/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160719.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 143 Headlines 230FA LLC: "Mora" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Tips ABC CORP: "Xiang" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Sept. 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ALABAMA: Judge Grants Permanent Injunction Bid in "Strawser" AMERICAN CENTURY: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Insurance Coverage AT&T CORPORATION: Faces "Meron" Suit in N.D. Cal. AUTOMATED COLLECTION: Scifo Seeks Certification of Classes AVID LIFE: Faces FTC Scrutiny Amid Data Breach MDL BALTIMORE, MD: Maintenance Workers Face Charges Amid Class Action BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Interest Rate Swap Conspiracy BLUE SHIELD: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Erroneous Claims Payments BLUEFIELD REGIONAL: "McGuire" Suit Moved to S.D. W. Virg. BLUEMERCURY INC: Hamilton Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct. BOHEMIAN GROVE: Settles Employees' Class Action for $7 Million CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Compensation System CAREMARK RX: August 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CAREPLUS HEALTH: Evidence Supporting Class Cert. Bid Filed CASH STORE: Payday Loan Claims Period Open Until October 31 CIRAOLO-KLEPPER: "Depolo" Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction CITIZENS BANK: Settles TCPA Class Action for $4.5 Million COLORADO: Settles Inmates' Class Action Over Fresh Air Access COOPER CITY, FL: Fire Assessment Fees Violate Law, Judge Rules CORELOGIC INC: Judge Tosses Novel Copyright Class Action CRAIG HAMILTON: Rowe Seeks Certification of Painters Class CRYPTSY: Paul Vernon Regrets Not Sounding Alarm CUNA MUTUAL: Court Preliminary Approved Settlement Class DANK LANDSCAPE: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Law DEL CITY WIRE: Faces Bones Suit in D. Conn. DETROIT, MI: Davis Seeks Certification of Marijuana Users Class DEUTSCHE BANK: Non-Responsive Plaintiffs Tossed From "McZeal" FACEBOOK INC: Biometrics Suit Outcome May Impact Other Companies FORT WAYNE, IN: Rietdorf Appeals N.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Circuit GARDEN APARTMENTS: "Rincon" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement Payout Begins in Gas Mileage Case GOOGLE INC: EEOC Investigates Discrimination Complaints HOMERO GARZA: September 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set HYPER NETWORK: Faces "Gorgis" Suit in S.D. Cal. KRISPY KREME: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action LENDING CLUB: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Action LIPOCINE INC: "Morassi" Sues Over Share Price Drop LIPOCINE INC: August 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set LOANME INC.: Faces "Goggans" Suit in C.D. Cal. LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Faces Class Action Over Flint Water Crisis LOS ANGELES, CA: Chua Seeks Certification of Class & Sub-classes MASTERCARD: Faces Class Action in UK Over "Interchange" Fees MDL 1360: Court Granted Former Exec's Bid to Enforce Injunction MERCHANTS ADJUSTMENT: Faces "McDonald" Suit in S.D. Ala. MLS PLAYERS: Yedline's Valuation May Rise Following Class Action NEW INDUSTRIES: "Lawrence" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages NEW ORLEANS: Court Wants "Yarls" Complaint Amended NEW YORK: Bharara Mum on NYCHA Mold Remediation Case PEARLS GROUP: Indian Investors to Launch Fraud Class Action PERSOLVE LLC: Class Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval PFIZER INC: Agrees to Disclose Addiction Risks in Opioid Drugs PIER 1 IMPORTS: Class Action Lawsuits Pending in Texas PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Appeals Ruling in "Rodriguez" Class Suit QUALITY EGG: Appeals Court Upholds Executives' Jail Sentences QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action in New York RITE AID: 10 Stockholder Class Actions Pending RITE AID: Delaware Consolidated Action Dismissed RITE AID: M.D. Pa. Court Stayed "Herring" Class Action RITE AID: Discovery Ongoing in Indergit Class Action in N.Y. RITE AID: Defending California Wage and Hour Class Action RITE AID: Settlement Funds Disbursed in Chase and Scherwin Suit RITE AID: September 16 Status Conference in "Hall" Case ROINS PRODUCE: "Solano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SALSA AND BEER: "Velasquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Noonan" Suit in S.D.N.Y. SCHMIDT BAKING: "Schilling" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages SEATTLE SERVICE: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Thornell" Class Suit SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Sexually Explicit Content SOUTH CAROLINA: To Notify Inmates of Mental Health Settlement SPREADS PARK: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D.N.Y. STAAR SURGICAL: Law Firm Investigates Possible Securities Claims STANDARD MORTGAGE: Judge Dismissed RICO Claims in "Robinson" Suit STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: "Stone" Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Waitresses Win Class Action Over Pay Practices THERANOS: Faces Congressional Probe Over Faulty Blood Tests TREASURY WINE: Court Stays Second Shareholder Class Action UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid "Reporting Pay" UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Action Ruling in Army Corps Case URBAN OUTFITTERS: October 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set USRG CALIFORNIA: Faces "Davis" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. VALVE CORPORATION: Faces "C.B." Suit in S.D. Fla. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Ordered to Provide Emissions Info in Australia VOLKSWAGEN AG: Escapes Emission Cheating Fines in Germany WALGREENS BOOTS: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal WALGREENS BOOTS: Still Defends Illinois Shareholder Class Action WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action for $16.3 Million WENDY'S CO: Hackers Steal Customers' Credit, Debit Card Data WORD ENTERPRISES: "McFarlin" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages ZIONS BANCORPORATION: To Settle Reyes Action for $37.5 Million * ABA Wants CFPB to Examine Cost, Benefit of Arbitration Rule * Cape Coral Property Owners Mull Pollution, Tax Class Action * Copyright Trolls Abuse Canada's "Notice-and-Notice" System * Insurance Cos. May Help Homeowners with Foundation Problems * Merchants Face Consumers Suits Following EMV-Chip Card Shift * New White-Collar Overtime Rules Burdensome for Companies ********* 230FA LLC: "Mora" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages, Tips ----------------------------------------------------- Alberto Mora, Rosendo Hernandez, Jose Encarnacion and Cynthia Gitonga, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other similarly- situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. 230FA LLC d/b/a 230 Fifth Avenue, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05349 (S.D. N.Y. July 6, 2016), seeks minimum wages, recovery of gratuities, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Mora has been employed by Defendant as a busser; Hernandez and Encarnacion as runners; while Gitonga was employed as a Server. 230FA LLC is a New York limited liability company operating a restaurant and bar located at 230 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10001. Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Gottlieb, Esq. Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq. Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 Email: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com trahman@wigdorlaw.com ahartzband@wigdorlaw.com ABC CORP: "Xiang" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------- Xiang Guo Yin a.k.a Kevin, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Matsuri, Zi Qiao Cao, Kimming M. Cheng, Shirley Li, John and Jane Doe No. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01135 (D. Conn., July 5, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, statutory minimum wage pay, unpaid wages for overtime work, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. ABC Corp. owns and operates Matsuri, a restaurant located at 390 Post Rd., Darien Connecticut 06820 where Plaintiff worked as a delivery man. Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Tel: 718.353.8588 Email: jhang@hanglaw.com ADVANCED EMISSIONS: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit came to an agreement in principle to settle the Denver Securities Litigation. The Company said, "As previously disclosed in our filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (filed on April 19, 2016), two securities class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our current and former officers in the federal district court in Denver, Colorado in May of 2014. On February 19, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed the United Foods and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and approved its selection of law firms. The consolidated case is now captioned United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Advanced Emissions Solutions, Inc., No. 14-cv-01243-CMA-KMT (U.S. District Court, D. Colo.) (the "Denver Securities Litigation"). Lead plaintiff filed "Lead Plaintiff's Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint" on April 20, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint"), to which Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on June 19, 2015. On May 16, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint." "The lead plaintiff in the Denver Securities Litigation alleges that ADES and the other defendants misrepresented to the investing public ADES's financial condition and its financial controls to artificially inflate and maintain the market price of ADES's common stock. The Second Amended Complaint alleges claims for relief for: 1) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and 2) control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages together with costs and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting the class action, among other relief, and alleges a class period covering all purchasers or acquirers of the common stock of ADES or its predecessor-in-interest during the proposed class period from May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015. "Defendants had filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on June 19, 2015, contending that the Consolidated Complaint: 1) fails to meet the strict pleading standards required for Section 10(b) claims; and 2) fails to establish the primary violation required for any claim of secondary (control person) liability. Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to this motion on July 2, 2015 and Defendants filed their reply brief on July 16, 2015. On March 7, 2016 the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay the case while the parties mediate the matter. On March 8, 2016, the motion to stay was granted, and the Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice with the option to refile should mediation fail. The case is presently stayed until further order of the court. "Following the mediation, which occurred in May of 2016, the parties came to an agreement in principle to settle the Denver Securities Litigation, and on June 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Denver Settlement") to resolve the action in its entirety. Under the terms of the Denver Settlement, a payment of $4.0 million will be made in exchange for the release of claims against the defendants and other released parties by the lead plaintiff and all settlement class members, and for the dismissal of the action with prejudice. The Denver Settlement remains subject to the approval of the court. Prior to any final court approval of the Denver Settlement, potential settlement class members (i.e., all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock during May 12, 2011 through January 29, 2015 ((both dates inclusive), with limited exclusions), will have an opportunity to exclude themselves from participating in the Denver Settlement or to raise objections with the court regarding the Denver Settlement or any part thereof. On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Denver Securities Litigation filed the Denver Settlement and related exhibits with the court and moved, among other things, for the court to preliminarily approve the Denver Settlement, to approve the contents and procedures for notice to potential settlement class members, to certify the Denver Securities Litigation as a class action for settlement purposes only, and to schedule a hearing for the court to consider final approval of the Denver Settlement. "The Denver Settlement contains no admission of liability, and all of the defendants in the Denver Securities Litigation have expressly denied, and continue to deny, all allegations of wrongdoing or improper conduct. If the Denver Settlement is approved by the Court, our insurance carriers will fund the $4.0 million Denver Settlement. In the event the Denver Settlement is not approved by the court or otherwise does not become effective for any reason, the Denver Settlement will become null and void, all things of value will be returned to the party providing them, and the case will move forward. Under those circumstances, all of the defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint." AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Sept. 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Aerohive Networks, Inc. Shareholder Litigation: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN MATEO In re AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Master File No. CIV 534070 CLASS ACTION Assigned for All Purposes to Hon. Marie S. Weiner DEPT: 2 DATE ACTION FILED: 06/02/15 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ("PERSONS") THAT PURCHASED AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC. ("AEROHIVE" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH AEROHIVE'S MARCH 27, 2014 INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on September 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner at the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 2, Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated May 4, 2016 ("Stipulation") of the above-captioned action ("Litigation") for $5,750,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below); (3) to pay Plaintiffs for their time and expenses they incurred in representing the Class in this Litigation out of the Settlement Fund; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. This Litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of those Persons who purchased the common stock of Aerohive pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus ("Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's March 27, 2014 IPO during the period beginning on March 27, 2014 and ending on September 23, 2014 ("Class Members"), against Aerohive, certain of its key executives and directors, and underwriters of Aerohive's IPO (collectively, "Defendants") for alleged misstatements and omissions of material facts in the Registration Statement filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO, concerning, among other things, the alleged technological deficiencies in the Company's products, increasing competition, and employee turnover that was allegedly impacting sales. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations. IF YOU PURCHASED AEROHIVE COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE SEC IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY'S MARCH 27, 2014 IPO, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than September 27, 2016) or electronically no later than September 27, 2016. Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by September 27, 2016, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the settlement of this Litigation. If you are a Member of the Class and do not request exclusion, you will be bound by the settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the settlement or exclude yourself from the Class), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.aerohivesecuritieslitigation.com, or by contacting: Aerohive Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 30216 College Station, TX 77842-3216 Phone: 1-844-206-5871 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries may also be made to a representative of Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Shareholder Relations Rick Nelson 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 1-800-449-4900 IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 9, 2016, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND COPIES SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL BY SEPTEMBER 9, 2016, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: June 8, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO HONORABLE MARIE S. WEINER ALABAMA: Judge Grants Permanent Injunction Bid in "Strawser" ------------------------------------------------------------ Senior District Judge Callie V. Granade of the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case, JAMES N. STRAWSER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LUTHER STRANGE, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-0424-CG- C (S.D. Ala.) Judge Don Davis asked the court for permission to withdraw as representative of the defendant class and for his counsel to withdraw as class counsel because he does not want to continue to represent the class or pay expenses associated with litigating the case. Plaintiffs moved for entry of a permanent injunction based on the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges 135 S.Ct. 2584(2015), upholding the court's findings in its preliminary injunction order. Attorney General Luther Strange moved to dismiss the case as moot because a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of Alabama's marriage laws have already issued and the Attorney General continues to remain in full compliance with it. Defendants Judge Tim Russell and Judge Davis also argue that the case is moot in their opposition to plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction. Russell contends that he has been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on the same priority and in the same manner as those licenses are issued to couples of the opposite sex. Davis also argues that Alabama probate judges have complied with the reasoning of the Obergefell ruling. Plaintiffs conversely argue that none of the defendants' assurances provide plaintiffs or the members of the plaintiff class with a formal, enforceable order should the Attorney General or a future Attorney General or other defendants violate the court's injunction or fail to fully recognize marriages validly entered into in Alabama or elsewhere. Senior District Judge Granade denied Judge Davis's motion to withdraw as class representative and for his counsel to withdraw as class counsel, and denied the motion of Attorney General Strange to dismiss. Plaintiffs' motion for permanent injunction and final judgment is granted. A copy of Senior District Judge Granade's order dated June 7, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/jt2vSMfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher F. Stoll -- CStoll@NCLRights.org -- Shannon P. Minter -- SMinter@NCLRights.org -- at National Center for Lesbian Rights; David Dinielli -- Scott D. McCoy at Southern Poverty Law Center; Heather Rene Fann at Boyd, Fernambucq, Dunn & Fann, P.C.; Randall C. Marshall at ACLU of Alabama Foundation, Inc.; Richard B. Katskee -- americansunited@au.org -- at Americans United for Separation of Church and State Luther Strange, Defendant, represented by James W. Davis, Office of the Attorney General, Laura Elizabeth Howell & Andrew L. Brasher Don Davis, Defendant, represented by: Joseph Michael Druhan, Jr., Esq. Harry V. Satterwhite, Esq. Satterwhite, Druhan & Tyler, L.L.C. 1325 Dauphin Street Mobile, AL 36604 Telephone: 251-432-8120 Facsimile: 251-405-0147 - and - Mark S. Boardman, Esq. Clay Richard Carr, Esq. Teresa Bearden Petelos, Esq. Boardman, Carr, Bennett, Watkins, Hill & Gamble, P.C. 400 Boardman Dr. Chelsea, AL 35043 Telephone: 205-678-8000 - and - Lee L. Hale, Esq. Hale and Hughes 501 Church St. Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: 251-432-1982 Tim Russell, Defendant, represented by Jamie Helen Kidd -- jkidd@webbeley.com -- Kendrick E. Webb -- kwebb@webbeley.com -- at Webb & Eley, P.C.; John David Whetstone AMERICAN CENTURY: Employees File Class Action Over 401(k) Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Davis, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that two former American Century Investments employees have sued the Kansas City-based mutual fund company, saying their retirement plan charged "excessive fees" while offering "chronically under- performing" American Century funds as choices. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, said a "disloyal and imprudent process" led the 401(k) plan to offer only American Century funds and shares of American Century itself as investment choices. As a result, employees' accounts were "laden with high cost, proprietary mutual funds" that would not have survived a selection process that was "not tainted by self interest," the lawsuit said. It said putting American Century-managed funds in the 401(k) plan generated revenues for American Century, though lower-cost alternatives were available. The lawsuit complained about the American Century Vista and American Century International Bond funds as examples of "chronically under-performing" funds left in the plan as options for employees. The lawsuit seeks class-action status for the 2,250 or so participants in the 401(k) plan. Former employees Steve Wildman and Jon Borcherding sued on behalf of the others in the plans. American Century, in an emailed statement, rejected the claims and said it was proud of contributing to employees' retirements. "The lawsuit is entirely without merit, and we will mount a vigorous defense," American Century said. "We offer our employees competitive compensation and a generous benefits package, which includes our retirement plan. The plan provides employees with a wide range of investment options and is managed in the best interests of participants." American Century said the retirement plan offers brokerage account access to other investment options. Financial planners tell consumers to closely watch fees on their investments as even relatively small differences in fees can add up to large changes in an account's balance over the many years that a retirement account invests. Carl Engstrom, an associate attorney with the Nichols Kaster law firm representing the former employees, said the lawsuit is similar to suits against some other money management companies. His firm has represented clients suing Putnam Investments and Allianz Asset Management, which owns the Pimco group. The lawsuit against American Century challenged a committee that selected investment choices for the company's 401(k) plan. It said the committee members worked at American Century and allowed their choices to be "influenced by their desire to drive revenues and profits" to American Century. Defendants named in the suit include the members of the committee, several unidentified members and past members listed as John Does, and several entities that form American Century. Six counts in the lawsuit include the claim that various defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, failed to monitor fiduciaries, and engaged in prohibited transactions with a party in interest and with a fiduciary. In addition to establishing the case as a class action, the lawsuit asks the court to order restitution to the class members, disgorgement of revenues by American Century and other relief. AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces "Parker" Suit Over Insurance Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------ Louise Parker, individually and on behalf of all other Ohio residents similarly situated, v. American Family Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01709 (Ohio Com. Pleas, July 5, 2016), seeks damages and further relief that is just and appropriate for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges American Family of systematically adjusting practices to deny coverage of the actual cash value of property damage suffered by its insured, thereby denying them the full amount of indemnity by depreciating the labor component of repair costs instead of only the physical item that is subject to wear, tear, and obsolescence. The house owned by Parker suffered property damage. The floors were damaged and required repair and restoration. Said home was insured by the Defendant. Plaintiff is represented by: James A. DeRoche, Esq. Stuart I. Garson, Esq. GARSON JOHNSON LLC 1600 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: (216) 696-9330 Fax: (216) 696-8558 Email: ideroche@garson.com - and - R. Eric Kennedy, Esq. Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A. 1600 Midland Building 101 Prospect Ave., W. Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216)781-1111 Fax: (216)781-6747 Email: ekeuuedv@weismanlaw.com dgoetz@weismanlaw.com - and - Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., LPA 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: (440) 352-3391 Fax: (440) 352-3469 Email: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com AT&T CORPORATION: Faces "Meron" Suit in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AT&T Corporation. The case is captioned Simon Meron, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. AT&T Corporation, a New York corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-03739-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Jacqueline Scott Corley. AT&T provides voice, video, and data communications services to businesses, consumers, and governments worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq ILG LEGAL OFFICE 555 California Street, Suite 4925 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone (415) 580 2574 Facsimile: (415) 735 3454 E-mail: silg@employment-lawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Donald M. Falk, Esq. Elspeth Victoria Hansen, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331 2030 Facsimile: (650) 331 2060 E-mail: dfalk@mayerbrown.com elspeth.hansen@mayerbrown.com AUTOMATED COLLECTION: Scifo Seeks Certification of Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled NANCY SCIFO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUTOMATED COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-921 (E.D. Wisc.), Plaintiff filed a placeholder motion seeking to certify classes. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Hp737TCM The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com AVID LIFE: Faces FTC Scrutiny Amid Data Breach MDL -------------------------------------------------- C. Ryan Barber, writing for Law.com, reports that federal regulators are returning to the online dating world -- and, this time, they have a bigger industry player in their sights. On July 5, Reuters reported that Avid Life Media Inc., the parent company of the online dating site AshleyMadison.com, is facing a Federal Trade Commission investigation. The scrutiny comes a year after the site -- with the slogan "Life is short. Have an affair" -- was hacked in a data breach that exposed the personal information of millions of users. Although the FTC has strived to be the top cop for data security in recent years, the focus of its inquiry into Ashley Madison may extend beyond the breach. In 2014, when the FTC took its first enforcement action against an online dating service, the agency faulted the England-based JDI Dating Ltd. for using fake, computer-generated profiles that lured users into upgrading their accounts. That same year, Ashley Madison shut down its own fake profiles -- dubbed "fembots" -- in the United States, Canada and Australia. Before the company closed down those profiles worldwide in late 2015, some U.S. users continued exchanging messages with foreign fembots, according to an Ernst & Young report commissioned by Ashley Madison and shared with Reuters. The focus of the FTC investigation is unknown even to Avid Life Media executives, according to Reuters and The New York Times. The company and the FTC did not return The National Law Journal's requests for comment on July 5. In addition to the FTC inquiry, Avid Life Media is a defendant in multidistrict litigation, over the data breach, in St. Louis federal district court. "Like all businesses in today's security reality, Avid Life Media has been investing even more heavily in security enhancements and privacy safeguards to deal with evolving cyber threats over the past year, and that will continue," Rob Segal, Avid Life Media's newly named chief executive officer, said in a statement on July 4. Avid Life Media said in the statement that the company partnered with a Deloitte cybersecurity team "to implement new and enhanced security safeguards and 24/7 monitoring." Mr. Segal told the Times that the company has cooperated with federal regulators since August. Lawrence Walters of the Walters Law Group, in Longwood, Florida, represented JDI Dating in the FTC investigation. It's "certainly possible that they're facing issues related to use of bots to generate conversations, which they've apparently reduced or eliminated over time," Mr. Walters said on July 5. Mr. Walters described the JDI Dating settlement as a "victory for the company" that he attributed to the company's cooperation with federal regulators. "It's better to overdisclose and tell the truth about what's going on than to hide anything," he said. "If the FTC determines that you've been less than forthcoming, that can play very negatively in any future dealings with the FTC as a target." JDI Dating also benefited from being based in the United Kingdom, giving the company a potential objection to the FTC's authority, Walters said. Avid Life Media is based in Toronto. "That said, the FTC has been fairly successful in imposing its jurisdiction on foreign companies if they have any presence in the U.S. or regularly deal with U.S. customers," Mr. Walters said. "It's difficult to try to take a position that you don't have a position in the U.S. unless you actively block U.S. customers and advertisers." Mr. Walters said JDI Dating "took the position from the very beginning that they want to be compliant, they wanted to know what compliance means." In a complaint filed in Illinois federal district court, the FTC alleged JDI Dating misrepresented computer-generated accounts -- for "virtual cupids" -- as profiles for actual users. A small "v" encircled by a "C" was the only indication that an account was computer generated. The icon, according to the FTC, was "darn near microscopic." The company also failed to tell subscribers that their subscriptions would be renewed automatically and that they would continue to be charged until they canceled, according to the complaint. As part of the settlement, the FTC required JDI to disclose to potential users that they may receive messages from virtual profiles. "Based on at least what happened in the JDI case, we can discern what the FTC's thinking is, generally -- not to say what happened with JDI is the law for everyone else," Mr. Walters said. "The results have essentially been adopted as the industry standard, because there was no industry standard before." BALTIMORE, MD: Maintenance Workers Face Charges Amid Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- WJZ reports that a sexual extortion scandal rocked Baltimore City public housing, with accusations that workers were forcing tenants to have sex in exchange for repairs. Now, the City State's Attorney's Office has filed charges against two of those workers, WJZ's Ava-joye Burnett reports. One told our media, The Baltimore Sun, that he was "set up." Raw sewage bubbling up through pipes, no heat and even apartments infested with rodents -- that's what women living in Baltimore City public housing say they were forced to live in if they didn't perform sexual favors for maintenance workers. The State's Attorney's Office announced a slew of charges against two of the workers, including fourth-degree sex offense. "Well, I can't go into a lot of detail about the case because it is an open and pending case. However, the charges in this case -- like in all cases -- reflect our subsequent investigation and our obligation to apply the facts to the law," said Rochelle Ritchie, Baltimore State's Attorney's Office. The two workers charged are Charles Coleman and Doug Hussy. Hussy told our media partner, The Baltimore Sun, that: "They got it wrong. I never did anything to nobody." In January, the Baltimore Housing Authority's top leader spoke up after the city reached settlement in a multi-million dollar lawsuit. "Mistakes have been made here, and some of them have been very serious mistakes," said Paul Graziano, Baltimore Housing Commissioner. Initially, there were 19 women on that class action lawsuit. In June, more women were added, bringing the total number to 56. "They left her in the house for two weeks straight with no lights," said one man, whose mother is part of the class action lawsuit against the city. "It was pretty hard. I had to talk her into it . . . because I believe wrong is wrong." Community advocates who have been pushing for change say the victims' voices are finally being heard. "To see that for once, those who have been entrusted, who have breached that trust, are now being held personally accountable," said Perry Hopkins, Communities United. Some workers were fired after the sex-for-repairs scandal came to light. As for the class action lawsuit, the housing authority has agreed to pay millions to the victims once the courts make the final approval. BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Interest Rate Swap Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------- TRIANGLE T PARTNERS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; BARCLAYS PLC; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS, S.A.