/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160829.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 172 Headlines 2306 WALTON: Martinez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages 5150 RACE: "Romero" Lawsuit in Tenn. Alleges Violation of FLSA 600 SOUTH: Faces "Bennett" Class Suit in New York 1B USA: "Alinovskiy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ABBVIE INC: 90% of 735 Depakote Claims Pending B & B HOLDING: Never Pays Proper Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims BILLING RESOURCE: AT&T Seeks to Recoup Charges Under 2010 Deal BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas BUY BUY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Halfon" Action Claims CHINA XD: Briefing Schedule in "Yang" Suit Extended COCA-COLA: 5th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Vending Machines Suit COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Retirement Plan COMCAST CABLE: Faces "Scott" Class Suit in California CONQUEST COMPLETION: Faces Texas Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Over ERISA Violations DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Waters Edge Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Pate" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: FGI Financing Sues Over Forum at Park Appraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Knotyour Sues Over Arroyo Ave. Properties Value DALLAS CENTRAL: Market/Ross Sues Over Appraisal of Properties DALLAS CENTRAL: SNH Sues Over La Sierra Drive Property Appraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Westbridge Sues Over Apartment Appraisal Value DC POWER: Faces "Cline" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages DEUTSCHE BANK: Dismissal of PICA Class Action Sought DEZCA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Castellanos" Lawsuit Pursuant to FLSA DRG CONSTRUCTION: "Lizama" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages EL NUEVO: Faces "Cabanas" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: William Sponn Filed Class Suit ENERGY TRANSFER: Bumgarner's Claim Over WMB Merger Dismissed ENERGY TRANSFER: Bumgarner's Claim Over WMB Merger Dismissed FIREEYE INC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Granted in Part FIREEYE INC: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Class Suit Underway FLORIDA EXECUTIVE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Cadet" Suit Says FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Sued Over Hospital Liability Liens Collection FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Dovel" Securities Class Suit in New York GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriters Sued by SunEdison Shareholders GOOGLE INC: Privacy Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid GRANITE SOURCE: Faces "Fonseca" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims HAIN CELESTIAL: Accused by Lynn of Violating Securities Laws HARRIS, TX: Faces DBI Investments Suit Over Appraisal Policies HARRIS, TX: Faces OM Shanti Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies HENSHALL PARKING: Faces "Andrade" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation HIGHER ONE: "Perez" Securities Class Action Still Pending HIGHER ONE: "Hall" Case Settlement Still Pending INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of "Donato" Securities Case Sought JOHNSON CONTROL: Shareholders Sue Over Tyco Merger Deal JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over BBSW, Related Derivatives "Conspiracy" LA FONDA: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Fla. Alleging Violation of FLSA LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Remand Miller Energy Cases Pending LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Plains All American Case LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Suit Against Securities America Pending LADY FORTUNES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Gomez" Suit Says LAS VEGAS SANDS: No Hearing Date Set for Summary Judgment Motion LEWIS CASING: Faces "Calvillo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA M.L. ZAGER: "Corso" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing Set MARUYASU INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Auto Steel Tubes "Price Fixing" MCDONALD CORP: Must Defend Against Wage Theft Class Action MDL 2196: Tridien Medical Received $1.2MM from Settlement MDL 2545: 195 TRT Claims Pending vs. AbbVie METLIFE INC: "Owens" Class Action Still Pending in Georgia METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Class Action Appeal Underway METLIFE INC: "Intoccia" Class Action Appeal Underway METLIFE INC: Class Member in "Fauley" Case Seeks Review METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Class Action Still Pending in Calif. METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Martin" Action Under Appeal METLIFE INC: "Lau" Class Action Still Pending in New York METLIFE INC: "Newman" Class Action Still Pending in Illinois MID-CENTURY: "Cumley" Class Suit Removed to District of Montana MILLER'S ALE: Faces "Bolt" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids to Dismiss & Transfer Case Pending NATALEX REST: "Aragon-Padilla" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Labor Law NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Heard Arguments on Rikers Island Suit NEWLINK GENETICS: To Defend Against "Abramson" Action in S.D.N.Y. NOODLES & COMPANY: Defending Against Former Employees' Suit NOODLES & COMPANY: "Carter" Class Suit Dismissed in Colorado NORTHERN OIL: Faces "Fries" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports NU SKIN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled in October OCEAN DETAILING: Faces "Datilus" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT OK FOODS: "Cato" Class Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to W.D. Arkansas ORACLE: 2 Class Suits Over Inflated Revenue Dismissed OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiff to Appeal Dismissal OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Hunter" Lawsuit Over Sale to Apollo Global OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Abbas" Lawsuit Over Sale to Apollo Global OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Baumgartner" Securities Class Suit PEOPLES BANCORP: NC Business Court Dissolved Appellate Stay PINNACLE FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in "Bushansky" Class Suit PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Muir and Rosen Lawsuits Consolidated PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settlement of Sterling Case Has Initial OK QUAKER OATS: "Dickson" Consumer Lawsuit Removed to W.D. Missouri RETROPHIN INC: Settlement in "Kazanchyan" Okayed, Case Dismissed REX ENERGY: Appeal in Cardinale Case Remains Pending REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Mediation Pending in Warren Police Case RIMAX CONTRACTORS: Faces Suit in La. Over Alleged FLSA Violation RINGCENTRAL INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Supply Pro Case ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Nov. 9 Fairness Hearing Set on "Ding" Accord S&P 72: Faces "Gabino" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime SAMSUNG: Class Suit Filed in New Jersey over Exploding Washers SMITH LAYDOWN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Godlsby" Suit Claims SONY CORP: Judge Declines to Rule on Microsoft's Arbitration Bid SOVRAN SELF: Still Defends Class Action in New Jersey SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing Denied ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defending 3 Lawsuits Related to Abbott Merger ST. PAUL FEDERAL: Faces "Reed" Class Suit in Dist. of Minnesota STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Action Remains Pending SUNPOWER CORP: "Bristow" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violation SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Appeal Decertification Order Nixed SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of "Fritsch" Suit SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Defends Remaining Claims in FLSA Suit SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Washington OT Class Actions in Discovery SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Suit to Move Into Discovery SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Banks" FCRA Suit Moved to Arizona SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Mediation in Utah Case Flopped SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Oppose Class Cert. Bid in "Anderson" SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Still Defends TelexFree Litigation TALMER BANCORP: Bushanky and Nicholl Lawsuits Dismissed TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Employees Filed Class Suit TD AMERITRADE: Faces Class Suit Over Transaction Fees TD AMERITRADE: Dismissal of Zola et al. Cases Under Appeal TEMPUR SEALY: Court to Consider Class Cert. Motions in 4th Qtr TPC CONTRACTORS: Faces "Maldanado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TRXADE GROUP: Awaiting Final Approval of $200,000 Settlement TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Planned JCI Merger UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Has Yet to Set Hearing Date UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for Mid-2017 in "Morgate" Suit UNITED PARCEL: One Case Remains Outstanding in Ontario WAHLBURGERS FRANCHISING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime WASHINGTON: Residents File Class Suit Over Jury Pay WECKERLE SALES: Faces "Chacon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WELLS FARGO: Defendants Seek to Dismiss PICA Suit WESTCOAST WRECKER: Faces "Curtis" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Gilhousen" Suit Over Sale to Danone WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: "Driskell" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Motion to Dismiss "Epstein" Case Denied ZAFGEN INC: Dismissal of "Bessler" Case Under Appeal ZIONS BANCORPORATION: $37MM Settlement Awaits Final Approval ZYNGA INC: Proceedings in Lee v. Pincus Stalled ********* 2306 WALTON: Martinez Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAUDIA MARTINEZ individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by 2306 WALTON LLC d/b/a FINE FARE SUPERMARKET, and DAVID VARGAS individually v. 2306 WALTON LLC d/b/a FINE FARE SUPERMARKET, and or any other entities affiliated with or controlled 2306 WALTON LLC d/b/a FINE FARE SUPERMARKET, and DAVID VARGAS, individually, Case No. 156903/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., August 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages, and damages arising from record- keeping violations, owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, who worked for the Defendants as cashiers, grocery packers, grocery stockers, deli servers, butchers, cooks, and other employees performing similar supermarket related tasks. 2306 WALTON LLC, doing business as Fine Fare Supermarket, is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal place of business in New York City. David Vargas is the president or owner of the Company. The Defendants are engaged in the food supply industry, and operate supermarkets in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Michele A. Moreno, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com mmoreno@vandallp.com 5150 RACE: "Romero" Lawsuit in Tenn. Alleges Violation of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO MEIJA ROMERO individually on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. 5150 RACE TRAILERS, INC. and MICHAEL DEAN WALKER, individually. Case No: 1:16-cv-00063 (M.D. Tenn., August 12, 2016), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 5150 RACE TRAILERS, INC.'s website claims to be home of the highest quality Race Trailers and Coaches on the Planet. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Russell, Esq. Emily S. Emmons, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Phone: 615-354-1144 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com eemmons@gilbertfirm.com - and - Heather M. Collins, Esq. COLLINS & HUNTER PLLC 7000 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320 Brentwood, TN 37027 Phone: 615-724-1996 E-mail: heather@collinshunter.com 600 SOUTH: Faces "Bennett" Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against 600 South Ocean Operating Corp. d/b/a Lombardi's on the Bay f/k/a Momma Lombardi's Of Holbrook, Inc., Lombardi Caterers Inc. f/k/a Lombardi's on the Sound, QCG Inc. d/b/a Villa Lombardi's, Qurino Lombardi, Jerry Lombardi, Josephine Lombardi Papadakis, Filomena Lombardi & Guy Lombardi. The case is captioned Gregory Bennett, on behalf of himself & others similarly situated v. 600 South Ocean Operating Corp. d/b/a Lombardi's on the Bay f/k/a Momma Lombardi's Of Holbrook, Inc., Lombardi Caterers Inc. f/k/a Lombardi's on the Sound, QCG Inc. d/b/a Villa Lombardi's, Qurino Lombardi, Jerry Lombardi, Josephine Lombardi Papadakis, Filomena Lombardi & Guy Lombardi, Case No. 609419/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 17, 2016). The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Patchogue, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: FRANK & ASSOCIATES 500 Bi-County Blvd, Ste 112N Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756-0400 The Defendant is represented by: LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP 500 N. Broadway, Ste 105 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 931-0050 1B USA: "Alinovskiy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Olesya N. Alinovskiy, and all others similarly situated v. 1B. USA, LLC and Arkadiy Pervyybakhtin, Case No. 1:16-cv-23569-DPG (S.D. Fla., August 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Founded in 2013 with its corporate office in Miami, Florida, 1B.USA, LLC is a purchasing channel and an exporter. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (305) 308-5619 E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone: (305) 773-6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com ABBVIE INC: 90% of 735 Depakote Claims Pending ---------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie did not adequately warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily various birth defects, arising from use of Depakote. Over ninety percent of the approximately 735 claims are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and the rest are pending in various other federal and state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. B & B HOLDING: Never Pays Proper Overtime, "Garcia" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS GARCIA, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. B & B HOLDING ENTERPRISES, INC., and WILFRED BRACERAS, Case No. 1:16-cv-23547-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 17, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours a week for the Defendants but was never paid anything for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. B & B Holding is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. Wilfred Braceras is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Company, based in Tampa, Florida, operates a chain of grocery stores and convenience stores in the United States. The Company also operates a real estate division, which leases and manages properties throughout central and southern Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com BILLING RESOURCE: AT&T Seeks to Recoup Charges Under 2010 Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- AT&T SERVICES, INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AT&T OPERATIONS, INC., ON BEHALF OF SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T ARKANSAS, AT&T KANSAS, AT&T MISSOURI, AT&T OKLAHOMA, AND AT&T TEXAS; PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T NEVADA); ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T ILLINOIS, INDIANA BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, INCORPORATED D/B/A AT&T INDIANA, MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T MICHIGAN, THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T OHIO, AND WISCONSIN BELL, INC. D/B/A AT&T WISCONSIN ; AND BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC D/B/A AT&T ALABAMA, AT&T FLORIDA, AT&T GEORGIA, AT&T KENTUCKY, AT&T LOUISIANA, AT&T MISSISSIPPI, AT&T NORTH CAROLINA, AT&T SOUTH CAROLINA, AND AT&T TENNESSEE, v. THE BILLING RESOURCE, LLC, Case No. DC-16-09874 filed August 15, 2016, in the District Court Judicial District Dallas County, Texas, seeks to recover approximately $245,000.00 in alleged unpaid charges that TBR owes AT&T, pursuant to the terms of a contract for billing services that the parties executed, effective December 16, 2010. The Billing Resource, LLC is an aggregator of fixed telephone line billing, providing alternative billing services to the Company and unrelated third parties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mr. Nelson Gerard, Esq. THE BILLING RESOURCE, LLC 302 Enzo Drive, Suite 162 San Jose, CA 95138 Phone: 646-734-3 700 - and - Mr. Steven Rosenthal, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ROSENTHAL 236 17 Arminta Street West Hills, CA 91304 New York, NY Phone: 818-577-8296 E-mail: StevenRosenthal@socialrr.com - and - Mr. Sean A. Moynihan, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF KMT I KLIEN, MOYNIHAN & TURCO 450 Seventh A venue, 40111 Floor New York, NY 101 23 Phone: 212-246-0900 E-mail: smoynihan@klienmoynihan.com BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Perry Cook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Buckeye, Inc., Case No. 7:16-cv-00305 (D.N.M., August 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Buckeye, Inc. is an oilfield services company providing drilling fluids products and services to wells throughout the United States, including in New Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Milad K. Farah, Esq. GUERRA & FARAH, PLLC 1231 E Missouri Ave. El Paso, TX 79902 Telephone: (915) 533-0880 Facsimile: (915) 533-1155 E-mail: mkf@gflawoffices.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com BUCKEYE INC: "Cook" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned John Perry Cook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Buckeye, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00424, was transferred from the District of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court Western District of Texas (Midland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:16-cv- 00305 to the proceeding. The case asserts labor-related claims. Buckeye, Inc. is an oilfield services company providing drilling fluids products and services to wells throughout the United States, including in New Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com mjosephson@fibichlaw.com - and - Milad Kaissar Farah, Esq. GUERRA & FARAH PLLC 1231 E. Missouri El Paso, TX 79902 Telephone: (915) 533-0880 Facsimile: (915) 533-1155 E-mail: mkf@gflawoffices.com The Defendant is represented by: Clara B. Burns, Esq. KEMP SMITH LLP 221 N. Kansas, Suite 1700 El Paso, TX 79901 Telephone: (915) 533-4424 Facsimile: (915) 546-5360 E-mail: clara.burns@kempsmith.com BUY BUY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Halfon" Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Halfon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Buy Buy Baby, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05037 (D.N.J., August 17, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Buy Buy Baby, Inc. is a chain of stores that sell clothing, strollers and other items for use with infants and young children. Eric Halfon is a pro se plaintiff. CHINA XD: Briefing Schedule in "Yang" Suit Extended --------------------------------------------------- In the case, Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD)(S.D.N.Y.), Judge George B. Daniels entered a Stipulation and Order extending the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs' motion to strike. According to the Stipulaton and Order: -- China XD Plastics Co. Ltd. shall respond to the Motion on or before September 16, 2016; -- Lead plaintiffs shall have up to and including October 7, 2016 to file a reply in further support of their Motion. Meanwhile, China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend a class action complaint remains pending. The Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named as defendants in two putative securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, were filed on July 15, 2014 and July 16, 2014 and are captioned Yang v. Han, et al., No. 14-cv-5308 (GBD) and Tompkins v. China XD Plastics Company Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv- 5359 (GBD), respectively. On November 21, 2014, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 17, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of a class of all persons other than the defendants who purchased the common stock of China XD Plastics Company Limited between March 25, 2014 and July 10, 2014, both dates inclusive. Specifically, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Company and two of its officers made false or misleading statements and/or omitted material facts in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 and the Company's Form 10-Q for the first quarter ended March 31, 2014. They also assert that the individual defendants are liable because they allegedly controlled the Company during the time the allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions were made. The lead plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. On April 3, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On March 23, 2016, the Court entered an Opinion and Order dismissing the Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice. On May 6, 2016, plaintiffs moved the Court for leave to amend the Complaint. On June 24, 2016, the Company filed its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs' reply to the Company's opposition was due August 8, 2016. Management believes the proposed amendment is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. COCA-COLA: 5th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Vending Machines Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that the Fifth Circuit affirmed on August 15 the dismissal of a class action in New Orleans against Coca-Cola over vending machines that are not accessible to blind people. Plaintiff-Appellant Emmett Magee brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., asserting claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Magee alleges that Coca-Cola owns and operates glass-front vending machines in public spaces and that those machines are not accessible to him and others who are blind. Coca-Cola moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the vending machines it operates are not "places of public accommodation" as required by the applicable provisions of the ADA. The district court agreed and dismissed Magee's complaint, holding that Coca-Cola's vending machines are not themselves "places of public accommodation." "In deciding that Coca-Cola's vending machines in the instant case are not places of public accommodation, we acknowledge the limits of our holding. As the district court recognized, those vending machines may very well be subject to various requirements under the ADA by virtue of their being located in a hospital or a bus station, both of which are indisputably places of public accommodation. Here, however, Magee sued only Coca-Cola, an entity that does not own, lease (or lease to), or operate a place of public accommodation," the Fifth Circuit said. The case is, EMMETT MAGEE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INCORPORATED, No. 15-31018 Defendant - Appellee (5th Cir.). A copy of the decision is available at https://is.gd/3pDaj4 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over Retirement Plan ---------------------------------------------------------- Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Columbia University is turning what should have been the golden period of its employees lives into "a retirement nightmare," one woman claims in a federal class action, mirroring recent complaints against other prominent schools. Filing suit anonymously August 16, Jane Doe hopes to represent the 27,000 current and former participants in the two plans Columbia offers: a retirement plan for university officers and the Columbia University Voluntary Retirement Savings Plan. With billions of dollars of assets at stake, Columbia should "have tremendous bargaining power to demand low-cost administrative and investment management services," according to the complaint. But Doe, a participant in the plans since 2014, says Columbia fumbled the