/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160831.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 31, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 174 Headlines 16 FOR 8 HOSPITALITY: Gets Final OK of $170K "Azogue" Suit Deal 321 CAPITAL: ABC Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed and Terminated lA DISTRIBUTION: "Abedi" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursement A AND R MOBILE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ACUMEN SOLUTIONS: Faces "Barekzai" Suit Over FLSA Violation AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Pursued in QLT Merger Suit AMERICAN EQUITY: Says Opportunities for Appeal Have Passed AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss "Silva" Case in Briefing Stage APOLLO GLOBAL: Update on Lawsuits Over Fresh Market Merger Deal APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Remand Fully Briefed, Awaits Ruling APOLLO EDUCATION: Deadline to Amend Suit Extended Until Nov. 8 ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Ninth Circuit Appeal AUTOZONE PARTS: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Deceptive Rewards Program BANCORP INC: $17.5 Million Class Action Settlement Reached BERKSHIRE HILLS: Defending Class Action in Massachusetts BISTRO MARKETPLACE: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA BMO HARRIS: "Shepard" Suit Seeks Back Wages, Overtime BOBBY ALVIN RISHER: "Maldonado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay BROOKLAND MANOR: 150 Families File Class Action BURGER KING: Roman Seeks Final Certification of Class CARRIER IQ: $9MM Settlement in Privacy Suit Gets Final Approval CCB CREDIT: "Schmitz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Held CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement of Merger Case Still Pending CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Sciabacucchi Case Underway CITIBANK: "Cain" Class Removed Suit to District Maryland CITY OF HOPE: "Seper" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Loveland Seeks Certification of Class COOK CITY, IL: Sept. 22 Hearing on Williams' Bid to Certify Class CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Faces "Grae" Securities Lawsuit in Tenn. COUNTRY CLUB OF STOW: Sued Over Unredeemable Cash Card DALLAS CENTRAL: Appraisal Dist. Sued Over Excess Appraised Value DALLAS CENTRAL: Appraisal Dist. Sued Over Incorrect Valuation DALLAS CENTRAL: Paramount Suit Alleges Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: 3662 Camp Wisdom Suit Alleges Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: HMK Ltd. Seeks Review of Protest Valuation Denial DANISCO USA: Class Certification Bid in "Rixen" Suit Denied DIMITRI CONSTRUCTION: Soto Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA DIRECTV LLC: "Jones" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT, Commissions EAST PENN: "Mcevoy" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA ENCOMPASS SERVICES: "McDonald" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages ENVESTNET INC: $200,000 Agreement on Fees and Expenses Reached FBR & CO: Motion to Amend Waterford Complaint Remains Pending FBR & CO: Defendants Opposing Remand of Class Actions FCA US: Faltermeier Seeks Certification of Class FERRELLGAS: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Damages Claims FIFTH STREET: $14MM Deal Subject to Additional Discovery FIFTH STREET: Hearing on "Mootness Fee" Held FORD MOTOR: Cars Stall or Suddenly Decelerate, Class Action Says FOREVER 21: Faces "Patterson" Class Suit in District New Jersey GENERAL NUTRITION: Bid to Certify Class in "Howes" Suit Denied GOOGLE INC: Fillekes Seeks Certification of Class in "Heath" Suit GREENE'S ENERGY: "Matte" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA HERC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Fully Briefed HP INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over 401(k) Plan Fiduciary Violation HRG GROUP: Settlement Completion in "Cressy" Case Extended HRG GROUP: Appeal in "Ludwick" Class Action Pending HUMAN RESOURCE: "Lamones" Sues Over Adverse Background Check INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Dismissal of Customer Action Sought INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $55MM Accord Up for Sept. 8 Approval INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase INTREXON CORPORATION: 2 Shareholder Lawsuits Consolidated J.B HUNT: Drivers File Class Action in Los Angeles J2 GLOBAL: Motion for Summary Judgment in Paldo Sign Case Pending J2 GLOBAL: Settlement of LEO and Dancel Case Still Pending JOHN KASICH: Ball, et al. Seek Certification of Class JOLIET STAFFING: "Gordon" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages K12 INC: Faces "Tarapara" Securities Class Action in N.D. Cal. LAWTON CORRECTIONAL: Court Defers Ruling on Class Cert. Bid LASERSHIP INC: Faces "Caraballo" Suit Over FLSA Violation LENDINGCLUB CORP: Defending Cases Related to Public Offering LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Stay Securities Case Denied LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending LIFE INSURANCE: Sept. 22 Hearing Set on Dolemba's Bid to Certify LIFE LINE: "Neuharth" Suit Seeks Certification of Class LIFELOCK INC: Settlement in "Ebarle" Case Awaits Final Approval LIFELOCK INC: Lead Plaintiffs May Amend "Avila" Complaint LIFELOCK INC: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Litig. Pending LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bennett" Class Suit Transferred to W.D.N.C. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Dunkin" Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Hotaling" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Transferred "Ryan" Suit to District Nevada LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Goodling" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "McPherson" Suit Transferred to W.D. Penn. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Strong" Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Leonard" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio MCKESSON CORP: Bid for Class Cert. in "True Health" Denied MDL 2295: $18MM Settlement of TCPA Suit Awaits Final Approval MDL 2371: UMS Class Action Appeal Still Pending MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims NCC BUSINESS: Certification of Class Sought in "Woodward" Suit NEW MEXICO: Faces Workers' Class Action for Back Pay NEW YORK: OTDA Faces Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violation NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Dismissal Bid Up for Oral Argument NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Case Underway OMNI LIMOUSINE: "Keen" Suit Seeks Overtime, Waiting Time Pay ON TIME SECURING: "Hane" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ONSITE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Hearing Continued on Sept. 19 ORANGE COUNTY: "McMahon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES: Sued in Tex. Over FLSA Violation OUTERWALL INC: "Filippov" Sues Over Acquisition by Apollo Global OWENS & MINOR: "Snyder" Suit Removed to District of Maryland PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Has Reached Settlement of Class Suit PCP FOR LIFE: "Bunker" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA PETROQUEST ENERGY: "Urban" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana PIZZA THEATRE: "Huntley" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Tips PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Andrews, et al. Seek Certification of Class PROJECT INVESTORS: CRYPTSY Owners Class Certified in Leidel Suit PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss "Hsu" Remains Pending QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Court Entered Final Judgment in "Nguyen" R & A OYSTERS: Cordova, et al. Seek Class Certification REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Hirthe Moves for Certification of Class RESOLUTE FOREST: Motion to Dismiss "Reynolds" Case Awaits Ruling RESOURCE CAPITAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Certification in "Espejo" Suit Denied SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Weller" Suit Pending SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gaitan" Suit Claims SOLARCITY CORP: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending SOLARCITY CORP: Still Defends TCPA Action in California SOLARCITY CORP: Defending "Gibbs" Action in Massachusetts SUNBURST CONSULTING: Faces "Baker" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation SWIFT TECHNICAL: "Herod" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims TILGHMAN BEACH: "Humphries" Suit Removed to Dist. of S. C. TIVO INC: "Klein" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Paid $0.3 Miillion in Attorneys Fees TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Jackie 888 Class Suit in California TRUECAR INC: Continues to Defend NY Lanham Act Litigation TRUECAR INC: Appeal in "Mahapatra" Case Dismissed TRUECAR INC: 2nd Status Conference in "Rose" Suit on October 12 TWITTER INC: Misappropriates People's Identities, Suit Says TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Arguments Heard on Bids to Exclude Experts U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: "Pixler" Suit Alleges Vehicle Defect UNITED AIRLINES: Court Takes Class Cert. Bid Under Submission VALDEMAR 5108: "Lara" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay VALENCE HEALTH: "Burns" Files Suit Over FLSA Violation WALGREEN CO: Certification Bid in "Cintron" Suit Denied as Moot WALTER INVESTMENT: $24MM Settlement Up for Oct. 14 Hearing WALTER INVESTMENT: Settlement Hearing Moved to Aug. 30 WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Now Closed WEIGHT WATCHERS: Motion to Dismiss "Roberts" Suit Underway WENDCENTRAL CORP: "Solarek" Suit Seeks Damages and Reinstatement WHITEWAVE FOODS: "Louie" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal WILLIS TOWERS: Consolidated Merger Action Closed WILLIS TOWERS: Still Defending Lawsuits Related to Stanford WILLIS TOWERS: Oct. 2017 Trial Date Set in "Sanchez" Case YELP INC: 9th Circuit Appeal in Securities Case Ongoing YELP INC: $600,000 in Meal & Rest Case Still Pending YELP INC: $200,000 Accord in Employee Suit Awaits Final Approval ZARA USA: Faces "Rose" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California ********* 16 FOR 8 HOSPITALITY: Gets Final OK of $170K "Azogue" Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Thomas P. Griesa entered an order and opinion in the lawsuit styled VICTOR SEBASTIAN AZOGUE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 16 FOR 8 HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a NUM PANG SANDWICH SHOP, 32 FOR 16 HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a NUM PANG SANDWICH SHOP, 8 FOR 4 HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a NUM PANG SANDWICH SHOP, NUM PANG HOLDCO LLC, RATHA CHUAPOLY, and BENJAMIN DAITZ, Case No. 13-cv-7899 (S.D.N.Y.), granting the Plaintiff's motion for certification of the settlement class, final approval of the class action settlement, approval of the Fair Labor Standards Act settlement, and approval of attorneys' fees. The Court certifies this Class for settlement purposes: all non- exempt (non-managerial) individuals employed at the following Num Pang Establishments: (1) 16 for 8 Hospitality, LLC, (2) 32 for 16 Hospitality LLC, (3) 8 for 4 Hospitality LLC, (4) Num Pang Holdco LLC, (5) 128 for 64 Hospitality LLC, (6) 256 for 128 Hospitality LLC, and (7) Num Pang Commissary LLC, from November 6, 2007 through August 21, 2015. Judge Griesa grants the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards Class Counsel $56,660, which is 33.33% of the settlement fund. Judge Griesa also orders that within 14 days after the Effective Date, the Defendants must deposit into the Settlement Fund Account, to be established by the Claims Administrator, a sum equal to $170,000. Within 30 calendar days of the Effective Date, the Claims Administrator will distribute the money in the Settlement Fund Account by making these payments: (1) Paying Class Counsel the Court-approved Attorneys' Fees; and (2) Paying Class Members (who did not opt-out) their Individual Settlement Payment. A copy of the Order & Opinion is available at no charge at http://goo.gl/khLWxWfrom Leagle.com Plaintiffs Victor Sebastian Azogue, Shanell Young, Jose Luis Verdejo, Kevin Hsu, Manuel