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITIBANK, N.A.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA; GOLDMAN SACHS FINANCIAL MARKETS, LP; GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL; ICAP CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES PLC; THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC; ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC; RBS SECURITIES INC.; TRADEWEB MARKETS LLC; UBS AG; AND UBS SECURITIES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. :16-cv-05260 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2016), seeks damages against Defendants for conspiracy among major banks -- the Dealer Defendants -- and their co- conspirators to dominate and control the market for interest rate swaps (IRS), and reap supracompetitive profits from artificially high spreads for the sale and purchase of IRS. The IRS is a type of derivative where two parties agree to exchange types of interest payments based on a specified principal amount. Under this arrangement, one party agrees to pay the other a fixed interest rate amount, while the other party agrees to pay a floating interest rate (usually based on the London interbank offered rate). Over time, IRS agreements became highly standardized, where all the material terms are set, which, in turn, led to a higher volume of IRS trading and large growth in the IRS market. Bank of America is an American multinational banking and financial services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. Eric C. Cramer, Esq. Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq. David A. Langer, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 Facsimile: (215) 875 4604 E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net ecramer@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net dlanger@bm.net BLUE SHIELD: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Erroneous Claims Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA MORRIS AND BECKY EBENKAMP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA (BS), AND DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC625804 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2016), seeks order providing disgorgement of all amounts BS has wrongfully retained. In July 2015, BS submitted a rate filing to the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) notifying it that it intended to increase its rates for non-grandfathered individual market plans in 2016 by 4.6%. Accompanying that rate filing was a memorandum containing data justifying the rate increase BS would be implementing. BS states that 2.6% of the $1,715,238,508 it paid in claims in 2014, or $44,596,201, was paid by mistake, and thus that its costs for 2016 will not include that amount. Although BS admits that it paid $44,596,201 by mistake in 2014, and although the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Rule and the MLR Instructions prohibit insurers from including claims paid by mistake in calculating their MLR, BS included that $44,596,201 in erroneous claims payments' as "health care and quality improvement activities" when it calculated its MLR for 2014. BS has therefore rebated to Plaintiffs and the 446,407 other members of the class, less than the amount it is legally mandated to rebate to them. Blue Shield of California is a health plan provider founded in 1939 and based in San Francisco, California. The organization serves over 4 million health plan members and nearly 65,000 physicians across the state. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Angoff, Esq. Cyrus Mehri, Esq. Steven Skalet, Esq. MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 822 5100 - and - Dan Stonner, Esq. Randy Renick, Esq. Cornelia Dai, Esq. HADSELL STONNER & RENICK LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 585 9600 Facsimile: (626) 577 7079 E-mail: m@hadsellstonner.com cdai@hadsellstonner.com BLUEFIELD REGIONAL: "McGuire" Suit Moved to S.D. W. Virg. --------------------------------------------------------- Virginia McGuire, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bluefield Regional Medical Center, Professional Account Services, Inc., HealthPort Technologies, LLC, John Doe Billing Companies 1-10, and John Doe Hospitals/Medical Providers (1-100), Case No. 16-C-158, was removed from Mercer County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Bluefield). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05981 to the proceeding. Bluefield Regional is a general medical and surgical hospital in Bluefield, West Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Taylor, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN P. NEW 114 Main Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 250 3280 Facsimile: (304) 250 6012 - and - D. Adrian Hoosier, II, Esq. Erica N. Lord, Esq. LORD HOOSIER 225 Hale Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345 8030 Facsimile: (304) 553 7227 E-mail: dah@hoosierfirm.com - and - J. Christopher White, Esq. Steven S. Wolfe, Esq. WOLFE WHITE & ASSOCIATES P. O. Box 536 Logan, WV 25601 Telephone: (304) 752 7715 Facsimile: (304) 752 7710 E-mail: swolfe@wolfelawwv.com - and - Stephen P. New, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN P. NEW 114 Main Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 250 3280 Facsimile: (304) 250 6012 E-mail: snew17@yahoo.com The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Esq. GROVE HOLMSTRAND & DELK 44 1/2 Fifteenth Street Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 905 1961 Facsimile: (304) 905 8629 E-mail: jholmstrand@grovedelklaw.com BLUEMERCURY INC: Hamilton Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- DIONNE HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUEMERCURY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1- 25, the Defendants, Case No. BC625829 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2016), seeks to recover damages, penalties, injunctive relief or other equitable relief on the grounds that Defendants have used uniform policies and procedures that have consistently violated California labor laws and regulations and caused Plaintiff and the rest of the Classes suffer the same or similar injuries. The complaint says the Plaintiff was required to be at Defendants' place of business for a full shift, and was under Defendants' control during that entire period of time, but was not compensated for all of this time. As a result of this unlawful policy, Plaintiff and the Piece Rate Class were not compensated for the all the time they waited between the time they spent performing services and before the first service they performed each day, and were not compensated for the time they spent after the service they performed each day before the end of each shift and any time during which Plaintiff and the Piece-Rate Class took rest breaks. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the rest of the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants unpaid minimum wages under the Labor Code for their waiting time (including any rest break time) at any time within the four years prior to the initiation of this action until the date that the Class is certified, plus liquidated damages under Labor Code. Bluemercury owns and operates spas and retail stores at various locations within the state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542 2100 Facsimile: (213) 542 2101 - and - Marshall A. Caskey, Esq Daniel M. Holzman, Esq. 6 Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq. CASKEY & HOLZMAN 24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 657-1070 Facsimile: (818) 297-1775 BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 4 Lawsuits in Conn. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- Four class action lawsuits have been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, in Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford Judicial District. The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless disregard for patient safety, in violations of the Connecticut Products Liability Act. According to the complaints, the Defendants negligently designed and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling, prescribing information and patient medication guide which rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective. The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties or related entities, the prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM), throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood clot. The case are: -- Ursula Broussard, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16- 6069495-S (July 1, 2016). Plaintiff's Counsel: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 1025 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com -- Karen Conzaman, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16- 6069492-S (July 1, 2016). Plaintiff's Counsel: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 1025 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com -- Lorne Thomas, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16- 6069488-S (July 1, 2016). Plaintiff's Counsel: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 1025 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com -- Arthur Ushkurnis, and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh, the Defendants, Case No. HHD-CV-16- 6069493-S (July 1, 2016). Plaintiff's Counsel: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone (203) 610 6393 Facsimile (203) 610 6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - Russell T. Abney, Esq. FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE 2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 1025 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (800) 521 4492 Facsimile: (214) 526 6026 E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com BOHEMIAN GROVE: Settles Employees' Class Action for $7 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Barmann, writing for sfist, reports that valets at Bohemian Grove, the ultra-elite private resort in the redwoods of Monte Rio owned by the Bohemian Club, just won a significant settlement from the 144-year-old private gentlemen's club. As the Chronicle reports, a group of 600 current and former employees at the Grove filed a class action lawsuit last year claiming that they had been overworked and underpaid during the summer retreats that were hosted there between 2011 and 2014. Allegations included a denial of overtime pay despite being on call 24 hours a day, often working 16- and 18-hour days without days off, and adhering to strict dress codes. Work included serving cocktails and cleaning, as well as catering to the needs of invited guests. And, just as Uber and Lyft and many other gig economy apps have been accused of improperly doing under state labor laws, the Bohemian Club apparently treated the workers, many of whom worked for the organization for many years, as independent contractors. Rather than let the suit go to court, the Club has settled the class action for $7 million, or an average settlement of $11,667 per employee. Part of the suit also alleges that representatives of the Club attempted to squelch the class action at the end of the summer season in 2014 by offering employees envelopes of extra cash. Local PR fixer Sam Singer issued a statement on behalf of the Club stipulating that the organization admits no wrongdoing, and saying, "The camps at the Bohemian Grove treat their valets very well. They are beloved members of the family. Many of them serve for generations at different camps within the grove. Unfortunately, in the world of courtroom law, it takes more money to prove your innocence than it does to settle in cases like this." Bohemian Grove was notably the site of annual protests, up until a few years ago, from various leftist activists who converged there because it was a gathering spot of powerful national and world leaders. As one frequent protester put it to the New York Times in 2010, "Bohemian Grove allowed us to build coalitions. Because whatever your issue was, someone in there was making money off it." It's said that the Manhattan Project was conceived at Bohemian Grove in 1942, and that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon came to an agreement there in 1967 over which man would seek the presidency first. There have been various rumors of bizarre rituals, fraternity-like behavior, public urination, and general debauchery among the 2,500 men who are invited annually to the three weeks of retreats -- it began in 1872 as an organization for San Francisco journalists and actual "bohemians" like artists and musicians, but eventually by the 1900's membership and the summer invite list was opened up to businessmen and politicians. Learn more about the various camps, parties, productions, and rituals in this sociological paper from UC Santa Cruz professor G. William Domhoff. As Singer told the Times six years ago, "This is two weeks, over the course of a year, when a group of gentlemen enjoy close friendships, current events and theatrical productions, without needing to see it on the front page of The Times or The Post." And, he added, "People do urinate on redwoods, [not as part of any ritual, but] as the need becomes necessary." CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Workers' Compensation System ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Cauterucci, writing for Slate, reports that a class- action lawsuit filed on July 6 alleges that California's workers' compensation system discriminates against women, routinely attributing work-related injuries to the pre-existing condition of being a woman. Plaintiffs claim that diagnoses of carpal tunnel syndrome were brushed off as the result of menopause or breastfeeding rather than consequences of years typing at a work computer, and disability benefits provided for female-specific cancers were significantly lower than those for cancers that affect the male body. Filed by a group of individual female workers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California State Council, the suit describes several cases in which women's disability benefits were slashed because state-trained qualified medical evaluators (QMEs) attributed their work-related health conditions in part to the "risk factors" of their gender or reproductive capacity. One plaintiff, Leticia Gonzalez, worked 40 hours a week for 17 years as a technician at a telecommunications company, mostly spent typing at a desk. She developed pain and numbness in her neck, arms, wrists, and hands, which persisted even after surgery. A QME diagnosed her with work-related carpal tunnel syndrome and nerve damage in 2014, granting her permanent disability benefits. But the QME attributed 20 percent of Gonzalez's injuries to the "non-industrial factors" of her age and gender. "Carpal tunnel compression neuropathy is almost ubiquitous in the female population in her age demographic," the QME wrote. Because she was a woman, Gonzalez got less compensation than she would have if she were a man. Veronica Kelley, an events manager, also developed carpal tunnel after several years of daily office typing. The suit states that she started experiencing symptoms in early 2013, but it took her until August 2014 to get an appointment with a specialist in the workers' compensation system. By that time, she was pregnant. Kelley brought her four-month-old baby to her appointment with a California QME in February 2015. According to the lawsuit, the QME "expressed annoyance" that the baby was there and asked Ms. Kelley repeated questions about breastfeeding and how it affected her carpal tunnel symptoms. Ms. Kelley allegedly noted several times that her condition had begun before she'd even gotten pregnant. Still, the QME reported that Ms. Kelley's carpal tunnel was "either the result of or aggravated by her pregnancy and breast feeding" and "should be expected to improve with the simple passage of time including when she stops breast feeding her infant." Since that report, Kelley has stopped breastfeeding and has reported no improvement in her symptoms, indicating that the QME's evaluation was based in gender-related bias and not an accurate assessment of her workers' compensation claim. "California's system of workers' compensation perpetuates the type of overt sex discrimination that is a relic of a past era," the complaint reads. "It deprives women workers of fair compensation on the basis of stereotypes about gender and women's reproductive biology. . . . By permitting and condoning the distribution of workers' compensation benefits on the basis of sex, the State of California sends a clear message that women's work is worth less." The complaint alleges that being a male or having male reproductive characteristics are never cited as pre-existing conditions, risk factors, or reasons for reducing disability benefits or workers' compensation. It also claims that California's system of benefit allocation for permanent disability underestimates harm specific to women -- namely, the effects of breast cancer--by using the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. These impairment ratings are medical assessments that affects benefits, with a higher impairment rating translating to higher benefits. If a man has his prostate removed due to work-related prostate cancer, the AMA guides usually grant him an impairment rating of 16 to 20 percent. A woman who's had a mastectomy during or after developing work- induced breast cancer will get up to a 5 percent impairment rating if she's of reproductive age and no impairment rating at all if she's older than that. That's what happened to another plaintiff, law enforcement sergeant Janice Page, who got breast cancer and underwent five surgeries as a result, including a mastectomy of her right breast. When she filed for workers' compensation, the examiner determined that her breast cancer was an effect of years of exposure to carcinogens in her workplace. The suit details a slew of lasting physical, psychological, and emotional consequences Page has suffered since her mastectomy. But since she was past childbearing age, Ms. Page was granted a zero percent impairment rating for her work-induced mastectomy, as if she'd have no use for her breasts beyond their functioning as milk producers. The suit also cites cases wherein women's awards for work-related "psychiatric injuries" like depression were reduced by as much as 80 percent because of "perimenopausal factors" and "gynecological issues," rulings that seems to rely on the old sexist myth that women endure hysterical bouts of mental disturbance due to the workings of their reproductive organs, making their suffering less acute than men's. In workers' compensation cases, those stereotypes can cause real financial damage to someone who's earned a fair award but finds herself hampered by the pesky fact that she was born female. CAREMARK RX: August 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA CASE NO. CV-2003-006630 SAM JOHNSON and CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, for themselves individually and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. CAREMARK Rx, L.L.C.; AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.; AIG TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.; and AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants. NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION A court has authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS LITIGATION. THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE LITIGATION REFERRED TO IN THE CAPTION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL RELEASE ALL CLAIMS CONCERNING THE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS AT ISSUE, THE MEDPARTNERS SECURITIES LITIGATION1 AND THE 1999 MEDPARTNERS SECURITIES LITIGATION SETTLEMENT, ALONG WITH CERTAIN OTHER CLAIMS, ALL AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT. IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED, YOU ALSO WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS, AND ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. TO CLAIM YOUR SHARE OF THIS FUND, YOU MUST SUBMIT A TIMELY AND VALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE") POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED ONLINE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30, 2016. To: All Persons who (a) purchased MedPartners common stock, including through open-market transactions, mergers or acquisitions in which MedPartners issued common stock, acquisition through the Company's Employee Stock Purchase Plan ("ESPP"), and any other type of transaction in which a Person acquired one or more shares of MedPartners stock in return for consideration during the period from October 30, 1996, through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (b) purchased call option contracts on MedPartners common stock during the period October 30, 1996, through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (c) sold put option contracts on MedPartners common stock during the period October 30, 1996, through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (d) purchased MedPartners Threshold Appreciation Price Securities ("TAPS") in the September 15, 1997 offering or thereafter through January 7, 1998; or (e) tendered shares of Talbert Medical Management Holdings Corporation to MedPartners between August 20, 1997, and September 19, 1997, but excluding (i) all those Persons who submitted valid requests for exclusion in connection with the MedPartners Securities Litigation Settlement and (ii) all those Persons who submitted valid requests for exclusions in the response to the Class Notice (collectively, the "Class," comprised of "Class Members"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, of the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the certified class action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, entitled Sam Johnson, and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, for Themselves, Individually, and on Behalf of a Class of All Others Who Are Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. Caremark Rx, L.L.C.; American International Group, Inc.; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.; AIG Technical Services, Inc.; and American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. CV-2003-006630 (the "Litigation"), and of the hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") to be held on Monday, August 8, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., by the Court to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement between Class Counsel and Plaintiffs and Defendants dated May 27, 2016 (the "Stipulation"). At that hearing the Court also will be asked to approve a Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund and a Fee and Expense Application, both proposed by Class Counsel. Copies of the Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation and the Fee and Expense Application are all posted on the following website: www.aig-caremarkclassaction.com. If you do not meet the Class definition, this Notice does not apply to you. If you are uncertain whether you are a member of the Class, contact Class Counsel (listed below) or consult your own attorney. This Notice is solely to advise you of the proposed settlement of this Litigation and of your rights in connection therewith. I. STATEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS'S RECOVERY The proposed Settlement will create a cash fund in the principal amount of Three-Hundred Ten Million Dollars ($310,000,000.00) (the "Settlement Amount"), plus any income that may accrue thereon (the "Settlement Fund"). The Settlement Fund, subject to deductions for, among other things, costs of class notice and administration, certain taxes and tax-related expenses, and attorneys' fees and expenses as approved by the Court, will be available for distribution to those Class Members who file a timely and valid Proof of Claim and Release and whose claim is approved by the Claims Administrator administering the claims process, all as set forth in the attached Stipulation and Plan of Allocation. II. REASONS FOR SETTLEMENT Plaintiffs, through Class Counsel, conducted a thorough investigation of the claims and allegations asserted in the Litigation. Through this investigation, and during the 12 years that this case has been pending, Class Counsel has developed a detailed understanding of the underlying events that are relevant to the Litigation. Class Counsel's investigation has revealed sufficient information to evaluate the claims and defenses asserted in the Litigation and to conclude that no additional information, whether related to the merits of the claims in the Litigation, the amounts potentially available to satisfy a judgment or settlement of the Litigation, or any other matter material to the Litigation, assuming such information were to exist, would have a material impact on their evaluation of this Settlement. Based on this evaluation, Class Counsel and Plaintiffs have concluded that the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and it is in the best interests of the Class. While Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the Litigation have merit, they also believe that the Settlement provides substantial benefits to the Class, including a substantial monetary recovery for the Class while avoiding the risks of continued litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome in the Litigation. Considering the uncertain probability of success on the merits of the Litigation, including the uncertain possibility of obtaining a monetary recovery, and because the proposed Settlement provides a certain benefit to class members and will avoid additional years of delay that would likely occur in the event of a contested trial and appeals, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have concluded that the Settlement is an excellent result for the Class. III. DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY The Defendants deny that they engaged in any wrongdoing of any kind, that they committed any violation of law, or that they breached any duty allegedly owed in any way related to Plaintiffs or the Class. Defendants further state that they are entering into the proposed Settlement solely to eliminate the burdens, distractions, expense, and uncertainty of further litigation. IV. NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The Settlement Hearing will be held on Monday, August 8, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., Central Time, before the Honorable Patrick J. Ballard, Circuit Judge, at the Jefferson County, Alabama, Courthouse, 716 North Richard Arrington, Jr., Boulevard, Third Floor Courtroom, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. The purposes of the Settlement Hearing are to: (1) determine whether the proposed Settlement Amount as set forth in the Stipulation, consisting of $310,000,000 in cash, is fair, reasonable, and adequate to Plaintiffs and other Class Members; (2) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to Class Members; (3) consider the Fee and Expense Application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; (4) consider the application for incentive awards for Plaintiffs and certain former Plaintiffs; (5) determine whether the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, in the form attached to the Stipulation, should be rendered and entered; and (6) rule on such other matters as the Parties request, consistent with the terms of the Stipulation. The Court has reserved the right to adjourn the Settlement Hearing without further notice of any kind other than an oral adjournment announcement at the Settlement Hearing or a written order entered prior to the Settlement Hearing. V. DESCRIPTION OF THIS LITIGATION On August 15, 2012, the Court certified the Class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court's order was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama in CVS Caremark Corp. v. Lauriello, 175 So. 3d 596 (Ala. 2014) (as modified on denial of rehearing Feb. 27, 2015). A trial date of May 16, 2016, was pending when the proposed Settlement was reached. A class action is a type of lawsuit in which one or several individuals or entities prosecute alleged claims on behalf of all members of a group of allegedly similarly-situated persons and entities in an effort to obtain monetary damages or other relief for the benefit of the entire group, known as a class. Class actions avoid the necessity of each member of a class having to file a separate lawsuit to obtain relief. Class actions are used to decide legal and factual issues that are common to all members of a class. The Litigation, which was initially filed in October 2003, arises out of the earlier settlement of various securities and derivative lawsuits (collectively referred to as the "MedPartners Securities Litigation") that were resolved in 1999. Those securities and derivative lawsuits alleged that MedPartners had made a series of false and misleading statements concerning a planned merger between MedPartners and PhyCor Inc., and concerning MedPartners' overall financial condition. In the current Litigation, Plaintiffs allege that, during the course of the MedPartners Securities Litigation, the Defendants (1) misrepresented the amount of insurance available to settle the MedPartners Securities Litigation; and (2) suppressed information concerning the excess insurance policy at issue. Plaintiffs allege that the settlement of the MedPartners Securities Litigation would have been much higher if additional facts had been known about the excess insurance policy. The Defendants in the Litigation deny liability and, in addition to other legal defenses, they deny committing any wrongdoing in regard to the MedPartners Securities Litigation Settlement. VI. TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT A proposed Settlement has been reached in this Litigation between Class Counsel and Plaintiffs and Defendants, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the Stipulation and the exhibits thereto. A portion of the Settlement Fund will be used to pay Class Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses, to pay incentive awards to Plaintiffs and certain former Plaintiffs, to pay for this Notice and the processing of claims submitted by Class Members, and to pay taxes and tax-related expenses. The balance of the Settlement Fund (the "Net Settlement Fund") will be distributed in accordance with the Plan of Allocation, described below, to Class Members who submit valid and timely Proofs of Claim and Release. The effectiveness of the proposed Settlement is subject to certain conditions referenced in the Stipulation. VII. PLAN OF ALLOCATION The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed to Class Members who are entitled to a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund and who submit a timely and valid Proof of Claim and Release ("Authorized Claimants"). The Settlement of $310,000,000, after deduction of Attorney Fees and expenses, taxed and approved costs, will be apportioned among the Common Stock and Options Class, the TAPS Class, and the Tender Offer Class (each as described below) in the same proportion as the Gross Settlement Fund from the MedPartners Securities Litigation Settlement, specifically: (a) 52.68% to the members of the Common Stock and Options Class; (b) 44.64% to the members of the TAPS Class; and (c) 2.68% to the members of the Tender Offer Class. These percentages of allocation among the original subclasses of the MedPartners Securities Litigation Settlement were approved by the Court in that settlement. The Net Settlement Fund will be distributed according to the Plan of Allocation, reproduced below, which was approved by the court in the MedPartners Securities Litigation Settlement: "To the extent there are sufficient funds in the Net Settlement Fund, each Authorized Claimant will receive an amount equal to the Authorized Claimant's claim, as defined below. If, however, the amount in the Net Settlement Fund is not sufficient to permit payment of the total claim of each Authorized Claimant, then each Authorized Claimant shall be paid the percentage of the Net Settlement Fund that each Authorized Claimant's claim bears to the total of the claims of all Authorized Claimants. Payment in this manner shall be deemed conclusive against all Authorized Claimants. The total of all profits in transactions that qualify a Person as a Settlement Class Member shall be subtracted from the total of all losses in such transactions to determine if a Settlement Class Member has a claim. Only if a Settlement Class Member had a net loss, after all profits from transactions during the Settlement Class periods are subtracted from all losses will such Settlement Class Member be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. The Claims Administrator shall determine each Authorized Claimant's pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund based upon each Authorized Claimant's "Claim." An Authorized Claimant's "Claim" shall be calculated as follows: (A) The Common Stock and Options Class: (1) Common Stock: For shares of MedPartners common stock purchased between October 30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, inclusive, a Claim shall mean: (a) if the shares were purchased between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, and were still owned at the close of business on January 7, 1998, the difference between the purchase price and $10.40 per share; (b) if the shares were purchased between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, and were sold at a loss between May 6. 