric evaluations. The Disability Law Center's report was the second time in less than two years that the organization urged state officials to give the Department of Mental Health control of Bridgewater, where between 2009 and 2013 three men died in the ITU while being placed in four-point restraints, or after. Following Mr. Marino's death, the Department of Correction said it would install cameras. In a letter to Mr. MacLeish, Bridgewater's supervising counsel wrote that observers have received additional training, and new briefings have been initiated to ensure staff are aware of a patient's needs and restrictions. Mr. MacLeish said the changes will not be enough. "There were ample opportunities to see what [Marino] was doing," he said. "These people are dying, and it's totally preventable." MEDIVATION INC: "Stewart" Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Stewart, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Medivation, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Kim D. Blickenstaff, Kathryn E. Falberg, David T. Hung, Michael L. King, C. Patrick Machado, Dawn Svoronos, W. Anthony Vernon And Wendy L. Yarno, Defendants, Case No. 12495 (Del. Ch., June 22, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment, costs and disbursements of this action, including attorney, accountant and expert fees and such other and further relief for breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff sought to remove the incumbent Medivation directors and replace them with eight highly-qualified dissident director candidates after being rebuffed in its attempt to negotiate a consensual acquisition of Medivation by French pharmaceutical company Sanofi S.A. where the consent revocation statement contains material omissions. Medivation is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 525 Market Street, 36th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. Medivation acquires, develops and sells therapies to treat serious diseases for which there are limited treatment options. Kim D. Blickenstaff, Kathryn E. Falberg, David T. Hung, Michael L. King, C. Patrick Machado, Dawn Svoronos, W. Anthony Vernon and Wendy L. Yarno are members of the board of directors. Plaintiff currently owns common stock of Medivation. Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Friedman, Esq. Spencer Oster, Esq. David Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 240 East 79th Street, Suite A New York, NY 10075 Tel: (888) 529-1108 - and - Craig J. Springer, Esq. Peter B. Andrews, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 504-4957 MENTOR GRAPHICS: Robbins Geller Appointed as Lead Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Paul Papak on July 11, 2016, entered an order granting Movant Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Fund's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B), Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Fund is appointed as Lead Plaintiff, and, Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is approved as Lead Counsel for the putative class. Mentor Graphics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a purported securities class action lawsuit, Haroutunian v. Mentor Graphics. was filed on March 18, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company and three executive officers alleging violations of federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of our officers made material misstatements and omissions in press releases, SEC filings and analyst conference calls concerning the company's business prospects and financial projections that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock. On April 22, 2016, a related shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon, Aransu v. Rhines, against the company's board of directors at the time, certain executive officers and the company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties to the company, were unjustly enriched, wasted corporate assets and committed insider selling. The shareholder derivative lawsuit generally alleges the same facts as the securities class action. "The complaints do not request a specific amount of damages and we are unable to predict the outcome of these suits," the Company said. MERCHANT DATA: "Kinney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Katharine Kinney and Stephanie Turner, Plaintiffs, v. Merchant Data Systems, Inc., a Nevada corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22773-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, costs and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Merchant Data Systems, Inc. operates as an electronic payment processing company in the United States and Canada. Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Rush, Esq. CHRISTOPHER J. RUSH & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Compson Financial Center, Suite 205 1880 North Congress Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Tel: 561-369-3331 Fax: 561-369-5902) E-mail: crush@crushlawfl.com eservice@crushlawfl.com - and - Victoria Mesa-Estrada MESA-ESTRADA LAW, P.A. Compson Financial Ctr, Ste. 205 1880 North Congress Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Tel: 561-880-8062 Fax: 561-828-8359 E-mail: victoria@mesaestradalaw.com MERCY HEALTH: Faces "Alban" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of ERISA --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY ALBAN, Individually and on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCY HEALTH, THE MERCY HEALTH PARTNERS RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, AND JOHN DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-00726-MRB (S.D. Ohio, June 30, 2016), was brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of defined benefit pension plan maintained by Mercy Health and operated as or claimed to be a "Church Plan" under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Mercy Health is a Catholic health organization, supervising market delivery systems consisting of hospitals, physician clinics, and other organizations providing health-related services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark W. Napier, Esq. FREKING MYERS & REUL LLC 525 Vine Street, 6th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513/721-1975 Fax: 513/651-2570 E-mail: mnapier@fmr.law - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212/983-1300 Fax: 212/983-0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-aw.com METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION: Disability Advocates File Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Eddie Small, writing for dnainfo, reports that disability advocates have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the MTA over its failure to make a Bronx subway stop accessible to handicapped people during a recent $21.85 million renovation. The suit was filed by the non-profit Disability Rights Advocates and focuses on the 6 train's Middletown Road station, which was closed between Oct. 5, 2013, and May 4, 2014, for extensive upgrades that included replacing the floors, installing a fire alarm system and replacing stairs, court papers say. However, the MTA did not build elevators as part of this renovation that would have enabled people with mobility disabilities to use the station, even though doing so would have been "technically feasible," according to the lawsuit. This violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and amounts to discrimination against the disabled, the suit says. "This is not the first time that the MTA has spent millions of dollars improving a subway station while ignoring the legal mandate to simultaneously make it accessible," Disability Rights Advocates Managing Attorney Michelle Caiola said in a statement, "which is why New York City has one of the worst public transportation systems for people with disabilities in the United States." Only 19 percent of subway stations in New York City are fully accessible to people with disabilities, while 100 percent of stations in Washington D.C. and the San Francisco Bay area, 74 percent of stations in Boston, 68 percent of stations in Philadelphia and 67 percent of stations in Chicago are wheelchair- accessible, according to Disability Rights Advocates. The lack of wheelchair-accessible stations in New York includes a 4.4-mile stretch of 10 stops on the 6 train in The Bronx between the Hunts Point Avenue and Pelham Bay Park stops that includes Middletown Road, the lawsuit says. Disability Rights Advocates filed the suit on behalf of Bronx Independent Living Services and Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, two groups that work to improve the lives of handicapped people, as well as Bronxites Robert Hardy and Rodolfo Diaz, who both have mobility disabilities. Hardy and Diaz, who works for Bronx Independent Living Services, would use the Middletown Road station if it were wheelchair- accessible, but they rely on buses when traveling throughout the borough instead because the system is more accessible than the subway, according to the lawsuit. "The buses, however, are a slower and less convenient method of transportation than the subway," the suit reads. "It often takes up to two hours for Mr. Diaz to travel between destinations within the Bronx for his work, using multiple buses." Diaz said he lives nearby the Middletown Road station and would prefer to take the train if he could, as it would be a faster way to get around. "That's one of the stations that's close to my house," he said, "and it would be more convenient for me to actually take the train that's close to my home." The lawsuit was also brought on behalf of all disabled people who would like to but cannot access the Middletown Road station. The MTA maintained that building elevators at the Middletown Road station was technically not feasible due to physical constraints, meaning they are not violating the ADA, and stressed that accessibility improvements like stair handrails and tactile signs were part of the renovations. The agency is committed to making 100 stations fully accessible by 2020, and all of its buses are currently wheelchair-accessible, according to the MTA. Although the suit asks for its plaintiffs to be awarded with "reasonable attorneys' fees and costs," its main purpose is to persuade the MTA to make the Middletown Road station accessible to people with mobility disabilities. "Many may take access to the subway system for granted, but for our members and constituents, the exceedingly few elevators is a daily reminder of how little effort the MTA has placed on making it a system open to all," DIA President Anthony Trocchia said in a statement. "Hopefully, this suit can initiate a change in MTA priorities." MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Lfoundry Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Microchip Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal of the Southern District of New York Action by LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees. On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, individually and on behalf of a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against Atmel, its French subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent. The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation, more than three years later. The District Court dismissed the case on August 21, 2015, and plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in Airbag Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Microchip Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the case, In re: Continental Airbag Products Liability Litigation. On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division) against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate. The Complaint which includes claims arising under federal law and Florida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state law- alleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leased vehicles containing defective airbag control units (allegedly incorporating defective application specific integrated circuits manufactured by Atmel between 2006 and 2010), and thereby suffered financial harm, including a loss in the value of their purchased or leased vehicles. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages, statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other relief. Atmel intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously. NINE ENERGY: "West" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ William West, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nine Energy Service, LLC Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-00190 (W.D. Tex., June 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nine is a nationwide oilfield services with significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the United States. Plaintiff and his coworkers were employed by Defendant as oilfield personnel, performing technical and manual labor job duties for tubing conveyed perforating, wireline, and packer jobs for oil and gas service companies. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler Andrew W. Dunlap Lindsay R. Itkin FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Tel: 713-751-0025 Fax: 713-751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com NOTIS GLOBAL: Court Continued Final Fairness Hearing to August 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Notis Global, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2016, that a court has continued a final settlement fairness hearing to August 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. As reported in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015, on December 1, 2015, Notis Global and the class plaintiffs in Josh Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO (JEMx), pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") notified the Court of a settlement. The Court stayed the action pending the Court's review of the settlement and directed the parties to file a stipulation of settlement. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement that included the stipulation of settlement. On February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement provides for notice to be given to the class, a period for opt outs and a final approval hearing. The Court had scheduled the Final Settlement Approval Hearing to be held on May 16, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. On May 13, 2016, Court Order continued the final fairness hearing to August 15, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. The disclosure set forth provides notice to potential objectors of the change to the hearing date. O&J RESTAURANT: "Picado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Abel Lopez Picado, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. O&J Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Molina's Ranch Restaurant and Jose O. Jorge, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-22760-RNS (S.D. Cal., June 28, 2016), seeks overtime and minimum wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. O&J Restaurant Corp. operates Molina's Ranch Restaurant with Jose O. Jorge as owner. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an assistant cook. Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM OI S.A.: Defendant in 66 Civil Class Actions by Attorney General ---------------------------------------------------------------- OI S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in 66 civil class actions filed by the Attorney General of the National Treasury jointly with certain consumer agencies demanding the re- opening of customer service centers. The Company said, "The lower courts have rendered decisions in all of these proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to us. All of these proceedings are currently under appeal. As of December 31, 2015, we had recorded provisions in the amount of R$12 million for those claims in respect of which we deemed the risk of loss as probable." OI S.A.: Defendant in Class Action by Federal Prosecutor's Office ----------------------------------------------------------------- OI S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed by the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal) seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by TNL's alleged non-compliance with the Customer Service (Servico de Atendimento ao Consumidor - SAC) regulations established by the Ministry of Justice (Ministerio da Justica). The Company said, "TNL presented its defense and asked for a change of venue to federal court in Rio de Janeiro, where we are headquartered. Other defendants have been named and await service of process. The amount involved in this action is R$300 million. As a result of the corporate reorganization, we have succeeded to TNL's position as a defendant in this action. As of December 31, 2015, we deemed the risk of loss as possible with respect to these lawsuits and had not made any provisions with respect to this action since it was awaiting the court's initial decision." PARTNERS FEDERAL: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Draft Fee Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIA JOYCE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PARTNERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (PFCU) and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BC625343 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief against Defendants arising from Defendants' breach of their contracts with consumers in the implementation of an overdraft fee program. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that PFCU charged overdraft fees for completing payment on transactions that her account had enough money to cover on its own. Partners Federal provides financial products and services for Employees and Cast Members of The Walt Disney Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. Jae K. Kim, Esq. MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557 1250 Facsimile: (909) 557 1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com jkk@mccunewright.com - and - Taras Kick, Esq. G. James Strenio, Esq. Robert J. Dart, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC 201 Wilshire Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 395 2988 Facsimile: (310) 395 2088 E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com James@kicklawfirm.com Robert@kicklawfirm.com PDQ TRANSPORTATION: "Terrel" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Terrell and Danerio Stubbs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PDQ Transportation, Inc. d/b/a Urban Express Charter, Eastern Horizon, Inc. D/B/A Urban Express Transportation, Qeis Atieh and Pamela Atieh, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00579 (S.D. Ohio., June 22, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, award of costs and expenses of this action, together with reasonable attorney fees and expert fees and such other legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Defendants own and operate Urban Express located at 1640 East Fifth Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43219, managing a fleet of vehicles for passenger transportation. Plaintiffs worked as piece-rate drivers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Beggs, Esq. BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 Tel: 614-457-7800 Fax: 614-448-9408 Email: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com - and - Andrew Kimble, Esq. KIMBLE LAW, LLC 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 Email: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com Tel: 614-983-0361 Fax: 614-448-9408 PEOPLES BANK: Faces "Langston" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN LANGSTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO., Case 5:16-cv-00745-HE (W.D. Okla., June 30, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Peoples Bank & Trust Company is an active banking institute. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 420 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 221-7100 Fax: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com PHOTOMEDEX INC: Merger Deal with DS Healthcare Terminated --------------------------------------------------------- DS Healthcare Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that the Company on May 25, 2016, delivered a notice to PhotoMedex, Inc. to indicate various breaches and concerns observed by the Board of Directors. The notice detailed the following: 1. Misrepresentation in public statements to DS Healthcare shareholders that upon the consummation of transaction PhotoMedex shareholders will own approximately 43% of the company and DS Healthcare shareholders will own approximately 57%. It was determined that this statement is false and misleading as PhotoMedex could obtain far more than 43% of DS Healthcare's common stock under the terms of the acquisition Agreement. When members of the Board of Directors of DS Healthcare notified PhotoMedex regarding this significantly material discrepancy, PhotoMedex refused to update the agreement to correctly reflect the belief of DS Healthcare shareholders and the public statements made by PhotoMedex. 2. Failure to satisfy the condition precedent in Section 2.12(h) of the Agreement, which requires that Photomedex not be subject to any legal proceedings that could reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect. However, both Radiancy, Inc. and PhotoMedex, Inc. are defendants in two putative class action lawsuits: Cantley v. Radiancy, Inc. et al., currently pending as Case No. 1:15-cv-01649 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; and Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc., currently pending as Case No. 1:15-cv-01142-CKK in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (collectively, the "Radiancy Class Actions"). In its SEC form 10-Q dated May 13, 2016 PhotoMedex represented that "the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated" for either of the Radiancy Class Actions. Given the admission by PhotoMedex that it cannot quantify its potential liability for these matters, PhotoMedex cannot satisfy the condition set forth in Section 2.12(h). Moreover, PhotoMedex affirmatively represented to the district court in the Cantley lawsuit that it "determined the amount in controversy exceeded five-million dollars pursuant to [PhotoMedex's] own investigation." 3. PhotoMedex breached its obligations under Sections 5.3 ("Further Assurances") and 5.11(c) ("Access to Information. Confidentiality") of the Agreements by providing false information in response to reasonable requests from DS Healthcare. 4. PhotoMedex failed to timely file a proxy statement as required under Section 5.1(a) of the Agreements. Upon receiving this notice from DS Healthcare, PhotoMedex terminated the various merger Agreements and filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a $3 million termination fee and an additional $750,000 reimbursement. DS Healthcare intends to file a counter-claim and will vigorously defend the claims made by Photomedex. PhotoMedex, Inc. (NasdaqGS and TASE:PHMD) announced in February 2016 that it has entered into a definitive agreement to sell its consumer products and professional products businesses to DS Healthcare Group (Nasdaq: DSKX), a Pompano, Florida-based developer of topical pharmaceutical and personal care products, for total consideration of approximately $48 million in a combination of convertible preferred stock, common stock and a note. POST FOODS: "Wu" Alleges Carcinogen in Wheat Products ----------------------------------------------------- Andy Wu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Post Foods, LLC and Post Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03494 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2016), seeks restitution, disgorgement, refund and/or other monetary damages, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney fees, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief resulting from breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment pursuant to the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices, California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff alleges that Post(R) Shredded Wheat products manufactured and sold by the Defendants contain glyphosate, a potent herbicide that causes cancer. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 Email: mram@rocklawcal.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, SBN #178181 Erika L. Nusser TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 Email: enusser@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com POST FOODS: "Stephenson" Alleges Carcinogen in Wheat Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Stephenson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Post Foods, LLC and Post Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03396 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2015), seeks restitution, disgorgement, refund and/or other monetary damages, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney fees, prejudgment interest and injunctive relief pursuant to New York General Business Laws. Plaintiff alleges that Post(R) Shredded Wheat products manufactured and sold by the Defendants contain glyphosate, a potent herbicide that causes cancer. Plaintiff is represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 687-8291 Facsimile: (212) 687-8292 Email: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com PRINCE GEORGE, WA: Carraway Sex Scandal Prompts Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Lynh Bui, writing for The Washington Post, reports that a grand jury indicted a former elementary school volunteer on 270 counts of child pornography and related charges in an extensive sex abuse scandal that shook Prince George's County. The indictment comes four months after Deonte Carraway, 22, was arrested in the wide-reaching case and increases the official victim count from 17 to 23. Officials with the Prince George's County State's Attorney's Office announced the indictment on June 29 and said the office also is conducting a tandem investigation to determine whether any adults at the school failed to report Mr. Carraway's behavior and should be criminally charged as a result. Prince George's County State's Attorney Angela Alsobrooks said the Carraway case is the largest indictment her office has handled since she took office in 2011. The material presented to the grand jury represents evidence from more than 100 videos and photos recorded over a roughly seven-month period, prosecutors said. "It speaks to how horrible this case was and is," Ms. Alsobrooks said. Mr. Carraway, of Glenarden, abused or recorded children performing sex acts at Judge Sylvania W. Woods Elementary School, where he worked as a paid teacher's aide before becoming a library volunteer, according to prosecutors. The incidents he is accused of occurred on school property during the school day or at the Glenarden Community Center, where he ran a local youth choir, prosecutors said. Mr. Carraway visited the homes of many children involved in the case after their parents had asked him to babysit or tutor, the indictment states. He then told children that they were part of a club and that to remain members, they had to record themselves or let him record them performing explicit sexual acts on devices known as "the orange phone" and "the white phone," the indictment states. Mr. Carraway also victimized children at a public pool, at a Bowie church and in private homes, police have said. The grand jury's charges are in addition to 13 counts that federal authorities filed against Mr. Carraway earlier this year. The group of children involved in the indictment announced on June 29 are between the ages of 9 and 13 and comprises 20 boys and 3 girls, although there could be additional victims, prosecutors said. The indictment was built using what prosecutors characterized as their strongest evidence -- mostly based on videos from phones Mr. Carraway allegedly distributed to children -- in an effort, they said, to avoid adding to the children's trauma by having them appear in court to testify. "The effort in crafting this indictment was to try to minimize the impact on children," said Thomas Degonia, a special assistant state's attorney. "That's not to say there aren't many other children who may have been involved or affected." Prince George's police and federal law enforcement officials said Mr. Carraway admitted to giving children phones and telling them to use the devices to send explicit images to him through an anonymous messaging app called Kik. But in court filings, Mr. Carraway's federal public defenders said their client's confession should be tossed out because it was not given voluntarily and because Mr. Carraway did not fully understand his rights when speaking with police. An attorney representing Mr. Carraway could not be immediately reached to comment on June 29. The case roiled parents in Prince George's, particularly in the roughly 6,000-resident city of Glenarden where Mr. Carraway lived, worked and volunteered. Woods Elementary parents have specifically asked why Mr. Carraway was allegedly allowed to be alone with students at the school and why the abuse charged in the case was allowed to occur over the course of a year before law enforcement got involved. The principal and a teacher at the school were put on leave in the aftermath of Mr. Carraway's arrest. Ms. Alsobrooks also said the office is still working on a criminal investigation to determine "how these particular crimes were allowed to occur" and whether there were "other individuals that may have had knowledge of these acts." The case went to Prince George's police after an uncle checking a student's cellphone noticed inappropriate photos on the device and alerted authorities. After Mr. Carraway's arrest, the county school system launched a task force to review how employees are trained to identify and report suspected child abuse. The report, issued in May, stated that the system needed to make sweeping improvements to better protect students. The report, however, did not address specifics of the Carraway investigation. Prince George's school officials said in a statement on June 29 that they appreciate the efforts of law enforcement agencies and look forward to Mr. Carraway being held accountable for his "heinous and horrifying crimes." They said they would continue working on the task force's recommendations to improve school safety. The case has prompted at least six civil suits, including a class- action lawsuit against the county school system. QLIK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Thoma Bravo Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on June 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf of stockholders of Qlik Technologies, Inc. ("Qlik" or the "Company") seeking to challenge the Company's recently announced merger. If you would like to join the class action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423- 6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -- www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -- www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. On June 2, 2016, Qlik and private equity firm Thoma Bravo LLC ("Thoma Bravo") announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Thoma Bravo will acquire Qlik in an all-cash merger worth approximately $3 billion. As a result of the merger, Qlik shareholders are only expected to receive $30.50 per share. The consideration that Qlik shareholders are expected to receive is inadequate. Following the announcement of the merger, according to a Barron's report, analyst Ed Maguire from CLSA Americas stated that Qlik "took the easy way out with little premium." The consideration is also $11.42 below Qlik's 52-week high of $41.92 and below the median price target of $34.96 of several financial analysts. On June 15, 2016, a Qlik shareholder represented by another law firm filed a class action complaint challenging Qlik's merger with Thoma Bravo. The complaint was filed in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, captioned Willems v. Qlik Technologies Inc., et al, Case No. 2016-005249. If you own shares of Qlik and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases- investigations/qlik-technologies-class-action-investigation or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. QUALITY SYSTEMS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that oral argument has not yet been scheduled in a federal securities class action appeal. On November 19, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Quality Systems, Inc., Steven T. Plochocki, Paul A. Holt and Sheldon Razin, No. SACV13- 01818-CJC-JPRx, by the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, a shareholder of the Company. The complaint is a putative class action filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the defendants. The Company said, "After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818- CJC(JPRx), lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the litigation described above under the caption "Hussein Litigation," generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees." "We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied on January 5, 2015. "On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral argument is not yet scheduled. "We believe that plaintiff's claims are without merit and continues to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim." Quality Systems, Inc., primarily through its NextGen Healthcare subsidiary, provides technology-based solutions and services to the ambulatory care market in the United States. QUALITY SYSTEMS: "Foss" Action Stayed Pending Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the lawsuit by Timothy J. Foss remains stayed pending a federal securities class action appeal. On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and current and former directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A. Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert, Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-00110- DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of the Company. The complaint arises from the same allegations related to the complaints filed by Ahmed D. Hussein and the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund and generally alleges breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by the Company's directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider selling by individual directors. The parties have agreed to stay this litigation until the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the pending appeal in the Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation matter. "Although we believe the claims to be without merit, our operating results and share price may be negatively impacted due to the negative publicity, expenses incurred in connection with our defense, management distraction, and/or other factors related to this litigation," the Company said. Quality Systems, Inc., primarily through its NextGen Healthcare subsidiary, provides technology-based solutions and services to the ambulatory care market in the United States. QUALITY SYSTEMS: July 28 Hearing on Summary Adjudication Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that a hearing is set for July 28, 2016, on a motion for summary adjudication in the Hussein Litigation. The Company said, "On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against our Company and certain of our officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30- 2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein, a former director and significant shareholder of our Company. We filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the court granted on April 10, 2014. An amended complaint was filed on April 25, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance. The amended complaint seeks actual damages, exemplary and punitive damages and costs. We filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the court sustained the demurrer with respect to the breach of fiduciary duty claim, and overruled the demurrer with respect to the fraud and deceit claims. On August 28, 2014, we filed an answer and also filed a cross-complaint against the plaintiff, alleging that the plaintiff breached fiduciary duties owed to our Company, Mr. Razin and Mr. Plochocki. On June 26, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted on September 16, 2015, dismissing all claims against us. On September 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed an application for reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment order, which the court denied. On October 28, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss our cross-complaint, which the court denied on March 3, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary adjudication, seeking to again dismiss our cross- complaint. The hearing for the motion is set for July 28, 2016. We believe that plaintiff's claims are without merit and continues to defend against them vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim. Federal Securities Class Action." Quality Systems, Inc., primarily through its NextGen Healthcare subsidiary, provides technology-based solutions and services to the ambulatory care market in the United States. RENTOKIL NORTH: Sued in Cal. Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements ---------------------------------------------------------------- VAHE MESSERLIAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA INC., formerly known as J. C. Ehrlich Co., Inc. (d/b/a Western Exterminator Company), and DOES 1-100m inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC625133 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 27, 2016), seeks statutory and treble damages on behalf of himself and the class and subclass, and a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from continuing their unlawful practice of sending unsolicited fax advertisements and causing or contributing to the unlawful practice of sending unsolicited fax advertisements to others, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The class which Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons and other entities within the United States who were a subscriber of a telephone facsimile number and to which telephone facsimile number Defendants sent or caused to be sent, within four years of the date this action was filed." The Subclass is defined as: "All persons and other entities within California who were a subscriber of a telephone facsimile number and to which telephone facsimile number Defendants sent from California or caused to be sent from California, within four years of the date this action was filed." Rentokil is a pest control services company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY 1010 N. Central Ave. Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (877) 574 7100 Facsimile: (877) 574 9411 E-mail: chant@chant.mobi.com SEIU HEALTHCARE: Union Members Lose Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- Timothy J. Domanick, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that employers recently gained support for one of their defenses to class claims, and in a case against a union no less, after a federal court in Illinois found that union members' claims may require individualized questions and therefore were not appropriate for class treatment. See Riffey v. Rauner, et al., 10-cv-02477 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2016). The dispute stemmed from SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana's practice of deducting "fair share" union dues from home health aides' Medicaid reimbursements. Previously, SEIU received more than $32 million in dues from approximately 80,000 current and former home health aides from 2008 to 2014. However, in 2014, the Supreme Court declared that the collection arrangement was unconstitutional as a violation of individuals' First Amendment rights. It held the health aides and child-care workers weren't "full-fledged" public employees and couldn't be compelled to pay dues to a union recognized by the state as their bargaining agent. See Harris v. Quinn, 134 S. Ct. 2618 (2014). Based upon the ruling in Harris, a prospective class action was created in which workers sought to claw back the $32 million paid to SEIU. The plaintiffs moved for class certification under Rule 23. The Court denied the motion, stating that certification was not appropriate because the plaintiffs sought to represent thousands of union members who supported SEIU and would have voluntarily paid their "fair share" dues. Additionally, the Court determined that too many individualized questions existed, such as the fact a large percentage of the prospective class likely was not injured by the conduct, and for those that were harmed, individualized determinations predominated over common questions. As a result, the Court ruled class certification was inappropriate. Plaintiffs have stated they plan to appeal this decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. While the ultimate outcome of this case is yet to be determined, this decision highlights the importance of fighting overbroad class definitions when defending class actions, especially when dealing with potentially thousands of class members. Although unionized employers still need to meet their requirements under the applicable collective bargaining agreement, employers can use this case when defending against class certification for the proposition that certification should be denied because, even if all class members are in the same union, all union members "are not equal" and may not suffer the same injury based upon a common policy or procedure. SIGNET JEWELERS: Motion For Protective Order Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company's Motion for Protective Order remains pending and Claimants' opposition to SJI's Motion For Protective Order was due June 3, 2016. In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants filed their opposition on December 2, 2015. SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the Southern District's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016. Claimants filed their opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator denied SJI's Motion on April 5, 2016. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period. Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 11, 2016, SJI filed its reply on April 20, 2016, and oral argument was heard on SJI's Motion on May 11, 2016. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants' opposition was due June 3, 2016. SIGNET JEWELERS: Opt-In Collective Action Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that a Court has conditionally certified an opt-in collective action in the case by Naomi Tapia. Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec. 216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on June 3, 2015. On April 6, 2016, the Court conditionally certified an opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt and who worked in a Zale retail store in the United States at any time from July 3, 2010 to the present. Additionally, the court certified an opt-out class action of the remaining claims on behalf of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt, and worked in a Zale retail store in the State of California at any time from July 3, 2009 through the date of this mailing. At this time, the class has not yet received notice of the ruling and has not yet been provided the opportunity to opt in or opt out. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this litigation. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: Filed Petition for Writ of Certiorari ------------------------------------------------------ Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that SJI filed a Petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2016. On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non- monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI's motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC's claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC's objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court's order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015. On December 4, 2015, SJI filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit a Motion Of Appellee Sterling Jewelers Inc. For Stay Of Mandate Pending Petition For Writ Of Certiorari. The Motion was granted by the Second Circuit on December 10, 2015. SJI filed a Petition For Writ Of Certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2016. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. SIGNET JEWELERS: Delaware Supreme Court Affirmed Case Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware has affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the entirety of the amended complaint challenging the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation. Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014 (collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale Corporation stockholders. The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014 (the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the merger. On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no longer named as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint sought, among other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015. On October 1, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against the Zale Corporation directors and the Company. On October 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against Bank of America Merrill Lynch. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the October 1, 2015 and October 29, 2015 decisions of the Court of Chancery with the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On May 6, 2016, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the entirety of the amended complaint. SOLAR BEAR: "Izquierdo" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Aleymer Izquierdo, on behalf of himself and all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Solar Bear Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-22790 (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is into the air-conditioning business and employed Plaintiff as a piece rate worker, thus denying him overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan S. Minick, Esq. JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A. 1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307 Miami, FL 33135 Phone: (786) 441-8909 Facsimile: (786) 523-0610 E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com SPENDSMART NETWORKS: "Marchelos" Class Suit Still Pending in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the case, Peter Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital Management, et al, remains pending. On January 1, 2014, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS Masterminds was named in a potential class-action lawsuit titled Telford v. Intellectual Capital, et al, filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The Company believed the Plaintiff's allegations had no merit but based upon the economics of continued litigation, the Company resolved the lawsuit in May 2015 for the sum of $34,612, and the action is no longer pending. On July 8, 2015, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS Masterminds and SpendSmart Networks, Inc. were named in a potential class-action lawsuit entitled Peter Marchelos, et al v. Intellectual Capital Management, et al, filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. This litigation involves the same licensee and merchant as the Telford lawsuit and the same attorneys represent the plaintiffs in this action. The claim of one of the two plaintiffs was resolved for $1,701. The Company believes the Plaintiff's allegations have no merit. "There are no other legal claims currently pending or threatened against us that in the opinion of our management would be likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. STACCA RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Suit to Recover Minimum, OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Pavon-Hernandez and Angel Morales-Toxqui, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Stacca Restaurant Corp., Spiro Mouzakitis and Carol Hatzisotiriou, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05045 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and N.Y. Labor Law; as well as spread of hours and overtime wages under orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a