Chavez and Walter A. Palacios are represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com Plaintiff Victor Sebastian Azogue is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com Defendants 16 for 8 Hospitality, L.L.C., 32 for 16 Hospitality L.L.C., Num Pang Sandwich Shop, 8 for 4 Hospitality L.L.C., Num Pang Holdco L.L.C., Ratha Chuapoly and Benjamin Daitz are represented by: Andrew W. Singer, Esq. Jason B. Klimpl, Esq. TANNENBAUM HELPERN SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 508-6700 E-mail: singer@thshlaw.com klimpl@thsh.com Defendants Num Pang Holdings LLC and Num Pang Commissary LLC are represented by: Jason B. Klimpl, Esq. TANNENBAUM HELPERN SYRACUSE & HIRSCHTRITT LLP 900 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 508-6700 E-mail: klimpl@thsh.com 321 CAPITAL: ABC Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed and Terminated ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 25, 2016, in the case titled ABC Business Forms, Inc. v. 321 Capital Partners, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06256 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso. The minute entry states that: -- a notice of voluntary dismissal has been filed; -- Plaintiff's individual claims against the Defendant are dismissed with prejudice, and with each party bearing its own costs; -- Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed without prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is moot; and -- Civil Case is terminated. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ICSbURW7 lA DISTRIBUTION: "Abedi" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursement --------------------------------------------------------------- Mohammad Latif Abedi, in his individual and representative capacity, Plaintiff, v. lA Distribution, Inc., a California Corporation, Nikola Y. Kim and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC631365, (Cal. Super., August 23, 2016), seeks minimum wages and overtime, damages resulting from failure to provide accurate and itemized wage statements, statutorily- mandated compensation for missed meal and rest breaks, reimbursement for business expenditures incurred as well as all wages due upon termination under the California Labor Code. IA Distribution, Inc. is a California corporation owned by Nikola Y. Kim based in Harbor City, California. The company is engaged in the business of delivering packages on behalf of other businesses, including Dynamex, a nationwide logistics company and Amazon.com. Abedi worked as a delivery driver and was paid as an independent contractor. Plaintiff is represented by: Corbett H. Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CORBETT H. WILLIAMS 300 Spectrum Center Dr., Suite 1575 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 679-9909 Facsimile: (949) 535-1031 Email: cwilliams@chwilliamslaw.com A AND R MOBILE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------- Cortney Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A and R Mobile Home Supply and Service, Inc., Jan McGough and Russell McGough, Individually and as Officers and Directors of A and R Mobile Home Supply and Service, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00577 (E.D. Ark., August 10, 2016), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fee as a result of failing to pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Arkansas Minimum Wage Act and Arkansas Civil Justice Reform Act. A and R sells goods and services related to mobile homes, including installation, repair or maintenance, air conditioning and heating units. Plaintiff was employed as a technician. Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. Joshua West, Esq SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com west@sanfordlawfirm.com ACUMEN SOLUTIONS: Faces "Barekzai" Suit Over FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL WALI BAREKZAI 43805 CENTRAL STATION DRIVE ASHBURN, VIRIGNIA 20147 AND JASON WARE 2138 CARTWRIGHT PLACE RESTON, VIRGINIA 20191 ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ACUMEN SOLUTIONS, INC., 1660 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE SUITE 500 MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102 SERVE: AFSANEH AZAR AMBROSE 1660 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE SUITE 500 MCLEAN, VIRGINIA 22102, Case No. 1:16-cv-01083-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va., August 23, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. ACUMEN SOLUTIONS, INC. engages in the business of nation-wide and international information technology and consultant services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Fax: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Pursued in QLT Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion to stay the briefing schedule in a class action lawsuit while they pursued mediation. On June 14, 2016, the Company entered into a definitive merger agreement ("Merger Agreement") pursuant to which the Company will be merged with a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of QLT Inc. ("QLT"). Upon completion of the proposed merger, each outstanding share of the Company's common stock will be exchanged for 1.0256 shares of QLT common stock. QLT plans to change its name to Novelion Therapeutics Inc. ("Novelion") upon closing of the proposed transaction and its common shares will trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market and the Toronto Stock Exchange. In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's financial performance in violation of the federal securities laws. On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On April 1, 2015, the Court entered an order permitting and setting a schedule for co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 60 days, and for defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs. Accordingly, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2015. The amended complaint filed against the Company and certain of its former executive officers alleges that defendants made certain misstatements and omissions during the first three quarters of 2014 related to the Company's revenue projections for JUXTAPID for 2014, as well as data underlying those projections, in violation of the federal securities laws. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on July 31, 2015. On August 21, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second amended complaint, which alleges that the defendants made certain misstatements and omissions from April 2013 through October 2014 related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's financial projections, as well as data underlying those projections. On September 4, 2015, the Company moved to strike the second amended complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure to seek leave of court to file a second amended pleading, and briefing is complete with respect to the motion to strike. Oral argument on the motion to strike was held on March 9, 2016. On March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend. The Company has opposed this motion to amend, and following a hearing on April 29, 2016, the Court took defendants' motion to strike and plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend under advisement. On May 13, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion wherein the parties stipulated that co-lead plaintiffs could file a third amended pleading within 30 days of the motion, which the Court granted on May 18, 2016, thereby mooting defendants' pending motion to strike the second amended pleading and co-lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended pleading. The Court also entered a briefing schedule for defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs. A third amended complaint was filed on June 27, 2016. On July 22, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion to stay the briefing schedule while they pursued mediation. As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, the Company cannot determine if a loss is probable as a result of the class action lawsuit and whether the outcome will have a material adverse effect on its business and, as a result, the Company has not recorded any amounts for a loss contingency. AMERICAN EQUITY: Says Opportunities for Appeal Have Passed ---------------------------------------------------------- American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that all remaining opportunities for appeal in a Los Angeles class action case have passed. Companies in the life insurance and annuity business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and similar claims. The Company was a defendant in a purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation (complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"), involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar claims. The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by the Company. On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and stipulated to certification of the case as a class action for settlement purposes only. A class member filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 28, 2014. On February 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the terms of the settlement agreement and on April 6, 2016, the class member's subsequent request for a rehearing en banc was denied. All remaining opportunities for appeal have passed. "We estimate our litigation liability in this matter to be $11.1 million based on our best estimate of probable loss. There can be no assurance that any other pending or future litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations," the Company said. American Equity specializes in the sale of individual annuities (primarily deferred annuities) and, to a lesser extent, it also sells life insurance policies. AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court for New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the regulatory approval path for migalastat. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for purchasers of the Company's Common Stock during different periods, all of which fall between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as defendants. On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on July 11, 2016. Defendants' response was due on August 25, 2016. APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss "Silva" Case in Briefing Stage --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action lawsuit by Rachel Silva is in the briefing stage. On June 12, 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("California Court") by Rachel Silva ("Silva") and Don Hudson ("Hudson"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene Annuity and Life Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company ("Aviva"); Athene USA Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation; Athene Holding; Athene Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and AGM. The original complaint in this action alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs alleged that commencing in 2007 and continuing thereafter, Aviva and its then management engaged in a scheme to, among other things, falsely represent the financial strength of and hide the true financial condition of Aviva by, among other things, allegedly ceding risky liabilities to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries and affiliates, misvaluing assets, and failing to make required disclosures to purchasers of policies, and that after Athene Holding purchased all of the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective October 2, 2013 the scheme was "unwound and rewound" so as to continue, and that as a result thereof some of the purchasers of annuity products issued by Aviva were charged an excessive price and were damaged as a result thereof. All defendants (except Aviva plc) (a) moved to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ("Iowa Court") and (b) moved to dismiss this action. Aviva plc separately moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction over it. The California Court granted the motion to transfer to the Iowa Court and denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss. Plaintiff Hudson moved for leave to amend the complaint, which motion was granted by the Iowa Court. The amended complaint removed Silva as a named plaintiff and removed Aviva plc as a defendant, but otherwise substantively makes the same or similar allegations. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and that motion is in the briefing stage. If the action is not dismissed, Athene Asset Management and AGM (and the other defendants) will deny the material allegations of the amended complaint and will vigorously defend themselves against these claims. Although neither Athene Asset Management nor AGM can predict the ultimate outcome of this action, each believes that it is without merit, and because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. APOLLO GLOBAL: Update on Lawsuits Over Fresh Market Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that following the March 14, 2016 announcement that The Fresh Market, Inc. ("TFM") had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "TFM Merger Agreement"), five putative shareholder class actions were filed in four courts (one in the Superior Court of Guilford County, North Carolina; two in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; one in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina; and one in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware). Additionally, one individual action demanding inspection of books and records was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware and a Petition for Appraisal of Stock was also filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware. The first purported class action, captioned Dolores Balint v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 16-CVS-4144, was filed on March 23, 2016 in the North Carolina Superior Court (the "Balint Action"). The complaint named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors and certain affiliates of AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Inc. ("Pomegranate Holdings") and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc. ("Pomegranate Merger Sub"). The Balint action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 13, 2016. The second purported class action, captioned Ross DeAmbrogio v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00239-LPS, was filed April 7, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and named as defendants TFM and its officers and directors (the "DeAmbrogio Action"). The Plaintiff in the DeAmbrogio Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses on June 29, 2016. The third purported class action, captioned John Solak v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00249-SLR, was filed April 8, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors, AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (the "Solak Action"). The Plaintiff in the Solak Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses on June 28, 2016. The fourth purported class action, captioned Ronald Jantz v. Ray Berry, et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-0307-CCE-JEP, was filed April 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and named as defendants TFM and its officers and directors (the "Jantz Action"). The Plaintiff in the Jantz Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal on July 8, 2016. The fifth purported class action, captioned Bruce S. Sherman, et. al. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 12205-VCG, was filed April 14, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors, AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (the "Sherman Action"). The Sherman Action alleges, among other things, that the TFM officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the TFM shareholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the TFM Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price and by filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Sherman Action further alleges that TFM, AGM, Apollo Management VIII, L.P., Pomegranate Holdings and Pomegranate Merger Sub, aided and abetted in those alleged breaches. The sixth action, an individual action captioned Elizabeth Morrison v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12243-VCG, was filed April 22, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and names only TFM as a defendant (the "Morrison Action"). The Morrison Action seeks only the right to inspect certain books and records of TFM pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware Corporate Code. The seventh action, a Petition for Appraisal of Stock captioned Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd. and Brigade Leveraged Capital Structures Fund, Ltd. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12372- VCG, was filed May 23, 2016 and names only TFM as the respondent (the "Hudson Bay Action"). The Hudson Bay Action was filed on behalf of holders of 1,660,000 shares of common stock of TFM and seeks a determination of the fair value of the shares of the common stock of TFM under Section 262 of the Delaware Corporate Code. None of the courts in which these actions are pending has yet set a schedule for resolving the cases on the merits. Because each of these actions is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made. Apollo believes that each of these actions is without merit. APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Remand Fully Briefed, Awaits Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiff's April 18, 2016 remand motion was fully briefed as of May 27, 2016. On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("SFM"), several SFM directors (including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the "AP Entities"), which are controlled by entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and two underwriters of a March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common stock. The AP Entities sold SFM common stock in the March 2015 secondary offering. The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and captioned Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a materially misleading registration statement for the secondary offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM's 2014 annual report regarding SFM's business prospects, and failed to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation. The two causes of action against the AP Entities are for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages for alleged losses sustained from a decline in SFM's stock price. On March 24, 2016, defendants removed the case to United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiff's April 18, 2016 remand motion was fully briefed as of May 27, 2016. Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. APOLLO EDUCATION: Deadline to Amend Suit Extended Until Nov. 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, the parties are in the process of seeking an order extending until November 8, 2016, the deadline for Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. Between February 25 and March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed five putative class actions in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, on behalf of purported stockholders of Apollo Education Group, Inc. The actions were captioned as follows: Casey v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-051605 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2016); Miglio v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-003718 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2016); Wagner v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2016); Ladouceur v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-002148 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2016); Simkhovich v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-002339 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 23, 2016). The defendants include, among others, Apollo Education Group, Inc. ("AEG"), members of AEG's board of directors, AGM, Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., which is a subsidiary of funds affiliated with Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AGM, and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The complaints allege that AEG's directors breached their fiduciary duties to AEG's stockholders by entering into a merger agreement that provides for AEG to be acquired by AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc. Plaintiffs claim that AEG's directors engaged in a flawed sales process, agreed to a price that does not adequately compensate AEG's stockholders, and agreed to certain unfair deal protection terms in connection with the merger agreement. Two of the complaints further allege (1) that AEG's directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement, and (2) that the sales process was flawed because of certain alleged conflicts with AEG's financial advisors. All the complaints allege that AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., aided and abetted the alleged breaches. The complaints that name as defendants AGM, and Apollo Investment Fund VIII, L.P., allege that those entities also aided and abetted the alleged breaches. No amount of damages is specified in any of the complaints. On April 12, 2016, the Court consolidated all the actions under the following caption: In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct.). The parties have informed the Court that they have entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the suit. The settlement contemplated by the memorandum will provide for the dismissal with prejudice on the merits and release of any and all claims by the proposed class against Defendants. The settlement also will recognize that the pendency of the suit was a factor in the decision by the purchasers of AEG to increase the price offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of AEG's common stock from $9.50 per share to $10.00 per share. The settlement is contingent upon the consummation of the merger agreement, Plaintiffs' taking confirmatory discovery, the execution of definitive settlement papers, certification of the proposed class, and court approval. The current deadline for the Plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint or to designate an operative complaint was August 10, 2016, but the parties are in the process of seeking an order extending that deadline until November 8, 2016. ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Oral Argument Held in Ninth Circuit Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has heard oral argument on the appeal in a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and certain of our current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. "On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. "On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. "On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his reply brief. A panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016. "Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims." Arena is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel, small-molecule drugs across a range of therapeutic areas. AUTOZONE PARTS: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Deceptive Rewards Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARY RUTH HUGHES and KEVIN SHENKMAN, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AUTOZONE PARTS, INC., a Nevada corporation, AUTOZONE, INC., a Nevada corporation, AUTOZONE.COM, INC., a corporate entity of unknown origin; and DOES 1-20, the Defendant, Case No. BC631080 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, civil penalties, costs and disgorgement to remedy AutoZone's ill-begotten gains through its deceptive "rewards" program. AutoZone allegedly represented that under its rewards program, its customers would receive a "reward credit" for each purchase they made over $20 and that after they accumulated five such credits, they would receive "a $20 Reward" which they could use as a cash equivalent at AutoZone. However, after receiving Plaintiffs' money, AutoZone unilaterally changed its rewards program to make the credits Plaintiffs had already paid money to acquire "expire" after twelve months and any "$20 Reward" they might accrue expire after three months. AutoZone is an auto parts retailer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd W. Bonder, Esq. Ryan M. Lapine, Esq. ROSENFELD, MEYER & SUSMAN LLP 232 North Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210-5302 Telephone: (310) 858 7700 Facsimile: (310) 860 