1997, and January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase price and the sales price received; (c) if the shares were purchased between October 30, 1996, and May 5, 1997, and were still owned at the close of business on January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase price and $10.40 per share; (d) if the shares were purchased between October 30, 1996, and May 5, 1997, and were sold at a loss between October 30, 1996 and January 7, 1998, 5% of the difference between the purchase price and the sales price received; and (e) for purposes of calculating an Authorized Claimant's Claim. MedPartners stock purchased by an employee of the Company pursuant to the ESPP in January 1998 shall be deemed to have been purchased on December 31, 1997, and still owned as of the close of business on January 7, 1998. (2) Call Options: If any call options were exercised to purchase common stock, the date of exercise will be the purchase date of the stock. Additionally, if an exercised call option was purchased between October 30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, the cost of the option shall be added to the cost of the exercised shares. For a call option which was not exercised, a Claim shall mean: (a) if the call option was purchased between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, and still owned at the close of business on January 7, 1998, the difference between the purchase price and the closing price of the call option on January 7, 1998: (b) if the call option was purchased between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, and sold at a loss (or expired) between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase price and the sales price received (or $0 if the call expired); (c) if the call option was purchased between October 30, 1996, and May 5, 1997 and was still owned at the close of business on January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase price and the closing price of the call option on January 7, 1998; (d) if the call option was purchased between October 30, 1996, and May 5, 1997, and was sold at a loss (or expired) between October 30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, 5% of the difference between the purchase price and the sale price received (or $0 if the call expired). (3) Put Options: For any put options which were sold, and for which shares were "put" by the option holder during the Class Period, the date on which the shares were "put" to the claimant shall be the purchase date of the stock. Additionally, if the put options were sold during the Class Period, the sale price of the option shall be deducted from the purchase price of the shares. For a put option which was not exercised by the buyer of the put option during the Class Period (shares were not "put" to the seller of the option), a Claim shall mean: (a) if the put option was sold between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, and remained uncovered at the close of business on January 7, 1998, the difference between the closing price of the put option on January 7, 1998, and the sale price; (b) if the put option was sold between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, and purchased (to cover) at a loss between May 6, 1997, and January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase price of the put option (to cover) and the sale price of the option; (c) if the put option was sold between October 30, 1996, and May 5, 1997, and remained uncovered at the close of business on January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the closing price of the put option on January 7, 1998, and the sale price; (d) if the put option was sold between October 30, 1996, and May 5, 1997, and was purchased (to cover) at a loss between October 30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, 5% of the difference between the purchase price of the option (to cover) and the sale price of the option. (B) The TAPS Class: For MedPartners' TAPS purchased between September 15, 1997, and January 7, 1998, inclusive, Recognized Loss shall mean: (1) if the TAPS were still owned at the close of business on January 7, 1998, the difference between the purchase price (but in no event more than $22.1875 per TAPS) and $13.00 per TAPS; (2) if the TAPS were sold at a loss between September 15, 1997, and January 7, 1998, 15% of the difference between the purchase price (but in no event more than $22.1875 per TAPS) and the sales price received. (C) The Tender Offer Class: For Talbert common shares tendered to MedPartners between August 20, 1997, and September 19, 1997, inclusive, Recognized Loss shall mean $6.00 for each Talbert common share tendered. For open market transactions or purchases in the TAPS public offering, the date of purchase or sale is the "trade" date as distinguished from the "settlement" date. For all other transactions, the date of purchase is the latest of the date of conversion, exchange, or exercise, or the date on which all contractual conditions to a purchase were satisfied. All references to the purchase price paid include transaction fees and charges and brokerage commissions, if and to the extent applicable. All references to the sales price received are net of transaction fees and charges and brokerage commissions, if and to the extent applicable. For Settlement Class Members with claims based on MedPartners stock or options or TAPS, who made multiple purchases or multiple sales of the same such security during the applicable Settlement Class Period, the earliest subsequent sale shall be matched with the earliest purchase and chronologically thereafter for purposes of the claim calculations." No Authorized Claimant will be entitled to receive an amount greater than "the Authorized Claimant's claim" until every Authorized Claimant has received 100% of their Authorized Claimant's claim. If all Authorized Claimants of a single subclass have received 100% of their claim, excess monies apportioned to that subclass will be redistributed to the other subclasses in the same proportion as the Plan of Allocation, before accounting for any pro rata increase as outlined in this sentence. If the Net Settlement Fund is sufficient to pay every Authorized Claimant the full amount of their Authorized Claimant's claim, then the excess amount remaining in the Net Settlement Fund shall be allocated, pro rata, to Authorized Claimants (that is, Class Members who submit valid and timely Proofs of Claim and Release in connection with the Settlement) in the proportion that their claim bears to the total amount of the Settlement apportioned to the Common Stock and Options Class, the TAPS Class, or the Tender Offer Class, as applicable. In the interests of economy, no distribution shall be made on any Claim where the payment of an Authorized Claimant's pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund (after all adjustments provided for in note 4 above) is less than ten dollars ($10.00). The Court has reserved jurisdiction to allow, disallow, or adjust the Claim of any Class Member on equitable grounds. Class Members who do not file timely and acceptable Proofs of Claim and Release will not share in the Settlement proceeds. Class Members who did not submit a valid request for exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Class Notice published in or around June 2015 or do not file acceptable Proofs of Claim and Release nevertheless will be bound by the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal and the Settlement. VIII. PARTICIPATION IN THE SETTLEMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND, YOU MUST SUBMIT A TIMELY AND VALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE. Two forms of Proof of Claim and Release are attached to this Notice. The first is entitled: "PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - FORM A." If you or your predecessor filed a claim in 1999 in the MedPartners Securities Litigation that was approved and you or your predecessor received a disbursement from the MedPartners Securities Litigation Settlement, please complete and file Form A. The second is entitled "PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE - FORM B". All other Class Members wishing to file a Claim should use Form B. For either form, please read the instructions carefully, fill out the applicable Proof of Claim and Release form, sign it, and mail it so that it is delivered no later than September 30, 2016. For purposes of delivering Proofs of Claim and Release, delivery shall be effective (a) upon personal delivery, if delivered by hand, (b) on the day transmitted online to the website identified below, (c) on the date postmarked if transmitted via the United States Postal Service, or (d) on the next business day, if sent by prepaid overnight courier service. You may mail the applicable Proof of Claim and Release form to: AIG-Caremark Class Action Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 Alternatively, the applicable Proof of Claim and Release form may be submitted online at www.aigcaremarkclassaction.com. Make sure you select the Proof of Claim and Release form applicable to you. Unless the Court orders otherwise, if you do not submit a timely and valid Proof of Claim and Release you will be barred from receiving any payments from the Net Settlement Fund but nevertheless will in all other respects still be bound by the provisions of the Stipulation and the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal. IX. NOTICE OF PRO AMI HEARING Simultaneously with the Settlement Hearing, the Court will hold a hearing ("Pro Ami Hearing") on Monday, August 8, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., Central Time, before the Honorable Patrick J. Ballard, Circuit Judge, at the Jefferson County, Alabama, Courthouse, 716 North Richard Arrington, Jr., Boulevard, Third Floor Courtroom, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. The purpose of the Pro Ami Hearing will be to determine whether the Settlement and Plan of Allocation are in the best interests of those Class Members, if any, under the age of 19 or those (a) not of sufficient mental capacity to appreciate the effect of what he or she is doing in making a contract, (b) who is not able to exercise his or her will with reference thereto, and (c) who has no reasonable perception or understanding of the nature and terms of the contract. The Court has reserved the right to adjourn the Pro Ami Hearing without further notice of any kind other than an oral adjournment announcement at the Pro Ami Hearing or a written order entered prior to the Pro Ami Hearing. X. DISMISSAL AND RELEASES If the proposed Settlement is approved, the Court will enter a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal. In addition, upon the Effective Date, Class Counsel, Class Representatives, and each Class Member, for the Class Member and for any other Person claiming (now or in the future) by, through or under such Class Member, and regardless of whether any such Plaintiff or Class Member ever seeks or obtains by any means, including, without limitation, by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release, any distribution from the Settlement Fund, shall be deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal shall have, fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims against all of the Released Persons and shall be permanently barred and enjoined from instituting, commencing, or prosecuting any such Released Claim against any of the Released Persons except to enforce the releases and other terms and conditions contained in the Stipulation or the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal entered pursuant thereto. The full description of the Release is stated in the Stipulation and in the Proof of Claim and Release forms. XI. APPLICATION FOR FEES AND EXPENSES At the Settlement Hearing, Class Counsel will request the Court to award attorneys' fees not to exceed 40% of the Settlement Amount, plus expenses not to exceed $3,000,000. In addition, Plaintiffs and former named-plaintiff John Lauriello may each seek up to $50,000 in expenses they incurred in representing and aiding the Class and as incentive awards. Such sums as may be approved by the Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund. Class Members are not personally liable for any such fees or expenses. The fee requested by Class Counsel will compensate counsel for their efforts in achieving the settlement for the benefit of the Class and for their risk in undertaking this representation on a wholly- contingent basis. XII. CONDITIONS FOR SETTLEMENT The proposed Settlement is conditioned upon the occurrence of the following events described in Paragraph 10.1 of the Stipulation: (a) the Defendants have timely transferred or caused to be timely transferred the Total Settlement Amount ($310,000,000) into the Escrow Account, as required by Paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the Stipulation; (b) the Court has entered the order approving the Settlement Notices, as required by Paragraph 5.2(b) and (c) of the Stipulation; (c) the approved Settlement contains a release and waiver consistent with the terms of the Stipulation, including: (i) the release of the portion of the Released Claims identified in Paragraph 1.49(d) thereof; (ii) Paragraph 2.4 thereof; (iii) the release of Unknown Claims and the operation of Paragraph 2.5 thereof; and (iv) Paragraph 2.6 thereof; (d) the Court has entered the Pro Ami Order; (e) the Court has entered the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal, in all material respects in the form of Exhibit D to the Stipulation (or on such terms as the Parties later agree); (f) no Party or their counsel has given notice of intent to terminate the Settlement pursuant to Paragraph 10.3 of the Stipulation; (g) no Class Member has been excluded by the Court sua sponte without the consent of each of the Parties; and (h) each of the Preliminary Approval Order, the Pro Ami Order and the Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal has become final, as defined in Paragraph 1.17 of the Stipulation. If, for any reason, any one of the conditions described in the Stipulation is not met, the Stipulation might be terminated and, if terminated, will become null and void, and the parties to the Stipulation will be restored to their respective positions as of April 15, 2016. In that event, the proposed Settlement will not proceed, and no payments will be made to Class Members. XIII. THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AND/OR BE HEARD AT THE HEARING Any Class Member may object to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the Fee and Expense Application and/or incentive awards. In addition, a Representative, as defined in the Stipulation, may object to the Pro Ami Hearing or the Pro Ami Order. A Class Member, may lodge such an objection or, in the case of an objection to the Pro Ami Hearing or the Pro Ami Order, a Representative may object to the Pro Ami Hearing or the Pro Ami Order, by filing a written objection and by appearing at the Settlement Hearing and showing cause why the Court should not approve the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the Fee and Expense Application and/or incentive awards, or, in the case of a Representative, the Pro Ami Hearing, or the Pro Ami Order. Written objections must be postmarked no later than July 22, 2016, and mailed to: AIG-Caremark Class Action Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 Written objections must state: (1) the nature of the objection; (2) the grounds for such objection; (3) proof that the objector is a member of the Class and has not been excluded by the Court on its own motion; and (4) any documentation in support of such objection. If a Class Member or Representative desires to appear and be heard at the Settlement Hearing, in addition to requirements (1)-(4), above, such Class Member also must state: (5) an intention to appear and be heard at the Settlement Hearing; and (6) the identities of witnesses, if any, the Class Member intends to call at the Settlement Hearing and a summary of their expected testimony. If the written objection includes a statement of the intent to appear and be heard at the Settlement Hearing, copies of the written objection must also be (a) filed with the Court by July 22, 2016 at the address below: Anne-Marie Adams, Clerk 716 Richard Arrington, Jr. Blvd. N. Jefferson County Courthouse, Room 400 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 and (b) mailed (postmarked no later than July 22, 2016) to: Scott A. Powell Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, LLP 2025 3rd Avenue North, Suite 800 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Attorney for the Plaintiff Class M. Christian King LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, LLC 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Attorney for the AIG Defendants David G. Hymer BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP One Federal Place 1819 5th Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Attorney for Defendant Caremark Rx, L.L.C. XIV. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the proposed Settlement and does not describe all of the details of the Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation or the Fee and Expense Application. The Stipulation, Plan of Allocation and Fee and Expense Application, together with selected pleadings and other settlement-related documents may be viewed online at www.aig- caremarkclassaction.com. If you have questions about the proposed Settlement, the Stipulation, the Plan of Allocation, the Fee and Expense Application, the incentive payments or the filing of a Proof of Claim and Release form you may write to: AIG-Caremark Class Action Claims Administrator c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 or call toll-free 1-888-564-1149 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE OR CALL THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE. XV. CLASS COUNSEL As a class member, you are represented by Class Counsel, who are: John W. Haley Scott A. Powell Bruce J. McKee Ralph D. Cook Brian M. Vines Tempe D. Smith Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, LLP 2025 3rd Avenue North, Suite 800 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: 205/328-5330 Facsimile: 205/324-2165 Email: scott@hwnn.com J. Timothy Francis Francis Law, LLC 300 Richard Arrington, Jr. Boulevard North, Suite 700 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: 205/251-0252 Facsimile: 205/251-0255 Email: francis@bham.rr.com John Q. Somerville Somerville, LLC 300 Richard Arrington, Jr. Boulevard North, Suite 710 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Telephone: 205/871-2183 Facsimile: 205/871-2184 Email: jqs@somervillellc.com CAREPLUS HEALTH: Evidence Supporting Class Cert. Bid Filed ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs and opt-in Whiteside in in the class action lawsuit styled Collier et al v. Careplus Health Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00178-RC (E.D. Tex.), provided the Court with evidence supporting their request for conditional class certification. Specifically, Plaintiffs filed a letter brief discussing why certification is appropriate. The Defendants allegedly bypassed their timekeeping software by assigning patients to Field LVNs without entering these patients into their time tracking software. The Plaintiffs have also presented evidence that Defendants' timekeeping software did not record all hours worked even for those patients that had been entered into Defendants' software. A copy of the Letter Brief is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z7DgMRmW The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. DUNHAM & JONES, P.C. 1800 Guadalupe Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 777 7777 Facsimile: (512) 340 4051 E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com CASH STORE: Payday Loan Claims Period Open Until October 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Harrison Pensa LLP on July 5 disclosed that money is now available from a successful class action settlement for anyone who took a payday loan from the Cash Store or Instaloans in Ontario after September 1, 2011. Borrowers who took payday loans, including lines of credit, from The Cash Store and Instaloans will now be able to make a claim for a recovery of some of the fees and interest they were charged, following a decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to approve a $10M class action settlement. On July 5, the 'Take Back Your Cash' campaign officially launched in Ontario. Borrowers with approved claims will be eligible to receive a minimum of $50, depending on claims volumes. Claimants may be entitled to even more money. "We've made it as easy as possible for people to get their money back, but the challenge is to ensure borrowers come forward and file claims for their share of the settlement money," said Jon Foreman, partner at Harrison Pensa LLP, legal counsel to the class members in the case. "If you took a payday loan from these businesses after September 1, 2011 in Ontario, we want to hear from you." To help the borrowers to take advantage of the claims process as much as possible, disclosure of the Defendants' records was approved by the court and handed over to Harrison Pensa LLP and Ricepoint Class Action Administration, the court appointed claims administration firm which will be working on the campaign. Borrowers should watch for text messages, emails, and telephone calls over the next few weeks, explaining how to file a claim online at takebackyourcash.com. For information in French, claimants can visit reprendretonargent.com. "Borrowers should not worry if they are missing loan documents. We have designed an efficient and easy process where former customers aren't expected to know all of the exact details of their payday loans with Cash Store and Instaloans in order to make a request for a share of the settlement. Documentation or back-up information should only be needed in very limited circumstances", Mr. Foreman says. "Considerable efforts have been made to reach the more than 100,000 claimants that are entitled to this compensation and we're confident the great majority will be able to obtain what's rightfully theirs." The claims period will be open until October 31, 2016. Once received, the claims will be reviewed for accuracy, which takes time and requires careful work. Claimants will receive their cheques as soon as possible after the Claims Administrator has completed its review, likely in mid-2017. For more information, visit TakeBackYourCash.com or reprendretonargent.com About Harrison Pensa Harrison Pensa LLP -- http://www.harrisonpensa.com-- is a full- service law firm based in London, Ontario, with expertise in business law, litigation and personal legal services including family, wills and estate, and personal injury law. CIRAOLO-KLEPPER: "Depolo" Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Rosemary M. Collyer entered an order in the lawsuit styled LOUIS RONALD DEPOLO, Plaintiff, v. CAROLINE CIRAOLO- KLEPPER, Personally, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-02039- RMC (D.C.), granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The Court further denied: 1. Plaintiff's motion to certify class and to appoint counsel; 2. as moot Plaintiff's motion for hearing; 3. as moot Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for Hearing A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xgsWbmKE CITIZENS BANK: Settles TCPA Class Action for $4.5 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM.com, reports that pursuant to a California federal judge's preliminary approval order filed on July 5, Citizens Bank will pay over $4.5 million to settle a class action with more than one million members who claim it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by allegedly calling consumers' cellphones without their permission using an automated dialing system. The case is Sanders, et. al v. RBS Citizens, N.A. (Case No. 3:13- cv-03136, United States District Court, Southern District of California). Background On December 20, 2013, Plaintiff Linda Sanders (Plaintiff) commenced this class action against Defendant RBS Citizens, N.A. ("Defendant" or "Citizens") seeking relief for violations of the TCPA. Plaintiff alleged she was harmed when she received a number of unsolicited phone calls to her cellular telephone made by Defendant. Defendant's telephone calls were allegedly placed using an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS), as defined by the TCPA, and using an "artificial or prerecorded voice" system in further violation of TCPA. Plaintiff states she did not consent to these calls. Plaintiff represents the Class Members, claiming they were similarly harmed by receiving unsolicited phone calls from Defendant through the use of an ATDS and artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA. Defendant denied, and continues to deny, calling Plaintiff or other putative class members in violation of the TCPA and without their consent. The parties vigorously litigated the matter. Court records show over one hundred separate documents or pleadings filed in the two- and-one-half years since the case was filed. Prior to the settlement negotiations and mediation, the parties engaged in discovery requests and exchanges, litigating several discovery disputes. Plaintiff made a motion to compel discovery, seeking a dial list of calls made by Defendant, or by third-party vendors on Defendant's behalf, and all documents relating to express consent. Class Counsel served Defendant with 133 document requests, issued twenty-one non-party subpoenas, and took a 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant's witness to confirm the class size. The Proposed Settlement The two parties reached a proposed settlement that will apply to all class members (Class Members) of this matter. The Settlement applies to a proposed Settlement Class that is defined as follows: All persons in the United States who received a call on their cellular telephone from Citizens, or from any third parties calling on a Citizens account, made with an alleged automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and/or an artificial or pre-recorded voice from December 20, 2009 through July 13, 2015, whose telephone numbers are identified in the Class List. The parties estimate this Settlement Class consists of 1,013,615 class members. Citizens agreed to establish a Settlement Fund in the amount of $4,551,267.50 to pay for awards to Settlement Class Members, settlement administration expenses, and any reasonable attorneys' fees and costs approved and awarded by the Court. As compensation for its services and to recover its expenses, Class Counsel will seek from the Court an award of attorneys' fees of no more than 25% of the Settlement Fund. Class Counsel estimates that the attorneys' fees will be up to $1,137,816.87. Also, Class Counsel is seeking actual litigation costs of no more than $25,000. Plaintiff, as the class representative, will be paid up to $5,000 from the Settlement Fund as an incentive payment. In addition to these expenses, the parties anticipate $553,027 in claims administration costs if 1% of the Class submit claims, and $628,461 if 5% of the Class submit claims. Assuming the anticipated expenses are incurred and the claims participation rate is correct, a 1% claim rate would result in each Class Member receiving approximately $283.72, and a 5% claim rate would result in each Class Member receiving approximately $56.75. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on Monday, January 23, 2017, at 10:30 a.m., in the Courtroom of the Honorable Cynthia Bashant, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Courtroom 4B (4th Floor - Schwartz), 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, for the following purposes: -- finally determining whether the Settlement Class meets all applicable requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus, whether the claims of the Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of effectuating the Settlement; -- determining whether the proposed Settlement of the action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court; -- considering any motion of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and costs; -- considering the motion of the Plaintiff for a service award, if any; -- considering whether the Court should enter the [Proposed] Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice; -- considering whether the releases by the Settlement Class Members as set forth in the Settlement Agreement should be provided; and -- ruling upon such other matters as the Court may deem just and appropriate. insideARM Perspective insideARM will continue to report on TCPA settlements as we learn of them. There is no unique insideARM perspective to add to this particular case. The settlement speaks for itself. COLORADO: Settles Inmates' Class Action Over Fresh Air Access ------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Greene, writing for The Colorado Independent, reports that although fresh air and sunlight come free in Colorado, they have long been denied to hundreds of state prisoners, some of whom have gone years -- and even a decade or more -- without access to the outdoors. That policy will soon end under a class-action settlement. "It took six years in court, but we got everything we wanted from this lawsuit," says Denver attorney Amy Robertson who, along with students from University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, has pursued two federal cases to give state prisoners the right to outdoor exercise. Colorado has long forced its highest security prisoners to spend 23 hours a day alone in their cells, with the 24th hour reserved for either a shower or exercise in an indoor exercise room. That room is roughly the same size as their regular, cement block cells, but with a pull-up bar and an open, but heavily barred window. The state long asserted that the narrow glint of fresh air and view are ample substitutes for actually being outside. Nonsense, countered the team of civil rights lawyers, who argued that denying open air violates 8th Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. An expert witness for the plaintiffs argued that no other state -- not even the federal government at its ADX Supermax prison in Florence -- has deprived prisoners outdoor exposure as much as Colorado. One inmate named in the case marveled at the absurdity of describing a room with an open, but barred window as "outdoors." The federal government requires more stringent regulations for providing fresh air, sunlight and outdoor exercise to livestock and test animals than Colorado has given human beings in its prisons. "It amounts to its own kind of torture," says Ms. Robertson of the Denver-based Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC). The legal battle started in 2010 when inmate Troy Anderson sued the state over mental health care at Colorado State Penitentiary (CSP), the state's 23-year-old supermax prison in Canon City. Among other complaints, Mr. Anderson said it was a breach of his civil rights to have been housed there for 12 years virtually without open air. In 2012, the federal judge presiding over the lawsuit granted Mr. Anderson the right to "outdoor exercise in an area that is fully outside" including "sunlight, rain, snow and wind" three days a week unless weather or disciplinary measures precluded it. But rather than give Anderson an outdoor exercise area at CSP, state corrections officials instead transferred him to the Sterling Correctional Facility 60 days after the judge's ruling. Anderson has told The Independent he had mixed feelings about his legal victories because prisoners at CSP still had no outdoor access. "I didn't set out to do this just for myself," he wrote. So the team of lawyers who had represented Mr. Anderson filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf the CSP prisoners who still weren't allowed outside. As the case meandered through federal court, the Corrections Department was making changes to reduce the number of inmates it houses in "administrative segregation" -- its term for solitary confinement. The state replaced its practice of housing most CSP inmates alone in their cells 23 hours a day (with the 24th in the exercise room) with a tiered system in which most inmates are given four hours outside their cell in a group of eight. The groups are designed to help them grow accustomed to human interaction. To accommodate those groups, the Corrections Department in 2014 asked the legislature for $4.7 million to build new outdoor exercise yards at CSP where inmates will have room to run, play basketball, walk or just sit on a bench. The approximately 171 inmates still living under tighter, 24- hours-a-day solitary confinement conditions have been moved to Sterling, where they can exercise in newly built, individually sized outdoor cages called "modules." Under the DOC's new policies, those prisoners will be limited to solitary confinement conditions for 12 months, at the most -- not stuck for years on end, as Mr. Anderson was. A few months before the case was scheduled for trial last November, the state asked for mediation. It struck a deal with the plaintiffs, requiring CSP's new outdoor exercise areas to be complete by the end of this year and ensuring that high-security inmates at both CSP and Sterling would have access to outdoor exercise. The assurance of open air applies not just to current inmates, but also those in the future. The settlement provides a way for enforce the agreement if the state goes back on its word. And it gives $410,000 in attorney's fees to the lawyers who filed the lawsuit. U.S. Judge William Martinez finalized the agreement on June 29. Said DOC spokeswoman Laurie Kilpatrick: "The Department of Corrections worked hard to develop, purpose and implement a solid settlement agreement that addresses the issues of outdoor recreation for both our offenders who are now housed within Extended Restrictive Housing, as well as for the close custody offender population