diner located at 352 E 23rd St, New York, NY 10010 under the name "East Side Cafe" where Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 SUTTER WEST: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on June 29 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Sutter West Bay Hospitals failed to pay their hourly employees the correct amount of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide their California employees with meal and rest periods in accordance with the California law. The Sutter West Bay Hospitals lawsuit, civ538977 is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior Court for the State of California. The class action complaint alleges the company paid their non- exempt employees non-discretionary bonus based on their performance for the company. The Complaint further alleges that as a matter of law the various bonus wages paid to the Sutter West Bay employees should have been included in the employees' hourly rates for the purposes of paying their employees the correct overtime wages. As a result of the alleged illegal overtime calculations conducted by Sutter West Bay, the class action lawsuit claims other non-exempt employees working for the company were also not correctly paid all their overtime wages. The Complaint further claims the Golden State employees missed meal breaks because allegedly Sutter West Bay failed to have a policy to provide their employees thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work. If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please contact an experienced California labor lawyer today by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and Riverside that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Objectors Appeal Settlement Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2016, for the fiscal year ended April 1, 2016, that objectors to a class action settlement have filed notices of appeal to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the Court's approval of the settlement. On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI"). On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011. In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company would pay the plaintiffs $30 million, which we accrued. On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, which was subsequently paid by the Company into escrow. The Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and entered judgment in the case. Objectors to the settlement have filed notices of appeal to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the Court's approval of the settlement. Symantec Corporation is a global leader in security. SYNCREON TECHNOLOGY: Faces "King" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- GENE KING, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SYNCREON TECHNOLOGY (USA) LLC, Case 3:16-cv-00171 (S.D. Tex., June 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Syncreon Technology (USA) LLC is a logistics company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 TARGET CORPORATION: Faces Police Retirement System Action --------------------------------------------------------- Target Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the on May 17, 2016, Target Corporation, its former chief executive officer and its current chief operating officer were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota under the caption Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-01315-ADM-FLN, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures of Target about its expansion of retail operations into Canada. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or acquired Target stock between February 27, 2013 and May 19, 2014, and seeks damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees, based on allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the value of such stock. Target has not yet responded to the lawsuit, but intends to vigorously defend against it. TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a putative class-action lawsuit has been filed in the state of California against a large IT enterprise following allegations that the defendant failed to provide its California-based hourly workers with uninterrupted, 30-minute meal periods as required under California employment law. The lawsuit, filed against Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., also carries implications surrounding the alleged unpaid overtime and the keeping of inconsistent records. The IT world is rife with situations where IT consultants are called in to rescue a corporation, small business or even the individual when the valued computer platform(s) suddenly goes south. Downtime is critical, and usually panic ensues while the platform is not functional and the client is off line or otherwise, dead in the water. To that end, IT professionals often feel pressure from their employers, or their clients, to keep working until the bug is worked out, the problem fixed, and the enterprise back online and engaged. However, California overtime laws do not account for such heroics or expectations. While a salaried IT professional is usually making a sufficiently high salary that precludes them from receiving overtime or regular meal periods, an hourly worker is protected under California overtime laws and federally under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Overtime must be claimed and paid for any work performed beyond eight hours in any given workday or beyond 40 hours in any given work week. What's more, an uninterrupted meal period must be provided prior to the 5th hour of work. This is mandated in order to ensure that an employee is properly nourished and rested. Not only is such non-provision of meal and rest periods a violation of basic employee rights, but according to overtime pay laws, any missed meal breaks or rest periods are subject to interpretation that an employee is working through them, resulting in additional work hours for which overtime must be paid. The unpaid overtime lawsuit asserts that Tata failed to keep employment wage statements and proper records, failing to "record and pay Plaintiff and other California Class Members for the actual amount of time these employees worked, including overtime worked." The proposed putative class-action overtime pay lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego. Lead plaintiff in the case is identified as Joshua Hall. The lawsuit is Case No. 37-2016-000016447-CU-OE-CTL. The lawsuit was filed May 17 of this year. THRIVE MARKET: Sanchez Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL VAZQUEZ SANCHEZ and ALEX VAZQUEZ, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THRIVE MARKET, INC., dba THRIVE MARKET TECHNOLOGIES, INC., an entity unknown; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC 625182 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 27, 2016), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief against Defendant for missed meal period and rest break premiums, overtime and minimum wages, vested vacation wages, and penalties, pursuant to the Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission, and Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in (1) failing to pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, (2) failing to pay all overtime wages and minimum wages, (3) failing to pay all vested vacation wages, including vacation equivalents, (4) failing to timely pay all wages due and owing upon termination of employment, (5) failing to provide accurate wage statements, and (6) engaging in unfair business practices. Thrive Market is an e-commerce site that sells healthy organic products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. Brian O. Lee, Esq. YOONLAW, APC One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612 0988 Facsimile: (213) 947 1211 - and - JOSEPH M. HEKMAT, Esq. HEKMAT LAW GROUP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700 Los, Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (424) 888 0848 Facsimile: (424) 270 0242 TRANSAMERICA: Settles 401(k) Plan Class Action for $3.8 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heller, writing for CFO.com, reports that retirement plan provider Transamerica Corp. has agreed to pay $3.8 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over the fees it charged participants in its own 401(k) plan. Participants alleged Transamerica's parent company Aegon collected $40 million by charging "layers of superfluous fees" for investment management and other services. An Iowa judge approved the settlement of the ERISA class action. Transamerica's 401(k) plan had 16,715 combined participants and deceased participants with beneficiaries receiving benefits and held $1.56 billion in assets at the end of the 2013 plan year. According to the suit, which was filed in February 2015, Aegon managed the plan "to benefit itself, in breach of its fiduciary obligations under ERISA, by burdening the Plan with layers of superfluous fees paid to Aegon affiliates." Among other things, the suit alleged, Aegon portfolio managers charged a "substantial" investment management fee even though they simply picked an underlying Aegon mutual fund in which to invest plan assets. At least 16 Aegon collective investment trusts or pooled separate accounts were offered in the plan. In addition, the company allegedly charged an advisor fee "merely for picking a subadvisor to do all the real work of portfolio management. "Mega plans," those having over $1 billion in assets, have a median total fee of 30 basis points, or .30%, including management fees, administrative fees and other insurance charges, according to the suit. The Aegon plan had average fees each year of more than 160 basis points, or 1.6%, on management investment fees alone, the suit said. "Transamerica joins a growing list of retirement plan service providers that have been targeted in similar excessive-fee lawsuits by their plan participants," InvestmentNews reported. In early June, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance agreed to settle with its employees for $31 million, while Fidelity Investments and Ameriprise Financial have recently paid out $12 million and $27.5 million, respectively. TRANSUNION: Updates on Bankruptcy Tradeline Litigation ------------------------------------------------------ TransUnion, in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, provided updates on the so-called Bankruptcy Tradeline Litigation. The Company said, "In a matter captioned White, et al, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California), plaintiffs sought class action status against Equifax, Experian and us in connection with the reporting of delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a consumer report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding. The claims allege that each national consumer reporting company did not automatically update a consumer's file after their discharge from bankruptcy and such non-action was a failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure maximum file accuracy, a requirement of the FCRA." "Without admitting any wrongdoing, we have agreed to a settlement of this matter. In August 2008, the Court approved an agreement whereby we and the other industry defendants voluntarily changed certain operational practices. These changes require us to update certain delinquent records when we learn, through the collection of public records, that the consumer has received an order of discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. These business practice changes did not have a material adverse impact on our operations or those of our customers. "In 2009, we also agreed, with the other two defendants, to settle the monetary claims associated with this matter for $17.0 million each ($51.0 million in total), which amount will be distributed from a settlement fund to pay the class counsel's attorney fees, all administration and notice costs of the fund to the purported class, and a variable damage amount to consumers within the class based on the level of harm the consumer is able to confirm. Our share of this settlement was fully covered by insurance. Final approval of this monetary settlement by the Court occurred in July 2011. Certain objecting plaintiffs appealed the Court's final approval of the monetary settlement and, in April 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the final approval order and remanded the matter to the District Court. The rationale provided by the Court of Appeals was not that the proposed settlement was unfair or defective, but that named class counsel and certain named plaintiffs did not adequately represent the interests of the class because of certain identified conflicts. Objecting counsel to the settlement has sought to become new class counsel and the District Court denied that request. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling on interlocutory appeal and on May 5, 2016, denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc. "If the monetary settlement is not ultimately upheld, we expect to vigorously litigate this matter and to assert what we believe are valid defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs. Regardless of what occurs next, we believe we have not violated any law, have valid defenses and are willing to aggressively litigate this matter. We do not believe any final resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition." TRANSUNION: Stay in Miller Litigation Lifted -------------------------------------------- TransUnion said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that the stay in the Miller litigation has been lifted. The Company said, "As a result of a decision by the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (Cortez v. Trans Union LLC), we modified one of our add-on services we offer to our business customers that was designed to alert our customer that the consumer, who was seeking to establish a business relationship with the customer, may potentially be on the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Specifically Designated National and Blocked Persons alert list (the "OFAC Alert"). The OFAC Alert service is meant to assist our customers with their compliance obligations in connection with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001." "In Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC, (No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California), filed in 2012, the plaintiff has alleged that: the OFAC Alert service does not comply with the Cortez ruling; we have willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the corresponding California state-FCRA based on the Cortez ruling by continuing to offer the OFAC Alert service; and there are one or more classes of individuals who should be entitled to statutory damages (i.e., $100 to $5,000 per person) based on the allegedly willful violations. In addition to the Ramirez action, the same lawyers representing Ramirez (who also represented the plaintiff in Cortez) filed two additional alleged class actions in 2012 (Miller v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-1715-WJN, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12- 5726-JSC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California) and one in 2014 (Amit Patel, et al. v. TransUnion LLC, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. and TransUnion Background Data Solutions, No. 14-cv-0522-LB, United States District Court for the Northern District of California) claiming that our process for disclosing OFAC information to consumers, or how we match OFAC information to a consumer's name or other identifying information, violates the FCRA and, in some instances, the corresponding California state-FCRA. In addition to the OFAC allegations, the plaintiff in the Patel action seeks to collapse all TransUnion FCRA regulated entities into a single entity. "In July 2014, the Court in Ramirez certified a class of approximately 8,000 individuals solely for purposes of statutory damages if TransUnion is ultimately found to have willfully violated the FCRA, and a sub-class of California residents solely for purposes of injunctive relief under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. While the Court noted that the plaintiff is not seeking any actual monetary damage, the class certification order was predicated on a disputed question of Ninth Circuit law (currently there is a conflict between the federal circuits) that is awaiting action by the United States Supreme Court. Our motions to stay the Ramirez, Miller and Larson proceedings were granted and the proceedings stayed pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins. "In June 2015, the Court in Patel certified a national class of approximately 11,000 individuals with respect to allegations that TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by failing to maintain and follow reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of their information, and a national subclass of approximately 3,000 individuals with respect to allegations that TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by failing to provide consumers with all information in their files. In September 2015, our motion to stay the Patel proceedings was granted and the proceedings stayed pending action by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins. "On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Spokeo v. Robins, holding that the injury-in-fact requirement for standing under Article III of the United States Constitution requires a plaintiff to allege an injury that is both "concrete and particularized." The Court held that the Ninth Circuit's analysis failed to consider concreteness in its analysis and vacated the decision and remanded to the Ninth Circuit to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement. "On May 31, 2016, the stay in the Miller matter was lifted. "We are reviewing the impact on the Ramirez, Miller, Larson and Patel matters and discussing next steps with plaintiffs' counsel for each case in light of the Spokeo decision. We intend to continue to defend these matters vigorously as we believe we have acted in a lawful manner." TRANSUNION: Court Certified National Class in "Henderson" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- TransUnion said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, that the Court has certified a national class of individuals in the class action lawsuit by Tyrone Henderson, et al. In Tyrone Henderson, et al. v. TransUnion LLC and TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. (No. 3:14-cv-00679-JAG, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division)), the plaintiffs have alleged that TransUnion's process for mailing required notices to consumers at the time it furnishes a consumer report for employment purposes that contains adverse public record information violates the FCRA. On May 3, 2016, the Court in Henderson certified a national class of individuals with respect to these allegations. "We intend to continue to defend this matter vigorously as we believe we have acted in a lawful manner," the Company said. UBER TECHNOLGIES: Seeks Consolidation of 11 TCPA Suits ------------------------------------------------------ Carmellia Calmese seeks transfer and consolidation of 11 suits filed against Uber Technologies for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 22, 2016, MDL No. 2733. The cases are: Calmese v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 16-cv-06277 (N.D. Ill.), Cubria v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-cv-00544 (W.D. Tex.), Charles Christopher Johnson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16- cv-05468 (N.D. Ill.), Matthew Johnson v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-cv-50113 (N.D. Ill.), Kafatos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 15- cv-03727 (N.D. Cal.), Kolloukian v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 15- cv-02856 (C.D. Cal.), Lainer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 15-cv- 09925 (C.D. Cal.), Lathrop et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 14- cv-05678 (N.D. Cal.), Shaver v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-cv- 22067 (S.D. Fla.), Vergara v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 15-cv-06942 (N.D. Ill.) and Norman v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 3:16-cv-02907 (N.D. Cal.) Calmese is represented by: Michael J. McMorrow, Esq. McMORROW LAW, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, 44th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 265-0708 Email: mike@mjmcmorrow.com UNIGROUP INC: "Judge" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- JACK JUDGE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIGROUP, INC., MAYFLOWER TRANSIT, LLC. and UNITED VAN LINES, LLC., Defendant, Case: 1:16-cv-06884 (N.D. Ill., June 30, 2016), seeks alleged unpaid minimum wages for moving van operators of household and commercial goods under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mayflower Transit, LLC and United Van Lines, LLC are two of the largest moving companies in the United States and have more than 600 agents operating in every region of the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Piers, Esq. Caryn C. Lederer, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD. 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 580-0100 Fax: (312) 580-1994 E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com clederer@hsplegal.com - and - Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Esq. ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW PLLC 97 India Street Portland, ME 04101 Phone: (207) 619-0320 Fax: (207) 221-1029 E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com VALLEJO, CA: Faces "Mustard" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MAT MUSTARD, BENJAMIN HILL, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals, v. CITY OF VALLEJO, Case 2:16-cv- 01485-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal., June 30, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vallejo is the largest city in Solano County, California, United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone: (916) 446-4692 Fax: (916) 447-4614 VALVE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Illegal Betting ----------------------------------------------------------- Megan Spicer, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that a Fairfield man has filed a lawsuit against a video game company that he said works in conjunction with illegal offshore gambling websites that take advantage of unsuspecting players. Michael McLeod's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Connecticut, is a detailed look into the emerging world of high- stakes wagering on video games. Mr. McCleod, who is seeking class action status, said he had been gambling on and playing "Counter-Strike: Global Offensive," a first-person shooter game created by Washington State-based Valve Corp., since 2014, when he was a teenager. According to a variety of websites, more than 3.3 million people play "Counter-Strike" each month and the game is featured in a weekly show on TBS. As video gaming has become more popular, so has wagering on competitions. A Bloomberg news investigation in April revealed that more than 3 million people placed $2.3 billion in bets on e-games in 2015. That investigation alluded to potential legal action that Mr. McLeod spelled out in his lawsuit regarding unregulated gambling. At issue are "skins," which are different types of designs for weapons used in "Counter Strike." The skins serve as a type of currency, similar to casino chips, and can be bought, sold, traded and wagered by players and nonplayers. The gambling occurs through offshore, third-party websites such as CSGO Lounge, CSGO Diamonds and OPSkins. People -- including those not involved in playing that particular games of "Counter Strike" -- can bet on the outcome of competitions. Winners can convert skins directly into cash through the third-party websites. According to the lawsuit, the payoffs are filtered through PayPal into accounts on Steam, a gaming website also owned by Valve. The issue, Mr. McLeod said, lies with the third-party websites, which he says are illegal, unregulated and, at times, dishonest. Yet, he