play. "Instead of leveraging the bargaining power of both plans, Columbia University caused the plans to pay unreasonable and greatly excessive fees for recordkeeping, administrative, and investment services," the complaint states. "Instead of using its sophistication to identify and select high- quality investments that benefited participants and beneficiaries, Columbia University selected and retained expensive and poor- performing investment options that consistently and historically underperformed their benchmarks and similar funds. This from a school that "counts 13 students and teachers who have won the Nobel Prize in Economics," Doe says. Doe notes that she is one of thousands of Columbia University employees who invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the plans every year, expecting that "the world-renowned institution had constructed a stellar retirement portfolio that offered superior investment options and world-class investment management." "Instead, Columbia University saddled each of their 27,000 participants with an overall sub-standard plan, loaded with $4.6 billion of investment options that were primarily poor to mediocre performers," the complaint states. Doe says the result is that participants like her have suffered "hundreds of millions of dollars of staggering losses to retirement savings." The complaint echoes federal class actions filed across the country last week against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University and New York University. Columbia declined to comment on pending litigation but offered a defense of its retirement plans anyway. "Columbia is proud of the retirement benefits offered to its faculty and staff and takes its responsibility as a fiduciary seriously," the Morningside Heights school said in a statement. The class suing Columbia seeks $100 million in damages, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Doe rakes Columbia over the coals in particular for its investment of nearly $1 billion in plan assets in TIAA-CREF Stock Account R3, an asset she says "ranked in the bottom quartile for the past 3, 5, and 10 years for like investments according to Morningstar." "The TIAA-CREF Stock Account was so imprudent that in 2012 AonHewitt, a solutions expert in pension plan administration, recommended to its clients that they remove this fund from their retirement plans," the complaint continues. Class counsel David Sanford, of the Washington, D.C., firm Sanford Heisler, noted in a statement that "Columbia was on notice that TIAA-CREF was a deficient investment." "It wasn't merely that TIAA-CREF performed poorly in a single year or two," Sanford said. "In fact, the TIAA-CREF Stock Account has been poor for many years compared to both available lower-cost index funds and the index benchmark." Citing Morningstar data, the lawsuit says the TIAA-CREF Stock Account underperformed by approximately 19 percent. On a $1 billion investment, such underperformance amounts to almost $200 million dollars in losses to retirement savings. Doe says Columbia's two plans earned constitute "jumbo plans" because strong enrollment puts them among the top 1 percent of all defined contribution plans in the United States. "For a leading university that touts its business skill and acumen, the more than 27,000 current and former Columbia University employees who participated in the Plans deserved better," the complaint states. The case is captioned Jane Doe, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons of the Retirement Plan for Officers of Columbia University and the Columbia University Voluntary Retirement Savings Plan, v. Columbia University and Vice President of Human Resources, Dianne Kenney, Case No. 1:16-cv- 06488 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Heisler, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER LLP 1350 Avenue of the Americas 31st Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: 646.402.5650 E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com - and - David Sanford, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER, LLP 1666 Connecticut Ave. NW Suite 310 Washington, DC 20009 Phone: (202) 742-7780 Fax: (202) 742-7776 E-mail: dsanford@nydclaw.com - and - Charles H. Field, Esq. Edward Chapin, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 515 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.577.4252 E-mail: cfield@sanfordheisler.com COMCAST CABLE: Faces "Scott" Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC and Does 1 to 50, Inclusive. The case is captioned Andre Scott, Elijah Maxwell-Wilson, and Ken Fassler, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated v. Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC and Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC 16 553754 (Cal. Sup. Ct., August 18, 2016). Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC operates a broadcasting and cable television company in Philadelphia, PA. CONQUEST COMPLETION: Faces Texas Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW BROCK, JUAN HERNANDEZ, TYLER LINDSEY, SAVINO LUNA, VICTOR MARTINEZ and MARCUS MUNOZ, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CONQUEST COMPLETION SERVICES, LLC, ALEX DEMPSEY and ROBERT DEMPSEY, Each Individually and as Officers of CGS RENTALS, LLC, and 5 STAR OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No: 5:16-cv-00814 (W.D. Tex., August 16, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act to seek declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated compliant overtime compensation. CONQUEST COMPLETION SERVICES, LLC provides products and services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a viable business. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Over ERISA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- CASEY CUNNINGHAM individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Cornell University Retirement Plan for the Employees of the Endowed Colleges at Ithaca and the Cornell University Tax Deferred Annuity Plan v. CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND THE RETIREMENT PLAN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:16-cv-06525 (S.D.N.Y., August 17, 2016), is brought on behalf of the Plans against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Cornell University Retirement Plan for the Employees of the Endowed Colleges at Ithaca is a defined contribution, individual account, employee pension benefit plan under the ERISA. The Retirement Plan provides for retirement income for certain employees of Cornell University. As of December 31, 2014, the Retirement Plan had $1.9 billion in net assets and 18,470 participants with account balances. The Plan is one of the largest defined contribution plans in the United States. Cornell University is a non-profit corporation organized under New York law, which has campuses in Ithica and New York City. Cornell is the fiduciary responsible for the control, management and administration of the Plans. Cornell is the Plan Administrator. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew D. Schlichter, Esq. Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Michael A. Wolff, Esq. Troy A. Doles, Esq. Heather Lea, Esq. SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: aschlichter@uselaws.com jschlichter@uselaws.com mwolff@uselaws.com tdoles@uselaws.com hlea@uselaws.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Waters Edge Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- Waters Edge Apartments Phase II LLC (Royal Lincoln LandPhaseII), v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-09997 (D. Tex., August 17, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972)931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Pate" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert M. Pate v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC- 16-10066 (D. Tex., August 17, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Pate, Esq. HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON 6363 N. State Hwy. 161, Suite 450 Irving, TX 75038 Telephone: (214) 237-9001 Facsimile: (214) 237-9002 E-mail: john@hop-law.com DALLAS CENTRAL: FGI Financing Sues Over Forum at Park Appraisal --------------------------------------------------------------- FGI FINANCING INC. (Forum at Park Lane) v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09933 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 16, 2016, is protesting as excessive an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016 market value of the Forum at Park Lane located at 7831 Park Lane, in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas (owned by Plaintiffs), for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq. GEARY PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Phone: (972) 931-9901 Fax: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com cmaly@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Knotyour Sues Over Arroyo Ave. Properties Value --------------------------------------------------------------- KNOTYOUR ORDINARY APIS LLC (OAK LAWN HEIGHTS) v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09945, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 16, 2016, is protesting as excessive an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016 market value of Properties represented by certain Appraisal District Account Number(s): Account Number Addresses -------------- --------- C00000208360000000 2702 Arroyo Ave. C00000208432000000 2600 Arroyo Ave. for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Phone: (972)931-9901 Fax: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com kdonovan@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Market/Ross Sues Over Appraisal of Properties ------------------------------------------------------------- MARKET/ROSS, LTD. (Market/Ross Place), v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09931, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 16, 2016, is protesting as excessive an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016 market value of Properties represented by certain Appraisal District Account Number(s): Account Number Addresses -------------- --------- 00000100138000000 1709 N. Market Street 00000100141000000 1713 N. Market Street 00000100144000000 1701 N. Market Street for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Phone: (972) 931-9901 Fax: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com cmaly@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: SNH Sues Over La Sierra Drive Property Appraisal ---------------------------------------------------------------- SNH IL PROPERTIES TRUST, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09938, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 16, 2016, is protesting as excessive an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016 market value of certain real property and improvements located at 5455 La Sierra Drive in Dallas in Dallas County, Texas (represented by Appraisal District Account Number C0054610A0001B0000) for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Phone: (972) 931-9901 Fax: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com cmaly@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Westbridge Sues Over Apartment Appraisal Value -------------------------------------------------------------- WESTBRIDGE DALLAS, LLC (Westbridge Apartments) v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No: DC-16-09982, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 16, 2016, is protesting as excessive an appraisal by the Appraisal District of the 2016 market value of certain real property and improvements known as the Westbridge Apartments located at 2300 Marsh Lane, in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas (represented by Appraisal District Account Number C140565900101R0000) for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. MAZELLE S. KRASOFF, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Phone: (972)931-9901 Fax: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DC POWER: Faces "Cline" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Cline, Matthew Simmons, and all others similarly situated v. DC Power Tong, LLC, Derek Linghor, Jonas McKenzie, Bob Hvinden, and Michael Shane Kornkven, Case No. 1:16-cv-00301-DLH-CSM (D.N.D., August 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate an oilfield services company in North Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz - and - Jesse (Jay) Forester, Esq. Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 1801 N. Lamar St., Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 E-mail: forester@l-b-law.com jdbraziel@l-b-law.com DEUTSCHE BANK: Dismissal of PICA Class Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, PICA et al. v. Deutsche Bank, et al. In February 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in federal court. In March 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in California State Superior Court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In May 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed an amended class action complaint in California State Superior Court. In July 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed previously in federal court. DEZCA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Castellanos" Lawsuit Pursuant to FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ANA SAMANTA CASTELLANOS, v. DEZCA ENTERPRISES, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation, BELINDA CASTRILLO, individually, MARVIN A. CASTRILLO, individually Case No: CACE-16-014826 (Fla. 17TH Judicial Circuit, Broward County), August 12, 2016, was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. DEZCA ENTERPRISES, INC. is a plastering drywall & insulation company in Miramar, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-416-5000 Fax: 305-416-5005 DRG CONSTRUCTION: "Lizama" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Francisco Lizama and Andy Lizama, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. DRG Construction LLC a/k/a DRG House Lifting and John Does Owner & Operator, Case No. 606279/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 16, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor Code. DRG Construction LLC is a construction company located at 245 S. Main Street, Freeport, NY 11520. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil M. Frank, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES P.C. 500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756-0400 Facsimile: (631) 756-0547 E-mail: nfrank@laborlaws.com EL NUEVO: Faces "Cabanas" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ ALBERTO D. CABANAS and other similarly-situated individuals, v. EL NUEVO GAUCHITO CORP., OCTAVIO GALLARDO, and PEDRO JAIME LEAL, individually Case No: 1:16-cv-23491-CMA (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant EL NUEVO GAUCHITO is a combination of deli, bakery, pizzeria and Argentinian restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: William Sponn Filed Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiff, William Sponn, or Sponn, filed on July 19, 2016, a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive, or the Class Period, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Emergent and certain of the Company's senior officers and directors, collectively, the Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and misleading statements about the government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that the Company's five-year exclusive procurement contract with HHS would be renewed and omitted certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified damages, including legal costs. The Defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against those claims. As of the date of this filing, the range of potential loss cannot be determined or estimated. Emergent BioSolutions Inc., or Emergent, is a global specialty biopharmaceutical company seeking to protect and enhance life by offering specialized products to healthcare providers and governments to address medical needs and emerging public health threats. ENERGY TRANSFER: Bumgarner's Claim Over WMB Merger Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Bumgarner's claim related to the WMB Merger has been dismissed with prejudice. Between October 5, 2015, and December 24, 2015, purported WMB stockholders filed six putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits are captioned Greenwald et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11573-VCG; Ozaki v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11574-VCG; Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11601-VCG; Glener et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11606-VCG; Amaitis et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11809-VCG; and State-Boston Retirement System et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11844-VCG. The complaints assert various claims against the individual members of WMB's board of directors; ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP and ETE GP (the "ETE Defendants"); WMB; and others. On January 13, 2016, the Court consolidated these six actions into a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the "Merger Litigation"). In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed without prejudice the ETE Defendants (among others) from the consolidated action. On January 14, 2016, a purported WMB stockholder ("Bumgarner") filed a putative class action lawsuit against WMB and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Bumgarner alleged that ETE and WMB violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making allegedly false statements concerning the merger. As relief, the complaint sought an injunction against the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, Bumgarner filed an amended complaint, making substantially the same allegations. On February 19, 2016, ETE and WMB moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Bumgarner moved for expedited discovery on April 21, 2016. On April 28, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Bumgarner's claims in their entirety with leave to amend. The Court also granted expedited proceedings. Bumgarner amended his complaint on May 12, 2016, and ETE and WMB again moved to dismiss. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part on May 26, 2016, and Bumgarner amended his complaint the same day. Following a motion to reconsider filed by ETE and WMB, the Court revised its Order on the motion to dismiss on June 3, 2016. Bumgarner filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction on June 10, 2016. On June 16, 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement, and Bumgarner withdrew his motion for a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to the agreement, WMB issued a press release and agreed to provide an updated disclosure to its proxy statement in connection with the merger. WMB also agreed to pay Bumgarner's attorney fees. On July 28, 2016, Bumgarner's claim was dismissed with prejudice. ENERGY TRANSFER: Bumgarner's Claim Over WMB Merger Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Bumgarner's claim related to the WMB Merger has been dismissed with prejudice. Between October 5, 2015, and December 24, 2015, purported WMB stockholders filed six putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the merger. The suits are captioned Greenwald et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11573-VCG; Ozaki v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11574-VCG; Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11601-VCG; Glener et al. v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11606-VCG; Amaitis et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11809-VCG; and State-Boston Retirement System et al. v. Armstrong et al., C.A. No. 11844-VCG. The complaints assert various claims against the individual members of WMB's board of directors; ETE, ETC, ETC GP, LE GP and ETE GP (the "ETE Defendants"); WMB; and others. On January 13, 2016, the Court consolidated these six actions into a new consolidated action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844-VCG (the "Merger Litigation"). In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed without prejudice the ETE Defendants (among others) from the consolidated action. On January 14, 2016, a purported WMB stockholder ("Bumgarner") filed a putative class action lawsuit against WMB and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Bumgarner alleged that ETE and WMB violated Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making allegedly false statements concerning the merger. As relief, the complaint sought an injunction against the proposed merger. On February 1, 2016, Bumgarner filed an amended complaint, making substantially the same allegations. On February 19, 2016, ETE and WMB moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Bumgarner moved for expedited discovery on April 21, 2016. On April 28, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Bumgarner's claims in their entirety with leave to amend. The Court also granted expedited proceedings. Bumgarner amended his complaint on May 12, 2016, and ETE and WMB again moved to dismiss. The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part on May 26, 2016, and Bumgarner amended his complaint the same day. Following a motion to reconsider filed by ETE and WMB, the Court revised its Order on the motion to dismiss on June 3, 2016. Bumgarner filed a second motion for a preliminary injunction on June 10, 2016. On June 16, 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement, and Bumgarner withdrew his motion for a preliminary injunction. Pursuant to the agreement, WMB issued a press release and agreed to provide an updated disclosure to its proxy statement in connection with the merger. WMB also agreed to pay Bumgarner's attorney fees. On July 28, 2016, Bumgarner's claim was dismissed with prejudice. FIREEYE INC: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has granted plaintiffs' motion seeking certification of the putative class in part and denied it in part. The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former members of our Board of Directors, current and former officers, and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering. On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The actions were consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief." "On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court overruled defendants' demurrers. On January 6, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking that the action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the court denied on April 1, 2016. "On May 19, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking the overturning of the court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. "On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class, which the court granted in part and denied in part on July 11, 2016. "The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable." FIREEYE INC: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants' motion to dismiss a stockholder class action lawsuit remains pending. On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers. On June 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 2, 2014, and November 4, 2014. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On August 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard on November 12, 2015. No ruling has been issued on the motion. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable. FLORIDA EXECUTIVE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Cadet" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Jean A. Cadet and others similarly situated v. Florida Executive Security Agency Inc. and Heniy Dixon, Case No. 1:16-cv-23572-DPG (S.D. Fla., August 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a security services company located at 641 Ne 4th Street Unit 202, Homestead, FL 33033-7065. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A. 2847 Hollywood Blvd. Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (305) 308-5619 E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone: (305) 773-6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Sued Over Hospital Liability Liens Collection ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Geiger and Denis Twomey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Florida Hospital Memorial Medical Center, Accelerated Claims, Inc., and Halifax Health Medical Center of Daytona Beach, Case No. 6:16-cv-01477-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., August 18, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawful practice of collecting hospital liability liens for accident-related care. Florida Hospital Memorial Medical Center operates a non-profit hospital in Daytona Beach, Florida. Accelerated Claims, Inc. operates as a claims assistance service company located at 3450 Acworth Due West Rd, Kennesaw, GA 30144. Halifax Health Medical Center of Daytona Beach is a non-profit hospital located at 303 North Clyde Morris Boulevard, Dayton Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan M. Lewis, Esq. JORDAN LEWIS, PA 4473 N.E. 11th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Telephone: (954) 616-8995 Facsimile: (954) 206-0374 E-mail: Jordan@jml-lawfirm.com - and - Michael D. Walrath, Esq. MEDICAL BILL CLINIC, PA 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 160 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 308-6940 Facsimile: (305) 455-4331 E-mail: MWalrath@Medicalbillclinic.com - and - Steve Sands, Esq. SANDS, WHITE & SANDS, PA 760 White Street Daytona Beach, FL 32114 Telephone: (386) 258-1622 Facsimile: (386) 253-3703 E-mail: steve@sandwhitesands.com FLOWERS FOODS: Faces "Dovel" Securities Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT DOVEL II, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., GEORGE E. DEESE, ALLEN L. SHIVER, R. STEVE KINSEY, and KARYL H. LAUDER, Case No. 1:16-cv-06523 (S.D.N.Y., August 17, 2016), is brought on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Flowers Foods securities between February 7, 2013, and August 10, 2016, against the Defendants seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Flowers Foods is a Georgia corporation with its principal executive offices located in Thomasville, Georgia. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Flowers Foods is a food company that operates two business segments: a directs-tore-delivery segment ("DSD Segment") and a warehouse delivery segment ("Warehouse Segment"). The DSD Segment operates 39 bakeries that market a wide variety of fresh bakery foods, including fresh breads, buns, rolls, tortillas, and snack cakes. The Warehouse Segment operates 10 bakeries that produce snack cakes, breads and rolls for national retail, foodservice, vending, and co-pack customers, which are delivered through customers' warehouse channels and one bakery mix plant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Telephone: (800) 977-7401 Facsimile: (800) 536-0065 E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriters Sued by SunEdison Shareholders ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that after Goldman Sachs and other underwriters used misrepresentations to help nonparty SunEdison raise $650 million at $1,000 a share, the price fell to $20, shareholders say in the class action in Redwood City, San Mateo County Court. The defendants are Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Morgan Securities LLC; Macquarie Capital (USA) Inc.; and MCS Capital Markets LLC. GOOGLE INC: Privacy Class Action Survives Dismissal Bid ------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Jose handed Google a major defeat in a class action privacy complaint for intercepting and scanning emails before they reach the inbox of the intended recipient. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh found that Google's interception policy may violate the California Wiretap Act, and denied Google's motion to dismiss. Google claimed that intercepting emails, scanning their content and using it for targeted advertising is an ordinary part of how emails are delivered and received. Koh rejected that August 12, saying in a 38-page order that Google's interception and scanning of the emails was not necessary or intrinsic to the process of email delivery, but was done so that Google could sell the data it collected or use it for targeted advertising. "Under the plain meaning of the Wiretap Act, the 'ordinary course of business' exception protects an electronic communication service provider's interception of email where there is 'some nexus between the need to engage in the alleged interception and the [provider's] ultimate business, that is, the ability to provide the underlying service or good,'" she wrote. (Brackets in complaint.) Lead plaintiff Daniel Matera claims that Google is intercepting and scanning emails for commercial purposes. Google argued that the snooping is an intrinsic part of the service, for the only way it can keep its email service free and pay for the cost of maintaining it is through targeted advertising. Thus, Google said, targeted advertising, facilitated by interception and scanning of emails, is part of the ordinary or routine elements of its business. Koh appeared to acknowledge that the argument had some validity, but said it was not appropriate at this stage, as Matera has plausibly alleged that Google's conduct violates the Wiretap Act. "Plaintiff plausibly alleges that Google's alleged interceptions neither facilitate the provision of email services, nor are they an incidental effect of providing these services," Koh wrote. "Thus, at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court cannot say that Google's alleged interception of email is within the 'ordinary course of business' as a matter of law." In an indication of how new this area of developing law is, Koh's colleague, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, ruled differently in a separate Google-related case, interpreting the "ordinary course of business" exemption in the Wiretap Act as a means of protecting routine and customary business practices by communications providers. Koh disagreed, citing other rulings in which judges said the businesses themselves should not be allowed to determine the scope of the law's implications. "Magistrate Judge Grewal's reading of the 'ordinary course of business' exception to encompass any customary and routine business practice, regardless of the nexus to the electronic communication service, gives too little weight to the word "ordinary" as well as to the electronic service provider's particular business," Koh wrote. The case is not the first against Google for its email targeted advertising practices. In 2013, users filed a putative class action against Google, claiming its email service practices violated wiretap laws. Koh refused to certify the class in 2014, saying the plaintiffs had such varying claims they could not be tried as a group. Matera, who was involved in the initial class action, claimed that he was never a customer of Google, but because of the ubiquity of the email service he has sent emails which Google has intercepted, scanned and analyzed. Matera also claims that Google interprets the content through an algorithmic process called Nemo, which helps it determine how to monetize the data it gathers by selling it or in targeted advertising. In a separate case filed this year, prominent universities sued Google, claiming it provides email services so it can mine the data of students. The case captioned, DANIEL MATERA, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal.). GRANITE SOURCE: Faces "Fonseca" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON FONSECA and other similarly-situated individuals, v. GRANITE SOURCE, CORP. and CARLOS GONZALEZ, individually Case No: 1:16-cv- 23479-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. GRANITE SOURCE is a construction and remodeling Company doing business in Miami-Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc. and Security Force, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01253- MRH (W.D. Penn., August 18, 2016), alleges that the Defendant commissioned an automated telephone call using prohibited equipment to send a robocall that promoted its services without the Plaintiff's prior express written consent. The Defendants own and operate a residential and commercial security and safety solution company in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayton S. Morrow, Esq. MORROW & ARTIM, PC 304 Ross Street, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 209-0656 E-mail: csm@consumerlaw365.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net HAIN CELESTIAL: Accused by Lynn of Violating Securities Laws ------------------------------------------------------------ RODNEY LYNN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., IRWIN D. SIMON, and PASQUALE CONTE, Case No. 2:16-cv-04589-LDW-GRB (E.D.N.Y., August 17, 2016), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased Hain Celestial securities from November 9, 2015, through August 15, 2016, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Hain Celestial is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Lake Success, New York. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Company manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells organic and natural products in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Europe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com HARRIS, TX: Faces DBI Investments Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- DBI Investments, LLC v. Harris County Appraisal District, Case No. 2016-54635 (D. Tex., August 17, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the Plaintiff's property at its market value. Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory J. Dalton, Esq. GREGORY J. DALTON, P.C. PO Box 109 Katy, TX 77492 Telephone: (281) 391-1985 Facsimile: (281) 391-1987 E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com HARRIS, TX: Faces OM Shanti Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- OM Shanti Hospitality, LLC v. Harris County Appraisal District, Case No. 2016-54684 (D. Tex., August 17, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the Plaintiff's property at its market value. Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Gray, Esq. Lorri Michel, Esq. Shane Rogers, Esq. MICHEL GREY, LLP 812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 477-0200 Facsimile: (512) 477-6626 E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com lorri@michelgray.com shane@michelgray.com HENSHALL PARKING: Faces "Andrade" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- ROGELIO ANDRADE v. HENSHALL PARKING STRUCTURES, INC. and JIMMY HENSHALL a/k/a JIM HENSHALL, Case No: 3:16-cv-02380-G(N.D. Tex., August 16, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff, Rogelio Andrade, claims he worked for Defendants as an employee in their parking garage structure business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq. URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC 5440 Harvest Hill, Suite 145E Dallas, TX 75230 Phone: 214-420-3366 Fax: 214-206-9802 E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com urquidezlawfirm@gmail.com HIGHER ONE: "Perez" Securities Class Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the "Perez" Securities Class Action. On May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On December 17, 2014, Mr. Perez was appointed lead plaintiff. On January 20, 2015, Mr. Perez filed an amended complaint. HOH former shareholder Robert Lee was added as a named plaintiff in the amended complaint. HOH and certain employees and board members have been named as defendants. Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee generally allege that HOH and the other named defendants made certain misrepresentations in public filings and other public statements in violation of the federal securities laws and seek an unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee seek to represent a class of any person who purchased HOH securities between August 7, 2012 and August 6, 2014. All defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint. In response, Plaintiffs have filed an opposition brief opposing dismissal. HOH intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. HOH is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss. HIGHER ONE: "Hall" Case Settlement Still Pending ------------------------------------------------ Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting Court approval of the joint stipulation of settlement and release in the "Hall" class action lawsuit. On December 28, 2015, Patricia Hall, formerly an employee of Higher One Machines, Inc. filed a class action captioned Patricia Hall, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Higher One Machines, Inc., Higher One, Inc., and Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-00670-F, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Ms. Hall generally alleges that Higher One, Inc., and the other named defendants, willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and breached her employment contract for failing to compensate her for her daily breaks and the time it took her to log-on to and sign-off from various databases and systems that she needed to access to perform the functions of her employment. Ms. Hall seeks to represent a nationwide class and a North Carolina class of current and former hourly home-based customer care agents who worked for Higher One, Inc. at any time from 2012 through 2015. The parties submitted the matter to private mediation and subsequently entered into a joint stipulation of settlement and release. The joint stipulation of settlement and release has been submitted to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for approval. "We have recorded an estimated loss of approximately $1.0 million related to this matter," the Company said. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of "Donato" Securities Case Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on February 2, 2016, a complaint (captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the Arizona District Court, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The Company said, "This complaint was brought as a purported class action, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making intentionally false and misleading statements regarding our business and operations, therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend this claim." On Aug. 19, the Defendants Michael L Babich, Darryl S Baker, Alec Burlakoff, Insys Therapeutics Incorporated, and John N Kapoor filed a motion to dismiss the case and accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities. On Aug. 22, the the Court directed the Defendants to submit a proposed form of order that is not on law firm stationery, in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(b)(3) regarding their Motion to Exceed Page Limit. JOHNSON CONTROL: Shareholders Sue Over Tyco Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Johnson Controls' planned tax inversion via its acquisition of the Irish-based Tyco International will leave U.S. shareholders with a huge tax bill and reduced equity in the new company, investors claim in a federal class action. In January 2016, Johnson Controls and Tyco, two home products companies, announced a $16.5 billion merger agreement representing a 13 percent premium to Tyco shareholders. Johnson Controls and Tyco shareholders voted August 17, to approve the merger. 97 percent of votes cast at Johnson Controls' shareholder meeting voted in favor of the transaction, accounting for 81 percent of outstanding shares. The combined company will be reorganized under Tyco International in order to maintain Tyco's Irish legal domicile in Cork, then renamed Johnson Controls. Johnson Controls shareholders will own approximately 56 percent of the new company. This acquisition allows Johnson Controls, Wisconsin's largest company based on sales, to move its headquarters to Ireland and take advantage of more favorable corporate tax laws, a strategy called a corporate inversion. The proposed merger immediately drew comment from presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who said, "I have a detailed and targeted plan to immediately put a stop to inversions and invest in the U.S., block deals like Johnson Controls and Tyco, and place an 'exit tax' on corporations that leave the country to lower their tax bill." It also drew criticism from prominent Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who said, "Congress ought to examine viable bipartisan solutions that will effectively target and combat inversions and not tip the balance to tax-driven foreign acquisitions of U.S. firms." Fewer companies have attempted a corporate inversion after the Obama administration took steps to rein in the practice in 2014, following Burger King's move to Canada through its acquisition of Tim Horton's. The new rules impose heavy penalties for inversions in which shareholders of the inverting U.S. corporation end up owning 60 percent or more of the new foreign parent corporations. This change killed a $160 billion proposed merger between U.S. pharmaceutical company Pfizer and Ireland-based Allergan. However, the penalties did not eliminate companies' motivation to move overseas. The average U.S. corporate income tax rate, combining federal and state rates, is 39 percent, compared with an average of 25 percent in other developed nations. Ireland taxes corporations at 12.5 percent, the lowest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world. Arlene Gumm attacked the Johnson Controls inversion with a federal shareholder class action filed August 16, in Wisconsin. She says the company's anticipated tax savings are the sole purpose of the merger and come at the expense of minority taxpaying shareholders. As a result of the merger, "JCI shareholders will be forced to recognize capital gains (and for a minority of JCI shareholders to pay taxes thereon)," the 130-page complaint says. While the deal has been structured to allow the company and its executives to avoid the adverse tax consequences imposed by the Obama administration to discourage such mergers, shareholders claim they will bear the burden of the corporation's savings. "JCI's future tax savings and the JCI defendants' avoidance of other inversion-related adverse tax consequences will come at the direct expense of its taxpaying shareholders," Gumm says. "JCI will shift its liability for future U.S. taxes on its foreign earnings to its taxpaying shareholders by forcing them to pay capital gains taxes upon consummation of the transaction and at the direct expense of all JCI public shareholders by improperly diluting their equity interest in JC plc." In order to ensure that JCI shareholders will own less than 60 percent of the new company and avoid the inversion penalty, JCI will pay $3.86 billion in cash to its shareholders in lieu of stock -- essentially buying back its own shares -- thereby "manipulating the exchange ratio of JCI and Tyco shares," according to the complaint. The prominent investment blog Seeking Alpha posted an article by Johnson Controls stockholder Willow Street Investments, which shares the plaintiffs' dim view of the merger. "We are less than thrilled with Johnson Controls' actions over the past several months to 'enhance' shareholder value through a tax inversion," Willow Street said in the article. "Our trepidation with the JCI and TYC merger is principally based on the tax bill that is coming our way when the deal closes." Gumm's complaint also asserts that Johnson Controls should not be allowed to escape U.S. taxation after it received $300 million in grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and state of Michigan to research and produce hybrid batteries. The class seeks a court order enjoining the inversion for diluting minority shareholders' equity in Johnson Controls and damages for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract. It is represented by K. Scott Wagner with Wagner Law Group in Milwaukee. Johnson Controls spokesman Fraser Engerman declined to comment on the lawsuit but said, "We are moving forward with the merger." Tyco spokesman Stephen Wasdick declined to comment on the lawsuit. JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over BBSW, Related Derivatives "Conspiracy" ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., AND FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AUSTRALIA, CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK, N.A., CITIBANK N.A., AUSTRALIA BRANCH, BNP PARIBAS, S.A., BNP PARIBAS, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, AUSTRALIA BRANCH, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, BANK OF NEW ZEALAND, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50, Case No. 1:16-cv-06496 (S.D.N.Y., August 16, 2016), alleges that Defendants openly conspired to fix Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate (BBSW) and the prices of BBSW-based derivatives. Defendants are horizontal competitors that deal in financial products priced, benchmarked, and/or settled based on the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. One North Broadway White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com ghorn@lowey.com pstphillip@lowey.com rgirnys@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com - and - Christopher Lovell, Esq. Victor E. Stewart, Esq. Benjamin M. Jaccarino, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 608-1900 Fax: (212) 719-4677 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com vestewart@lshllp.com bjaccarino@lshllp.com LA FONDA: Faces "Guzman" Suit in Fla. Alleging Violation of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSIMILEY GUZMAN, v. LA FONDA SPORTS GRILL, INC. d/b/a GIRAFA's SPORTS GRILL, a Florida Corporation, and KALPANA PRADHAN, individually, Case 9:16-cv-81442-DMM (D. Fla., August 16, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for alleged willful violations of overtime and minimum wage pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Girafas Sports Grill is a latin american restaurant located at 5096 Forest Hill Blvd #900, West Palm Beach, FL. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Rodriguez Vacas, Esq. RODRIGUEZ VACAS LAW FIRM LLC 2122 S.W. 67th Avenue, Suite B Miami, FL 33155 Phone (305) 677-9951 Fax: (305) 676-9067 E-mail: Legal@rodriguezvacas.com - and - Isaac Mamane, Esq. MAMANE LAW LLC 1150 Kane Concourse, Fourth Floor Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Phone (305) 773-6661 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com LADENBURG THALMANN: Bid to Remand Miller Energy Cases Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs' motions to remand class action complaints related to Miller Energy Resources, Inc.'s securities offerings remain pending. Two purported class action complaints were filed in November 2015 in state court in Tennessee against officers and directors of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"), as well as Miller's auditors and nine firms that underwrote six securities offerings in 2013 and 2014, and raised approximately $151,000. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of two of the offerings. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on the purportedly overstated valuation of certain assets, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. In December 2015 the defendants removed the complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; in January 2016, the plaintiffs filed motions to remand, which are currently pending. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. LADENBURG THALMANN: Still Defends Plains All American Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that motions to dismiss are currently pending in the lawsuit against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities. In January 2016, an amended complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and related entities as well as their officers and directors. The amended complaint added Ladenburg and other underwriters of securities offerings in 2013 and 2014 that in the aggregate raised approximately $2,900,000 as defendants to the purported class action. Ladenburg was one of the underwriters of the October 2013 initial public offering. The complaints allege, among other things, that the offering materials were misleading based on representations concerning the maintenance and integrity of the issuer's pipelines, and that the underwriters are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, as well as other relief. Motions to dismiss are currently pending. The Company believes the claims against Ladenburg are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. LADENBURG THALMANN: Class Suit Against Securities America Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Securities America was named in September 2015 as a defendant in lawsuits brought by the bankruptcy trustee of a broker-dealer (U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota) and a putative class action by the shareholders of that broker-dealer (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). The lawsuits allege that certain of the debtor broker-dealer's assets were transferred to Securities America in June 2015 for inadequate consideration. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, and other relief. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. LADY FORTUNES: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Gomez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yanet Mendez Gomez v. Lady Fortunes, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC630938 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay timely wages, failure to pay overtime wages and failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements. Lady Fortunes, Inc. owns and operates a food manufacturing and processing company in the city of Canoga Park, County of Los Angeles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack D. Josephson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213)738-5225 - and - Daniel J. Goularte, Esq. GOULARTE LAW FIRM 7853 El Cajon Boulevard, Suite G La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 303-710 E-mail: goularte.law@gmail.com LAS VEGAS SANDS: No Hearing Date Set for Summary Judgment Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no hearing date for the summary judgment has been set in a class action lawsuit. On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March 11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on April 8, 2016. No hearing date for the summary judgment has been set. Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. LEWIS CASING: Faces "Calvillo" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIO CALVILLO, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC Section 216(b) v. LEWIS CASING CREWS, INC., and PATRICK LEWIS, Individually, Case No: 2:16-cv-00921 (D. N. Mex., August 12, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants have been involved in oilfield casing services in oilfields throughout the United States, including in New Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: JACK SIEGEL, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Phone: (214) 706-0834 Fax: (469) 339-0204 E-mail: www.4overtimelawyer.com - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: www.overtimelawyer.com M.L. ZAGER: "Corso" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------ JUDIS CORSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. M.L. ZAGER, P.C., a New York professional corporation; JOSEPH P. LOUGHLIN individually and in his official capacity; ROBERT BRUCE HUNTER, individually and in his official capacity; and DOES 1 through 1 0, inclusive, Case No: 16-CV-298607 (Cal. Super., County of Santa Clara, August 16, 2016), is a consumer class action brought pursuant to the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California Civil Code. Defendant, M.L. ZAGER, P.C. is in the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred W. Schwinn, Esq. Raeon R. Roulston, Esq. Matthew C. Salmonsen, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC. 12 South First Street, Suite 1014 San Jose, CA 95113-2418 Phone: (408) 294-6100 Fax: (408) 294-6190 E-mail: fred.schwitm@sjconsumerlaw.com MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Nov. 21 Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------- MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has scheduled the fairness hearing for November 21, 2016, in the securities class action complaints. On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On April 21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit (Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797) was filed against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings. On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015 and a putative subclass consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 6, 2013 public stock offering. The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of the putative class for (i) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The consolidated amended complaint also asserts claims on behalf the subclass for (i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's former officers, and a shareholder of the Company. On December 10, 2015, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Class Action Litigation"). On February 5, 2016, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, as well as the stipulation and agreement of settlement and related exhibits. The stipulation and agreement of settlement releases all claims asserted against all defendants in the Class Action Litigation except for Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. and does not release claims asserted in the derivative actions Hemmingson, et al. v. Elkins, et al., No. 1-15-CV-278614 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.) and Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-CV-281284 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.). The stipulation and agreement of settlement provides for an aggregate settlement payment by the Company of $23.5 million, which includes all attorneys' fees, costs of administration and plaintiffs' out-of-pocket expenses, lead plaintiff compensatory awards and disbursements. The Company expects the settlement will be fully funded by insurance proceeds. The settlement includes the dismissal of all claims against the Company and the named individuals in the Class Action Litigation without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. On April 13, 2016, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 18, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court has scheduled the fairness hearing for November 21, 2016. The settlement remains subject to stockholder notice, court approval and other customary conditions. The Company has recorded the $23.5 million of the obligation as accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company has recorded $29.6 million of the proceeds from the insurers as other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as a deduction of the selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The proceeds from the insurers of $29.6 million were deposited into the Company's escrow account during the first quarter of 2016. As a result, the Company reclassified the $29.6 million deposits recorded in other receivables into restricted cash as of March 31, 2016. MARUYASU INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Auto Steel Tubes "Price Fixing" -------------------------------------------------------------- HALLEY ASCHER, GREGORY ASKEN, MELISSA BARRON, KIMBERLY BENNETT, DAVID BERNSTEIN, RON BLAU, TENISHA BURGOS, KENT BUSEK, JENNIFER CHASE, RITA CORNISH, NATHAN CROOM, LORI CURTIS, JESSICA DECASTRO, THERESIA DILLARD, ALENA FARRELL, JANE FITZGERALD, CARROLL GIBBS, DORI GILELS, JASON GRALA, IAN GROVES, CURTIS GUNNERSON, PAUL GUSTAFSON, TOM HALVERSON, CURTIS HARR, ANDREW HEDLUND, GARY ARTHUR HERR, JOHN HOLLINGSWORTH, CAROL ANN KASHISHIAN, ELIZABETH KAUFMAN, ROBERT KLINGLER, KELLY KLOSTERMAN, JAMES MAREAN, REBECCA LYNN MORROW, EDWARD MUSCARA, STACEY NICKELL, SOPHIE O'KEEFE-ZELMAN, ROGER OLSON, WILLIAM PICOTTE, WHITNEY PORTER, CINDY PRINCE, JANNE RICE, ROBERT RICE, JR., FRANCES GAMMELL-ROACH, DARREL SENIOR, MEETESH SHAH, DARCY SHERMAN, ERICA SHOAF, ARTHUR STUKEY, KATHLEEN TAWNEY, JANE TAYLOR, KEITH UEHARA, MICHAEL WICK, PHILLIP YOUNG, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, v. MARUYASU INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. And CURTIS-MARUYASU AMERICA, INC., Case No: 2:16-cv-12949-VAR-MKM (E.D. Mich., August 12, 2016), alleges conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Automotive Steel Tubes. Defendant Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Nagoya, Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Defendant Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed and/or sold Automotive Steel Tubes. The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Devon P. Allard, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: (248) 841-2200 Fax: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dpa@millerlawpc.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Bernard Persky, Esq. William V. Reiss, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 980-7400 Fax: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Steven N. Williams, Esq. Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq. Elizabeth Tran, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com etran@cpmlegal.com - and - Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Phone: (310) 789-3100 Fax: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and- Terrell W. Oxford, Esq. Chanler A. Langham, Esq. Omar Ochoa, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana St. Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 651-9366 Fax: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com clangham@susmangodfrey.com oochoa@susmangodfrey.com MCDONALD CORP: Must Defend Against Wage Theft Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a wage-theft class action against McDonald's will proceed, a federal judge ruled, though he remained unconvinced that McDonald's Corp. exercises enough control over working conditions in its franchises to be liable for fair wage and overtime claims. "McDonald's did not exercise direct or indirect control over plaintiffs' wages, hours, or working conditions," U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg wrote in his August 16 order, adding that the corporation's operating standards protect the integrity of the McDonald's brand, but exclude hiring, firing, discipline and other personnel decisions. But he also said a jury could find McDonald's a joint employer under the "ostensible agency" theory, since workers hold the reasonable belief that they are employed by McDonald's. "Though it is a close call, particularly as plaintiffs are long-term employees, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a jury could reasonably find McDonald's to be a joint employer by virtue of an ostensible agency relationship," Seeborg said. Led by cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate, the class sued McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes in March 2014, claiming they were denied meal and rest breaks and were not paid for all the hours they worked because the McDonald's computer system killed overtime from their timecards. The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and San Leandro since 2010. Seeborg noted that Haynes controlled hiring, firing, discipline, wages and general working conditions, much like the franchisees in Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp., another wage and hour class action filed in the Northern District of California. The Ochoa case is set to go to trial on Dec. 5 on the same ostensible agency theory. "Looking at the record, there is considerable evidence, albeit subject to dispute, that McDonalds [sic] caused plaintiffs reasonably to believe Haynes was acting as its agent," Seeborg wrote. "To begin, plaintiffs uniformly declare they believed both they and Haynes worked for McDonalds. They also must wear McDonalds uniforms, prepare and serve McDonalds food in McDonalds packaging, and greet customers by saying 'Welcome to McDonald's.' Plaintiffs' managers, who were subject to training by McDonalds and interacted regularly with McDonalds consultants, wore McDonalds' uniforms, and referred to themselves as 'working for McDonald's.'" "Although plaintiffs were disappointed that Judge Seeborg did not deny McDonald's summary judgment motion in full, it should make no practical difference," class attorney Michael Rubin said in an email. "If plaintiffs prevail on our ostensible agency theory at trial, we will have no need to appeal the ruling on our other liability theories. And if we do not prevail at trial on ostensible agency, we have very strong grounds for appeal given the many disputed issues of fact that we believe are material to McDonald's 'joint employer' status." McDonald's attorney Lawrence Di Nardo did not respond to an email request for comment. The case captioned, GUADALUPE SALAZAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MCDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendants., Case No. 14-cv-02096-RS (N.D. Cal.). MDL 2196: Tridien Medical Received $1.2MM from Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Compass Diversified Holdings and Compass Group Diversified Holdings LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that during the second quarter of 2016, Tridien Medical, Inc. received approximately $1.2 million related to the settlement of a class action lawsuit against manufacturers and suppliers of polyurethane foam. The class action lawsuit alleged that the defendant individuals and businesses had engaged in a conspiracy to increase the prices of flexible polyurethane foam and not compete for customers. The defendants settled the lawsuit in 2015, and payment of the settlement was sent to claimants during the second quarter of 2016. Tridien recorded the settlement received as "other income" in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. The Company is a controlling owner of eight businesses, or reportable operating segments, at June 30, 2016. The segments are as follows: The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. ("Ergobaby"), Liberty Safe and Security Products, Inc. ("Liberty Safe" or "Liberty"), Fresh Hemp Foods Ltd. ("Manitoba Harvest"), Compass AC Holdings, Inc. ("ACI" or "Advanced Circuits"), AMT Acquisition Corporation ("Arnold" or "Arnold Magnetics"), Clean Earth Holdings, Inc. ("Clean Earth"), Sterno Products, LLC ("Sterno Products") and Tridien Medical, Inc. ("Tridien"). The Company also owns a non-controlling interest of approximately 33.1% in Fox Factory Holding Corp. ("FOX") which is accounted for as an equity method investment. Compass Group Management LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("CGM" or the "Manager"), manages the day to day operations of the Company and oversees the management and operations of the Company's businesses pursuant to a management services agreement ("MSA"). MDL 2545: 195 TRT Claims Pending vs. AbbVie ------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of TRTs did not adequately warn about risks of certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood clots. Approximately 3,600 claims are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately 195 claims are pending in various state courts. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. METLIFE INC: "Owens" Class Action Still Pending in Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons for whom MLIC established a retained asset account, known as a Total Control Accounts, to pay death benefits under an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plan. The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative class. The court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: "Robainas" Class Action Appeal Underway ---------------------------------------------------- The appeal taken by Plaintiffs in the Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), remains pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. METLIFE INC: "Intoccia" Class Action Appeal Underway ---------------------------------------------------- An appeal taken by Plaintiffs from the dismissal of the case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities. The Court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the Robainas decision. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. METLIFE INC: Class Member in "Fauley" Case Seeks Review ------------------------------------------------------- One class member is seeking further review by the Illinois Supreme Court of the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including MLIC and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued a final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. On March 23, 2016, the intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court's order. One class member is seeking further review by the Illinois Supreme Court. METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Cases Against Sun Life Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing. In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC that were subsequently transferred to Sun Life. In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties agreed to consider the indemnity claim through arbitration. In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto alleging sales practices claims regarding the policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that another purported class action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, BC alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation. METLIFE INC: "Voshall" Class Action Still Pending in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business & Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: Dismissal of "Martin" Action Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all California persons who have been charged compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2016, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed a notice appealing this ruling. METLIFE INC: "Lau" Class Action Still Pending in New York --------------------------------------------------------- Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015) remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable value option to another investment option, the procedures followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. METLIFE INC: "Newman" Class Action Still Pending in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ Newman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23, 2016), remains pending, MetLife, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based on MLIC's class-wide increase in premiums charged for long- term care insurance policies. Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and all persons over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature and whose premium rates were increased after age 65. Plaintiff asserts that premiums could not be increased for these class members and/or that marketing material with respect to these two features was misleading as to MLIC's right to increase premiums. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as well as recessionary and injunctive relief. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously. MID-CENTURY: "Cumley" Class Suit Removed to District of Montana --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Michael Cumley, individually and on behalf of his minor child, Tye Cumley, and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Mid-Century Insurance Company and John Does I-XXX, Case No. DDV-16-00573, was removed from the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County to the U.S. District Court, District Of Montana (Helena). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00080-SHE to the proceeding. Mid-Century Insurance Company provides property and casualty insurance coverage for Inland Marine, robbery, felony, burglary, personal lines, plate glass, selected bonds, and floaters. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Doggett, Esq. Rune Vander Wey, Esq. DOGGETT LAW OFFICE 30 South Ewing St. Suite 100 Helena, MT 59601 Telephone: (406) 442-1160 Facsimile: (406) 442-8076 E-mail: mike@doggettlawoffice.net rune@doggettlawoffice.net The Defendant is represented by: Katelyn S. Werner, Esq. GORDON & REES, LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 200-6854 Facsimile: (303) 534-5161 E-mail: kwerner@gordonrees.com MILLER'S ALE: Faces "Bolt" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA BOLT, and other similarly situated individuals, v. MILLER'S ALE HOUSE, INC. Case No: 1:16-cv-23477-UU (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Miller's Ale House is a Florida-based restaurant chain which serves steaks, chicken, burgers, salads, seafood, and similar items. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle L. Grosser, Esq. J. Lindsey Chong, Esq. GROSSER CHONG, PLLC 901 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 305 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: (786) 505-5257 Fax: (786) 513-8544 E-mail: michelle@grosserchong.com lindsey@grosserchong.com - and - R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA 1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 329 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (786) 708-7550 E-mail: rer@sorondorosenberg.com MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bids to Dismiss & Transfer Case Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and Sandoz Inc.'s motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer a class action case are pending. On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit against the Company and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic enoxaparin sodium injection. The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz Inc. sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic enoxaparin sodium injection and thereby exclude competition for generic enoxaparin sodium injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees. In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz Inc. filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Hearings on the motions were held before a U.S. magistrate in April 2016 and February 2016, respectively. These motions are pending before the magistrate and subject to review by the court. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation. NATALEX REST: "Aragon-Padilla" Suit Invokes FLSA, NY Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeronimo Aragon-Padilla, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Natalex Rest. Inc. d/b/a Burrito Loco and Geminiano Sanz, in his individual and professional capacity, Case No: 1:16- cv-06444 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to remedy Defendants' alleged wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation as well as the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations for violations of minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, meal break violations and notice requirements. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, Natalex Rest. Inc. d/b/a Burrito Loco and Geminiano Sanz as a cook. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq. PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP 3510 Broadway, Suite 201 Astoria, NY 11106 Phone: (718) 777-0400 Fax: (718) 777-0599 E-mail: ari@pnlawyers.com NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Heard Arguments on Rikers Island Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that New York City insists that it's reformed Rikers Island enough to dodge a class action seeking court oversight over systemic rape in the women's jail, but the Second Circuit sharply questioned that premise at a hearing on August 17. Months after Manhattan-based U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara ripped the juvenile detention center there as a "Lord of the Flies" setting, two Jane Does brought alarming claims depicting the island's Rose M. Singer Center as an equally sadistic environment. The woman who brought the lawsuit said she was sexually assaulted "as many as four times a week." Accusing New York City of tolerating rampant abuse by at least eight guards, the women singled out corrections officer Benny Santiago for what they claim to be particularly horrific conduct. The lawsuit also claimed that the officers repeatedly punish inmates with anal rape, masturbate in the open areas of dormitories, and continue to collect a paycheck even after their sexual assaults lead to pregnancy. This past January, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein found that certifying the case as a class action would be "extremely difficult" given the short-term jail's transient population -- presenting hurdles that could complicate the women's quest for compensation for their "serious and troubling allegations." Appealing that ruling, the women's attorney Mitchell Lowenthal told the Second Circuit on August 17, "We think that this is a quintessential civil-rights class action seeking institutional reform." Lowenthal -- a partner at Manhattan-based Cleary Gottlieb -- added, "If this plaintiff, who allegedly suffered significant injury, is not entitled to be a class representative, who could possibly represent this class?" At the roughly 30-minute hearing, a majority of the three-judge panel appeared to sympathize with that position in arguments that largely swirled around what has changed at Rikers since the women brought their claims. City lawyer Richard Dearing noted that the allegations in the lawsuit took place between 2009 and 2012. He insisted that New York and the nation have made strides toward complying with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) since that time. Emphasizing that the women filed their case 2 1/2 years later, Dearing said: "It's not just the passage of time [that is significant]." Shortly after the Justice Department issued PREA regulations in 2012, New York City applied for a grant to move toward complying with them. The Department of Corrections got a new commissioner, Joseph Ponte, in 2014, and the city hired a consultant to advise them on the regulations that year. "All of this is before a complaint is ever filed," Dearing noted. Events continued to change quickly after the women filed their complaint on May 19, 2015. At the time her lawyers filed the complaint, Jane Doe 1 had been eight days away from being released from the Rose M. Singer Center. The city says that fact undermines her as a representative of the class, but Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler noted that all inmates of the Rose M. Singer Center exit the jail quickly. "Well, it's a short-term facility, isn't it?" she asked. For Dearing, this showed that the plaintiff has "at best, a peppercorn of standing on the injunctive claim." Skeptical, Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch said, "I don't understand that. You're saying it's not typical because there's this future aspect, and you're saying that you cleaned up since she was in the jail." Disputing that premise, attorney Lowenthal noted that officials have said that sexual assault in New York prisons is, if anything, a growing and underreported problem. The city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene reported 116 allegations of sexual harassment and assault behind bars in all of 2014. There have been 118 such reports in the first quarter of this year alone, a correctional doctor told the City Council at a hearing on May 26. New York's public advocate Letitia James and nine City Council members filed a friend-of-the-court brief warning the Second Circuit that refusing to certify the class action will have "dire consequences for the vulnerable class members." "Allowing these class claims to see the light of day serves the important social purpose of removing stigma and creating an environment where women have less fear of reporting and more confidence in our justice system," their 18-page brief states. James, the city watchdog, also filed a separate brief bemoaning that the public's understanding of the problem suffers from a "lack of transparency" and relies upon only a "patchwork of local data." Bharara also blasted the Rikers Island's secretive culture in a lawsuit targeting excessive force in the juvenile prisons. The case eventually led to a settlement with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio in October. Meanwhile, Lowenthal said, impunity inside the city jails and prisons persists. "What we're going to try is the conditions in the jail, and there continue to be reports even as we speak of women being raped in the Rose M. Singer Center," he said. On a systemic level, Rikers still has not tackled the basic reform of the gender of the guards, Lowenthal said. "None of these rules change the fact, the alarming fact, that men guard the women," he said, calling this "bad policy." He added, "Further, we think state law mandates that women guard women." As the hearing ended, the panel reserved decision and Judge Pooler thanked the parties for their "lively arguments." NEWLINK GENETICS: To Defend Against "Abramson" Action in S.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Newlink Genetics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Trevor Abramson filed on May 12, 2016, a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer John B. Henneman III, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer Gordon H. Link, Jr., or collectively, the Defendants, captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545, or the Action. The complaint in the Action alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's investors. In particular, the plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the efficacy of the drug algenpantucel-L. The plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in the complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, he seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Company disputes the claims in the Action and intends to defend against them vigorously. Newlink Genetics is a clinical stage immuno-oncology company focused on discovering and developing novel immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of cancer with an expertise in infectious diseases that drives specific opportunities. NOODLES & COMPANY: Defending Against Former Employees' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to defend against a class action lawsuit by former employees. The Company said, "on March 10, 2016, Carrie Castillo, Anastassia Letourneau and Jacquelyn Myhre, former employees of the Company, filed a purported collective and class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois and Minnesota wage laws (the "Labor Laws") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs filed the case on their behalf and on behalf of all assistant general managers employed by the Company since January 5, 2013 whom the Company classified as exempt employees, and they allege that the Company violated the Labor Laws by not paying overtime compensation to its assistant general managers. The plaintiffs are seeking, on behalf of themselves and members of the putative class, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and available penalties under applicable state laws, a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs. This case is at an early stage, and the Company is therefore unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from this matter. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action." NOODLES & COMPANY: "Carter" Class Suit Dismissed in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------ Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit by Tammie Carter has been dismissed. The Company said, "On February 10, 2016, Tammie Carter, a former employee of the Company, filed a purported collective and class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Order in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff filed the case on her behalf and on behalf of all assistant general managers employed by us during the past three years whom the Company classified as exempt employees, and she alleged that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Order by not paying overtime compensation to our assistant general managers. The plaintiff sought, on behalf of herself and members of the putative class, unpaid overtime compensation, damages (including liquidated and/or punitive damages), a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and attorneys' fees and costs. The case was dismissed by the plaintiffs without prejudice on June 29, 2016." NORTHERN OIL: Faces "Fries" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Fries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., Michael L. Reger, and Thomas W. Stoelk, Case No. 1:16-cv-06543 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. is an independent energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com NU SKIN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Scheduled in October --------------------------------------------------------------- Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing for final court approval of the settlement is scheduled in October 2016, but could be delayed by circumstances beyond the Company's control. On February 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement Term Sheet (the "Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously reported putative securities class action consolidated lawsuit. The litigation was brought against the Company and certain of the Company's officers (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of a class consisting of persons or entities that publicly traded the Company's common stock during the period from May 4, 2011 through January 17, 2014 and were allegedly damaged thereby. In May 2016, the court issued preliminary approval of the settlement. The terms of the Agreement provide for, among other things, a settlement payment by, or on behalf of, the Company of $47 million, which the Company recorded as a short-term liability in its consolidated balance sheet. As expected, the Company's insurers fully funded the settlement payment in an escrow account in June 2016, and the Company maintained the corresponding amount as a short-term receivable, which it had recorded during the first quarter of 2016. There was no net impact on the Company's consolidated statement of income. The settlement remains subject to court approval and may be cancelled by the Defendants at their sole election in certain limited circumstances. A hearing for final court approval of the settlement is scheduled in October 2016, but could be delayed by circumstances beyond the Company's control. Subsequent to final approval of the settlement by the court, the litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice. OCEAN DETAILING: Faces "Datilus" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeanneau Datilus, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Ocean Detailing USA Management, Inc. and Andrew Heidebrecht, Case No. 0:16-cv-61993-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate an auto detailing company servicing auto dealers across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene D. Cadet, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com OK FOODS: "Cato" Class Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to W.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled DARRELL CATO, JEFFREY BIGGS, MARGEE WILLIAMS, MARIO MALLETT individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. O.K. FOODS, INC., Case No. CV- 16-00679, was removed from the Circuit Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas (Fort Smith). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02202-PKH to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs contend that the action is filed for unpaid donning and doffing. The Plaintiffs are hourly production employees at O.K. Foods, Inc.'s Fort Smith food processing and manufacturing plants. They allege that OK Foods' employees are not paid for approximately six to seven hours per week they spend working, and they bring the action to receive the wages they are owed. OK Foods is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Arkansas. OK Foods owns and operates several chicken- processing facilities in Arkansas and Oklahoma. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary William Udouj, Sr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GARY W. UDOUJ, P.A. 5 Court Street P.O. Box 2102 Fort Smith, AR 72901 Telephone: (479) 782-5400 Facsimile: (479) 782-8445 E-mail: gudouj1@gmail.com - and - John Holleman, Esq. Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATE P.A. 1008 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-5040 Facsimile: (501) 975-5043 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net tim@johnholleman.net - and - Stephen M. Sharum, Esq. SHARUM LAW FIRM P. O. Box 1951 19 Court Street Fort Smith, AR 72902 Telephone: (479) 785-0123 Facsimile: (479) 785-4518 E-mail: stevesharum@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: James Raymond Carroll, Esq. Jeff Fletcher, Esq. Matthew Scott Jackson, Esq. KUTAK ROCK, LLP 234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 973-4200 Facsimile: (479) 973-0007 E-mail: jr.carroll@kutakrock.com jeff.fletcher@kutakrock.com scott.jackson@kutakrock.com - and - Jess L. Askew, III, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 124 West Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-3000 Facsimile: (501) 975-3001 E-mail: jess.askew@kutakrock.com ORACLE: 2 Class Suits Over Inflated Revenue Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Oracle quietly ended two class actions claiming that the company lied about its cloud services revenue to artificially inflate its stock price, but still faces claims by a former senior accountant who blew the whistle on the alleged fraud. Former Oracle finance manager Svetlana Blackburn sued the Redwood City-based software giant in federal court in June, claiming Oracle fired her last October for refusing to fudge financial reports and threatening to expose the scam. Blackburn said she was ordered to add millions of dollars in unsupported revenue from Oracle's cloud services to financial reports, knowing the false numbers would be "used to paint a rosier picture than actually existed" in SEC filings and earnings calls. After she lodged her complaint, two class actions were filed against the company. Investor Grover Klarfield sued Oracle on securities fraud claims on June 2. Former Oracle employee Joseph Tomassini then sued the company on claims it made imprudent investments with its employees' retirements savings plan dollars on June 24. On August 16, both plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class actions. Attorneys for Klarfield and Tomassini did not return multiple phone calls seeking comment on the dismissals on August 16 and 17. Despite ending the two class actions, Oracle must still face Blackburn's claims of wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation. In a court document filed earlier this month, Oracle said it fired Blackburn due to "ongoing performance issues" and not because she threatened to expose the company's fraudulent accounting practices. When reached by phone, Oracle attorney Kenneth Herzinger would not say whether the two dismissed class actions were settled out of court. The Oracle attorney deferred all comments to the company's public relations team. Oracle spokeswomen Deborah Hellinger and Jessica Moore did not return phone calls seeking comment on August 16 and 17. Klarfield is represented by Jennifer Pafti of Pomerantz in Beverly Hills. Tomassini is represented by Patrice Bishop of Stull, Stull and Brody in Beverly Hills. Herzinger is with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in San Francisco. OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Lead Plaintiff to Appeal Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that lead plaintiff has filed a notice of intent not to file an amended complaint but to proceed directly to an appeal of the Court's decision dismissing the consolidated complaint. On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the United States District Court, for the Southern District of California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz v. Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims. On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading statements regarding the interim results and termination of the Light Study. The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctive relief. On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On May 19, 2016, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing portions of the consolidated complaint with prejudice and portions without prejudice. The Court granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint with respect to those portions not dismissed with prejudice. On June 16, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a notice of intent not to file an amended complaint but to proceed directly to an appeal of the Court's decision dismissing the consolidated complaint. As a result, the court entered judgment dismissing the consolidated complaint with prejudice on June 27, 2016. Lead plaintiff has not yet filed a Notice of Appeal. Although management believes that any appeal would lack merit and intends to defend against it vigorously, there are uncertainties inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the outcome. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than ongoing attorney's fees. OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Hunter" Lawsuit Over Sale to Apollo Global ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD T. HUNTER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, V. OUTERWALL, INC., JEFFREY J. BROWN, NELSON C. CHAN, NORA M. DENZEL, DAVID M. ESKENAZY, ROSS G. LANDSBAUM, ERIK E. PRUSCH, and ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS, Case 2:16-cv-01285 (W.D. Wash., August 16, 2016), seeks to enjoin the Proposed sale of the Company to affiliates of certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management VIII, L.P., or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' violations of these laws. Outerwall Inc. -- http://www.outerwall.com/-- delivers retail products and services to consumers via self-service interactive kiosks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206 652 8660 Fax: 206 652 8290 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 524-4292 Fax: (202) 333-2121 OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Abbas" Lawsuit Over Sale to Apollo Global --------------------------------------------------------------- SYED ABBAS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. OUTERWALL INC., JEFFREY J. BROWN, NELSON C. CHAN, NORA M. DENZEL, DAVID M. ESKENAZY, ROSS G. LANDSBAUM, ERIK E. PRUSCH, and ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS, Case No. 2:16-cv-1275 (D. Wash., August 12, 2016), was brought on behalf of a purported class of public stockholders of Outerwall who are opposing a proposed acquisition of Outerwall by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC through Apollo Management's wholly-owned subsidiaries, Aspen Parent, Inc. Outerwall, Inc., a Delaware corporation, delivers retail product and services to consumers via self-service interactive kiosks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-652-8660 Fax: 206-652-8290 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Roger M. Townsend, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. Seth M. Rosenstein, Esq. WEISS LAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 682-3025 OUTERWALL INC: Faces "Baumgartner" Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES BAUMGARTNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. OUTERWALL, INC., NELSON C. CHAN, JEFFREY J. BROWN, NORA M. DENZEL, DAVID M. ESKENAZY, ROSS G. LANDSBAUM, ERIK E. PRUSCH and ROBERT D. SZNEWAJS, Case No: 2:16-cv-01281 (W.D. Wash., August 15, 2016), alleges violations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in relation to a proposed transaction pursuant to which Outerwall and its subsidiary Redbox Automated Retail, LLC will be acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC. Outerwall Inc. is an American company with a network of movie and video game rental kiosks as well as coin-cashing machines. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-652-8660 Fax: 206-652-8290 E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (610) 667-6200 Fax: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: mackerman@brodsky-smith.com PEOPLES BANCORP: NC Business Court Dissolved Appellate Stay ----------------------------------------------------------- Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the North Carolina Business Court has entered an order dissolving the appellate stay, effectively ending a class action suit against the Bank. On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleged (i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and (iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees. It sought the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff sought to have the lawsuit certified as a class action. On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals which, on May 3, 2016, in a unanimous opinion, affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit by the North Carolina Business Court. On June 16, 2016, the North Carolina Business Court entered an order dissolving the appellate stay, effectively ending the suit against the Bank. PINNACLE FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in "Bushansky" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has reached a memorandum of understanding in the class action by Stephen Bushansky. On May 9, 2016 a purported class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, 20th Judicial District at Nashville, styled Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, versus Avenue Financial Holdings, Inc. Ronald L. Samuels, Kent Cleaver, David G. Anderson, Agenia Clark, James F. Deutsch, Marty Dickens, Patrick G. Emery, Nancy Falls, Joseph C. Galante, David Ingram. Stephen Moore, Ken Robold, Karen Saul and Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., Defendants (Case No. 16-489-IV), alleging that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, approving the sale of Avenue for an inadequate price as the result of a flawed sales process, agreeing to the inclusion of unreasonable deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement, approving the Avenue Merger in order to receive benefits not equally shared by all other shareholders of Avenue, and issuing materially misleading and incomplete disclosures to Avenue's shareholders. The lawsuit also alleges claims against Avenue and Pinnacle for aiding and abetting the individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff purports to seek class-wide relief, including but not limited to: monetary damages, and an award of interest, attorney's fees, and expenses. On May 18, 2016, the Bushansky litigation was transferred to the Davidson County, Tennessee Business Court Pilot Project (Business Court). To avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, on June 10, 2016, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff regarding settlement of the Bushansky litigation (the "memorandum of understanding"). The memorandum of understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Bushansky action. In consideration for the settlement of the Bushansky litigation and release of claims contemplated thereby, the parties to the action agreed that Avenue and Pinnacle would make certain supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement/prospectus. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will attempt in good faith to agree promptly upon a stipulation of settlement to be submitted to the Business Court for approval at the earliest practicable time. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to approval by the Business Court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such settlement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, following final approval by the Business Court, the action will be dismissed with prejudice. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Business Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. Pinnacle Financial believes the claims asserted in the Bushansky action are without merit and intends to continue to defend the litigation. At this time though, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceeding or its impact on Pinnacle Financial. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Muir and Rosen Lawsuits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the case, Muir v. PRIAC, et al., has been removed from the Court's docket after the Court granted the unopposed motion to consolidate the Muir and Rosen lawsuits. In February 2016, a putative class action complaint entitled Randall C. Muir, on behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and All Other Similarly Situated Plans v. PRIAC, Prudential Bank & Trust, FSB, and Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC, was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut. The complaint: (1) seeks certification of a class of all Employee Retirement Income Security Act covered employee pension benefit plans with which Prudential has maintained a contractual relationship based on a group annuity contract or group funding agreement; and (2) alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations by accepting revenue sharing payments from investment vehicles in its separate accounts and/or by accepting excessive compensation by crediting rates on stable value accounts that are less than PRIAC's internal rate of return. In April 2016, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion to consolidate this lawsuit with the Rosen lawsuit. In May 2016, the Court granted the unopposed motion to consolidate the Muir and Rosen lawsuits. The Muir case has been removed from the Court's docket. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settlement of Sterling Case Has Initial OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the case, City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al. The case concerns financial disclosures concerning death benefits and unclaimed property. In April 2016, the parties entered into a proposed agreement to resolve the class action claims asserted in the amended complaint. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order preliminarily approving the settlement in accordance with the parties' April 2016 Stipulation of Settlement. In June 2016, the Court issued an order "preliminarily approving settlement and providing for notice." QUAKER OATS: "Dickson" Consumer Lawsuit Removed to W.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- The suit ATHENA DICKSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No: 4:16-cv- 00887-DW, was removed from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Kansas City to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, according to a court filing dated August 12, 2016. The case asserts claims for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and for unjust enrichment, based on allegedly deceptive or misleading flavor labeling on certain products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Rottinghaus, Esq. Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-701-1100 Fax: 816-701-1174 E-mail: trottinghaus@wcllp.com dbeckman@wcllp.com - and - Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq. Jason R. Meltzer, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 955-8500 Fax: (202) 467-0539 E-mail: ATulumello@gibsondunn.com JMeltzer@gibsondunn.com - and - Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq. THE BURGESS LAW FIRM, P.C. 4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 100 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 471-1700 Fax: (816) 471-1701 E-mail: mitch@burgesslawkc.com - and - Ralph K. Phalen, Esq. RALPH K. PHALEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 4310 Madison Avenue, Suite 140 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 589-0753 Fax: (816) 471-1701 E-mail: phalenlaw@yahoo.com - and - Phyllis A. Norman, Esq. THE NORMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 4310 Madison, Suite 120 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 895-8989 Fax: (816) 895-8988 E-mail: phyllis@pnormanlaw.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 621-2000 Fax: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com RETROPHIN INC: Settlement in "Kazanchyan" Okayed, Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Retrophin, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has approved the settlement in the case, Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, directed implementation of the settlement, and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York against the same defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants' public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013 through September 30, 2014. In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan filed a motion to appoint lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel, and to consolidate the two related actions. On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions, appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 4, 2015, which again named the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Mr. Panoff, and Mr. Paley as defendants, but which also named Steven Richardson, Stephen Aselage, and Cornelius Golding as additional defendants. On May 26, 2015, with the consent of the lead plaintiff, the court ordered that the claims against Mr. Paley be dismissed. The remaining defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which were fully- briefed as of October 29, 2015. On December 1, 2015, counsel jointly informed the Court that the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement, subject to Court approval. On January 29, 2016, the parties filed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and supporting papers, including a stipulation of settlement. On February 2, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. On June 10, 2016, the Court approved the settlement, directed implementation of the settlement, and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. The settlement amount has been paid by the Company's insurer. REX ENERGY: Appeal in Cardinale Case Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Rex Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court has not ruled on the appeal in the Cardinale class action lawsuit. The Company said, "In October 2011, we were named as defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed between the Company and each proposed class member when representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008, and each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and order for payment and delivered the documents to representatives of Western. We rejected these leases and never signed them on behalf of the Company. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases, as well as damages and other relief as may be established by plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees." "We filed affirmative defenses and preliminary objections to the plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made various responsive filings throughout the first quarter of 2012. "In May 2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with prejudice on the grounds that there was no contract formed between us and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal during the second half of 2012. In May 2013, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the Common Pleas Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. "In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for the Billotte case contained the same claims as those set forth in the Cardinale case. The Meeker case is not a class action, but the claims are similar to those in Cardinale and the plaintiffs would be included in a class under Cardinale and Billotte if one were certified. "These two additional lawsuits were filed for procedural reasons in light of the dismissal of the Cardinale case and the pendency of the appeal. Proceedings in both the Billotte and Meeker cases were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Cardinale case. When the Cardinale case was remanded, we agreed to consolidate the Billotte and Cardinale cases; the cases have proceeded as Cardinale. The Meeker case remains stayed, and has not been consolidated. "In June 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's motion for certification of a class in the Cardinale case. In July 2015, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs served notice of their appeal of that decision in August 2015 and filed the appeal in September 2015. "In June 2016, we and the plaintiffs each presented our arguments on the appeal before a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. To date, the court has not ruled on the appeal. We expect to receive the court's ruling on the appeal in the second half of 2016. "We continue to vigorously defend against each of these claims. At this time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of potential losses, if any." REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Mediation Pending in Warren Police Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that mediation in a class action case remains pending. The Company said, "On May 1, 2015, a securities class action complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al., CIV 533635, was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California against us and certain of our directors and executive officers at the time of our June 2014 follow-on public offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as the underwriters in such follow-on public offering." "In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the then-present status of our RT001 topical clinical program and made false and misleading statements regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of RT001 topical, for the treatment of crow's feet at the time of our follow-on public offering. The complaint has been brought as a purported class action on behalf of those who purchased our common stock in such follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. "On October 5, 2015, we made a motion for transfer of the action to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on the basis that venue was improper in San Mateo County. Plaintiff's counsel did not oppose the transfer motion, and the action was received by Santa Clara Superior Court on November 6, 2015 and assigned the following case number, 15-CV-287794. On November 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order deeming the case complex and staying all discovery and motions pending further order. Before proceeding with further Court action, including the filing of our motions to dismiss under California rules, we agreed with Plaintiff to conduct a mediation. "We believe that the class action is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. Nevertheless, this litigation, as any other litigation, is subject to uncertainty and there can be no assurance that this litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. RIMAX CONTRACTORS: Faces Suit in La. Over Alleged FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- JESUS ARZOLA and MAYNOR MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, v. RIMAX CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No: 2:16-cv-13849 (E.D. La., August 15, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is in the business of supplying labor for the construction industry in the southeastern United States and several other countries. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 534-5005 Fax: (504) 272-2956 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com - and - William H. Beaumont, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com - and - Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Phone: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com RINGCENTRAL INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Supply Pro Case -------------------------------------------------------- RingCentral, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC (SPS). On April 21, 2016, Supply Pro Sorbents, LLC (SPS) filed a putative class action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging common law conversion and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) violations arising from fax cover sheets used by the Company's customers when sending facsimile transmissions over the Company's system (the "Lawsuit"). SPS seeks statutory damages, costs, attorneys' fees and an injunction in connection with its TCPA claim, and unspecified damages and punitive damages in connection with its conversion claim. On July 6, 2016, the Company filed a Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), requesting that the FCC issue a ruling clarifying certain portions of its regulations promulgated under the TCPA at issue in the Lawsuit (the "Petition"). On July 29, 2016, the FCC issued a Petition of Public Comment on the Company's Petition, with comments due August 29, 2016 and reply comments due September 13, 2016. On July 8, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Lawsuit in its entirety, along with a collateral motion to dismiss or stay the Lawsuit pending a ruling by the FCC on the Company's Petition. Both motions are pending; and discovery has not commenced. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the Lawsuit. However, litigation is inherently uncertain, and it is too early in this proceeding to predict the outcome of this Lawsuit. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to estimate the amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. RingCentral is a provider of software-as-a-service, or SaaS, solutions for the way employees communicate and collaborate in business. ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Nov. 9 Fairness Hearing Set on "Ding" Accord ------------------------------------------------------------- Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has scheduled a fairness hearing for November 9, 2016. A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17 through November 6, 2014. The original complaint asserted claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and contended that the IPO Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and uncertainties about the Company's sales." The alleged misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on November 6, 2014. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the court appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June 23, 2015. The amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration Statement during an extended putative class period, running from July 17, 2014 through March 26, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was false or misleading in that it failed to disclose that the Company's customers purportedly were experiencing false positives and other usage issues with the Company's Listeria assays apparently arising from the customers' employees' inability to follow the Company's Listeria assay workflow. The amended complaint alleges that the full extent of the purported misstatements and omissions was not revealed until March 26, 2015. Defendants filed a motion on August 25, 2015 to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on October 9, 2015. During the three months ended June 30, 2016, the Company and plaintiffs reached a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, for an amount of approximately $3.3 million. Accordingly, the Company has recorded a liability in Accrued expenses on its Balance Sheet. Additionally, the Company has recorded a corresponding receivable in Prepaid expenses and other current assets on its Balance Sheet for the expected reimbursement under its insurance policies. The court granted preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement on June 28, 2016, and scheduled a fairness hearing for November 9, 2016. At that hearing, the court will consider whether to grant final approval of the proposed settlement. The Company has various insurance policies related to the risks associated with its business, including directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However, there is no assurance that the Company would be successful in its defense of the securities class action if the proposed settlement is not approved (including through any appeals), and there is no assurance that the insurance coverage would be sufficient or that the insurance carriers would cover all claims or litigation costs. S&P 72: Faces "Gabino" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hernandez Gabino, Juvenal Gayosso Rosales, and Ramon Galindo Flores, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. S&P 72 Corp. (d/b/a Lime Leaf) and Sudhir Bhat, Case No. 1:16-cv- 06541 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own, operate, and control a Thai/continental restaurant located at 128 West 72nd Street, New York, New York 10023 under the name Lime Leaf. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com SAMSUNG: Class Suit Filed in New Jersey over Exploding Washers -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that three women filed a federal class action in Newark, N.J. complete with pictures, for damage to their homes after their Samsung washing machines exploded. SMITH LAYDOWN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Godlsby" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Paul Goldsby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Smith Laydown & Casing Services, LLC and Jeff Smith, Case No. 7:16-cv-00303 (W.D. Tex., August 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant is an oilfield casing services company in Texas and New Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 706-0834 Facsimile: (469) 339-0204 E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: info@l-b-law.com SONY CORP: Judge Declines to Rule on Microsoft's Arbitration Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. declined to rule August 16, on whether Microsoft must arbitrate antitrust claims accusing Sony, Samsung and other electronic giants firms of conspiring to fix prices of lithium ion batteries. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers heard arguments August 16 on Sony's motion to compel Microsoft to arbitrate its claims in the multidistrict class action in which Samsung, Panasonic and Hitachi are also defendants, but said she would consider oral argument before ruling. Microsoft claims Sony et al. conspired to fix prices for lithium ion battery cells and lithium ion batteries from Jan. 1, 2000 to May 31, 2011. During that time Nokia, whose mobile device business Microsoft bought in 2013, paid more than it should have for the batteries, Microsoft says. At issue is an arbitration agreement between Nokia and Sony. Sony says the agreement covers "all disputes related to [Nokia's] commercial relationship with Sony regarding lithium-ion batteries" and requires that disputes over its scope and the arbitrability of claims be resolved by an arbitrator, not a court. Microsoft responded that the arbitration agreement does not cover the first 18 months of the conspiracy period. It wants to litigate the pre-agreement claims for damages and injunctive relief, and to send the post-agreement damages claims to arbitration. Gonzalez initially indicated on Tuesday that she would rule for Sony. "It all arises from the purchase, doesn't it?" Gonzalez told Microsoft attorney B. Parker Miller. "This is all about purchase. Your client purchased something you've got an arbitration agreement about and now you claim the 18 months prior shouldn't be included, but there is no way you can distinguish any of those claims in your complaint, and you wouldn't be here but for those purchases." Miller responded that Sony backdated the arbitration agreement to July 2000, though it was executed in October 2001, and that it covered only one battery model. "This was a narrow contract about the purchase of certain lithium ion batteries, it doesn't cover purchases before [the contract]," Miller said. "How can [claims] possibly arise from a contract that doesn't exist? Claims that do not arise from a contract can't be sent to arbitration. "To take it and apply it to transactions that happened before that contract existed, that's an expansion of arbitration law we haven't seen before." Gonzalez then hinted that she may grant Microsoft's request and "chop up" the claim. Sony attorney Jon Cieslak told the judge that even if she does sever Microsoft's claim, "either path leads to arbitration." Sony agreed in May to settle for $19.5 million, making it the first defendant to do so. In preliminarily approving the settlement, Gonzalez said at a March hearing that it was "on the low side." In March, Gonzalez refused Toshiba's request to be dismissed from the case. Miller is with Alston & Bird in Atlanta, Cieslak with Cooley LLP in San Diego. SOVRAN SELF: Still Defends Class Action in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------- Sovran Self Storage, Inc. and Sovran Acquisition Limited Partnership said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in New Jersey. On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance Producer Licensing Act. On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's motion was granted in part and denied in part. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, and the possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be determined at this time. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Plaintiff's Petition for Rehearing Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Court of Appeals has denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court- appointed lead plaintiffs -- two pension funds that claim to represent a class of investors in the Company's stock -- filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J. George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market price of the Company's stock by making false statements and omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's accrual of $590.0 in forward loss charges on October 25, 2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the putative class. In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims set forth in the amended complaint. On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted Spirit's motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June 11, 2015. On July 5, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Courts' dismissal. On July 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On August 2, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. The deadline for the plaintiffs to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is October 31, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defending 3 Lawsuits Related to Abbott Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that the Company is defending three lawsuits related to a merger deal with Abbott Laboratories. On May 2, 2016, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class action lawsuit in Ramsey County, Minnesota, captioned Silverman v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 62-CV-16-2872 alleging that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the Company and Abbott. On May 26, 2016, a second action entitled Larkin v. Starks, et al., 62-CV-16-3367, was filed in the same court alleging substantially similar claims. On July 5, 2016, plaintiffs in the two actions jointly filed an Amended Shareholder class and Derivative Action Complaint (the Amended Complaint). Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint asserts that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by conducting a flawed sale process, failing to maximize shareholder value, and publishing false or misleading disclosure materials relating to the Proposed Transaction, and that the Abbott defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The Amended Complaint asserts direct and/or derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and abuse of control under Minnesota Statute Sec. 302A.467. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the Proposed Transaction and an order directing defendants to account to plaintiffs for all damages allegedly suffered by the putative class and damages allegedly incurred by the Company in connection with the Proposed Transaction. On June 30, 2016, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, captioned Rosenfeld v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., 16-cv-02275-WMW-FLN, alleging that the Company and its directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, SEC Rule 14a-9, and Minnesota Statute Sections 80A.68 and 80A.76, and that the Company's directors violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by filing a Form S-4 with the SEC that contained false or misleading statements regarding the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the Proposed Transaction or, if consummated, an order rescinding it or awarding actual and punitive damages to Plaintiff and the putative class. The Company and its directors intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in these actions involving the Abbott merger. The Company believes that a material loss is remote. ST. PAUL FEDERAL: Faces "Reed" Class Suit in Dist. of Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against St. Paul Federal Credit Union. The case is captioned Susie A. Reed, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. St. Paul Federal Credit Union, Case No. 0:16-cv-02764-PJS-BRT (D. Minn., August 17, 2016). St. Paul Federal Credit Union operates a financial services company located at 1000 Wallace St Philadelphia, PA 19123. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eleanor Emmons Frisch, Esq. Anna P. Prakash, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, 4600 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: efrisch@nka.com aprakash@nka.com - and - John H. Goolsby, Esq. GOOLSBY LAW OFFICE, LLC 475 Cleveland Avenue N, Suite 212 Saint Paul, MN 55104 Telephone: (651) 646-0153 E-mail: jgoolsby@goolsbylawoffice.com STEEL DYNAMICS: Antitrust Class Action Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an antitrust class action lawsuit is currently pending. The Company said, "We are involved, along with two other remaining steel manufacturing company defendants, in a class action antitrust suit in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, originally against eight companies. The Complaint alleges a conspiracy on the part of the original defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States during a specified period between 2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. All but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products. The other Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time period. "In addition, another similar complaint was filed in December 2010 purporting to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee. All Complaints have been consolidated in the Chicago action and seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. Following an extensive period of discovery and related motions concerning class certification matters, the Court, on September 9, 2015, certified a class, limited, however, to the issue of the alleged conspiracy alone, and denied class certification on the issue of antitrust impact and damages. As a result, some additional discovery is ongoing. We have also filed a motion for summary judgment, as has one co-defendant, and this matter is currently pending." SUNPOWER CORP: "Bristow" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH BRISTOW, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. SUNPOWER CORPORATION, THOMAS H. WERNER, and CHARLES D. BOYNTON, Case No: 3:16-cv-04710 (N.D. Cal., August 16, 2016), was filed on behalf of persons and entities that acquired SunPower securities between February 17, 2016, and August 9, 2016, inclusive. SunPower Corp. is an energy company that delivers solar solutions to residential, commercial, and power plant customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 Fax: (215) 638-4867 SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Appeal Decertification Order Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, has denied plaintiffs' and petitioners' petition to appeal a decertification order. On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly- situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino (the "Burnell Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "California Court"), Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing and alleges that Swift failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. On April 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, requesting dismissal of the plaintiff's claims related to alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class action complaint, alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the Burnell Complaint: James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino (the "Rudsell Complaint"). On May 3, 2012, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the California Court, Case No. EDCV12-00692-VAP. The Rudsell Complaint was stayed on April 29, 2013, pending a resolution of the Burnell Complaint. On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly- situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside (the "Peck Complaint"). The putative class, which includes current and former non-exempt employee truck drivers who performed services in California within the four-year statutory period, alleges that Swift failed to pay for all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses, failed to timely pay wages, and failed to provide accurate wage statements. On October 24, 2014, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the California Court, Case No. 14-CV-02206-VAP. The Peck Complaint was stayed on April 6, 2015, pending a resolution of the earlier filed cases. On February 27, 2015, Sadashiv Mares filed a complaint alleging five Causes of Action arising under California state law on behalf of himself and a putative class against Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda (the "Mares Complaint"). On July 13, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 2:15-CV-03253- JSW. Upon the parties' stipulation, on October 17, 2015, the case was transferred to the California Court, Case No. 2:15-CV-07920- VAP. The Mares Complaint was stayed on February 24, 2016, pending a resolution of the earlier filed cases. On or about April 15, 2015, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino: Rafael McKinsty et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al., (the "McKinsty Complaint"). The McKinsty Complaint, a purported class action, alleges violation of California rest break laws and is similar to the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck, and Mares Complaints. On July 2, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the California Court, Case No. 15-CV-1317-VAP. The McKinsty Complaint was stayed on August 19, 2015, pending a resolution of the earlier filed cases. On October 15, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Thor Nilsen v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (the "Nilsen Complaint"). The Nilsen Complaint alleges violations of California law similar to the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck, Mares, and McKinsty Complaints. On December 9, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the California Court, Case No. 15-CV-02504-VAP. The Nilsen Complaint was stayed January 29, 2016, pending resolution of the earlier filed cases. The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the California Court will address the merits of these cases, and the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages, pending a determination of class certification. Class certification briefing is now complete and a class certification hearing was scheduled for April 25, 2016. The class certification hearing was held and argued as scheduled. In May 2016, the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, issued an order decertifying the class. The plaintiffs and petitioners sought leave to appeal the class decertification order. On July 18, 2016, the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, denied the plaintiffs' and petitioners' petition to appeal the decertification order. Therefore, at the present time and based upon the current procedural nature of the case, the final disposition and impact to the Company cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of "Fritsch" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company has filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Grant Fritsch, Swift said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. On January 28, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by Grant Fritsch, individually and on behalf of all other similarly- situated persons against Swift Transportation Services, LLC and Swift Transportation Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino (the "Fritsch Complaint"). Mr. Fritsch worked for Swift as a yard hostler and he purports to represent a class of "all non-exempt maintenance and service employees" of Swift Transportation Services, LLC and/or Swift Transportation Company. The Fritsch Complaint alleges that Swift failed to pay overtime and doubletime wages required by California law, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Fritsch Complaint also includes a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act. The Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon the wrong party being named in the lawsuit, and the plaintiff agreed to amend his complaint, which was served June 17, 2016. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Defends Remaining Claims in FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages for the remaining claims in the Arizona Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action Litigation. On December 29, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Pamela Julian, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated persons against Swift Transportation, Inc., et al. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:15- CV-01212-UNA (the "Julian Compliant"). The Julian Complaint alleges that Swift violated the FLSA by failing to pay its trainee drivers minimum wage for all work performed and by failing to pay overtime. On February 29, 2016, upon Stipulation of the Parties, the court transferred the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Case No. 2:16-CV-00576-ROS. On March 9, 2016, Swift filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' overtime claims, which was granted by the District Court on May 31, 2016. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages for the remaining claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Washington OT Class Actions in Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in the Washington overtime class actions. On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all similarly-situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County (the "Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the "Court") on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative class includes all current and former Washington state-based employee drivers during the three-year statutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and through the present, and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and overtime in accordance with Washington state law and that they suffered unlawful deductions from wages. On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as it pertains to "dedicated" drivers and did not certify any other class, including any class related to over-the- road drivers. On September 2, 2015, new counsel was appointed for the plaintiffs and on November 16, 2015, new legal counsel was substituted for the Company. As a result of the substitution of counsel for both parties, the court extended all existing dates by ten months. On April 1, 2016, the court entered an order approving the plaintiffs' proposed class notice. The matter is now in discovery. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Suit to Move Into Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the class action lawsuit by Julie Hedglin is expected to move into discovery. On January 14, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed by Julie Hedglin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County (the "Hedglin Complaint"). The Hedglin Complaint was removed to the Court on February 18, 2016, 3:16-CV-05127-RJB. The putative class includes all current and former Washington heavy haul drivers and alleges the class was not paid for meal and rest periods, was not paid for overtime, was not paid all wages due at established pay periods, and was not provided accurate wage statements. The matter is in its initial phases and is expected to move into discovery. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Banks" FCRA Suit Moved to Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Indiana Fair Credit Reporting Act class action litigation by Melvin Banks has been transferred to a federal court in Arizona. On March 18, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Melvin Banks, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Case No. 2:15-CV-00105. The complaint alleges that Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide job applicants with adverse action notices and copies of their consumer reports and statements of rights. At this time, the size of the potential class is unknown. The Company's motion to have the case transferred from Indiana to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona has been granted and initial discovery regarding the potential class has begun. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Mediation in Utah Case Flopped ---------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in a collective action lawsuit in Utah have engaged in a mediation that ultimately did not result in a settlement of the matter. On June 1, 2012, Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire, and Bryan Ratterree filed a putative class and collective action lawsuit against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes (collectively referred to herein as the "Central Parties"), Case No. ED CV 12-00886 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Through this action, the plaintiffs alleged that the Central Parties misclassified owner-operator drivers as independent contractors and were therefore liable to these drivers for minimum wages and other employee benefits under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The complaint also alleged a federal forced labor claim under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589 and 1595, as well as fraud and other state-law claims. Pursuant to the plaintiffs' owner-operator agreements, the district court issued an order compelling arbitration and directed that the plaintiffs' causes of action under the FLSA should proceed to collective arbitration, while their forced labor, fraud, and state law claims would proceed as separate individual arbitrations. A collective arbitration was subsequently initiated with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Notice of the collective arbitration was sent to more than 3,000 owner-operators who worked for Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and leased a vehicle from Central Leasing, Inc. on or after June 1, 2009. The parties have filed several potentially dispositive motions in this collective arbitration proceeding. None of these motions has yet been ruled on by the arbitrator and no trial date has been set by the arbitrator. In addition to the collective arbitration that is pending before the AAA, the three named plaintiffs, along with approximately 325 other owner-operators, have initiated a series of individual, bilateral proceedings against the Central Parties with the AAA. Discovery is commencing in these individual cases, which are pending before approximately 30 separate arbitrators. Actual trial dates have not yet been set by the arbitrators, but trials in a limited number of bellwether-like cases are likely to occur in the first or second quarter of 2017. Upon the acquisition of Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. by Swift Transportation Company (the "Company"), the plaintiffs in both the collective and individual actions were allowed to amend their complaints in June 2015 to include the Company as a defendant. The Company and the Central Parties intend to vigorously defend against the merits of the plaintiffs' claims in both the collective and individual arbitration proceedings. In June 2016, the parties engaged in a mediation that ultimately did not result in a settlement of the matter. Based upon the information exchanged between the parties during the mediation, and in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an accrual of $3.0 million in the second quarter of 2016 for the estimated probable loss incurred. Although the final disposition and impact of the case to the Company cannot be determined at this time, exposure above the accrued amount is reasonably possible and, accordingly, the Company has undertaken a process to attempt to estimate a range of possible loss based upon currently available information relating to the case. This process has included attempting to evaluate additional facts and circumstances that may arise as the matter continually evolves, including analyzing previous judicial rulings the court has rendered. Taken in its totality, this information might impact the Company's loss. For these reasons, along with others, the Company is not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Oppose Class Cert. Bid in "Anderson" ------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and Swift intend to vigorously defend against the merits of the plaintiff's claims and to oppose certification of any class of plaintiffs in the case by Robin Anderson. On October 6, 2014 Robin Anderson filed a putative class and collective action against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. Case No. 5:14-CV 02062 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Anderson Complaint"). In this action, the plaintiff alleges that pre-employment tests of physical strength administered by a third party on behalf of Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. had an unlawfully discriminatory impact on female applicants and applicants over the age of 40. The suit seeks damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act, and parallel California state law provisions, including the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Upon the acquisition of Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. by Swift Transportation Company, the plaintiff was allowed to amend her complaint in October 2015 to include Swift Transportation Company and Workwell Systems, Inc. as additional defendants. Workwell Systems, Inc. is the company that provided the physical testing service used by Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. The litigation is still at a very preliminary stage with discovery not yet commenced and no trial date has been set. There is not currently any information available regarding the number of potential members of the putative class or collective actions. Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and Swift intend to vigorously defend against the merits of the plaintiff's claims and to oppose certification of any class of plaintiffs. The final disposition of this case and the impact cannot be determined at this time. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Still Defends TelexFree Litigation ----------------------------------------------------- Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company still defends the TelexFree Litigation. On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re: TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH, United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit. An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. The claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus-related entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending. TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC, an independent sales organization/member service provider sponsored by Synovus Bank. The purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services and that the various defendants, including Synovus Bank, provided financial services to TelexFree that allowed TelexFree to conduct its business operations. Synovus Bank filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 1, 2015, which remains pending before the court. Synovus believes it has substantial defenses related to these purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted. Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate losses attributable to this matter. TALMER BANCORP: Bushanky and Nicholl Lawsuits Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the federal Bushanky lawsuit and the Nicholl lawsuit have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without prejudice. Three actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by alleged shareholders of the Company against the Company, the following members of the Company's Board of Directors: Gary Torgow, David Provost, Gary Collins, Max Berlin, Jennifer Granholm, Paul Hodges III, Ronald Klein, Barbara Mahone, Robert Naftaly, Albert Papa, Thomas Schellenberg, and Arthur Weiss (collectively "individual defendants"), and Chemical. The first action was filed on April 6, 2016, styled as Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Gary Torgow, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11261-TLL-PTM. This complaint purports to bring a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the Company and the individual defendants, and a claim for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Chemical and the individual defendants. The second action was filed on April 25, 2016, styled as Kevin Nicholl v. Gary Torgow, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11482-TLL-PTM. This complaint purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of the Company and individually on behalf of a putative class consisting of all shareholders of the Company who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant. This action alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against the individual defendants; violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants; violations of the individual defendants' fiduciary duties, asserted both derivatively and on behalf of the class; and a class action claim against Chemical for aiding and abetting. The third action was filed was filed on April 27, 2016, styled as Stephen Bushansky v. Talmer Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16- cv-11511-AJT-RSW. This is a putative class action complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all shareholders of the Company who are not related to or affiliated with any defendant. This complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. Each of these three complaints relate to the Company's merger agreement with Chemical and the Company's and Chemical's Registration Statement on Form S-4. The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of the Company and its Board of Directors approved a transaction pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process that undervalues the Company and includes preclusive deal protection provisions. The complaints also allege that the Registration Statement omits or misrepresents material information about the proposed merger. Each of the complaints requests various forms of remedies, including among other things, that the court enjoin the merger from being consummated, rescind the merger agreement to the extent it has already been implemented, declare violations of federal law, award the plaintiff all costs and disbursements in each respective action (including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees), and grant such further relief as the court deems just and proper. On June 20, 2016, the federal Bushanky lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff as to all defendants, without prejudice. Also on June 20, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Nicholl lawsuit as to all defendants, without prejudice. TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Employees Filed Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- Talmer Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that purported Talmer shareholders filed on June 16, 2016, a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, styled City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Chemical Financial Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:16-cv-12229. The plaintiff requests certification as a class action. This lawsuit alleges violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Form S-4 Registration Statement relating to the proposed merger. The Complaint contains requests for relief that include, among other things, that the Court enjoin the proposed transaction unless and until additional information is provided to Talmer's shareholders, declare that the Defendants violated the securities laws in connection with the proposed merger, award compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and that the Court grant such other relief as it deems just and proper. Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. At this stage, it is not possible to predict whether any additional lawsuits will be filed and, if one is, the outcome of any such proceeding or its impact on the Company or the merger. TD AMERITRADE: Faces Class Suit Over Transaction Fees ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that TD Ameritrade improperly charged transaction fees for exchanging mutual fund shares for shares of other funds in the same mutual fund family, a customer claims in a federal class action in Plano, Texas. TD AMERITRADE: Dismissal of Zola et al. Cases Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker and Verdieck cases have taken an appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuits related to Order Routing Matters. Five putative class action complaints were filed between August and October 2014 regarding TD Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases were filed in, or transferred to, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to provide clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief. The Company moved to dismiss each of the five putative class action complaints. The Magistrate Judge subsequently entered Findings and Recommendations with respect to each of the five actions, recommending that the District Judge dismiss each of the five lawsuits. On March 23, 2016, the District Judge entered an order dismissing all of the state law claims in the five actions, denying the motion to dismiss the federal securities claims in the Klein case, and permitting the plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend their complaints to assert a federal securities claim. None of the plaintiffs in the other four actions filed an amended complaint. The plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker and Verdieck cases filed notices of appeal. The plaintiff in the Lerner case did not file a notice of appeal and that case is considered closed. The Klein case is proceeding in the District Court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any, that may result. TEMPUR SEALY: Court to Consider Class Cert. Motions in 4th Qtr -------------------------------------------------------------- Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013, the Court is now scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2016. On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. The Court was scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2015; however, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint, at which time the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was held January 28, 2016 and the Court denied in part and granted in part the Company's Motion to Dismiss, allowing certain claims to proceed. The Court is now scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth quarter of 2016. The outcome of this case remains uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. TPC CONTRACTORS: Faces "Maldanado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jayson Maldanado, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TPC Contractors, Inc., Artec Construction and Development Corp., The City Of New York, and The New York City Department Of Housing, Preservation and Development, Case No. 156891 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., August 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay construction workers' overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. TPC Contractors, Inc. and Artec Construction and Development Corp. operate a construction company in New York. The New York City Department of Housing, Preservation and Development is an agency of the City of New York that has responsibility for administering certain construction projects and enforcement of labor laws related to wages and hours in connection with numerous public works projects. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 TRXADE GROUP: Awaiting Final Approval of $200,000 Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Trxade Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting the Court's final approval of a class action settlement. On November 19, 2015, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC filed a class- action claim against Trxade Group, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Westminster Pharmaceutical, LLC, Inc. (Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC v. Trxade Group, Inc. and Westminster, Inc., Case No.: 1:15-CV-00590-KD-B, United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, Mobile Division). Family Medicine has served Trxade for allegedly utilizing a "junk fax" advertising program. On June 6, 2016, the Company entered into a binding memorandum of understanding with the plaintiff related to this litigation to resolve all claims in exchange for Trxade funding a settlement fund in the amount of $200,000. "Pending objections and/or resolutions, we are currently waiting for the court's final approval of the settlement. We believe this case will settle under the proposed settlement, therefore, under ASC 450 - "Contingencies", an accrual of $200,000 is recorded as of June 30, 2016," the Company said. Trxade Group, Inc. has designed, developed, and now own and operate business-to-business web based marketplace focused on the US pharmaceutical industry. TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Planned JCI Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARLENE D. GUMM, PAUL J. PONTIER, CYNTHIA PONTIER, DANNY HIGH, and MICHAEL F. HOLZHAUER, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., v. ALEX A. MOLINAROLI, BRIAN J. STIEF, GREG GUYETT, DAVID P. AB-NEY, NATALIE A. BLACK, JULIE L. BUSHMAN, RAYMOND L. CONNER, RICHARD GOODMAN, JEFFREY A. JOERRES, WILLIAM H. LACY, JUAN PABLO DEL VALLE PEROCHENA, MARK P. VERGNANO, JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., JAGARA MERGER SUB LLC, and TYCO INTERNATIONAL PLC, Case No. 16-cv-1093 (E.D. Wis., August 16, 2016), alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated federal and state statutory and common law by agreeing to a plan in which Johnson Controls, Inc. will be merged with a subsidiary of the smaller Tyco International plc. Tyco International plc -- http://www.tyco.com/-- a division of Tyco International Ltd., provides electronic security systems, fire protection, detection and suppression systems, sprinklers and fire extinguishers. The Plaintiffs are represented by: K. Scott Wagner, Esq. WAGNER LAW GROUP, S.C. 839 N Jefferson St, Suite 400 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Phone: 414-278-7000 Fax: 414-278-7590 E-mail: ksw@WAGNER-LAWGROUP.COM - and - Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq. Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159 Phone: 612-596-4026 Fax: 612-339-0981 E-mail: vjvanderweide@locklaw.com gmfishbein@locklaw.com UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Has Yet to Set Hearing Date ---------------------------------------------------------- Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appellate court has not set a hearing date on the appeal in a class action lawsuit. The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al., No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former officers. On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on August 5, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class period, alleged violations, and relief sought. On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in its entirety with no further leave to amend. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Appellant filed its opening brief on April 3, 2015 and the Company filed its reply brief on June 17, 2015; additional appellate briefing was filed in the third quarter 2015. The appellate court has not set a hearing date as of the date of this filing. UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for Mid-2017 in "Morgate" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that UPS and its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al., an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the market tests that were conducted before offering the class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. Trial is scheduled for mid-2017. UNITED PARCEL: One Case Remains Outstanding in Ontario ------------------------------------------------------ United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is vigorously defending one outstanding class action case in Ontario. The Company said, "In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been dismissed. We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one outstanding case in Ontario." "There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity." WAHLBURGERS FRANCHISING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Shakeiya Burnett, Vanessa Morales, Jonathan Marmolejos, Richard Serpica, and Henry Foster, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wahlburgers Franchising LLC, Coney Burgers LLC, Big Apple Burgers LLC, WBDC Hospitality, Mark Andrew Singer, John Cestare, and Ben Niass, Case No. 1:16-cv-04602-WFK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., August 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant chain in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Schley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC 245 Park Avenue, 39th Fl. New York, NY 10167 Telephone: (212) 672-1848 E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com - and - Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. 488 Madison Avenue, 11th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com morales@pechmanlaw.com WASHINGTON: Residents File Class Suit Over Jury Pay --------------------------------------------------- June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that low pay for jury service has caused grumbling for decades. Now Washington residents have filed a class action claiming the $10 a day stipend violates minimum wage laws and prevents low-income minorities from serving, with a "pernicious effect on the judicial system." King County's $10-per-day reimbursement for mileage or travel hasn't changed since 1959, lead plaintiff Ryan Rocha says in the complaint in Pierce County Court. He says the low pay effectively prevents minorities and poor people from participating in jury service. A Seattle worker earning minimum wage would make $104 for an eight-hour day, and all minimum-wage workers in Washington earn at least $75 for eight hours. Rocha et al. sued in Pierce County Superior Court to avoid a conflict of interest in King County, whose seat is Seattle. King County, pop. 2 million, is the largest county in Washington by population and the 13th most populous county in the United States. Pierce County, whose seat is Tacoma, just south of Seattle, is the state's second most populous county, with 800,000 residents. Rocha and co-plaintiff Nicole Bednarczyk say they want to serve as jurors but their employers don't pay for jury duty so it would be too much of a financial hardship. "Plaintiffs Ryan Rocha and Nicole Bednarczyk are individuals of low economic status who work for employers that do not compensate employees for jury service. Plaintiff Rocha is also black, and issues of income inequality and financial instability disproportionately affect King County's communities of color. Plaintiffs Rocha and Bednarczyk are eligible and eager to serve as jurors in the courts of King County but cannot afford to forgo the income they would lose while doing so," the complaint states. "If King County summoned them to perform jury service today, plaintiffs Rocha and Bednarczyk would be forced to request financial hardship exemptions despite their desire to participate in the judicial process. Indeed, King County has previously excused plaintiff Bednarczyk from serving as a juror on the basis of financial hardship. Because King County refuses to pay individuals for time spent performing jury service, plaintiff Rocha, plaintiff Bednarczyk, and others are being excluded on the basis of economic status, race, and color." The other named plaintiff, Catherine Selin, served on a jury for 11 days last year, and also worked for an employer that did not compensate her. She says King County violated the state's minimum wage act by not paying her. "King County is violating Washington law in the operation of its jury system. Specifically, King County's failure to pay individuals for time spent performing jury service has a disparate impact on low-income people and people of color, preventing them from jury participation. This form of institutional exclusion and discrimination violates state law and has a pernicious effect on the judicial system and American democracy," according to the complaint. Their attorney Jeffrey Needle said in a statement: "Citizens aren't required to give up their incomes in order to vote, and they shouldn't have to do so with jury service either." They seek class certification and an injunction requiring King County to pay minimum wage to jurors who are not compensated by their employers, and damages for jurors who already served without being compensated. They are represented by Toby Marshall with Terrell Marshall and Jeffery Needle, both of Seattle. WECKERLE SALES: Faces "Chacon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Chavez Chacon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Weckerle Sales Corporation, Workforce Enterprises WFE, Inc., Employer HR, and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC630724 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation and minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants operate a California corporation that manufactures cosmetics products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. James A. DeSario, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone (310) 553-3600 Facsimile (310)553-3603 WELLS FARGO: Defendants Seek to Dismiss PICA Suit ------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, PICA et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al. In February 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in federal court. In March 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in California State Superior Court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n., asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In May 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to stay the state court action. In July 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed previously in federal court. WESTCOAST WRECKER: Faces "Curtis" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- DONALD CURTIS S, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ERNESTO SAINZ, individually, and WESTCOAST WRECKER CORP., a Florida corporation, Case No: 1:16-cv-23509-KMW (S.D. Fla., August 15, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. WESTCOAST WRECKER CORP. provides long distance trucking/towing/moving services for moves including across interstate borders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose A. Socorro, Esq. Robert W. Hudson, Esq. HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC 355 Athambra Circle, Suite $01 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 444-6628 Fax: (305) 444-6627 E-mail: rhudsonhudsoncalleja.com WHITEWAVE FOODS: Faces "Gilhousen" Suit Over Sale to Danone ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN-MARK GILHOUSEN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GREGG L. ENGLES, JOSEPH S. HARDIN, JR., STEPHEN L. GREEN, DOREEN A. WRIGHT, MICHELLE GOOLSBY, W. ANTHONY VERNON, ANTHONY J. MAGRO, and THE WHITEWAVE FOODS COMPANY, Case No. 1:16-cv-02057-MJW (D. Col., August 15, 2016), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in connection with the proposed acquisition of WhiteWave by Danone S.A. The Whitewave Foods Company is a consumer packaged food and beverage company, which manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells branded plant-based foods and beverages, coffee creamers and beverages, dairy products, organic salads, and fruits and vegetables in North America and Europe. Danone S.A. is a French multinational food-products corporation, organized under the laws of France and based in Paris. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 536-7849 E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Kip B. Shuman, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (303) 861-3003 Fax: (303) 536-7849 E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Shane T. Rowley Esq. Christa A. Menge Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: (212) 363-7500 WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT: "Driskell" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAPHNE DRISKELL, v. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE TREASURE COAST, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation d/b/a CAREERSOURCE RESEARCH COAST, Case No. 2:16-cv-14359-KAM (S.D. Fla., August 16, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. CareerSource Research Coast is a private, non-profit, Florida corporation with a Board of Directors consisting of private business, economic development and education representatives, community and state agencies, and elected officials. The company is chartered by the State of Florida to create and manage a workforce development service delivery system responsive to the needs of businesses and career seekers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cathleen Scott, Esq. SCOTT WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A Jupiter, FL 33458 101 Northpoint Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Phone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: (561) 653-0020 E-mail: http://www.ScottWagnerLaw.com CScott@scottwagnerlaw.com mail@scottwagnerlaw.com WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Motion to Dismiss "Epstein" Case Denied --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-01606 (D. S.C.), the Hon. Mary Geiger Lewis on Aug. 24, 2016, entered an Opinion and Order denying a Motion to Dismiss. World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a shareholder filed on April 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative Class Action"), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the above-referenced CID from the CFPB (ii) the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re- financings and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015. The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the complaint is without merit. On November 16, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify the action as a class action. The time for the Company to respond to the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification has not yet expired. On January 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Lead Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition, the Company filed a reply in further support of its motion to dismiss. As reported by the Class Action Reporter, Judge Lewis earlier this month dismissed, without prejudice, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification pending the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court amended the Scheduling Order of the case, suspending all other deadlines as follows: (1) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, all briefing and discovery relating to Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. (2) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, all discovery relating to the new allegations in the Second Amended Complaint shall be stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. (3) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the parties shall confer within five days after the ruling on that motion concerning (i) the briefing schedule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification; (ii) discovery relating to class certification; and (iii) discovery relating to the new allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. (4) Since Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the parties shall confer within ten (10) days after the ruling on that motion concerning (i) all fact and expert discovery deadlines; (ii) the deadline for filing a status report with the Court; (iii) the deadline for completion of mediation; and (iv) the deadline for all other motions, except those to complete discovery, those nonwaivable motions made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12, and those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial. (5) If necessary, the Court will enter a scheduling order setting a trial date and deadlines for other trial-related matters after the Court has ruled on dispositive motions. (6) Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to refile once the Court has issued its Order on Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss. A copy of the Court's Decision dated August 12, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/wX0wZYfrom Leagle.com. ZAFGEN INC: Dismissal of "Bessler" Case Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------- A notice of appeal has been filed with the First Circuit Court of Appeals from the order dismissing the complaint in the case, Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-13618 (D. Mass.). The appeal was filed by Terry Brennan, Jeffrey Buterbaugh, Dragon Gate Management, Ltd., Ron Kenner, Kevin Koziatek, and Vincent Rampe. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Defendants' motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff's request for leave to amend in the case captioned, Terry M. Brenan et al, Plaintiffs, v. Zafgen, Inc, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-13618-FDS (D. Mass.). Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on October 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E. Hughes, captioned Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes, No. 1:15-cv- 13618. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2016. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's clinical trials for its drug beloranib. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price between June 19, 2014 and October 16, 2015, as a result of those allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On April 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Oakland County Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff is represented by Ian N. McCallister, Esq. -- rbaker@rdblaw.net -- ROB LEVINE & ASSOCIATES Aviad Bessler, et al. are is represented by Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. -- jeff@blockesq.com -- Jose Anderson Fleming, Esq. -- joel@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP Theodore J. Daly is represented by Eugene R. Richard, Esq. -- generichard@hrsllp.com -- RICHARD & SENCABAUGH LLP Terry Brennan, et al. are represented by Gonen Haklay, Esq. -- ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- Jacob A. Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- ROSEN LAW FIRM; -- Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. -- jeff@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP Zafgen, Inc. et al Defendants is represented by Adam Slutsky, Esq -- aslutsky@goodwinlaw.com -- Deborah S. Birnbach, Esq -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Kate Elizabeth MacLeman, Esq -- kmacleman@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Zafgen, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to significantly improving the health and well-being of patients affected by obesity and complex metabolic disorders. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: $37MM Settlement Awaits Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the $37 million settlement of a class action lawsuit remains subject to final court approval. As of June 30, 2016, the Company was subject to a class action case, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., which was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in early 2010. This case relates to payment processing services provided by Modern Payments, a small subsidiary of Zions, to ten of its customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices. The plaintiff has been seeking a trebled monetary award under the federal RICO Act. During the second quarter of 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case for $37.50 million to $37.75 million, (with the amount within that range dependent upon the outcome of certain contingencies). A definitive settlement agreement on those terms was executed by the parties and preliminarily approved by the District Court in July 2016. The settlement agreement is subject to further court process and final approval by the District Court. These further steps are likely to take place over the remainder of 2016. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will ultimately be approved by the District Court or become effective. "As of December 31, 2015, we had fully reserved for our obligations with respect to the settlement, so the settlement did not cause us to incur additional settlement expenses in the second quarter. A portion of the settlement amount is covered by our insurance policies and will be funded by our insurers," the Company said. ZYNGA INC: Proceedings in Lee v. Pincus Stalled ----------------------------------------------- Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court in the case, Lee v. Pincus, et al., has not yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in this action. The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering." "On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been named as defendants. "On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is complete. A hearing date has not been set. On August 19, 2015 the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual director defendants from the case. "Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13, 2015, and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court has not yet entered a schedule for further proceedings in this action. "Although it is reasonably possible that our assessment of the possibility of loss could change in the near term due to one or more confirming events, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses in the Lee v. Pincus class action and will vigorously defend this action. Furthermore, given that we are in the early stages of the litigation process, we are unable to estimate the range of potential loss, if any." ********* 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 * * *