now at CSP." Ms. Robertson agrees with Ms. Kilpatrick, but has a decidedly more touchy-feely response to the agreement. "Because of this settlement, inmates will get to feel the sun and wind on their faces. . . . They'll be able to experience things like rain and snow," she said. "After all, as one of the plaintiffs told the judge, who doesn't want to be outside?" COOPER CITY, FL: Fire Assessment Fees Violate Law, Judge Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Ballout, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that three residents appear to have won their class action lawsuit against the city, in which they sought a $2.5 million refund for fire assessment fees. But Cooper City officials have 24 days to respond to Broward Circuit Court Judge Marina Garcia-Wood's ruling that the city violated Florida law in its apportioning of a fire assessment fee from 2007 through 2009. Attorneys representing the city declined to comment. David Frankel, the attorney representing the three residents who filed the lawsuit in 2011, said he expects the city to appeal. Approximately 10,000 homeowners and business owners would be affected by the refund. The five-year-old case stalled for approximately two years on a previous appeal, but there has been a lot of activity recently in the case. In June, plaintiffs Brenda Kezar, Walter Jolliff and Barbara Jolliff submitted a settlement proposal to the city, reducing the refund amount from $2.5 million to $1.5 million. The city's attorney said commissioners were considering the settlement. In the meantime, the three decided to dismiss one of two counts in the lawsuit that alleged the city improperly imposed the fee to fund Emergency Medical Services. Proving that became too difficult, Mr. Frankel said. "It really became too convoluted for us to pursue it. Because the city contracted with BSO, it became too tough for us to delineate what BSO was using the money for," Mr. Frankel said. Judge Garcia-Wood then ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the second count, which alleges the city relied on flawed methodology from a fire study report, compiled in 1999 by Burton & Associates, to apportion the fire assessment fee. CORELOGIC INC: Judge Tosses Novel Copyright Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Bay Area IP boutique Durie Tangri scored a win in a suit that delved into largely untested areas of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and shut down -- for now, at least -- a major class action weapon facing tech companies that handle protected content. On July 5, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the Southern District of California tossed out a proposed class action against CoreLogic Inc. that alleged the company violated the DMCA by stripping out certain kinds of metadata from photos of real estate properties. The suit, brought by a team of lawyers including Southern California solo Darren Quinn, was novel in that it did not allege that CoreLogic actually infringed registered copyrights. Instead, real estate photographers targeted the company, which stores, analyzes and licenses real estate listing data, under a lesser- known provision prohibiting the intentional removal of "copyright management information," or CMI. The complaint centered on the fact that, when organizations of real estate agents upload content using CoreLogic's platform, some of the data photographers embed about who took the photo or the licensing terms are automatically removed. Copyright class actions are few and far between. But the provision invoked here, Section 1202, is a potentially mighty tool for plaintiffs lawyers precisely because it does not require infringement to trigger a violation. Proving infringement on a classwide basis has proven difficult because it often involves individual-specific inquiries about whether the copyrights were registered; with Section 1202, that's not an issue. The penalties can also be extremely large, ranging from $2,500 to $25,000 per violation. In the case of CoreLogic, which managed roughly 2 million real estate photos, the damages could easily have been in the billions of dollars. Notably, a class has never been certified under the provision -- and the judge dodged the issue by declaring a certification motion moot after granting summary judgment. Judge Bashant seemed to see the lack of infringement allegations as hamstringing the lawsuit, especially because the law requires plaintiffs to show that the alleged violator knew or should have known that removing CMI would make it easier for infringement to occur. "Although plaintiffs need not show actual infringement, the fact that there was none is relevant to plaintiff's burden to show that CoreLogic had a reasonable ground to believe it was likely to happen," the judge wrote. She also ruled that CoreLogic couldn't be held liable because removal of the metadata was an "unintended side effect" of the way its software was designed, rather than a deliberate action to strip the information out. For a firm that carried Google Inc. to an upset victory in the books scanning litigation three years ago, Durie Tangri's victory on the summary judgment motion is its latest win in favor of tech companies that provide access to content over the individuals that generate it. Joseph Gratz -- jgratz@durietangri.com -- a partner at Durie Tangri, said the decision should head off suits against cloud service providers or social media sites that allow users to upload photos. Some services deliberately remove certain metadata -- such as where a photo was taken -- with the aim of protecting users' privacy, he noted; prior to the ruling, they may have been vulnerable to a suit under Section1202. "I think this opinion forecloses that [kind of] case," Mr. Gratz said. "There may be plaintiffs' lawyers that disagree with me, but I guess we'll see." Count Quinn as among those who disagree. He said he plans to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in order to clarify the boundaries of the law. "There's no judge across this nation that has had to grapple with these issues in a manner that this case has raised," he said. Mr. Quinn underscored that the preservation of metadata in professional photos is extremely important to photographers, since it allows them to determine whether a published photo is theirs. "This opinion, if it stands, will make it harder for photographers to assert their rights under Section 1202 because it is being interpreted narrowly." Also representing the plaintiffs were Schneider Rothman Intellectual Property Law Group in Florida and Hulett Harper Stewart in San Diego. CRAIG HAMILTON: Rowe Seeks Certification of Painters Class ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled GREGORY ROWE and CODY PILKINTON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CRAIG HAMILTON dba HAMILTON PAINTING, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03259-RK (W.D. Mo.), ask the Court to certify this class: "all current and former employees employed by Hamilton Painting as painters from three years prior to filing this lawsuit through its conclusion who were not paid proper overtime wages when they worked more than forty (40) hours a week." The Plaintiffs further request an order: 1. compelling Defendant Craig Hamilton dba Hamilton Painting to produce within 14 days of the order granting this motion, the full name, all known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the potential class members; 2. permitting Plaintiffs' Counsel to send, within 14 days of receipt of the class list from Hamilton, the Court- authorized notice and consent to sue form via U.S. Mail and electronic mail to putative class members; 3. allowing 60 days for putative class members to return their consent to sue form to Plaintiffs' counsel for filing with the court; 4. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to send a second, identical copy of the Notice and consent to sue form to members of the putative class 30 days into the notice period, via U.S. Mail and email, reminding them of the deadline for the submission of the consent to sue form; and 5. appointing the undersigned counsel, Johnson Becker P.L.L.C and Bartimus, Frickleton and Robertson, P.C. as counsel for members of the putative Class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2uZpCtMg The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly E. Nephew, Esq. David H. Grounds, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436 1800 Facsimile: (612) 436 1801 E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com mnephew@johnsonbecker.com - and - Michelle L. Marvel, Esq. BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON AND ROBERTSON, P.C. 11150 Overbrook Rd. No 200 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 266 2300 Facsimile: (913) 266 2366 E-mail: MMarvel@bflawfirm.com CRYPTSY: Paul Vernon Regrets Not Sounding Alarm ----------------------------------------------- Jessica Lipscomb, writing for Miami New Times, reports that earlier this year, Delray Beach-based Bitcoin exchange company Cryptsy abruptly shut down, locking hundreds of thousands of users out of the system and leaving them no way to withdraw their digital currencies. In January, Broward County attorney David Silver filed a class-action lawsuit against Cryptsy and its owner, Paul "Big Vern" Vernon, accusing him of stealing or losing at least $5 million in customer funds. New Times chronicled the rise and fall of Cryptsy. But Mr. Vernon wasn't available for comment for the same reason Mr. Silver -- and later a court-appointed receiver -- had been unable to speak with the tech guru: Mr. Vernon had apparently fled to China. According to his ex-wife, he went there with a girlfriend he had been hiding for nearly a year. A day after New Times' story was published, however, a person claiming to be Mr. Vernon sent us an email agreeing to answer some questions. He refused to send photo verification but used an old Yahoo email account that was formerly attributed to Vernon. Many of Cryptsy's users felt betrayed when Mr. Vernon announced in January that someone had stolen millions of dollars' worth of Bitcoin and Litecoin in a hack in July 2014. Mr. Vernon failed to inform the users about what had happened and continued to make assurances that everything was OK for a full year and a half afterward. (Mr. Silver and others, it's worth noting, doubt the hacking tale; they contend Mr. Vernon took the money.) Mr. Vernon now says he regrets not sounding the alarm earlier. "The plan was to use a portion of revenue to replenish the wallets. However, diminishing Bitcoin price and volume turned out to not go in our favor," he wrote to New Times. "At the time, I had two choices, disclose and shut down or try to continue running and reacquire user funds. Because we were doing well at the time, I attempted option #2." Before the alleged hack, Mr. Vernon says, the company had first- year revenues of close to $3 million. During that time, from May 2013 to May 2014, he says he paid himself $1.1 million "via the regular payroll system, base salary + quarterly bonuses." Mr. Vernon declined to answer a number of New Times' questions, including whether he would cooperate with the court-appointed receiver in the civil case, or if he ever used or diverted his users' funds for personal or family consumption. He also wouldn't say where he currently lives or if he plans to return to the U.S. CUNA MUTUAL: Court Preliminary Approved Settlement Class -------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. David Stewart Cercone entered an order in the class action lawsuit styled RONALD ALLEN OGROZOVICH and DONNA LYNN OGROZOVICH, Husband and Wife, Brenda RENNER, and on behalf of a group of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. CUNA MUTUAL GROUP a/k/a CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, its affiliates and subsidiaries, CLEARVIEW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and GNC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:09-cv- 00371-DSC (W.D. Penn.), preliminarily approving this Settlement Class: "all persons in Pennsylvania who enrolled in monthly premium credit disability insurance on or after July 9, 2003 from CMFG Life via GNC in conjunction with a loan from GNC and who were charged interest on the premiums for such credit disability insurance from July 9, 2003 to July 1, 2012." Brenda Renner is appointed as representative of the Settlement Class and Hon. Kenneth R. Behrend as designated counsel for the Settlement Class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jdiqVMXS DANK LANDSCAPE: "Maldonado" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- BAYRON GUIFARRO MALDONADO and JORGE E. CHINCHILLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DANK LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, INC. d/b/a DANK TREEEXPERTS, DANKINC., and ROBERT MARSALONA, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03688 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2016), seeks to recover damages for egregious violations of New York State labor laws and federal wage and hour laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at Dank Tree Experts. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. The Plaintiffs also seek interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate. Dank Landscaping is a lawn and garden service company located in Massapequa, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Puja Sharma, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 113.75 Telephone: (718) 263 9591 DEL CITY WIRE: Faces Bones Suit in D. Conn. ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Del City Wire Co., Inc. The case is captioned Bones Kart Shop, L.L.C., a Connecticut limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Del City Wire Co., Inc., and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01110 (D. Conn., July 1, 2016). Del City offers a full range of electrical supplies including wire, cable, electrical terminals, connectors, relays, circuit breakers, electrical wire, fuses, and switches. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358 5345 Facsimile: (212) 571 0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com DETROIT, MI: Davis Seeks Certification of Marijuana Users Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit entitled TIMOTHY DAVIS and HATEMA DAVIS, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-10547-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich.), move the Court to enter an order for class certification. The Plaintiffs propose this class: "(a) individuals who were the owners and/or occupants of homes and/or businesses engaged in the licensed distribution of marijuana for medical purposes; (b) who were subjected to search and/or seizure by agents and/or members of the Detroit Police Department's Narcotics' Unit; (c) from the period of February 11, 2012 until the date of judgment or settlement of this case; (d) who were never convicted of any offense arising from the search and/or seizure; (e) whose search and seizure were executed without probable cause; and (f) where such searches and/or seizures were conducted pursuant to Defendant City of Detroit's policies, practices, and/or customs." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pIG4jIWF The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis A. Dettmer, Esq. Michael R. Dezsi, Esq. DETTMER & DEZSI, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiffs 615 Griswold St, Suite 1600 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 281-8090 E-mail: ddettmeresq@yahoo.com mdezsi@dezsilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Calvert Bailey, Esq. Jerry L. Ashford, Esq. CITY OF DETROIT AND FLANAGAN 2 Woodward Ave, Suite 500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 237 3004 E-mail: bailc@detroitmi.gov ashfj@detroitmi.gov - and - Lawrence T. Garcia, Esq. GARCIA LAW GROUP, PLLC 3011 W. Grand Blvd., Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48202 Telephone: (877) 643 6255 E-mail: lgarcia@garcialawgrouppllc.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Non-Responsive Plaintiffs Tossed From "McZeal" ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sam Sparks of the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, granted defendants' motions to dismiss in the case ALFRED McZEAL et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY et al., Defendants, Case No. A-16-CA-430-SS (W.D. Tex.) Alfred McZeal, Frederic Gladle, Barbara Gladle, J. Lydia Hernandez, Eutimio C. Hernandez, Lofton Ryan Burris, Soledad Solano, Diemetrio Loya, and Jose Solano, all proceeding pro se, brought a nationwide class action against thirty defendants including Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Liberty Bank & Trust Company, Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C., L. Keller Mackie, Brandon B. Wolf, Michael W. Zientz, Leslie N. Mann, MidSouth Bank, N.A., Jay L. Angelle, and SulmeyerKupetz, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., EMC Mortgage LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.. Plaintiffs' sprawling, conclusory, and often incoherent complaint sets forth over 20 varying types of claims against the 30 defendants, including securities fraud, civil rights and constitutional violations, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Fair Housing Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and a variety of consumer protection statutes, breach of contract, trespass, conspiracy and others. Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, Liberty Bank & Trust Company, Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C., L. Keller Mackie, Brandon B. Wolf, Michael W. Zientz, Leslie N. Mann, MidSouth Bank, N.A., Jay L. Angelle, SulmeyerKupetz, Elissa D. Miller, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., EMC Mortgage LLC, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., have all moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief and, in several cases, for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure of service of process. Plaintiffs have not responded to any of the motions. Judge Sparks granted defendants' motions to dismiss. A copy of Judge Sparks's order dated June 7, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/8Dxdrwfrom Leagle.com. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, US Bank, National Association, EMC Mortgage, LLC and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, NA, Defendants, represented by Andrew G. Spaniol -- andrew.spaniol@bryancave.com - - at Bryan Cave, LLP Midsouth National Bank, NA, L. J. Angelle, SulmyerKupetz and Elissa Diane Miller, Defendants, represented by Walter A. Herring -- W Herring@munckwilson.com -- at Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Defendant, represented by Benjamin David Lee Foster -- dfoster@lockelord.com -- Matthew H. Davis -- mdavis@lockelord.com -- Robert T. Mowrey -- rmowrey@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord LLP Liberty Bank & Trust Company, Defendant, represented by Fred Lee Butler -- lee.butler@arlaw.com -- at Adams and Reese LLP Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C, L. Keller Mackie, Brandon B. Wolf, Michael W. Zientz, Leslie N. Mann, Defendants, represented by Mark Douglas Cronenwett -- mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com -- at Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C. FACEBOOK INC: Biometrics Suit Outcome May Impact Other Companies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Grimoldby, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that while technological privacy advocates cheered, a California federal judge this spring sent shockwaves through the tech world and many other industries, determining an Illinois law that has spawned a wave of litigation already could be applied to businesses based virtually anywhere, so long as they did business in Illinois. In May, U.S. District Judge James Donato said Facebook would need to fight off a class action lawsuit brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, even though the Menlo Park, Calif.-based social media giant had succeeded in transferring the case from Chicago to San Francisco federal court. Facebook could be responsible for millions in damages if it loses the case, which was filed by three Illinois residents who alleged the social media company had "secretly amassed the world's largest privately held database of consumer biometrics data" through its facial recognition technology, including its Tag Suggestions tool, which relies on face templates to help users identify their friends and family in photographs. While the case has a long way to go, decisions made along the way could greatly impact companies, whether or not they actually have a physical presence in Illinois. In fact, at least five companies -- including Snapchat, Google and Shutterfly -- have resolved or are still facing similar claims under BIPA. And a plaintiff-friendly ruling in the Facebook case could create incentive for attorneys to target other companies, in their hometown courts, under the Illinois law. Thinking broadly The Internet Association, a political lobbying organization that represents nearly 40 Internet companies, has seen a growing class action bar that has filed suit against its member companies for violations of privacy statutes. In the Facebook lawsuit, it's a concerning precedent that Illinois and its BIPA will be applied under a choice of law clause, an Internet Association spokesperson said, particularly because many Internet Association member companies are headquartered in California, and it is common practice for users to sign an agreement stating they agree to be governed by California law. There is evidence that the plaintiffs clicked on the Facebook user agreement stipulating to be governed by California law -- something Judge Donato noted in his ruling. Still, Judge Donato felt applying BIPA was necessary. "If California law is applied, the Illinois policy of protecting its citizens' privacy interests in their biometric data, especially in the context of dealing with 'major national corporations' like Facebook, would be written out of existence," he wrote in his ruling. "Illinois will suffer a complete negation of its biometric privacy protections for its citizens if California law is applied. In contrast, California law and policy will suffer little, if anything at all, if BIPA is applied." Whether Facebook's facial recognition technology actually violates BIPA -- which defines biometrics, or biologically unique identifiers, as "a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry" -- has not yet been determined. But a broader question that should be asked of this case -- and in all similar class actions -- is whether the plaintiffs must show concrete injury to recover statutory damages, the Internet Association feels. The group weighed in on the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, in which Spokeo -- which brands itself as the "people search engine" -- was accused of violating the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act when it published false, albeit, positive, information about a man. In that case, the Supreme Court determined plaintiffs must show some evidence of concrete harm to have standing to sue. "In our brief, we explained that Internet companies are 'frequently targeted by opportunistic lawsuits,' like the one in Spokeo, under various statutes with a private right of action, including the FCRA and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act," the Internet Association wrote in a blog post. "In these cases, the alleged harm is 'a bare statutory' violation and not a 'concrete, actual harm.' We called on the Supreme Court to course-correct on this issue since our member companies frequently have to settle these lawsuits despite a lack of concrete harm to the plaintiffs involved." Specific to the Facebook case, the plaintiffs alleged the company violated BIPA by not properly informing the plaintiffs that their biometric data was being collected and stored through Facebook's facial recognition software and Tag Suggestions; by not properly detailing the purpose for or length of time the data would be collected, stored or used; by not providing a timetable of when the data would be destroyed; and by failing to receive written permission from the plaintiffs to collect, use or store the data in the first place. If the Spokeo ruling is followed in the Facebook case, it will be determined there is no harm resulting in the use of the facial recognition technology. But some fear that a plaintiff's victory in the Facebook case could spell disaster for any business that uses biometrics -- regardless if it is headquartered in Illinois. Plaintiffs lawyers have used Illinois' venue laws -- which govern whether a lawsuit can be heard in a particular county, state or federal jurisdiction -- to bring huge numbers of asbestos-related litigation in such venues as downstate Madison County. Judge Donato's ruling that even cases heard outside of Illinois should follow Illinois law could create another large litigation field for enterprising attorneys looking to sue under BIPA. The battle over biometrics usage may come down to this: Privacy advocates believe companies should ask before obtaining such sensitive information, while businesses say, "I don't think so," said Adam Schwartz, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a California nonprofit digital rights group. FORT WAYNE, IN: Rietdorf Appeals N.D. Ind. Ruling to 7th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Brian Rietdorf, Quinnette Oden and Aaron Hall filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Brian Rietdorf, et al. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Case No. 1:15-cv-00113-JVB- SLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege violations of the Civil Rights Act. The appellate case is captioned as Brian Rietdorf, et al. v. City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, Case No. 16-8012, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Plaintiffs-Petitioners are represented by: Christopher C. Myers, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C MYERS & ASSOCIATES 809 S Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 Telephone: (260) 424-0600 Facsimile: (260) 424-0712 E-mail: cmyers@myers-law.com Defendant-Respondent City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, is represented by: Carolyn M. Trier, Esq. TRIER LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 5528 Fort Wayne, IN 46895-0000 Telephone: (260) 485-7000 E-mail: carolyntrier@trierlaw.com GARDEN APARTMENTS: "Rincon" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Rafael Benito Rincon and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Garden Apartments, Inc. and Alexander Abel Daoud, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-22918 (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2016), seeks overtime and/or minimum wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rincon worked in Garden Apartments as a maintenance man. He claims to be denied overtime and/or minimum wages. 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 GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement Payout Begins in Gas Mileage Case ------------------------------------------------------------ John Matarese, writing for WCPO, reports that owners of some popular SUV's are starting to receive money in the mail, as a result of a multi-million dollar class action settlement. And for once, we are not talking some paltry $10 settlement check, as this one could mean hundreds of dollars in your pocket if your vehicle is eligible. Unexpected FedEx Envelope Beatrice Foree and her daughter Holly opened their door the other day to find a FedEx packet from Chevrolet, stating they would be receiving a rebate due to false gas mileage claims. The letter said the Forees would be receiving $500, in the form of a debit card, because the window sticker on her 2016 Chevy Traverse overstated the gas mileage by one mile per gallon. "It says we apologize for this mistake and would like to reimburse you," Beatrice Foree said. One MPG, Big Cost Difference $500 might seem like a lot of money for something so minor: a one mile per gallon discrepancy. Everyone but the most ardent hyper- milers would never notice a one mpg difference. But over time, all that gas money adds up. The letter shows how that one mile per gallon difference could mean the difference between paying $2,700 and $3,500 a year for gasoline. Still, the Forees were not sure if GM was trying to sell them something. "There are so many scams today," Beatrice said. But the good news is there are no strings attached. The following vehicles all qualify for rebates: 2016 Chevy Traverse 2016 GMC Acadia 2016 Buick Enclave Rebates range from $300 to more than $1,000 depending how much you have driven it and whether it was purchased or leased. It's similar to a rebate last year offered some Hyundai and Kia owners for overstated mileage. While this affects only 2016 models, more could be affected in the future. A new class action claims GM SUV's from 2009 through 2015 also overstated their gas mileage. That case has yet to be settled, but could mean SUV owners all the way back to 2009 could receive compensation in the coming months. GOOGLE INC: EEOC Investigates Discrimination Complaints ------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Guynn, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is investigating complaints of age discrimination by Google, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court. Cheryl Fillekes, a systems engineer who interviewed with but was not hired by Google when she was 47, made reference to the EEOC investigation in her age discrimination lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, according to the San Jose Mercury News. The EEOC did not respond to a request for comment. Google declined to comment. The investigation comes as Silicon Valley finds itself in the national spotlight for its lack of racial and gender diversity. Earlier this month Google released the racial and gender breakdown of its workforce for the third time. It does not disclose a breakdown by age. Tech leaders have for years placed a premium on youth, earning Silicon Valley the reputation for being "one the most ageist places in America." Ms. Fillekes joined an age discrimination lawsuit filed in April 2015 by Robert Heath who says he was turned down for a software engineering job in 2011 when he was 60 years old, despite having experience working at IBM, Compaq and General Dynamics. Mr. Heath's lawsuit cites a survey of employees by Payscale.com that found that Google had a median age of 29 in 2013. It also refers to an earlier lawsuit in which a former Google executive, Brian Reid, said he was called "an old fuddy duddy" and told his ideas were "too old to matter." That case was settled. According to the Mercury News, Google admitted it in court filings that it did not hire Mr. Heath and Ms. Fillekes after reaching out to them. "Google alleges its actions were motivated by reasonable factors other than age," the company said in July 2015. Mr. Heath and Ms. Fillekes are both seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. HOMERO GARZA: September 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Susman Godfrey L.L.P. on July 5 disclosed that on June 15, 2016, a class action was filed against Homero Garza, Stuart Fraser, GAW Miners, LLC, and ZenMiner LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The action was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who, between June 1, 2014 and the present, purchased or acquired Hardware-Hosted Mining, Cloud-Hosted Mining, Hashlets, Hashpoints, Hashstakers, or Paycoins from GAW Miners, LLC and ZenMiner LLC. Plaintiffs' complaint asserts claims against defendants for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted material facts in connection with the sale of Hardware-Hosted Mining, Cloud-Hosted Mining, Hashlets, Hashpoints, Hashstakers, and Paycoins. In addition to federal securities law violations, plaintiffs also assert state law fraud claims and claims for alleged violations of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. If you purchased or acquired Hardware-Hosted Mining, Cloud-Hosted Mining, Hashlets, Hashpoints, Hashstakers, or Paycoins from GAW Miners, LLC or ZenMiner LLC and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must file a motion with the Court no later than Tuesday, September 6, 2016. Any class member may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Seth Ard, Esq. at Susman Godfrey LLP (sard@susmangodfrey.com, 212-336-8330). Plaintiffs are represented by Susman Godfrey, LLP and Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP. Both firms have significant experience in prosecuting investor class actions. HYPER NETWORK: Faces "Gorgis" Suit in S.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyper Network Solutions of Florida, LLC. The case is captioned Romio Gorgis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hyper Network Solutions of Florida, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01725-L-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 1, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. M. James Lorenz. Hyper Network was founded in 2006. The company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of prescription drugs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1100 Facsimile: (619) 338 1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com KRISPY KREME: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on July 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, case no. 1:16-cv-00612, on behalf of shareholders of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. ("Krispy Kreme" or the "Company") who held Krispy Kreme securities on the record date, June 24, 2016, and have been harmed by Krispy Kreme's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed sale of the Company to the private Dutch company JAB Holdings B.V. ("JAB") through its Delaware company Cotton Parent, Inc. On May 8, 2016, Krispy Kreme and JAB jointly announced that they had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which Krispy Kreme will merge with and into Cotton Merger Sub, Inc,, with Krispy Kreme surviving as a wholly- owned subsidiary of Cotton Parent, Inc. (the "Proposed Transaction"). The shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction is expected to occur on July 27, 2016. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/KKDnotice Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Board, Krispy Kreme shareholders will receive $21.00 in cash per share for each share of Krispy Kreme they own. The complaint claims that the offer is inadequate and does not reflect the Company's positive financial results in recent quarters as well as it below at least one analyst's price target of $23.00 per share. The complaint alleges that the Schedule 14A Proxy Statement (the "14A") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The 14A fails to provide Krispy Kreme's shareholders with material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed Transaction. Furthermore, according to the complaint, the Merger Agreement includes a non-solicitation provision, an unlimited matching rights provision, and a $42 million termination fee which essentially ensure that a superior bidder will not emerge, as any potential suitor will undoubtedly be deterred from expending the time, cost, and effort of making a superior proposal while knowing that JAB can easily foreclose a competing bid. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 5, 2016. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com LENDING CLUB: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Andy Parker, writing for, reports that the situation is getting more complicated for the troubled online-lender LendingClub Corp as a class action lawsuit has been filed against the company. The class action lawsuit has been filed by Khang & Khang LLP and the law firm revealed that the suit revolves around possible violation of securities laws by LendingClub. The class action is filed on behalf of LendingClub Corp investors who acquired shares in the company during a certain period defined as the class period between December 11, 2014 and May 6, 2016. Investors who acquired shares of LendingClub during the class period have been encouraged to contact the law firm todiscuss their rights in the class action issue. However, Khang & Khang said in a press release that the class action had not been certified, which means that investors are not represented by an attorney until the certification is official. What is the complaint? It is alleged that LendingClub was not honest with its investors during the class period. Among other things, the company is said to have failed to disclose that its internal controls were unable to ensure that loans that the company provided conformed to the criteria of its customers. Additionally, the company is accused of not revealing that its internal controls were inadequate in ensuring that interest in third-party deals was properly and timely disclosed to investors. Because of the failure to make full disclosures about its internal controls, Khang & Khang says that LendingClub ended up publishing false and misleading statements. But when the true details came out, investors in the company suffered damages. As such, the law firm wants the company to be held responsible for violation of Federal securities laws. LendingClub Corp fired its CEO in May and recently promoted Scott Sanborn to the position of permanent CEO as part of the efforts to restore investor confidence following the weak internal controls fallout. LIPOCINE INC: "Morassi" Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------- Anthony Morassi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lipocine Inc., Mahesh V. Patel and Morgan R. Brown, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-04067 (D.N.J., July 6, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendant Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company, which develops pharmaceutical products using its oral drug delivery technology in the areas of men's and women's health. The Company is a Delaware corporation with offices in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. Defendant allegedly failed to disclose that its new drug application for LPCN 1021, an oral testosterone replacement therapy, was disapproved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Shares of Lipocine fell $3.17 per share or over 50% to close at $3.10 per share on June 29, 2016. Plaintiff owns shares of Lipocine and lost substantially. Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0858 Email: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman J. Alexander Hood II Marc Gorrie 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 LIPOCINE INC: August 30 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Lipocine Inc. ("Lipocine" or the "Company") concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between June 30, 2015 and June 28, 2016 (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm in advance of the August 30, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline. You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888- 713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. According to the complaint, during the Class Period the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Lipocine's filing of its New Drug Application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for LPCN 1021 (the Company's lead product candidate) contained deficiencies; and as a result, Lipocine's statements about its business and operations were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When this information entered the market, investors suffered losses. Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles. LOANME INC.: Faces "Goggans" Suit in C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LoanMe, Inc. The case is captioned Renee Goggans, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LoanMe, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01223-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., July 1, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Andrew J. Guilford. LoanMe offers unsecured personal loans and small business loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq. ANKCORN LAW FIRM PC 11622 El Camino Real Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 870 0600 Facsimile: (619) 684 3541 E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Faces Class Action Over Flint Water Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firms of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Susman Godfrey L.L.P., along with the NAACP and other attorneys, have filed a state class action lawsuit on behalf of four Genesee County residents and all other people and businesses of Flint, Michigan that have been harmed by exposure to toxic levels of lead and other hazards from the city's drinking water. The state civil suit filed in the Circuit Court in Genesee County alleges that Defendants Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN) and Veolia North America (Veolia), two engineering firms who consulted on the city's switch to Flint River water, neglected their professional duties, gave disastrously bad advice, and ignored several red flags that should have led them to suspect corrosion problems in Flint's water system. Flint hired LAN in 2013 to help with its transition from water provided by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) to water sourced from the Flint River. The Flint River proved to be much more corrosive than DWSD water, and city residents immediately reported problems. Within weeks, the water became discolored and foul-smelling and levels of harmful trihalomethanes increased to levels exceeding EPA guidelines. In the summer of 2014, corroded pipes provided an environment for harmful Legionella bacteria to thrive, leading to an outbreak of deadly Legionnaires' disease. In early 2015, the city hired Veolia as an additional water consultant to address problems with Flint water. But despite warning signs that would have been obvious to any reasonably competent engineer, both LAN and Veolia failed to identify the root cause of Flint's problems: corrosion of pipes in the Flint water system. Had LAN and Veolia undertaken a standard root cause analysis, they would have discovered that Flint pipes were gradually leaching lead into the water supply, poisoning city residents. "Sadly, LAN and Veolia were hired to provide expert analysis and thoughtful fixes, but they failed on both accounts and left the citizens of Flint exposed to infected and poisonous water," stated Ted Leopold with the law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and one of the lead attorneys for the Plaintiffs. LAN and Veolia compounded their mistakes when they recommended that Flint double the ferric chloride in its water. Ferric chloride is acidic, and made the already problematic Flint River water even more corrosive. Moreover, LAN and Veolia provided false assurances of safety that allowed citizens and businesses to continue to drink dangerously contaminated water. Meanwhile, Flint government offices quietly switched to bottled water. The complaint alleges that LAN's and Veolia's decisions and actions caused substantial personal injuries to children and adults. Lead poising can result in serious damage to children's central and peripheral nervous systems, stunt growth, impair hearing, and impair the formation and function of blood cells. The effect of lead poisoning on children's brain development is particularly harmful, causing reduced IQ and serious behavioral problems. Lead exposure can be seriously harmful to adults as well, causing serious cardiac and reproductive problems. Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered terrible personal injuries as a result of LAN's and Veolia's failures and the child-members of the Class will continue to suffer damages for years to come such as loss of economic earnings. "Unfortunately, Flint citizens have been left to suffer the consequences of poor decision making by so-called experts that the state authorities relied upon to address and fix the problems," stated Steve Morrissey -- smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com -- with the law firm of Susman Godfrey and co-lead counsel with Mr. Leopold. Flint residents have also suffered devastating losses to their property. Flint's corrosive water has permanently damaged water pipes on residents' property -- pipes that must be replaced at the owners' cost -- and the pipes, fixtures and appliances in residents' houses. The crisis has also reduced the value of Flint homes, leaving many homeowners in a catch-22: because of the damage to their pipes caused by LAN's and Veolia's negligence, residents' homes are no longer valuable enough to serve as collateral for the loans they need to replace their pipes. LOS ANGELES, CA: Chua Seeks Certification of Class & Sub-classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned CHARMAINE CHUA, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00237-JAK-GJS (C.D. Cal.), move the Court to certify a proposed damages class and sub-classes: Damages class: All persons who were present at either 6th and Hope on November 26, 2014, or Beverly and Alvarado on November 28, 2014, and who were kettled, detained, and/or arrested, then denied OR release by the LAPD, all in association with the protest against the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown. Damages sub-classes: 1. Damages Sub-Class No 1 (6th and Hope Sub-Class) (represented by Plaintiffs Chua, Hicks and Rivera): those persons who were present on November 26, 2014 near or at 6th and Hope Streets and who were arrested by the LAPD in association with a protest against the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown and who either were not prosecuted or had their criminal charges resolved favorably. 2. Damages Sub-Class No. 2 (Beverly and Alvarado Hope Sub- Class) (represented by Plaintiff Todd): those persons who were present on November 28, 2014, on a public sidewalk near or at the intersection of Alvarado and Beverly Boulevard and who were detained, handcuffed, interrogated and/or searched in association with a protest against the grand jury decision in Ferguson, Missouri in the killing of Michael Brown. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b0zN7AHS The Plaintiff is represented by: Barrett S. Litt, Esq. KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT 234 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 844 7660 Facsimile: (626) 844 7670 E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com - and - Carol A. Sobel, Esq. Paul Hoffman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL 3110 Main Street, Suite 210 Santa Monica, CA 90405 Telephone: (310) 393 3055 Facsimile: (310) 451 3858 E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com hoffpaul@aol.com - and - Catherine Sweetser, Esq. SCHONBRUN, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN 732 Ocean Front Walk Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: (310) 396 0731 Facsimile: (310) 399 7040 E-mail: catherine.sdshhh@gmail.com - and - Colleen M. Flynn, SBN 234281 LAW OFFICE OF COLLEEN FLYNN 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 9001 0 Telephone: 213 252 9444 Facsimile: 213 252 0091 E-mail: cflynnlaw@yahoo.com - and - Matthew Strugar, SBN 232951 LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW STRUGAR 2108 Cove Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90039 Telephone: 323 696 2299 E-mail: matthewstrugar@gmail.com MASTERCARD: Faces Class Action in UK Over "Interchange" Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Poppy Trowbridge, writing for Sky News, reports that Mastercard is facing a GBP19 billion damages claim -- the biggest in UK legal history -- for allegedly imposing "anti-competitive" charges on consumers. As many as 40 million people could be in line for compensation from the firm, according to lawyers, with some payouts in the hundreds of pounds. The class action case suggests MasterCard infringed EU law by imposing charges, known as "interchange" fees, on the use of MasterCard debit and credit cards. It claims Mastercard's fees were "illegal" and set at an "anti- competitive, high level". In a statement, MasterCard said it "firmly disagrees with the basis of this legal claim". The company added: "MasterCard is committed to providing ever more convenient, safe and secure payments to all our customers, including consumers, retailers, governments and banks." Walter Merricks, the consumer representative fronting the case, believed UK consumers, including cash purchasers -- not just MasterCard holders -- have lost money as a result. He said these fees were a significant cost for retailers, a cost that was then passed on through increased prices of goods and services. He told Sky News: "I want consumers to know that it is possible to take on a large organization that has behaved badly. "The prices of everything we all bought from 1992 to 2008 were higher than they should have been as a result of the unlawful conduct of MasterCard. "This case should send a signal to companies that break competition laws at the expense of UK consumers that they do so at their financial peril." The case will be heard before the Competition Appeal Tribunal, a specialist court that hears competition law disputes, and is likely to begin in September. It is one of the first big tests of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Act enables a collective damages claim to be brought on behalf of a class of people who have suffered loss. Under the new rules, all UK consumers who have lost out automatically become part of the group of claimants unless they explicitly opt-out. MDL 1360: Court Granted Former Exec's Bid to Enforce Injunction --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Stewart Dalzell of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted petitioner's motion to enforce permanent injunction in the case entitled IN RE: RITE AID CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document Relates To CLASS ACTIONS, MDL Docket No. 1360, Master File No. 99-1349 (E.D. Pa.) In 1999, Rite Aid Corporation shareholders brought a securities class action against the company after it publicly announced disappointing earnings results for that year. The parties settled the case and as part of the settlement agreement approved on August 16, 2001, the court issued a permanent injunction that precludes actions that are based upon, arising out of or relating to the settled claims. Fourteen months after the injunction was entered, Rite Aid sued Franklin C. Brown, a former Rite Aid executive in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, fraud, and civil conspiracy after he was charged in an Indictment in connection with his fiduciary duties to Rite Aid. Brown is a Released Party under that Settlement Agreement. The litigation has languished for years in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania as Brown served jail time. In late 2015 and early 2016, after reviewing the August 16, 2001 permanent injunction, Brown's newly-retained counsel moves to enforce the complete bar order in an attempt to extricate Brown from the fourteen-year old state court case. Judge Stewart Dalzell granted Brown's motion to enforce the permanent injunction order and enjoin Rite Aid from pursuing the Cumberland County Action. A copy of Judge Dalzell's memorandum dated June 7, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/e5DG4Kfrom Leagle.com. MERCHANTS ADJUSTMENT: Faces "McDonald" Suit in S.D. Ala. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants Adjustment Service, Inc. The case is captioned Eddie McDonald, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gregory B. McAtee and Merchants Adjustment Service, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00347 (S.D. Ala., July 1, 2016). Merchants Adjustment is a full service medical, commercial, & consumer bad debt collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road No. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 961 5684 E-mail: ggreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com MLS PLAYERS: Yedline's Valuation May Rise Following Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Brown, writing for ChronicleLive, reports that former Sunderland loanee Deandre Yedlin's valuation could rise due to a legal wrangle in US football. But youth clubs in America taking players -- including the Tottenham Hotspur defender -- and their union to court to seek compensation for their development insist the move is not a "shakedown". Youth set-ups are trying to force the US game's governing bodies - - primarily Major League Soccer and US Soccer -- to recognize and abide by FIFA's solidarity payment rules, under which clubs playing any part in a player's youth development gain a cut of any subsequent transfer fee involving that player, and to repay those players' training costs. As such, Mr. Yedlin's former team Crossfire Premier of Washington, along with the Dallas Texans and Illinois' Sockers FC, have filed a class action lawsuit in a Texas federal court against the MLS Players Union (MLSPU), and nominally cited Mr. Yedlin, Clint Dempsey and Michael Bradley in it. Mr. Dempsey played for the Texans before a series of moves totalling around GBP15 million in transfer fees, while Bradley has commanded a similar figure across multiple moves since coming through the ranks with the Sockers. "The youth clubs that filed this suit against us are well compensated for the services that they provide to children under the terms that the clubs themselves set and agree upon," said MLSPU board member Ethan Finlay. "It's absurd that they would try to shakedown the very few players who come through their ranks and go on to play professionally." But a statement for the youth clubs claimed compensation would be quid pro quo for players having been developed under costly scholarship programs, and in turn allow future talent to be developed. "This is not 'double-dipping' by the clubs here, this is not a 'shakedown'," read the statement. "Almost all players at any US youth soccer club that would be involved with a claim of training compensation or solidarity fees would have had fee scholarships in place. "How does the MLSPU expect the youth soccer clubs to cover both the highest end of development and lowest level of entry into our soccer system with adequate fee scholarships? "The US youth clubs submit that there is an existing structure that was purposely designed to help in achieving these goals - it's the FIFA (solidarity payments). "Everyone in US Soccer but MLSPU views adherence to the FIFA regulations as a method to bring revenue into the US youth soccer system, both amateur and professional, to open up soccer to all potential players from all economic backgrounds. "The MLSPU position here is isolationist, regressive and limits the progress of US soccer for both women and men." But MLSPU executive director Bob Foose said: "The FIFA system that these clubs are seeking to exploit would be immensely damaging to the development of soccer in the United States. "By filing this lawsuit against all players even before FIFA or US Soccer has acted, these youth clubs have revealed their true colors. "Their focus appears not to be on the development of players, but instead on ensuring themselves a piece of the action when a player makes it professionally. "We will aggressively defend ourselves, our members and all players against this baseless suit." Mr. Foose added that training compensation and solidarity payments "take money and opportunity away from our players" and harm their chances of transfers to foreign clubs because they would "add a tax on (their transfer)". Mr. Yedlin spent last season on loan at Sunderland, who are understood to be keen to sign the right-back on a permanent basis but only for a fee of around GBP3 million. NEW INDUSTRIES: "Lawrence" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Jerkyle Lawrence and Alvin Griffin, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. New Industries, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00994 (W.D. La., July 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. New Industries is a corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana with its principal place of business in Morgan City, Louisiana and is in the business of providing steel fabrication services to offshore oil and gas marine industries. Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as laborers. Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 Email: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com costaleslawoffice@gmail.com whbeaumont@gmail.com - and - R. Brent Cueria, Esq. CUERIA LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 700 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-5211 Email: rbcueria@aol.com NEW ORLEANS: Court Wants "Yarls" Complaint Amended -------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James J. Brady entered an order in the class action lawsuit captioned YARLS, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. BUNTON, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00031-JJB-RLB (M.D. La.), instructing the Plaintiffs to amend the complaint to fully allege the scope of relief requested and add all necessary parties to obtain such relief. The Plaintiffs may file a properly supported motion for class certification. After such motion is filed, and a class certified, the plaintiffs may move for an order -- not a final judgment -- for declaratory relief. The Court will then proceed with whatever motions and/or hearings are necessary to determine the appropriate relief and to enter a final judgment on all claims. The case is referred to the magistrate judge for purposes of entering a Scheduling Order consistent. The Court further terminated Motion for Declaratory Judgment from the Court's docket, reserving the Plaintiffs the right to refile the motion following class certification. The Plaintiffs are Douglas Brown, Leroy Shaw, Jr. and Darwin Yarls, Jr. The Defendants are Derwyn Bunton and James T Dixon, Jr. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N6kVwIzM NEW YORK: Bharara Mum on NYCHA Mold Remediation Case ---------------------------------------------------- Louis Flores, writing for Progress Queens, reports that the office of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who has made it his business to join or launch major litigation about gross misconduct by the City of New York Government to effect reform, is silent about his office's intentions regarding a class action mold remediation and abatement case against the New York City Housing Authority, or NYCHA. The office of U.S. Attorney Bharara did not answer advance questions submitted by Progress Queens asking, in part, whether Federal prosecutors intended to join the class action mold lawsuit against NYCHA. Whenever civil litigation has uncovered a pattern of Government misconduct, the U.S. Attorney's Office has interceded to effect reform. After the City of New York took too long to protect the Constitutional rights of inmates at Rikers Island, particularly for juvenile inmates, the U.S. Attorney's Office for New York's southern district joined an existing civil lawsuit regarding the treatment of Rikers Island inmates as an intervenor to effect a Court-ordered settlement, incorporating recommendations made in a report by a committee of Federal prosecutors appointed by U.S. Attorney Bharara to investigate allegations of violations of inmates' rights. A possibility exists that Federal prosecutors may attempt the same strategy, given that the same U.S. Attorney's Office has already reportedly launched a Federal investigation into the physical conditions standards at NYCHA regarding lead. It would not be too much to loop in mold under any Court-ordered settlement that the Federal prosecutors may seek to enforce. Controversy has already erupted over NYCHA's commitment to comply with a Court-ordered settlement in which NYCHA stipulated that it would remediate and eliminate mold in accordance with a Court- approved timetable. After NYCHA failed to comply with the Court- ordered settlement, the Hon. U.S. District Court Judge William Pauley in a Court order appointed a special master to oversee NYCHA's compliance with the Court-ordered settlement. As revealed in a report published by Progress Queens, it appears that NYCHA has been inexplicably reporting fewer cases of mold-related maintenance requests made by its tenants as it has also been inexplicably reporting a spike in mildew-related maintenance requests made by tenants. The idea that mold is toxic has saturated the public consciousness, but the same degree of concern does not particularly exist with respect to mildew, even though both are fungi that can have health effects. It is not known how NYCHA accounts for this shift in reporting. NYCHA has rebuffed requests made by Progress Queens to interview its chief executive, Shola Olatoye. The Federal investigation of NYCHA comes at a time when public corruption, inept elected officials, or the ideology of a smaller government have wreaked havoc on a functioning Government. Consequently, Federal prosecutors with the office of U.S. Attorney Bharara have served as a check on the workings of Government agencies, often joining or initiating litigation that has sought reform that has included the use of Court-appointed monitors to ensure that the workings of Government complies with the law. The Federal investigation of NYCHA also comes at a time when Federal prosecutors from the same U.S. Attorney's Office are reportedly probing whether Mayor Bill de Blasio has rewarded real estate developers with official acts in exchange for having received political or campaign support. A possible overlap of the investigation of NYCHA and of Mayor de Blasio's campaign finance activities rests where the disposition of NYCHA's real property may be being used to reward Mayor de Blasio's political or campaign supporters. According to information received by Progress Queens, there is Federal law enforcement interest in how NYCHA may be disposing of its real estate properties. Despite the potential for conflicts of interest and the reported Federal law enforcement interest into how NYCHA is disposing of its real property, NYCHA continues to signal its intent to contract with private developers to manage NYCHA properties, as indicated in a report published by The New York Daily News. In the absence of adequate Federal Government funding for public housing, Mayor de Blasio has touted a turnaround plan for NYCHA that has been revealed to have no financial basis in reality, as noted in a separate report published by The New York Daily News. Notwithstanding, that plan calls for the transfer of Government- owned public housing stock that is managed by NYCHA on behalf of the public into the Federal Government's Section 8 program of rent subsidies. Doing so would allow NYCHA to legally sell stakes in public housing to private real estate developers. The plan also calls for the sale or lease of NYCHA's playgrounds, gardens, and parking lots to real estate developers for the construction of privately-owned affordable housing. A sale of Section 8 buildings and a lease of green spaces each involved politically-connected real estate developers. Each transaction did not subject the disposition of City real property to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP process, as required by the City Charter. Furthermore, the process that selected the politically-connected real estate developers has not been made transparent by the de Blasio administration. It is this incessant focus on entering into contracts with real estate developers over the ownership, development, or management of NYCHA properties that remains Mayor de Blasio's priority -- over any concern for addressing the physical condition standards of the apartments lived in by NYCHA's tenants. As reported by Progress Queens, the de Blasio administration may be so emboldened to further enter into contracts over the ownership, development, or management of NYCHA properties, because a 1980's Federal investigation of municipal leases centered around Koch administration official Alex Liberman left corruptly- negotiated real estate contracts intact. PEARLS GROUP: Indian Investors to Launch Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Peter McCutcheon, writing for ABC, reports that victims of a massive pyramid fraud scheme in India were preparing to lodge a class action in the Australian Federal Court on July 7. Investors with the Pearls Group are asking the court to freeze $100 million worth of prime Gold Coast real estate they claim was bought with misappropriated funds. "They're trophy properties that were bought by the operators of the scheme in India -- the Sheraton Mirage Gold Coast and a $5 million luxury Gold Coast mansion at Sanctuary Cove," Alex Moriarty from Shine Lawyers said. The case was set up by former ASIC investigator Niall Coburn, who was made aware of the scandal by 7.30 back in February. He travelled twice to India to offer to help investors chase Pearls assets in Australia. "It was clear to me that no one was going to do anything in this kind of investigation -- it was all too hard," he said. In May, he signed up tens of thousands of investors through a local support group. "At the moment we're representing more than 45,000 Indian investors who collectively invested over $10 million," Mr. Moriarty said. "But a class action can grow as more people join it." Pearls signed up nearly 50 million people For nearly two decades, Pearls offered high rates of return to some of India's poorest. Nearly 50 million people signed up. But the schemes were highly controversial, with a history of run- ins with regulators going back as far as 1998. The Australian Government body Austrade introduced Pearls to Gold Coast businessmen in 2009 as an approved investor. The following year, a Pearls company, Pearls Infrastructure, pumped $100 million into an Australian company that went on to purchase the Sheraton Mirage for $62 million. A long legal battle in India came to an end late last year, when the country's Supreme Court found a Pearls investment scheme was a sham, making highly misleading claims. Four Indian Pearls directors were subsequently arrested for fraud. A committee appointed by the Indian supreme court has already begun the process of seizing assets there, in an attempt to claw back some of the $10 billion owed to investors. "We are really confident that the committee is fully seized on the matter," Kochi-based advocate CP Chandrasekharan said. The owner of the Sheraton Mirage is the Australian company MiiGroup. MiiGroup said its involvement with Pearls was approved by both the Reserve Bank of India and Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board. The company argued the Australian action was unnecessary, as they had already agreed to fully co-operate with authorities in India. "It is a rogue, opportunist action," MiiGroup said in a statement. 