claims, Valve does business with them -- even providing technology -- in return for a slice of the gambling proceeds. "In sum, Valve owns the league, sells the casino chips, and receives a piece of the casino's income stream through foreign websites in order to maintain the charade that Valve is not promoting and profiting from online gambling, like a modern-day Captain Renault from 'Casablanca,'" according to the suit. Mr. McLeod claims those in the class would be anyone who was led to use Valve's sites based on "false and misleading advertisements of fair play, and lack of information about having to compete against players with inside information," according to the suit. This sort of gambling is illegal within the United States, the lawsuit claims. "Valve has no license, permission or legal authority to create and online gambling platform," the lawsuit stated. "Valve's affirmative actions both created this online gambling system and allow it to continue." Mr. McLeod is represented by Neal Moskow of Ury & Moskow in Fairfield, Paul Whalen of New York, and attorneys Jasper Ward, Alex Davis and Patrick Walsh in Kentucky. "The goal of our class action is to protect consumers, and this was something that is an unregulated online market with third-party websites based oversea or with unknown origins," said Mr. Ward, who is also the lead plaintiffs' counsel in the nationwide lawsuit against the fantasy sports site Draft Kings. "This affects a lot of people. The difference between ['Counter-Strike'] and Draft Kings is that this is mostly teenagers. Parents don't really know what's going on" with the wagering. The suit is seeking an unspecified amount in damages and does not say how much money Mr. McLeod has lost or earned during his time playing and watching the games. The suit claims Valve benefitted from unjust enrichment, was involved in racketeering, and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. There is no counsel listed yet for the Valve Corp. "This unregulated market is ripe for scams, cheating, fraud and other harms to users," according to the complaint. "For instance, there have been numerous instances of match-fixing in ['Counter- Strike'] matches." In January 2015, according to the suit, a highly qualified team of "Counter-Strike" players fixed matches against lesser teams, which resulted in seven players being banned from the Valve-sponsored events and from gambling on matches. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Settles Klein Class Action for $10 Billion --------------------------------------------------------- Luxury Daily reports that automotive group Volkswagen has reached a $10 billion class action settlement after the brand falsified emissions data on nearly half a million diesel models sold in the United States. The Gregg Klein v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. case was filed in federal court in September 2015, days after the automaker copped to deceiving U.S. regulators and consumers. The emissions scandal impacted not only Volkswagen branded diesel vehicles, but also its high-end offerings such as Porsche and Audi, which are owned by the group (see story). Paying up The case against Volkswagen was filed by MLG Automotive Law and includes a number of "tag-along cases" that were consolidated into one class action suit. The case was overseen by the Honorable Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. On June 28, MLG and Volkswagen reached a historic settlement of $10 billion. The settlement is the largest automotive class action settlement in U.S. history. Per the settlement agreement, Volkswagen will buyback or modify approximately 500,000 affected vehicles. The auto group will also have to pay consumers a civil penalty of at least $5,100 for each car purchased and $1,529 for vehicles that were leased. Valued at more than $15 billion, the settlement only resolves class action claims for consumers who drove 2.0-liter diesel engines in the U.S. market. The case does not resolve the claims brought by owners of 3.0-liter engines. A U.S. dealership class action suit is also not resolved by this settlement. Volkswagen vehicles sold outside the U.S. are not part of the class action settlement either. "[The class action settlement] marks a historic day in our nation's jurisprudence," said Jonathan Michaels, founding member of MLG Automotive Law, in a statement. "Not only is this the largest settlement of its kind in U.S. history, but manufacturers are finally being told that there are severe consequences for deceiving the public," he said. "We look forward to continuing to support the claims of the dealers and the 3.0-liter owners, both of whom were not involved in [the June 28] settlement." Volkswagen has shared the link across its social media accounts to keep its consumers updated. In recent weeks, the auto industry has seen a number of lawsuits filed. For example, U.S. electric automaker Tesla Motors is under fire for a term in a goodwill agreement related to a potentially faulty suspension. Consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman is investigating the agreement, which allegedly restricts the rights of owners in the event of defects or other wrongdoings on the part of Tesla. Mandatory silences are becoming a more common tactic among businesses and have a history in the automotive sector, but the allegations contradict Tesla's transparent and responsible image. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Canadian Vehicle Owners Await Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- Charles Mandel, writing for National Observer, reports that Waqes Mubarik found out he was one of the unlucky ones in 2015 when the Volkswagen scandal broke out. His 2015 Passat diesel was equipped with one of the so-called defeat devices designed to cheat on emissions tests. "I've been a loyal customer to Volkswagen for years," the physician's assistant said on the phone from Barrie, Ontario. "This is my fourth Volkswagen and, honestly, I felt betrayed." Volkswagen admitted last fall that it used defeat devices on nearly 500,000 diesel cars sold in the U.S. and about 100,000 vehicles sold in Canada between 2009 and 2015. The devices were designed to fool government labs during indoor testing, hiding the fact that Volkswagen vehicles were spewing up to 40 times more toxic pollution than advertised. While the German auto manufacturer announced a massive settlement worth more than $15-billion in the United States on June 28, Canadians like Mr. Murbarik are still waiting to hear of any news at all from Volkswagen in Canada. Mr. Mubarik is just one of the some 100,000 Canadians who are in the dark about the value of their vehicles and what kind of compensation they might expect from a company that's deeply disappointed them. At the same time, Canadian courts are beginning to sort out a tangle of class actions over the car company. Some 39 class action suits have been filed across Canada, with more than several to a province. Not surprisingly, Mr. Mubarik has signed on to one of them while he awaits word from Volkswagen and wonders what will become of his car. Stuck with a lemon The news has been scant. Volkswagen sent Mr. Mubarik a $1,000 Mastercard gift card. Of that $500 must be spent at a Volkswagen dealership. And he received an email months ago saying they're working on the issue and apologizing. But since then -- nothing. The gift card offered little solace to Mr. Mubarik, who says his car's market value has dropped by more than 20 per cent since he bought it. The $28,000 vehicle isn't even a year old. Mr. Mubarik says it's currently valued at $12,000. Not only that, but he's still making payments on it. And he has other concerns. Soon he'll need to renew his license and while the Ontario government has reassured consumers that vehicles will not fail their emissions tests because of Volkswagen's defeat device, he wonders if that might not change later on. As well, he notes the U.S. settlement includes an offer for the car company to buy back the vehicles at their market value before the Dieselgate scandal while considering the mileage on the car. "So the longer they drag the settlement, the more mileage we're going to put on the car and the less value we'll get for it," Mubarik said. Like Mr. Mubarik, Ken Wilson believes he's stuck with a lemon. The Regina university associate professor owns a Golf diesel he bought in 2010, paying $30,000 for the vehicle, which he noted cost far more than a Golf with a gas engine. "The reason we bought it was we were told it would help us cut emissions," Mr. Wilson said. "We didn't realize we were belching out nitrogen oxide out of the tail pipe instead." Mr. Wilson hasn't head from Volkswagen since January when the company sent a letter saying they were working on the problem. That's the last he heard beyond an emailed coupon for an oil change and an offer from the dealer for $3,000 toward a trade-in. "It didn't feel like very much to get an extra $3,000 on a car that's been devalued by more than that," Mr. Wilson said. Mr. Wilson has also signed on to a class action suit. One law firm alone has filed nine class action suits In an email, Thomas Tetzlaff, media relations manager for Volkswagen Group of Canada, said that while settlement terms in the U.S. may be a consideration for discussions in Canada, the details from the American court proceedings may not apply. The company hopes to provide remedies to Canadians on pace with U.S. customers, Mr. Tetzlaff wrote, and reiterated Volkswagen's message to consumers that parties involved in class actions hope to provide a settlement update to Canadian courts on or before July 29, 016. Mr. Tetzlaff wrote that once the parties to a class action proceeding reach a settlement, the affected customers will be informed and the court will then schedule a hearing to approve the settlement. How and when that happens could be some time coming. Tony Merchant, principal in the Merchant Law Group LLP headquartered in Regina, said currently judges across Canada are trying to determine which law suits will be allowed to proceed. Mr. Merchant's office alone has filed nine class actions against Volkswagen across Canada. Those suits represent close to 11,000 people. "It's a huge number of people to have contacted us in advance of public advertising," the lawyer noted. As well, Mr. Merchant's office has launched actions for another 600 individuals and potentially has actions pending for 500 more. The class action seeks what the individual actions seek: damages for wrong-doing, Mr. Merchant said. But what form those might take could be complex. "We think that the amount of money that each individual should receive is different, depending on the year, the make and use of their vehicle, and that's why the individual actions," Mr. Merchant said. "Driving the dirtiest pig on the road" As well the lawyer is advocating for an as-of-yet-to-be-determined punishment outside of any proposed settlement. He said Volkswagen should face "a societal slap of additional fines." Any punitive damages would be divided among the car owners. "I can't do justice to expressing how furious all sorts of people were. Many of them were buying these vehicles because they thought they had a more environmentally friendly vehicle. "They thought they were doing something good for the world and they find out they've been driving the dirtiest pig on the road." Back in Barrie, Mr. Mubarik believes his decision to buy a Volkswagen was a poor one. "I got stuck with a car and I'm still making payments on it and I don't know if I will be able to sell it after or not because nobody will buy it." But in Regina, Mr.Wilson hasn't ruled out buying another car from the German manufacturer again; his wife wouldn't mind owning a Beetle. "But they're going to have to convince us that that's the company we want to buy from again." VOLKSWAGEN: U.S. Justice Dep't Gathers Emissions Scandal Evidence ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Krisher and Michael Biesecker, writing for The Associated Press, report that the U.S. Justice Department is working closely with German investigators to gather evidence for potential criminal charges in the Volkswagen emissions-cheating scandal, a top official said on June 28. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said investigators are looking at "multiple companies and multiple individuals" in the probe, but she did not identify any of them at a news conference to announce a settlement of up to $15.3 billion in the case involving VW diesel cars that cheated on emissions tests. Ms. Yates also wouldn't comment on whether U.S. investigators had been successful in navigating Germany's strict privacy laws to get such crucial documents as internal company emails. One company that could be involved in the probe is German auto parts supplier Bosch, which has extensive North American operations. Elizabeth Cabraser, the lead attorney for car owners that are suing VW, said on June 28 that civil claims can continue against Bosch, which made the "defeat devices" that turned pollution controls on during Environmental Protection Agency lab tests and turned them off on real roads. That allowed the cars to emit more pollution while being driven. A spokeswoman for Robert Bosch LLC in suburban Detroit said there is no criminal investigation against the company in the U.S., but a probe in Germany was announced several months ago. Bosch sold a large number of engine control computers to VW for its diesel engines, and the company is one of the world's biggest suppliers of fuel injection technology, spokeswoman Linda Beckmeyer said. The engine control computers handle emissions controls, among other tasks. The Justice Department began investigating last fall after the cheating was uncovered. Investigators also have contacted German automaker Daimler AG, maker of Mercedes-Benz cars, seeking information on "possible indications of irregularities" in emissions certification. A Daimler spokesman said in April that the company is doing an internal investigation of its exhaust emissions. U.S. owners of Daimler's Mercedes-Benz BlueTEC diesels have filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the cars are programmed in a way that lets them emit illegal levels of emissions, similar to diesels made by Volkswagen. Daimler says the lawsuit's claims are without merit and that the Justice Department investigation is unrelated. WALT DISNEY BENEFIT PLANS: Sued Over Pension Fund Mismanagement --------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Du Vall, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly situated plan participants, on behalf of the Disney Savings and Investment Plan, Plaintiff, v. The Investment and Administrative Committee of The Walt Disney Company Sponsored Qualified Benefit Plans and Key Employees Deferred Compensation and Retirement Plan, Jay Rasulo, Christine McCarthy, Alan Braverman, Brent Woodford, Jonathan Headley, Jayne Parker, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04743 (C.D. Cal, June 28, 2016), was filed due to losses to the Plan resulting from Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, including loss of vested benefits to the Plans resulting from imprudent investment of the Plans assets. The complaint seeks restoration of all plan profits, enjoinment from further breaches, actual damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other applicable laws, equitable restitution and other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Defendants invested the assets in the Disney Savings and Investment Plan in The Sequoia Fund, a high-cost mutual fund run by Adviser Ruane, Cunniff & Goldbarb and its Portfolio Managers, Robert D. Goldfarb and David M. Poppe. The Fund Managers concentrated the Fund's assets in a single stock, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. despite the policy of having at least three investment funds into which they could invest their retirement savings. Valeant's stock had already dropped by over 88 percent in less than a year and has shed an additional 20 percent since then. Because of its concentration in Valeant and its fees, the Fund underperformed its benchmark, the S&P 500 Index, by 6.14% in 2014, 8.68% in 2015, and 15.17% from January 1 through June 15, 2016. Plaintiff is represented by: Peter K. Stris, Esq. Victor O'Connell, Esq Thomas E. Logan, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 Email: peter.stris@strismaher.com victor.oconnell@strismaher.com tom.logan@strismaher.com WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Bid to Dismiss "Epstein" Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2016, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the the time for the Company to respond to the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification has not yet expired. On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative Class Action"), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received above-referenced CID from the CFPB (ii) the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015. The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the complaint is without merit. On January 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Lead Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition, the Company filed a reply in further support of its motion to dismiss, and the Company's motion to dismiss is currently pending before the Court. The time for the Company to respond to the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification has not yet expired. XURA INC: Israeli Optionholder Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------- Xura, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2016, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend the Israeli Optionholder Class Action. CTI and certain of its former subsidiaries, including Xura Ltd. (formerly Xura Ltd., a subsidiary of the Company), were named as defendants in four potential class action litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to recover damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or breach of contract due to previously- settled allegations regarding illegal backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain current or former employees from exercising certain stock options. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Xura Ltd. employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements, which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by certain employees and former employees. By stipulation of the parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the actions pending in the United States regarding stock option accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in these cases. On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a class of plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The defendants responded to this amended complaint on November 11, 2012, and the plaintiffs filed a further reply on December 20, 2012. A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December 25, 2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the dispute through mediation. The mediation process ended without success. According to the parties' consent to submit summations in the motion to certify the claims as a class action (the "Motion to Certify"), including the certification of the class of plaintiffs, the court held the following dates for submission of summations: Summations on behalf of the plaintiffs were submitted on August 31, 2014; Summations on behalf of the defendants were submitted on November 20, 2014; and summations of response by the plaintiffs were submitted on December 30, 2014. On February 9, 2015, the Judge presiding over the case recused herself due to a conflict of interests. On March 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to the Court seeking to have the case assigned to a new presiding Judge and as a result on April 4, 2015 a new presiding judge was assigned to the case. The parties are now waiting for the Court's decision on the Motion to Certify. Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009, against Xura Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd. The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court. These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District Court cases discussed. The Company has not accrued for these matters as the potential loss is currently not probable or estimable. Xura, Inc. (formerly known as Comverse, Inc.) (the "Company") was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Comverse Technology, Inc. ("CTI"). On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the spin-off of the Company as an independent, publicly traded company, accomplished by means of a pro rata distribution of 100% of our outstanding common shares to CTI's shareholders (such transaction referred to as the "Share Distribution"). Following the Share Distribution, CTI no longer held any of our outstanding capital stock, and we became an independent publicly-traded company. Effective September 9, 2015, the Company changed its name from Comverse, Inc. to Xura, Inc. The Company was organized as a Delaware corporation in November 1997. The Company is a global provider of digital communications solutions for communication service providers ("CSPs"), enterprises and application providers. YAHOO INC: Must Face Class Action Over Unsolicited SMS Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that earlier this year, federal judge in Illinois ruled that Yahoo must face a class-action lawsuit for allegedly sending unsolicited SMS messages to some Sprint customers. Yahoo is now asking U.S. District Court Judge Manish Shah to rethink that ruling in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in a lawsuit brought by a consumer against the online data broker Spokeo. The battle centers on a Yahoo Messenger feature that converts instant messages into text messages. Two consumers -- Rachel Johnson and Zenaida Calderin -- alleged in court papers that they received at least two messages through that feature. They said one of the messages came from other users, while the other -- a "Welcome" message from Yahoo -- explained the first one. The lawsuit deals only with the "Welcome" messages. Ms. Johnson and Ms. Calderin alleged that Yahoo violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits companies from using automated dialers to text people without their consent. Ms. Calderin sought to serve as class representative for T-Mobile users who received messages from Yahoo in April of 2014, while Ms. Johnson sought to serve as representative for Sprint users in March of 2013. The judge rejected Ms. Calderin's request because she allegedly consented to Yahoo's terms of service, which provided that the company might send SMS messages to people. But Judge Shah found that Johnson, who did not agree to Yahoo's terms of service, was typical of other Sprint customers and could serve as their class representative. Yahoo now says the case should be dismissed based on the Supreme Court's recent decision in a lawsuit against Spokeo. The court ruled in that case that an Illinois resident could only sue Spokeo for allegedly displaying incorrect information about him if he could prove the errors caused a "concrete" injury. "A plaintiff must demonstrate that a purported statutory violation caused her to suffer an injury in fact -- specifically, an injury that is both concrete and particularized," Yahoo writes. "Johnson has suffered neither." Yahoo argues that Johnson wasn't harmed by the messages, given that the phone belonged to her employer, who was on an unlimited data plan. "There was no incremental charge for the receipt of any text, including the Welcome Message -- neither the subscriber nor Johnson was charged for Johnson's receipt of the Welcome Message," Yahoo writes in court papers filed on June 28. It is beyond dispute that unsolicited automated telephone calls made in violation of the TCPA cause a privacy injury. Ms. Johnson counters that the Yahoo injured her in several ways. Among others, Yahoo allegedly "caused a nuisance and wasted plaintiff's time," and also "occupied the memory of plaintiff's cellular device." Judge Shah will hold a hearing about the matter on July 22. ********* 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 * * *