7.30 understands MiiGroup is negotiating a sale of the Sheraton Mirage, and the waterfront mansion owned by Pearls Infrastructure has been on the market for the past six weeks. Lawyers acting for Indian investors argued any sale would make recovering the money difficult, so they had to act fast. "It's not a rogue opportunist action," Mr. Moriarty said. "We're acting directly for the people who have been defrauded, many of these people have lost their life savings." PERSOLVE LLC: Class Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted the parties' renewed joint motion for preliminary approval of class settlement in the case SANDRA LEE JACOBSON, Plaintiff, v. PERSOLVE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK (N.D. Cal.) Sandra Lee Jacobson filed a case against Persolve, LLC, and Stride Card, LLC, alleging that the debt collection letter received from defendants did not comply with the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Jacobson contends that defendants' debt collection letter violated the FDCPA by failing to disclose the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a)(2). The parties filed a second renewed joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement on April 14, 2016. Judge Koh granted the parties' second renewed joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The class is defined as all persons with addresses in California to whom Persolve sent, or caused to be sent, a notice on behalf of Stride Card in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally owed to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. which was incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, which were not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office during the period one year prior to the date of filing this action through the date of class certification. The court appoints Sandra Lee Jacobson as the class representative. Fred W. Schwinn and Raeon Roulston of Consumer Law Center, Inc., and O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz, & Associates, Ltd., will act as counsel for the class and appointed and as class counsel. For purposes of preliminary approval, the court approves ILYM Group Inc., to act as the settlement administrator. Subject to the court's revisions to the class notice and subject to the parties' inclusion of phone numbers for Raeon Roulston and ILYM, the court approves the form and method of notice set forth in the agreement and finds that the form and method of notice set forth in the agreement satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B) and due process, and constitutes the best practicable procedure under the circumstances. Defendants shall provide a class list, containing each class member's last known address as reflected in defendants' records, to ILYM, and to class counsel. Within 45 days following entry of the order, ILYM shall send via first class U.S. mail the notice of settlement to each person in the class list, at their most recent known address, and will forward any notice that is returned with a forwarding address within 14 days of receiving the returned mail and will update the class member address list with all forwarding addresses. At least 10 days before the final approval hearing, the ILYM shall file a declaration of compliance with the notice procedures set forth in the agreement. Class counsel shall file a noticed motion for attorneys' fees and costs together with all supporting documentation, to be heard at the final approval hearing. The motion shall be filed by no later than 30 days from entry of the order. The court preliminarily approves the consideration of $10.66 to each member of the class provided there are no opt-outs; if there are opt-outs, the amount will be recalculated for a pro rata distribution as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Any class member who desires to be excluded from the class must send a written request for exclusion to ILYM, with a postmark date no later than 105 days after the entry of the order. The claims administrator shall provide a list of those persons requesting exclusion to class counsel and to defendants' counsel after the deadline for exclusions passes, but no later than 120 days after the entry of the order. A copy of the list will be filed with the motion for final approval of the class action settlement. To be valid, a request for exclusion must be personally signed by the member of the class requesting exclusion and must include his/her name, address and telephone number and the following statement: I request to be excluded from the class settlement in Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:14-CV-00735, or words to that effect. Any class member who intends to object to the fairness of the settlement must file a written objection with the clerk of the United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, 95113 no later than 105 days after the entry of the order. A class member who has timely filed an objection may, but need not, appear at the Settlement Hearing. Any class member who does not file a valid and timely objection to the settlement shall be barred from seeking review of the Settlement by appeal or otherwise. The costs of notice and settlement administration will be paid by defendants. The court shall conduct a final hearing on Thursday, December 1, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, located at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, 95113. At the final approval hearing, the court will consider these issues: a. Whether the proposed settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the class members and should be approved by the court; b. Whether the final judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice, as provided under the agreement, should be entered, dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice; c. Whether and the amount of attorneys' fees and costs that should be awarded to class counsel; d. Whether and the amount of statutory damages and incentive award that should be awarded to the class representative; e. Such other issues as the court deems appropriate. A copy of Judge Koh's order dated June 7, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/C31xkufrom Leagle.com. Sandra Lee Jacobson, Plaintiff, represented by: Fred W. Schwinn, Esq. Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq. Consumer Law Center, Inc. 12 South First Street, Suite 1014 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-294-6100 Facsimile: 408-294-6190 - and - O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-372-8822 Persolve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Robert Messer -- messerc@cmtlaw.com -- David J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Stephen Albert Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- at Carlson and Messer LLP Stride Card, LLC, Defendant, represented by David J. Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Stephen Albert Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- at Carlson and Messer LLP PFIZER INC: Agrees to Disclose Addiction Risks in Opioid Drugs -------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Keyser, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the city of Chicago and Pfizer announced an agreement on July 6 committing the drugmaker to disclosing the serious risks of addiction in its marketing of prescription opioid painkillers. Chicago is suing five pharmaceutical companies, alleging they have misrepresented the benefits of opioids while concealing serious health risks associated with the drugs. Pfizer Inc. is not named in that lawsuit, and the city said it found no evidence that the company engaged in any misconduct in its marketing. Mayor Rahm Emanuel's office said Pfizer has cooperated with the city's investigation, providing documents and other evidence relevant to Chicago's claims against other drugmakers. Prescription opioid abuse is blamed for nearly 19,000 deaths a year in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The highly addictive class of narcotic painkillers is used to treat common, chronic conditions such as back pain and arthritis. "This landmark agreement is a big step in the right direction to help protect and educate the public about the true risks and benefits of highly potent and highly addictive painkillers," Emanuel said in a written statement. "The use of these drugs has led to a dramatic rise in drug addiction, overdose and diversion in communities across the nation, including in Chicago." In a statement, Pfizer described the agreement as voluntary, adding that it was "pleased to work with the City of Chicago to help address the serious problem of prescription opioid abuse." The agreement requires Pfizer to disclose that there is an addiction risk even when opioids are used as directed. It also must note that there are no adequate or well-controlled studies of the use of these drugs for longer than 12 weeks. Under the agreement, Pfizer is barred from supporting any organization or individual who makes inaccurate claims about the risks and benefits of opioids. Pfizer will also fund medical education programs for health care providers prescribing opioids. In its lawsuit, Chicago accuses five companies of aggressively marketing the drugs as rarely addictive and touting benefits that lack scientific support to boost their profits. The suit claims the companies have specifically targeted the elderly and veterans, leading to "catastrophic results." The five companies are Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Purdue Pharma, Actavis, Endo Health Solutions Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. The drugmakers have asked a federal judge to dismiss the suit, citing a lack of specific instances of fraud in the city's complaint. Mayor Emanuel said the companies should be "held accountable for their deceptive actions that cause serious damage to individuals, families and neighborhoods." PIER 1 IMPORTS: Class Action Lawsuits Pending in Texas ------------------------------------------------------ Pier 1 Imports, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against class action lawsuits in Texas. Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner, Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 and September 24, 2015. The plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously. PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Appeals Ruling in "Rodriguez" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Providence Community Corrections, now known as Providence Service Corporation, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Cindy Rodriguez, et al. v. Providence Community Corrections, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01048, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville. The appellate case is captioned as Cindy Rodriguez, et al. v. Providence Community Corrections, et al., Case No. 16-6127, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Chief federal Judge Kevin H. Sharp has issued an injunction stopping a private probation company in Rutherford County from jailing two men because they cannot pay court fines and fees. Judge Sharp's order also says Providence Community Corrections and Rutherford County officials cannot arrest Fred Robinson and Steven Gibbs for any other kind of violation and also hold them on bond, which would require them to pay money before release. Messrs. Robinson and Gibbs are two of seven people on probation in Rutherford County who filed a class action lawsuit on Oct. 1. The lawsuit says Providence and Rutherford County officials conspired to overcharge people on probation and withhold payments that should have gone to pay for court fines and fees. The lawsuit says that practice left probationers in a cycle of debt that often resulted in extended probation terms and additional arrests. Providence contracts with Rutherford County to supervise people on probation for misdemeanor and traffic cases. The company charges an additional $45 to individuals per month of supervision and $20 per drug test, the lawsuit says. The other Defendants are Rutherford County, Tennessee, Jasmine Jackson, Briana Woodlee, Amanda Roberts, Tiara Smith, Kelly Haley, Amanda Schexnayder, Kayla Banks, Kelly Mccall and Nisha Hyde. The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by: Alec George Karakatsanis, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 681-2409 E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org Defendant-Appellant Providence Community Corrections is represented by: Manuel A. Abascal, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: Emanny.abascal@lw.com QUALITY EGG: Appeals Court Upholds Executives' Jail Sentences ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan K. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a father and son whose Iowa-based egg production company caused a massive 2010 salmonella outbreak can be required to serve jail time for misdemeanor food safety violations, a divided appeals court ruled on July 6. In a 2-1 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld three-month jail sentences issued last year to 82-year-old Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son Peter DeCoster, 53. The DeCosters were aware of unsanitary conditions at their sprawling Iowa egg farms but failed to improve them before the outbreak, which sickened up to 56,000 people and left some with permanent injuries, Judge Diana Murphy wrote. "We conclude that the record here shows that the DeCosters are liable for negligently failing to prevent the salmonella outbreak," Murphy wrote, joined by Judge Raymond Gruender. The case, a rare prosecution against those responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness, was closely watched by advocates for consumer safety and food and drug manufacturers. The Justice Department praised the ruling, saying the DeCosters disregarded basic food safety standards for years and deserved jail time. Attorneys for the DeCosters didn't return messages seeking comment. At issue was whether corporate executives could face imprisonment for violating the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which allows "responsible corporate agents" to be held criminally liable even if they were not aware of the wrongdoing. The DeCosters, who owned and operated Quality Egg LLC, had pleaded guilty to violating the law by introducing adulterated eggs into interstate commerce. They said they did not know the eggs were contaminated but acknowledged they were in a position to stop the problems had they known. U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett ordered the jail time in April 2015, saying they knew or should have known about the risks posed by the presence of salmonella in and around millions of egg-laying hens. But he allowed the DeCosters to stay free while they appealed the sentences, which they argued were unconstitutional and unreasonably harsh. Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal. They argued that it would be unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. Murphy rejected those arguments, saying Congress did not require executives to have known about the violations to be subject to the food safety law's criminal penalties. She said the jail terms were relatively short, within federal guidelines and "not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of their misdemeanor offenses." Gruender added in a concurring opinion that the DeCosters were not being punished for the acts of others, saying their own failure to take steps to prevent the outbreak was to blame. Dissenting Judge C. Arlen Beam said prosecutors failed to show that the DeCosters had criminal intent, and therefore "there is no precedent" for sending them to jail. He said they were not aware the products were tainted with salmonella and that they immediately recalled hundreds of millions of eggs once the outbreak was confirmed "at great expense." "This is hardly the stuff of 'guilty minds'," he wrote. Quality Egg paid a $6.8 million fine after pleading guilty to felony charges of shipping eggs with false processing and expiration dates and bribing a U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector to approve sales of poor-quality eggs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Napoli Shkolnik Files Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC on July 6 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York on behalf of lead plaintiff and New York County resident, Maria Vecchio, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Quest Diagnostics Inc., ExamOne World Wide Inc., and ExamOne LLC. The firm is also seeking to represent other current and former Mobile Examiners who worked for Quest and affiliated Quest entities across the country. The lawsuit alleges the following violations: -- not paying overtime wages; -- not paying New York and federal minimum wage; -- not providing employees proper wage statements (pay stubs); and -- not reimbursing business expenses. Ms. Vecchio and her attorneys believe that Quest and its subsidiaries have violated the above state and federal labor laws. She is possibly one of thousands of New York and national employees who work or worked for Quest as Mobile Examiners and were not paid in accordance with federal and state law. This action is presented as an opt-in collective action on behalf of herself and all similarly affected individuals for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as a class action for Quest's violations of state labor law. If you worked for Quest as a Mobile Examiner within the past 6 years, and you believe your rights were violated as described above or in any other way, we encourage you to please call us at (212) 397-1000. About the firm Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is a national litigation firm providing representation to plaintiffs in class actions and complex commercial litigation, as well as victims of environmental contamination disasters, aviation accidents, defective prescriptions drugs and medical devices, asbestos-related illnesses, and other serious personal injury matters. With their principal offices in New York City and additional offices in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and affiliates through the United States, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC is readily available to clients. RITE AID: 10 Stockholder Class Actions Pending ---------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Company was aware of 10 putative class action lawsuits as of May 28, 2016, that were filed by purported Company stockholders, against the Company, its directors (the Individual Defendants, together with the Company, the Rite Aid Defendants), Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. ("WBA") and Victoria Merger Sub Inc., (Victoria) challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger agreement between the Company and WBA. Eight (8) of these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Smukler v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Hirschler v. Standley, et al., Catelli v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Orr v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., DePietro v. Standley, et al., Abadi v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Mortman v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). One (1) action was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Sachs Investment Grp., et al. v. Standley, et al.). The complaints in these nine (9) actions alleged primarily that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly prevented the directors from obtaining higher offers from other interested buyers for the Company and allegedly failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger. The Complaints further allege that the Company, WBA and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. RITE AID: Delaware Consolidated Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Court has entered a stipulated order regarding notice of payment and final dismissal of a consolidated class action in Delaware. On December 23, 2015, the eight (8) Delaware actions were consolidated in an action captioned In re Rite Aid Corporation Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11663-CB (the Consolidated Action). In addition to the claims asserted in the nine (9) complaints, the operative pleading in the Consolidated Action also included allegations that the preliminary proxy statement contained material omissions, including with respect to the process that resulted in the Merger agreement and the fairness opinion rendered by the Company's banker. On December 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings, which the Court orally denied at a hearing held on January 5, 2016. On March 11, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiffs' notice and proposed order voluntarily dismissing the Consolidated Action as moot, while retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April 15, 2016, the Company reached a settlement in principle related to this matter for an immaterial amount and on May 11, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order regarding notice of payment thereof and final dismissal of this matter. RITE AID: M.D. Pa. Court Stayed "Herring" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Pennsylvania District Court has granted class action plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Herring action. A tenth action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District Court), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants and WBA (Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). The Herring complaint alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid and its Board of Directors disseminated an allegedly false and materially misleading proxy. The complaint sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws, and an award of money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the Herring action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Herring complaint. At a hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on January 28, 2016. On March 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry Herring, Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead plaintiffs for the putative class and approved their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. On April 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Herring action for all purposes pending consummation of the Merger. RITE AID: Discovery Ongoing in Indergit Class Action in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in the Indergit class action lawsuit. The Company has been named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al. pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in the Company's stores at various locations around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014. The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery related to the merits of the claims is ongoing. At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. RITE AID: Defending California Wage and Hour Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that the Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). The lawsuits pertaining to failure to reimburse business expenses and provide employee seating purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff lawsuits regarding failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. The Company has aggressively challenged the merits of the lawsuits and, where applicable, the allegations that the cases should be certified as class or representative actions. RITE AID: Settlement Funds Disbursed in Chase and Scherwin Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that with respect to cases involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County Superior Court), during the period ended March 1, 2014, the Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters. The Company settled the lawsuit for $9.0 million. Following final approval by the Court earlier in the year, all settlement funds were disbursed in March 2016. RITE AID: September 16 Status Conference in "Hall" Case ------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 28, 2016, that a further status conference in the Hall case is scheduled for September 16, 2016. In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014. Proceedings in the Hall case are stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision was rendered on April 4, 2016. The Company is conferring with counsel about next steps in the litigation. A further status conference in the case is scheduled for September 16, 2016. With respect to the California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits. ROINS PRODUCE: "Solano" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Joel Solano, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Roins Produce, Inc., and John Tsekos, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07005 (N.D. Ill., July 6, 2016), seeks overtime wages, statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Roins Produce is a wholesaler of fruits and vegetables owned by John Tsekos, operating in the Chicago area, where Plaintiff's job duties included picking, verifying orders, and unloading. Solano claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Office: 312-800-1017 Email: ralicea@yourclg.com SALSA AND BEER: "Velasquez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay -------------------------------------------------------- Moises Velasquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Salsa and Beer Restaurant, Inc., Noe Patino, Patricia Patino, Dionisio Patino and Ismael Patino, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00655 (E.D. N.C., July 6, 2016), seeks unpaid straight time compensation, overtime premiums for all overtime work required, liquidated damages and/or other damages as permitted by applicable law and attorney's fees, costs and expenses incurred in this action for direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a waiter at Salsa and Beer Inc. Restaurant in Spring Lake, NC. Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ PLLC 1020 Southhill Dr. Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Tel: (919) 741-8693 Fax: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Noonan" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is captioned Kyle Noonan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05271 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2016). Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. The Plaintiff appears pro se. SCHMIDT BAKING: "Schilling" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Ronald J. Schilling, Jr., Russell E. Dolan, Jonathan A. Hecker, Plaintiffs, v. Schmidt Baking Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02498 (D.M.D., July 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Schmidt Baking Company is in the business of producing and delivering bread products, operating a regional network of bakeries and depots, and providing baked goods to various establishments. This includes restaurants, grocery stores, various small businesses, schools, prisons and warehouses located in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. Plaintiffs worked for Schmidt as District Sales Managers. They claimed to be denied compensation for times that they filled in for unserved deliveries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq. Joseph E. Spicer, Esq. (27839) THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone No.: (410) 244-7005 Fax No.: (410) 244-8454 Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com jspicer@nicholllaw.com SEATTLE SERVICE: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Thornell" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Thornell filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled SANDRA THORNELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SEATTLE SERV. BUREAU, INC., DBA National Serv. Bureau, Inc.; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:14-cv-01601-MJP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The appellate case is captioned as Sandra Thornell v. Seattle Serv. Bureau, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-35569, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Thornell, a Texas resident, told the Court that she received allegedly deceptive debt collection letters from Defendant Seattle Service Bureau (SSB), pursuant to the referral of unliquidated subrogation claims to SSB by State Farm. She argued these letters constitute Consumer Protection Act violations by both SSB and State Farm. She alleged she incurred damages by signing up for a credit monitoring service and retaining counsel. The District Court denied a motion to dismiss in other respects relating to the WCPA claim, but did not reach a decision with respect to the extraterritorial application of the Washington Consumer Protection Act against Washington and Illinois defendants. SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Sexually Explicit Content ----------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that Snapchat Inc., the developer of the popular image messaging app, was hit on July 7 with a nationwide class action alleging that the company targets minors with sexually explicit content. The suit was brought by star-studded Los Angeles law firm Geragos & Geragos and alleges that Venice-based Snapchat is violating the federal Communications Decency Act and California state law. It could expose the company to millions of dollars in damages. The complaint focuses on "Snapchat Discover," a feature the company introduced in early 2015 to bring content from media affiliates to its roughly 150 million users. In contrast to the disappearing, user-to-user images and videos that gave Snapchat a reputation as a "sexting" platform, Discover serves up to users both images and articles from media partners. These can then be shared, or "snapped," between users, the complaint says. It alleges that much of the content is unfit for minors, and is sometimes sexually explicit. For example, the complaint describes an article that combines sexually explicit text with screenshots from Disney cartoons headlined: "23 Pictures That are Too Real If You've Ever had Sex with a Penis." "Snapchat is currently engaged in an insidious pattern and practice of intentionally exposing minors to harmful, offensive, prurient, and sexually offensive content, without warning minors or their parents that they would be exposed to such explicit content," the complaint says. The suit was filed on behalf of a 14-year-old Los Angeles boy identified as John Doe and his mother, Lynette Young. It argues that the Communications Decency Act requires that services like Snapchat provide notice of the availability of parental controls, and that Snapchat fails to warn users about the content of Snapchat Discover. The law provides for civil damages of $50,000 per violation, with each day constituting a separate violation. Ben Meiselas, an attorney with Geragos & Geragos, declined to give a specific estimate of how much the damages could total up to be but said they would be "substantial" given the service's huge number of users. "We think the best metric for determining the value of Snapchat failing to keep children safe, on such a mass scale, is best left to a jury," Mr. Meiselas said. Noah Edwardsen, a spokesman for Snapchat, tried to deflect the criticisms leveled against the company. "We haven't been served with a complaint in this lawsuit, but we are sorry if people were offended," he said in an email. "Our Discover partners have editorial independence, which is something that we support." Geragos & Geragos is perhaps best known for representing celebrities like Michael Jackson and Winona Ryder, but also has a history of involvement in major class actions, including several against online real estate giant Zillow. In addition to damages, the new suit asks the court to require Snapchat to warn users about "offensive and adult content" on Snapchat Discover, and to empower parents and guardians with the ability to filter or block content that will be seen by minors. SOUTH CAROLINA: To Notify Inmates of Mental Health Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- John Monk, writing for The State, reports that over the next five weeks, officials at the S.C. Department of Corrections will conduct a massive outreach to make sure all inmates in the state prison system are notified of a pending landmark proposed settlement in a lawsuit over how mentally ill inmates are treated. The outreach in the longstanding, class action lawsuit was approved by state Judge Robert Hood at a July 5 hearing at the Richland County courthouse. Judge Hood gave lawyers until Aug. 19 to report back to him. Of the approximately 20,000 inmates in South Carolina's 22 institutions, approximately 3,500 are estimated to have mental illnesses that will qualify for the state prison system's new and sharply upgraded mental health care program. The schedule to notify inmates was jointly agreed to by S.C. corrections director Bryan Stirling as well as Stuart Andrews and Dan Westbrook, lawyers for the disabled rights group Protection and Advocacy for People with Disabilities. Eleven years ago, that group sued the department, seeking better treatment for mentally ill prisoners. Under the rules of class action lawsuits, members of the class can review the proposed settlement and make comments. Arrangements have been made to notify even inmates in solitary confinement as well as to read the agreement to inmates who cannot read. "We want members of the class to review this in detail, and this (notification) will allow them that chance," Mr. Andrews said following the hearing. If inmates raise no major concerns, lawyers will ask Judge Hood on Aug. 19 to issue an order giving final approval to the proposed settlement. Under the proposed settlement, announced in June, the department has agreed to $1.7 million for facilities upgrades plus another $7 million annually to add some 70 workers over three years. The settlement also includes plans for an independent monitor and increased training for corrections staff who deal with mentally ill inmates. The department has four years to implement the changes. "It's a good day for everybody. Settlement is always a good resolution for a lawsuit," said Mr. Stirling after the hearing. He was accompanied by Roy Laney, a Columbia attorney. "This is a good resolution for folks to get the help they need," Mr. Stirling said. Mentally ill inmates who have been diagnosed and getting the right treatment, including therapy and medication, will be less likely like to return to prison, he said. "Hopefully, they will get the help they need and go on and lead stable and productive lives." SPREADS PARK: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spreads Park South Corp. The case is captioned Oscar Martinez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Spreads Park South Corp., doing business as Spreads, and Michael Ezekiel, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05221 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2016). Spreads Park is in the miscellaneous retail stores business. The Plaintiff appears pro se. STAAR SURGICAL: Law Firm Investigates Possible Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, is investigating potential violations of the federal and state securities laws by STAAR Surgical Company (STAA) and certain of its officers and board members. STAAR designs, develops, manufactures and sells implantable lenses for the eye and delivery systems to deliver the lenses into the eye. Specifically, a court issued a tentative ruling denying a motion to dismiss for a class action suit filed against STAAR. The class action alleges that misleading statements were made relating to FDA regulatory violations at STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing facility. The FDA cited several regulatory violations at the facility and stated that, among other things, "the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for" manufacture, packing, storage or installations of STAAR's implantable lenses are "not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice requirements." If you are a long term shareholder, continuously holding shares before February 2013, you may have standing to hold STAAR harmless from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance. If you are a long term shareholder of STAAR and wish to discuss your rights, please contact Jim Baker --jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. About Johnson & Weaver, LLP Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. STANDARD MORTGAGE: Judge Dismissed RICO Claims in "Robinson" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the Eastern District of Louisiana granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case JORDELLA ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED BORROWERS, v. STANDARD MORTGAGE CORPORATION and STANDARD MORTGAGE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., SECTION: R, Civil Action No. 15-4123 (E.D. La.) On September 3, 2015, Jordella Robinson filed a putative class action lawsuit against Standard Mortgage Corporation and Standard Mortgage Insurance Agency, Inc. (SM Insurance), alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) (Count One); conspiracy to violate RICO, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (Count Two); breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Three); and unjust enrichment (Counts Four and Five). Robinson asserts her civil RICO and RICO conspiracy claims individually and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of all persons who have or had a mortgage loan or line of credit owned, originated or serviced by Standard Mortgage and/or its affiliates secured by property located in the United States and, in connection therewith, were charged for force-placed insurance on the secured property within the applicable statute of limitations. Robinson proposes a sub- class for her state law claims comprised of similar property owners in Louisiana. As to her civil RICO claim, Robinson alleges an association-in- fact enterprise comprised of Standard Mortgage, SM Insurance, and their affiliates. Robinson alleges that the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering, marked by three predicate acts. First, defendants committed mail and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341 and 1343. In furtherance of a scheme to defraud borrowers, defendants allegedly sent false and misleading notices to Robinson and putative class members by means of mail and wire communication. Second, defendants engaged in honest-services fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1346. Third, defendants extorted or conspired to extort borrowers in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 US.C. Section 1951 (a). Specifically, defendants allegedly used and attempted and conspired to use, the actual or threatened fear of default and foreclosure to induce borrowers to pay kickbacks and fees in excess of the costs of insuring their properties. Standard Mortgage and SM Insurance move to dismiss Robinson's civil RICO claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting several arguments for dismissal. Specifically, defendants argue that Robinson fails to plausibly allege the existence of an enterprise that is distinct from Standard Mortgage and SM Insurance, the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, or an injury proximately caused by a RICO violation. In addition, defendants argue that Robinson fails to state a RICO conspiracy claim because she has not adequately pleaded an underlying, substantive RICO violation. Judge Vance granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's RICO claims. A copy of Judge Vance's order and reason dated June 7, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/yyHOUKfrom Leagle.com. Jordella Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Susanne W. Jernigan at Jernigan Law Firm; Raymond Nicholas Barto -- raymond@sfclasslaw.com -- Stephen John Fearon, Jr. -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- Thomas G. O'Brien -- thomas@sfclasslaw.com -- at Squitieri & Fearon, LLP; Ronald Lawrence Wilson at Law Office of Ron Wilson Defendants, represented by John Anthony Dunlap -- dunlap@carverdarden.com -- Frank A. Tessier -- tessier@carverdarden.com -- Haley E. Nix -- nix@carverdarden.com -- Russell L. Foster -- foster@carverdarden.com -- at Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: "Stone" Suit Moved to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- Robert Stone, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07351, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01703-CAB to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Christopher A. Boyko. Sterling Infosystems, doing business as SterlingBackcheck, provides background checks and employment screening services to clients in various industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter R Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM 21550 Oxnard Street Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883 4900 Facsimile: (818) 882 4902 - and - Jeff Holmes, Esq. HOLMES LAW GROUP APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599 8255 Facsimile: (213) 402 3949 - and - Lonnie C Blanchard, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599 8255 Facsimile: (213) 402 3949 The Defendant is represented by: Geoffrey S. Harper, Esq. Thomas B. Walsh IV, Esq. Michael Richard Headley, Esq. FISH & RICHARDSON-DALLAS 1717 Main Street, Ste. 500 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 747 5070 Facsimile: (214) 747 2091 E-mail: harper@fr.com walsh@fr.com - and - Michael Brett Johnson, Esq. FISH AND RICHARDSON PC 1717 Main Street Suite 5000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 747 5070 Facsimile: (214) 747 2091 TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Waitresses Win Class Action Over Pay Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- John Monk, writing for The State, reports that two waitresses have won a $700,000 class action lawsuit against Texas Roadhouse franchises, including one in Columbia, alleging the company used unfair pay practices to compensate its servers. In denying Texas Roadhouse's bid to keep the payout under seal, U.S. Judge Terry Wooten said "the public's right to access the settlement agreement" was not outweighed by the company's desire for secrecy. The settlement resulted from a 2015 in federal court against the restaurant owners filed by Rachel Bontempi and Tiffany Tatham, servers at the Texas Roadhouse restaurant on Columbiana Drive in Columbia. Texas Roadhouse is known for its American cuisine with an emphasis on steaks. It has containers of peanuts at every table and bills itself as having "Legendary Food, Legendary Service -- all with lots of Legendary Fun." According to their lawsuit, both Bontempi and Tatham alleged they and other tipped employees were required by the restaurant to pay a portion of their gross sales into a tip pool from which employees who would not normally receive tips were paid. This had the effect of diluting the amount of money servers were supposed to be paid, their lawsuit said. The requirement that Bontempi and Tatham, who each made $2.13 per hour, share their tips with "back-of-the-house kitchen staff," violated provisions of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the lawsuit said. Bontempi and Tatham won't get all the $700,000. Since it is a class action lawsuit, the eligible servers are those who worked as tipped employees for about a 12-month specified period at franchise restaurants in Columbia and Anderson. The eligible workers, whose payout will be calculated based on a formula set out in the settlement, will be notified in coming weeks. As part of the settlement, Texas Roadhouse denied any wrongdoing, saying its corporate entities "agreed to settle this case to avoid the expense, inconvenience and distraction of further litigation." Lawyers for Bontempi and Tatham declined comment on July 5. They are Todd Ellis, of Irmo, and Jim Griffin and Badge Humphries of Columbia. Their fees and expenses in the case come to about $220,000, according to legal records. Charleston lawyers Carol Ervin and Jennifer Dunlap, who represented Texas Roadhouse, could not be reached for comment. The Texas Roadhouse chain operates 368 corporate-owned restaurants and 79 franchise-owned restaurants around the country. T he payouts are the responsibility of the Texas Roadhouse franchises that operate the restaurants in Columbia and Anderson. Texas Roadhouse corporate headquarters in Louisville, Ky., released this statement: "This case, which involved two of our franchise locations in South Carolina, has been resolved. Texas Roadhouse Inc., which was dismissed from the case, denied the allegations." THERANOS: Faces Congressional Probe Over Faulty Blood Tests ----------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Buhr, writing for TechCrunch, reports that the U.S. House of Representatives recently sent a letter to troubled blood analysis startup Theranos asking for an explanation of the company's failure to offer accurate results to patients using its proprietary blood test technology. Theranos developed a technique using its proprietary "Edison" machine it claimed could detect hundreds of diseases using just one drop of blood. However, government and regulatory agencies have questioned those results and the company now faces an onslaught of class-action lawsuits from patients. The company has also suffered a dramatic plummet in valuation, had to void two years worth of blood test results, founder Elizabeth Holmes was threatened with a possible ousting from her own company and a potential barring from the industry, as well as faces a potential criminal investigation, and Theranos main partner Walgreens recently pulled out. House Democrats Frank Pallone, Gene Green and Diana DeGette sent the letter, dated June 30, asking founder Elizabeth Holmes to explain what went wrong, what steps her company is taking to help medical professionals and patients who might have been affected by the results and how Theranos plans to comply with regulators. "Given Theranos' disregard for patient safety and its failure to immediately address concerns by federal regulators, we write to request more information about how company policies permitted systemic violations of federal law," reads the letter. Theranos says it looks forward to clearing things up for these lawmakers. "Patient safety and clinical quality are our top priorities," Theranos said in a statement. It also said it was, "committed to the highest standards of excellence across all our labs." "Patient safety and clinical quality are our top priorities," Theranos said in a statement. It also said it was, "committed to the highest standards of excellence across all our labs." Theranos has continued to say it plans to reveal information about its technology. And Ms. Holmes is scheduled to speak at the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) conference on August 1st. However, House Democrats are asking for a response from Theranos by July 14. TREASURY WINE: Court Stays Second Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Peter Holloway, Esq. -- peter.holloway@hsf.com -- of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on July 5, 2016 Foster J of the Federal Court ordered that a second shareholder class action commenced by Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd (MCI) against Treasury Wine Estates Limited (TWE) be permanently stayed as an abuse of process of the Court.1 This decision follows an earlier decision by the Victorian Court of Appeal on December 22, 20142 to stay another shareholder class action commenced by MCI against TWE in November 2013, on the basis of that proceeding being an abuse of process. The majority Court of Appeal decision (Maxwell P and Nettle JA, with Kyrou JA dissenting) was based on findings made by the first instance Judge (Ferguson J) that the reason for MCI's existence was to launch proceedings to enable its sole shareholder and director, Mr. Elliott, to earn legal fees from acting as the solicitor for MCI in legal proceedings, including the claim against TWE. Ferguson J had concluded that on its incorporation MCI purchased small parcels of shares in 20 publicly listed companies, and later purchased similarly small parcels of shares in another 147 publicly listed companies, including TWE, and subsequently commenced 3 group proceedings with Mr Elliott acting as its solicitor. The judge also found that as the quantum of any damages likely to be recovered by MCI in its claim against TWE was at best less than $700, it was unlikely that the proceedings were commenced for the purpose of recovering compensation. Despite these findings, Ferguson J did not rule that the initial proceeding against TWE was an abuse of process. TWE applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal the decision of Ferguson J not to stay the first MCI proceeding as an abuse of process. None of the findings of fact made by the Judge at first instance were challenged by MCI in the appeal. On December 22, 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed TWE's appeal and held that the first MCI proceeding should be permanently stayed on the ground that it constituted an abuse of process. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that MCI was using the cause of action to create an income-generating vehicle for its solicitor, TWE having no interest in vindicating its rights or in obtaining a remedy. The majority found that the sole purpose of MCI had only ever been to create for itself a cause of action of sufficient merit to induce TWE to pay Mr. Elliott's fees and that this constituted a clear example of an abuse of process -- commenting that the processes of the Court do not exist, and are not to be used, merely to enable income to be generated for solicitors, but rather they exist to enable legal rights and immunities to be asserted and defended. Within hours of the decision of the Court of Appeal, MCI filed and served a fresh Supreme Court Writ and Statement of Claim against TWE, making allegations essentially the same as those made in the first (stayed) proceeding, but with MCI being represented by a different law firm. MCI also sought special leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal, but special leave was refused in May 2015. The second MCI proceeding against TWE was transferred to the Federal Court, where another shareholder class action against TWE (an IMF-funded claim prosecuted by Maurice Blackburn on behalf of the lead applicant) was pending. In the Federal Court, TWE challenged the second MCI proceeding, alleging that MCI was estopped from bringing a second proceeding by reason of the determinations made by the Court of Appeal in the first proceeding, and, moreover, that the second MCI proceeding ought be stayed as an abuse of process because it too had not been brought for the proper predominant purpose of vindicating MCI's legal rights, but for an improper purpose of Mr. Elliott receiving some financial benefit in or resulting from the proceeding in the event that MCI was ultimately to be successful. Mr. Elliott did not lead evidence in the Federal Court challenge about the purpose of MCI commencing either the original or the second proceeding against TWE. TWE argued that this led to a Jones v Dunkel inference against MCI. In reaching his decision delivered on 5 July 2016, Justice Foster found that: a. Mr Elliott's purpose in causing MCI to bring the proceeding could be attributed to MCI as its purpose for bringing the proceeding, because Mr. Elliott was the sole director and sole shareholder of MCI and because there was no evidence to suggest that any other person had any say in the affairs of MCI; b. in the circumstances, it was incumbent upon Mr. Elliott to proffer an explanation for MCI's conduct in evidence given to the Court, in particular to explain his purpose in bringing the proceeding, and that his failure to do so provided a basis for the Courts to draw adverse inferences against MCI; c. Mr. Elliott did not cause MCI to make purchases of small parcels of shares in more than 150 listed corporations because he was interested in investing in each of the corporations either as a long term investor or as a trader, but created MCI as a vehicle for bringing class actions against listed corporations alleging, amongst other things, breaches of continuous disclosure obligations by those corporations; d. Mr. Elliott caused MCI to make the share purchases in order to enable MCI to position itself to commence a class action as the lead plaintiff against any one or more of the corporations in which the shares were purchased and, to the extent possible, to enable Mr. Elliott himself to earn legal fees from the exercise; e. given the reasons as found for MCI's purchases of shares, it was very difficult if not impossible for Mr. Elliott to contend in the claim against TWE that MCI actually relied upon the various positive statements made by TWE to the ASX said to constitute contraventions of the Corporations Act or that MCI actually relied upon the integrity of the share market; f. furthermore, it would be very difficult for MCI to persuade the Court at a final hearing that, in the circumstances as found, it should be able to rely upon market-based causation theory to establish an indirect basis for reliance by it on the alleged contraventions committed by TWE; g. Mr. Elliott and MCI almost certainly did not rely upon anything TWE said or failed to say or do when MCI purchased the shares in TWE in November 2012; and h. the insignificant amount sought to be recovered by MCI in the proceeding did not, on any rational basis, justify the commencement and maintenance of the proceeding. Ultimately, the Judge said that the Court should not permit MCI to institute and maintain the class action when, as the Court had found, it was doing so not in order to obtain a remedy which the law provided either for itself as an individual claimant or for the members of the class which it purported to represent. The Judge said that MCI plainly did not have the capacity to fund a proceeding itself and had not attempted to satisfy the Court that it had put in place litigation funding which would cover its own costs and the amount of any adverse costs order. He also said that MCI's claims were, at best, very weak if not hopeless, and observed that the proceeding had been commenced with the intention of using it as a 'fall back' or 'failsafe' against the possibility that the first MCI proceeding would remain permanently stayed as an abuse of process. These matters were said by the Judge to demonstrate that the proceeding had been brought for an illegitimate and collateral purpose and that it constituted an abuse of process and should be permanently stayed. The Judge also said that it was oppressive and vexatious to TWE and, if it was allowed to continue, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid "Reporting Pay" ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed on July 1, 2016 alleges United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") cheated employees out of their rightful wages by failing to pay "Reporting Pay," as required by Massachusetts law. Massachusetts, like many other states, requires employers to pay employees who show up for their scheduled shift, but are sent home due to a lack of work. This "Reporting Pay" law -- as it is known -- requires employers in Massachusetts to pay an employee for at least three hours of work, at the minimum wage, for every shift cancelled or shortened after an employee's arrival at the job site. Cort Szafarz, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, worked as a part-time package handler at UPS from September 2014 to May 2015 in their Chelmsford, Massachusetts facility. He was scheduled to work Monday through Friday from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Although he planned to work for the full shift every weekday, and showed up at the Chelmsford facility every weekday ready to do so, his shift was often cancelled or shortened due to a lack of work. On such days, Mr. Szafarz and others were not paid for at least three hours of work. When Mr. Szafarz complained to Human Resources, he was told, "That's just the way we do it here." Mr. Szafarz seeks to represent a class of other UPS hourly employees in Massachusetts who, like him, were not paid appropriately when their shifts were cancelled or shortened. Andrea Gold, one of the attorneys representing Mr. Szafarz in the lawsuit, stated, "It's important that employers know they cannot take advantage of their employees. This reporting time law exists for a reason. If employees are scheduled to work, and show up to do that work, they deserve to be compensated in accordance with the law." The case seeks treble damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of Mr. Szafarz and the many other similarly situated Massachusetts employees who have been denied Reporting Pay by UPS. Mr. Szafarz is represented by Andrea Gold and Sophia Goren of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Elizabeth Ryan -- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- John Roddy -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- and Sandra Henson Kinney -- skinney@baileyglasser.com -- of Bailey & Glasser LLP. Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston, West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP has grown to include 51 lawyers, with offices in nine states and the District of Columbia. The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high-stakes commercial litigation; class actions for consumers, insureds, investors, and retirement plan participants; catastrophic injury and defective product cases; antitrust; and whistleblower lawsuits. The firm has extensive experience in energy law, and litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy courts, regulatory agencies, and appellate courts. It has a major corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial transactions. Tycko & Zavareei LLP -- http://www.tzlegal.com-- is a bicoastal law firm with offices in Washington, D.C. and Oakland, CA, and has a long, successful record of litigating complex cases. The firm routinely handles large and complex matters throughout the country, advocating on behalf of individuals fighting for their civil rights, employees asking for their rightful wages, consumers seeking redress for unfair business practices, whistleblowers exposing fraud and corruption, and non-profit entities and businesses facing difficult litigation. UNITED STATES: Appeals Class Action Ruling in Army Corps Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Schleifstein, writing for NOLA.com, reports that the U.S. Justice Department has formally appealed a federal judge's approval of class action status for a lawsuit blaming the Army Corps of Engineers for declining lost property values caused in St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans' Lower 9th Ward by floodwaters during Hurricane Katrina and later storms. That status would make thousands of residents and businesses eligible for damage awards that could total billions of dollars. In her May ruling, Court of Claims Judge Susan Braden said she had entered only a partial final judgment -- awarding $3.16 million plus interest to six "test case" landowners in St. Bernard Parish and the Lower 9th Ward -- to let the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit review that and earlier decisions she made in the case when the Justice Department appealed. The Justice Department submitted its appeal to the appeals court in Washington on June 30, and the court posted the notice online on July 6. The court hears appeals of cases decided by the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. The Justice Department's notice of appeal is just the first step in a process that is likely to take months, as each side presents written arguments. The appeals court may also decide to hold a hearing on those arguments before ruling. In an earlier, May 1, 2015, ruling in the case, Judge Braden found that the corps, through the "construction, expansions, operation and failure to maintain the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, caused increased storm surge flooding on plaintiffs' properties during Hurricane Katrina and subsequent hurricanes and severe storms, effecting a temporary taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." That amendment, more widely known for forbidding forced testimony against one's self in a criminal case, prohibits the federal government from taking the value of property without "just compensation." A week later, Judge Braden convened a settlement conference in New Orleans and told the parties to discuss mediation or confirm her opinion. The Justice Department refused, indicating that it would instead appeal. Both sides later decided to let Judge Braden issue the partial final judgment that she announced this May, as to present a broader view of the case to the appeals court. In that ruling, Braden found the corps owes St. Bernard Parish $863,363 for temporary lost value of three properties that it owns and that were part of the test case. And it owes New Orleans almost $2.6 million in lost property tax revenue that would have been collected from landowners in the Lower 9th Ward in 2006 and 2007. St. Bernard Parish was not owed lost tax revenue because taxes paid by its property owners were more closely aligned with the taxes due in 2006 and 2007. The takings suit was filed in October 2005, barely two months after Katrina struck. Judge Braden has said she was forced to delay key rulings in the case because more conventional damage lawsuits were still pending in federal court in New Orleans. Those cases included more than 500,000 claimants in the New Orleans area. They were thrown out when courts ruled that the Corps of Engineers was immune from damages because of a 1928 law governing construction of flood control projects or because the corps was using its judgment authority as allowed under federal law. A separate class action damage lawsuit filed against the Sewerage & Water Board is still pending in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court. That case involves only properties flooded by the 17th Street Canal and charges that the S&WB and the state of Louisiana improperly allowed the dredging of the canal before Katrina. That dredging and the improperly designed floodwall on the New Orleans side of the canal were responsible for the floodwall's failure, the suit asserts. URBAN OUTFITTERS: October 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DAVID SCHWARTZ v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC., et al CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5978 TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. ("URBAN") DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 12, 2013 THROUGH AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 9, 2013, AND HELD SUCH STOCK UNTIL AT LEAST SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 YOU ARE NOTIFIED, under a June 14, 2016 Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, of a hearing to be held on October 31, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. before the Honorable Mark A. Kearney, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Litigation for the principal amount of $8.5 million, plus interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation of Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses and Lead Plaintiff's expenses in connection with this Litigation should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY URBAN COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 12, 2013 THROUGH AND INCLUDING SEPTEMBER 9, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Urban Outfitters Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 3747, Portland, OR 97208-3747, or on the Internet at www.UrbanOutfittersSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a Class Member, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail or online no later than October 24, 2016, showing that you are entitled to recovery. You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to Urban Outfitters Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 3747, Portland, OR 97208-3747, postmarked by September 16, 2016. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the fee and expense application filed must be received or filed no later than September 16, 2016: with the CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 601 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART, ESQ., 655 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 1900, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101. DATED: June 14, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA URL: www.UrbanOutfittersSecuritiesLitigation.com USRG CALIFORNIA: Faces "Davis" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against USRG (California) Inc. The case is captioned Terri Davis, the Plaintiff v. USRG (California) Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 34-2016-00196790-CU-OE- GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2016). USRG (California) Inc. is listed under residential property managers, with headquarters located at 15771 ROCKFIELD BLVD 200, IRVINE, CA 92618. VALVE CORPORATION: Faces "C.B." Suit in S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valve Corporation. The case is styled C.B, On Behalf of Her Minor Son N.B., individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Valve Corporation, a Washington corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-61561-BB (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Beth Bloom. Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and digital distribution company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington, United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. GORI, JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, PC 156 N. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 659 9833 Facsimile: (618) 659 9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Ordered to Provide Emissions Info in Australia ------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Dowling, writing for News.com.au, reports that Volkswagen has again been asked by the Federal Court to produce more "documents and detail" about how its diesel emissions cheating software works. The German car giant made its fourth court appearance at a class action representing 100,000 owners in Sydney on July 7 in a lengthy three-hour directions hearing. Justice Foster was due to issue the orders on July 8, demanding Volkswagen provide more detail on how "mode 1" and "mode 2" emissions software controls worked, and the recall work to be undertaken. In the first mode, Volkswagen diesel vehicles knew they were being tested in laboratory conditions and met emissions standards, while the second mode disabled anti-pollution equipment when the cars operated in normal driving conditions. In April Justice Foster blasted VW for treating Australia as a "backwater" for not supplying the required documents at that time. This is the third time VW has been asked to provide more material to the lawyers representing almost 100,000 owners of Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda cars with diesel engines that cheat emissions tests. "Despite admitting that approximately 100,000 diesel vehicles need to be 'fixed' and despite compensating American motorists with a reported $15 billion package over similar issues, Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda all deny they have broken local laws," said Jason Geisker, principal, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. "For year after year these companies banked profits from selling so-called 'clean' diesel cars, but they now refuse to compensate any Australian motorists. This is simply not good enough." Volkswagen repeated its earlier statement that emissions regulations in Australia differ greatly from those in the US. "Volkswagen believes that the best outcome for its customers is the technical solution," a statement from VW Australia boss Michael Bartsch said. "This will update the software in vehicles which are the subject of the class action at no charge to customers." Mr. Bartsch said there is no compensation due to European or Australian customers. "The relevant facts and complex legal issues that have played a role in coming to these agreements in the United States are materially different from those in Europe and Australia," said Mr. Bartsch. "Volkswagen is committed to resolving the diesel matter for all affected customers around the world quickly and efficiently. We recognize the need to regain their trust and we are doing everything possible to achieve this." VOLKSWAGEN AG: Escapes Emission Cheating Fines in Germany --------------------------------------------------------- Birgit Jennen and Karin Matussek at Bloomberg News report that Volkswagen AG is set to escape fines from the German government even after cheating on emissions tests for years, reflecting a softer political stance that's increasingly drawing ire following a generous deal for U.S. drivers. Germany's influential Bild newspaper took Volkswagen to task for failing to compensate more than 2 million affected owners after Chief Executive Officer Matthias Mueller rejected compensation in Europe as an excessive burden. Little support is likely from the German government, with the Transport Ministry not planning to seek fines. The regulator is instead relying on a recall to resolve customer complaints and an ongoing criminal investigation to determine whether any further measures are warranted. "We now have a situation in which Volkswagen is required to return the cars to a legally compliant condition," German Transport Minister Alexander Dobrindt told reporters on July 6 in Berlin. "That is what is appropriate to remedy the damage that's been done." While Volkswagen is paying affected U.S. owners as much as $10,000 each as part of a $15.3 billion settlement, Germany has balked at harshly punishing the manufacturer over rigging vehicles to turn on full pollution controls only during official tests. Germany, which is closely tied to Volkswagen via the state of Lower Saxony's 20 percent stake and the political influence of the automaking giant, approved a low-cost fix that consists of a software upgrade and in some cases a piece of pipe with mesh on one end. 'Blank Check' Adding on compensation could be crushing for Volkswagen as any deal in Germany would also probably apply to all 8.5 million tainted cars in Europe -- 17 times the number in the U.S. That's not stopping critics though. "It's not acceptable that the government doesn't take any real consequences from the emissions scandal and gives a blank check for tricks and deceptions," said Oliver Krischer, a member of Germany's Bundestag from the opposition Green Party who is leading a parliamentary investigation committee. "It needs to be explained why companies in Germany don't pay fines. It's also not OK that European drivers are treated worse than American VW drivers." Instead of payments, "German customers get a letter and an appointment at the workshop to fix the cheating diesels," Bild wrote in story published on July 6. "Are German customers second class?" Volkswagen declined to comment beyond Mr. Mueller's statements in the newspaper interview. The carmaker remains under criminal investigation in Germany, and that process could still yield fines. 'Blackmail' Volkswagen CEO Mueller "is playing out a new card by telling the government: 'Don't put too much pressure on us, or we will go bust, and then all the jobs are gone'," Christoph Rother -- christopher.rother@hausfeld.com -- head of the Berlin office of law firm Hausfeld, which is involved in a class-action lawsuit against Volkswagen in the U.S. and represents clients in Germany. "He's playing blackmail using a horror scenario," rather than discussing options like vouchers for buying a new car. The wide disparity in the handling of the crisis stems from equally large differences in legal and regulatory structures between the U.S. and the European Union. The lack of class-action lawsuits is a major disadvantage for European consumers, undermining their leverage in negotiations. Europe also doesn't clearly ban switch-off devices -- the bit of software at the heart of the scandal -- and allows them to be used if they help protect the engine. Germany has also been at pains to show emissions issues go beyond Volkswagen, strong-arming automakers in April to upgrade 630,000 vehicles to fix temperature-control setups that pushed the boundaries of regulation. It also tried to put pressure on Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV, but was brushed off by Italy, which has authority over the company's European vehicles. "There's an attempt to protect Volkswagen to a degree, as Volkswagen could be pushed to a breaking point if the same criteria applied in Germany as in the U.S.," said Stefan Bratzel, director of the Center of Automotive Management at the University of Applied Sciences in Bergisch Gladbach, Germany. "The Transport Ministry is also damaged by the whole affair, so they want it to go away." WALGREENS BOOTS: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2016, that oral argument was held on June 2, 2016, in a class action appeal. On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on December 29, 2014. The actions asserted claims that the definitive proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various respects. On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The proposed settlement was subject to, among other things, court approval. On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and on November 20, 2015, the Court entered an order of final approval of the settlement. On December 17, 2015, a purported class member who had objected to the settlement appealed the Court's order. The appeal was docketed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral argument was held on June 2, 2016. WALGREENS BOOTS: Still Defends Illinois Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a shareholder securities class action in Illinois. On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February 5, 2016. No further updates were filed in the Company's SEC report. WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action for $16.3 Million -------------------------------------------------------- MortgageOrb reports that Wells Fargo Bank will pay about $16.3 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging it illegally used an auto-dialer to call mortgage borrowers' mobile phones without their consent -- a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The suit, Markos v. Well Fargo Bank NA, was originally filed on April 14, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The court gave preliminary approval for the settlement to proceed. Depending on the number of claims, each affected borrower will be entitled to collect about $25 to $75. That's after deductions are made for cost of notice, claims administration, and court-awarded attorneys' fees and costs. The TCPA prohibits mortgage servicers (as well as telemarketers) from making auto-dialed phone calls and texts to borrowers' cell phones unless the servicer has express written consent from the borrower. Attorneys for Wells Fargo had argued that the bank did, in fact, have the needed consent; however, the court found otherwise. It is not clear from published reports whether Wells Fargo did, in fact, obtain written consent; sometimes TCPA violations have to do with how written consent was obtained and, in particular, whether borrowers knew they were giving consent. WENDY'S CO: Hackers Steal Customers' Credit, Debit Card Data ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Wendy's said hackers were able to steal customers' credit and debit card information at 1,025 of its U.S. restaurants, far more than it originally thought. The hamburger chain said on July 7 hackers were able to obtain card numbers, names, expiration dates and codes on the card, beginning in late fall. Some customers' cards were used to make fraudulent purchases at other stores. Wendy's Co. urged customers to check their accounts for any fraudulent purchases. The Dublin, Ohio, company first announced it was investigating a possible hack in January. In May, it said malware was found in fewer than 300 restaurants. About a month later, it said two types of malware were found and the number of restaurants affected was "considerably higher." There are more than 5,700 Wendy's restaurants in the U.S. Customers can see which locations were affected through the Wendy's website. The company said it is offering free one-year credit monitoring to people who paid with a card at any of those restaurants. WORD ENTERPRISES: "McFarlin" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Chad McFarlin, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. The Word Enterprises, LLC, The Word Enterprises Haslett, LLC, The Word Enterprises Lansing, LLC, The Word Enterprises Owosso, LLC, The Word Enterprises Perry, LLC, The Word Enterprises St. Johns, LLC And Kevin Dittrich, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-12536 (E.D. Mich., July 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Michigan Minimum Wage Law and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act. Defendants operate multiple Hungry Howie's pizza franchise stores in and around central Michigan where McFarlin worked as a delivery driver. Defendants allegedly do not reimburse drivers for the reasonable cost of driving their vehicles for delivery. Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER PLLC 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and - William D. Buchanan, Esq. LEE W. BARRON, P.C. 112 Front Street Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-9160 Fax: 618-462-9167 Email: will@leebarronlaw.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com ZIONS BANCORPORATION: To Settle Reyes Action for $37.5 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2016, that Zions intends to enter into a settlement with the plaintiff in the class action case, Reynaldo Reyes v Zions First National Bank, et al, for approximately $37.5 million. The Reyes case relates to payment processing services provided by Modern Payments, a small subsidiary of Zions, to ten telemarketing or webmarketing companies primarily during the 2006-2008 timeframe. Zions terminated this business in 2010, prior to the filing of the Reyes case, and contemporaneously improved the effectiveness of certain ACH monitoring controls relevant to the case. Although it has agreed to settle the case for practical reasons, Zions denies any wrongdoing relating to the Reyes case. Zions had fully accrued for its obligations with respect to the settlement as of December 31, 2015 and therefore does not expect to incur additional expenses as a result of the settlement. Finalization of the settlement is subject to the execution of definitive agreements, additional court processes and final court approval. As a result, there can be no assurance that a definitive settlement will ultimately be entered into or become effective. Nov. 21 Hearing Set Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C. on July 11 disclosed that Magistrate Judge Timothy Rice of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval to a $37.5 million class action settlement with Zions First National Bank and two subsidiaries of claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization ("RICO") Act. The case alleged that the defendants provided payment processing services to allegedly fraudulent telemarketing and web marketing companies. Over 500,000 consumers' accounts were alleged to have been debited on behalf of the fraudulent entities. The plaintiff's claims and supporting facts were the subject of a detailed opinion issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in September 2015 (http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/141228p.pdf). The Third Circuit's docket includes friend of court briefs filed in support of plaintiff's position by, among others, the AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law Center, and Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, and Ed Markey of Massachusetts. A final approval hearing on the settlement has been set for November 21, 2016. The class is represented by Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C. The case is Reyes v. Zions First National Bank., 10-cv-0345, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C. (LGD) -- http://www.langergrogan.com -- is a nationally recognized complex commercial litigation law firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. * ABA Wants CFPB to Examine Cost, Benefit of Arbitration Rule ------------------------------------------------------------- ABA Banking Journal reports that ABA on July 6 sent a memo to members of Congress opposing an amendment to the financial services agencies spending bill. The amendment, proposed by Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), would strike a provision in the bill requiring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study the costs and benefits to consumers of eliminating arbitrations in consumer financial contracts in favor of class action lawsuits. The CFPB recently proposed a rule to drastically limit the use of mandatory arbitration agreements for financial products and services, but ABA pointed out that the research the bureau conducted in support of the rule was "incomplete and even contradictory." The association urged members of Congress to vote down the amendment to ensure that the CFPB properly assesses the effects of its proposed rule on consumers before moving forward. ABA added that in general, consumers tend to fare better in arbitration than in class action suits. "According the CFPB's own class action sample, lawyers made about $1 million each, while the average consumer walked away with about $32. But that average consumer recovery assumes that there is any consumer recovery. In fact, only 15 percent of the putative class actions the CFPB studied reached a class settlement, and only 4 percent of those class members received a check," the memo said. "Based on the CFPB's research to date, it is impossible to justify denying consumers access to efficient, user-friendly arbitration in favor of diverting them into class actions where they have no control and little chance of success." * Cape Coral Property Owners Mull Pollution, Tax Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Warren Wright, writing for Fox4, reports that having water front property is a luxury. But now, people living on canals are crying out that higher taxes are unfair. Some people say as water quality goes down, so should their taxes. Property owners are frustrated. Not only do they want their taxes lowered, many think it's time for a class action lawsuit like the BP oil spill. They want to hold the companies accountable for polluting Lake Okeechobee and our waterways. "I would like to see my taxes get lowered. We are being treated like second class citizens right now, as far as the water quality goes," says Guy Lee, who lives on a Cape Coral canal. Antonia Rodgers lives on a canal and she agrees, adding "The quality of the water is very bad and it is not right that we are paying these high taxes." Mike Lombardo specializes in Cape Coral waterfront property and says this green sludge is hurting business. He compares it to the BP oil spill, saying those who polluted "Lake O" could eventually become the center of a class action lawsuit. "Your house is your biggest investment. and now somebody has dumped these chemicals into your water that have caused a toxin to bloom outside your home and you didn't sign up for that." But people like Fran Lee are ready to sign up. "The time has come for a class action lawsuit. and we should all join. Everybody who has water front in Cape Coral. There is a significant amount of people." * Copyright Trolls Abuse Canada's "Notice-and-Notice" System ------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Cushing, writing for Techdirt, reports that in the United States, copyright trolls are finding it more difficult to save on filing fees by pursuing file sharers en masse. More than a few judges have shot down attempts to file infringement suits against "Does 1-30," etc., ruling that these defendants are improperly joined. Meanwhile, in Canada, copyright trolls are trying a novel approach to suing alleged file sharers in big bunches: the reverse class action. Voltage Pictures is suing a nominative "class" of Does yet to be named for copyright infringement. This is its attempt to route around restrictions placed on it by another court, as well as the costs associated with complying with the demands. But in doing so, Voltage Pictures is making a mess of Canadian privacy laws. Rogers, the service provider standing between Voltage and the subscriber information it's demanding, wants to know why the studio is abusing Canada's "notice and notice" system to obtain information it's not supposed to be able to acquire without a court order. [V]oltage is using the notice-and-notice system to argue that it is entitled to subscriber information. It argues in court documents that the system is designed to allow copyright holders to "inexpensively identify and locate the infringers of copyright." Yet the reality is that the government did not intend for the rules to make it easy to disclose the identity of alleged infringers, with the ISPs prohibited from simply handing over such information. Canadian courts have established rules that may compel ISPs to hand over subscriber information, but there are strict limitations in how the information can be used and restrictions on public disclosure. The "notice and notice" system is supposed to be used by ISPs to pass on infringement allegations to affected customers. What it's not supposed to do is provide subscriber info to rights holders. In the past, rights holders have routed around this perceived "limitation" by inserting settlement demands into something that's only supposed to be a notification. Now, in this reverse class action, Voltage is going to use whichever subscriber name it happens to pry loose first as the "lead defendant" in the lawsuit. Instead of "Doe," the lawsuit will be amended to carry that unlucky person's name on the first page, and designate that person as "representative" of every other Doe Voltage has yet to unmask. Obviously, the privacy implications for that person are immense. By using this odd tactic, Voltage can hope to extract subscriber info that wouldn't be released to it under the "notice and notice" system. The reversal of roles in the litigation also poses other problems. While it's not too tough for multiple plaintiffs to secure representation in class action suits against a single, most-likely profitable corporation, it's highly unlikely that the "class action" defendants will find adequate representation, either as a group or individually. In total, this role reversal is nothing more than a trolling operation trying to maintain maximum efficiency by routing around any obstacles placed before it by courts or legislators. Using nothing more than batches of IP addresses harvested by "infringement monitoring" software, Voltage and others are continuing to attempt to convert courtrooms into revenue streams. * Insurance Cos. May Help Homeowners with Foundation Problems ------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that some insurance companies have expressed a willingness to participate in a program that would provide financial help to Connecticut homeowners with crumbling foundations, according to the state Attorney General's Office. Hundreds of Connecticut houses in the eastern portion of the state have had cracking in their basement walls, allegedly due to faulty concrete. The situation is the subject of litigation and an investigation by Attorney General George Jepsen's office. "My office has been engaged for a number of months in negotiations with insurance companies seeking to develop a program through which homeowners who are experiencing crumbling foundations could receive significant financial assistance in fixing their homes," Mr. Jepsen said in a statement. His office is working with Gov. Dannel Malloy's administration, and the state Department of Insurance and state Department of Consumer Protection. The state has received word from a "small number of insurance companies that they would be inclined to participate," Mr. Jepsen said. He declined to identify the insurance companies at this point. "I am grateful for their civic-minded willingness to consider a role in addressing this pressing public problem," Mr. Jepsen said . "However, in order for the program to go forward, we need significantly more companies to commit to take part. I would strongly encourage Connecticut homeowners who are experiencing this problem, or who have friends or family members who are experiencing this, to contact their insurance companies and urge them to [do so]." The Hartford-based Travelers insurance company is among the companies working with the state so far. The company issued a statement. "We have been working closely with the Connecticut Department of Insurance, Department of Consumer Protection and the Attorney General on a program to assist homeowners in Northeast Connecticut with foundation problems caused by pyrrhotite," said Matt Bordonaro, the company's head of media relations, in an email. "We are hopeful that this program comes to fruition as it will help eligible Connecticut homeowners through this situation." According to Mr. Jepsen, officials believe that significant levels of the mineral pyrrhotite in stone aggregate used in the production of concrete is a substantial contributing factor to the crumbling foundations experienced by some homeowners in eastern Connecticut. However, he said more work is needed to understand all the contributing factors involved. Lora Rae Anderson, spokeswoman for the State Department of Consumer Protection, said on June 30 the department had received 235 complaints about deteriorating concrete foundations. State Consumer Protection Commissioner Jonathan Harris said in an email that his department encourages this effort to help homeowners as one resource which hopefully can be made available to them. "The Department of Consumer Protection is continuing their investigation thoroughly and deliberately so that consumers and other parties seeking to develop resources for homeowners have the best information possible," Mr. Harris said. "We know that everyone has a role to play in building resources for homeowners who are suffering, including insurance companies." The crumbling foundation problem is the subject of ongoing litigation. In January, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court on behalf of homeowners against their insurance companies, claiming they have refused to pay to fix the foundation problems. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order compelling the insurance providers, over 100 of them all around the country, to pay for new basement walls, along with reimbursement for the cost of litigation and attorney fees and interest. Attorney Ryan Barry of Barry & Barall in Manchester, who represents the plaintiffs, said, "George Jepsen is an excellent Attorney General, and anything he is doing to bring these insurance companies to their senses is a big help." The homes in question were built in the 1980s and 1990s, and their foundations have such problems as spiderweb cracking, holes and concrete chipping, and need to be replaced, according to the litigation. The lawsuit claims each of the plaintiffs' homes has basement walls that are irreversibly deteriorating as a result of "defective" concrete. Companies involved in production of the concrete have asserted the problems being experienced by homeowners are due to an installation problem, rather than any problem with the product itself. * Merchants Face Consumers Suits Following EMV-Chip Card Shift -------------------------------------------------------------- Autumn Cafiero Giusti, writing for Payments Source, reports that merchants are facing consumer lawsuits stemming from the introduction of EMV-chip card security at the point of sale in the U.S., exposing the issues many stores must contend with now that they are held liable for fraud and chargebacks. In February, a Wendy's customer filed a class action against the fast food chain, alleging that it failed to protect customers' credit and debit card information, as well as other personally identifiable information. The suit claims all of that information was exposed when Wendy's experienced a data breach in January, and that Wendy's failed to take "adequate and reasonable measures" to make sure that its data systems were protected beforehand. Although the lawsuit does not specifically reference EMV, it does allege that Wendy's was not using the most up-to-date processing equipment. The suit suggests that hackers employed the same malware that enabled recent cyber attacks such as the breaches at Home Depot and Target. "While many retailers, banks and card companies have responded to these recent breaches by adopting technology and security practices that help [make] transactions and stored data more secure, Wendy's has acknowledged that it did not do so," the suit states. Lawsuits are not the only consequence merchants face. Typically if a merchant suffers a data breach, it can expect fines for violating the Payment Card Industry data security standard, which describes how organizations must protect cardholder data. There may also be a reputational hit and a loss of business. eBay faced this issue after a 2014 cyberattack led it to ask users to reset their passwords; many consumers did not, and even those that chose a new password did not resume their previous level of activity. The breach became a major factor in eBay's decision to lower its full-year revenue guidance by $200 million. But consumer lawsuits are a new risk, experts say. "We are not aware of any consumers suing merchants after the merchant's point of sale system was hacked," said Paul Hunter, president and CEO of Tampa-based processor Sterling Payment Technologies. Attorney Stephen Aschettino -- saschettino@foley.com -- chairman of the payment team at Foley & Lardner LLP, says that although the Wendy's case is noteworthy, it's not necessarily the "test pilot" case the industry has been watching out for because no one is placing chargeback liability on the retailer. "I think they're just trying to show that Wendy's failure to use the EMV chip is some form of negligence," Mr. Aschettino says. "If my analysis is correct, I think that's very different than the liability shift issue that we in the industry are very worried about." Mr. Aschettino says he's still waiting to see the type of lawsuit in which a credit card company denies a customer's chargeback, and then the customer goes after the merchant for damages. A closer example, he says, is a lawsuit filed in March by B&R Supermarket against most of the major card networks and issuers -- including Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Wells Fargo -- claiming thousands of dollars in losses because of the EMV shift. B&R owns Milam's Market and Grove Liquors in Florida and claims it bought all-new equipment for its stores well in advance of the liability shift but never received EMV certification from the card networks. As a result, B&R was held liable for $10,000 in charges in four and a half months because of fraud, chargebacks and fees. Mr. Aschettino says it's likely that the supermarket chain isn't alone in its predicament. "Depending on the magnitude of the chargebacks and resources of the merchants, some merchants may be willing to challenge those rules," he says. "I do foresee there will be more litigation going forward on these issues." Vulnerable merchants, savvy consumers The potential for future lawsuits stems from the fact that many merchants have taken steps to purchase new EMV equipment and train their employees how to use the system, but are still stuck having to use the old magstripe systems because they're still waiting for certification from the card networks. "The whole thing is resulting in merchants facing losses that they wouldn't have to pay otherwise. I don't know where the inherent fairness is in that," said Irvine, Calif.-based attorney Paul Rianda, who specializes in the bankcard industry. Hunter predicts it will take about two years for most of the certifications to be complete. "Merchants have had a difficult, if not impossible time, being ready in time for the liability shift," he says. "And we are seeing a rapid increase in consumers purposefully charging back transactions when they see a merchant not utilizing EMV technology in a card present environment." Sal DiDonato, CEO of Red Bank, N.J., merchant services provider Priority Payments Local, says although it's unclear whether more lawsuits will surface, he's noticed an increasing number of cardholders are savvy about EMV requirements. "More and more consumers are becoming aware of the liability shift and trying to take advantage when they see fit," he says. That's not to say that filing these lawsuits will be easy. Mr. Rianda says ISOs and merchants have consulted with him about problems they've had with EMV, but that lawsuits can be difficult to bring against the parties empowered to make changes. "Other than suing your processor, what else are you going to do?" he asks. "Usually the amounts are so small that unless you do a class-action suit, there's not a whole lot you can do for them." As far as consumer-led lawsuits like the Wendy's case go, merchants are in a compromising position from allegation that they failed to protect consumers' information from a data breach. Ever since the 2007 TJ Maxx data breach, concerns have mounted about hackers pulling off data theft on a large scale, and those kinds of attacks can be damaging to a retailer's reputation, said Rick Oglesby, partner with Centennial, Colo., industry consulting firm Double Diamond Group. "Regardless of what happens with this particular suit, anything that's consumer-driven is going to impact the brand," Mr. Oglesby says. "And whether they win or lose, merchants don't want any part of this kind of suit at all." Mr. Aschettino cautions that banks, merchants and anyone else who could be implicated in these types of lawsuits need to have a well thought-out position ahead of time, and to implement strategies to make sure that these suits don't fuel the creation of laws that are hostile to the industry. "The whole EMV shift paradigm was designed to protect consumers," he says. "If the failure to adopt it can somehow be used as a sword by the plaintiffs against merchants, I don't believe that was the intent." * New White-Collar Overtime Rules Burdensome for Companies ---------------------------------------------------------- Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that after more than two years of keeping employers in suspense, the U.S. Department of Labor finally released its final rules on white- collar overtime exemptions. The new rules, which take effect Dec. 1, will make an estimated 4.2 million additional U.S. workers eligible to receive overtime pay from their companies. Many business and employer groups have sounded the alarm about the new regulations, characterizing them as burdensome for companies and potentially bad for workers. While there's little doubt the final rules will affect plenty of companies, their legal departments do have choices in how to respond to the changes. Currently, in order to qualify for time-and-a-half overtime pay for work done beyond 40 hours a week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, white-collar employees such as administrative employees, supervisors and professionals cannot make more than $23,660 a year, the threshold set back in 2004. The new rules will raise that amount to $47,476 a year. The DOL plans to update the earnings requirements every three years using a set formula, making it likely that by 2020 even more workers will join the nonexempt fold. Companies can go in a few different ways in handling the imminent change. One option is reclassifying a potentially large swath of employees who now fall under the salary threshold from exempt to nonexempt. Reclassification would lead to them getting more overtime pay. That's obviously something they'll be pleased about. But it's worth noting that there are some potential drawbacks. Employees will have to log their hours more closely, and they could sacrifice some workplace flexibility. "If they are reclassified, they are going to have to punch that time clock," says Tammy McCutchen -- tmccutchen@littler.com -- a principal at Littler Mendelson. Another way employers can handle the new overtime rules is to change salaries. They could give salary raises to those white- collar workers who currently make less than $47,476 per year in order to keep them exempt from overtime. On the other hand, companies could cut worker pay to actually offset any additional overtime their employees might now be entitled to. "They might even have more part-time employees," says John Thompson -- jthompson@fisherphillips.com -- a partner at Fisher & Phillips. "There are all kinds of variables as to how this might play out." Regardless of how companies respond, they must face the reality that at least for the foreseeable future, the new overtime rules are the law of the land, says Michael Arnold -- MArnold@mintz.com -- a member at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovksy and Popeo. He says that employers "can't bury their heads in the sand" or wait until the last minute to adjust their compensation policies, they need to be proactive. "For a lot of employers, a lot has to happen," Mr. Arnold says. "It's not as simple as pressing a button in a system and changing someone from exempt to nonexempt, or pressing a button and lowering or raising their salary." He says it's important to make choices about worker classification and pay that align with job description, business strategy and productivity as well as morale and organizational culture. Messaging and communication with the workforce are also "super critical," he adds, as the new regulations have been well- publicized and many employees might already have their own opinions and questions about how they will be affected. ********* 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 * * *