2430 E-mail:tbonder@rmslaw.com rlapine@rmsiaw.com - and - WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YOHALEM LLP Seth Yohalem, Esq. 954 W. Washington Blvd., Suite 720 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 278 3156 Facsimile: (312) 690 4641 BANCORP INC: $17.5 Million Class Action Settlement Reached ---------------------------------------------------------- The Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and all other individually-named defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with respect to the consolidated class action. On July 17, 2014, a class action securities complaint captioned Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. A consolidated version of that class action complaint was filed before the same court on January 23, 2015 on behalf of Lead Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Arkansas Teacher Retirement System under the caption of In Re The Bancorp, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 14-cv-0952 (SLR). On October 26, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint against Bancorp, Betsy Z. Cohen, Paul Frenkiel, Frank M. Mastrangelo and Jeremy Kuiper, which alleges that during a class period beginning January 26, 2011 through June 26, 2015, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had wrongfully extended and modified problem loans and under-reserved for loan losses due to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's operations and credit practices were in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and (iii) as a result, Bancorp's financial statements, press releases and public statements were materially false and misleading during the relevant period. The amended consolidated complaint further alleges that, as a result, the price of Bancorp's common stock was artificially inflated and fell once the defendants' misstatements and omissions were revealed, causing damage to the plaintiffs and the other members of the class. The complaint asks for an unspecified amount of damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. This litigation is in its preliminary stages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on November 23, 2015. Oral argument on the defendants' motion was held on January 29, 2016 and a court ruling on the motion has been pending. "On July 27, 2016, we and all other individually-named defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (Settlement Agreement) with respect to the consolidated class action. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, we will pay $17.5 million to the plaintiffs as full and complete settlement of the litigation. All amounts paid by us will be fully funded by the Company's insurance carriers. All terms of the Settlement Agreement are subject to court approval," the Company said. BERKSHIRE HILLS: Defending Class Action in Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank were served on April 28, 2016, with a complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported class of Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder, among other matters. On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The complaint seeks, in part, compensatory, consequential, statutory, and punitive damages. Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank deny the allegations contained in the complaint and are vigorously defending this lawsuit. BISTRO MARKETPLACE: "Guzman" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- GUSTAVO GUZMAN, JAVIER SOTO, and DIEGO VIDAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BISTRO MARKETPLACE 17 INC. (d/b/a CAFE BISTRO), PETER PARK, and WON SUN CHUN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06530 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as food preparers, porters, dishwashers, and deli workers. They allegedly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 that they worked. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located at 312 W. 34th Street, New York, New York 10018 under the name "Cafe Bistro". The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 BMO HARRIS: "Shepard" Suit Seeks Back Wages, Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Alfrieda Shepard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A. and KForce Flexible Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08288 (N.D. Ill., August 23, 2016), seeks all back wages due, overtime, statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Shepard works as a call center agent of BMO Harris Bank through Kforce Flexible Solutions, LLC. She claims to be denied overtime pay for their pre-shift work and occasional missed breaks. BMO Harris is a bank based in Chicago, Illinois with branches in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Arizona, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas, Florida and Wisconsin. Plaintiff is represented by: James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 201-0575 - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 726-3400 BOBBY ALVIN RISHER: "Maldonado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Beatrice Maldonado, Lisbeth Estrada and Hermelindo Chilel, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Bobby Alvin Risher, Individually and d/b/a The Bridge, Buddy Mann and Mann's Classic Innovations, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02572, (S.D. Tex., August 23, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney's fees owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mann's Classic Innovations is a re-modeling contractor based in Terrell, Texas. Risher and Mann constitute a joint enterprise, which jointly employed Plaintiffs working on construction projects together. Maldonado and Estrada were employed by the Defendants as sheetrock installers while Chilel worked as a framer. They claim to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com vijay@buenkerlaw.com BROOKLAND MANOR: 150 Families File Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Britain Eakin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that estimating that a redevelopment project will displace nearly 150 low-income families in northeast D.C., residents brought a federal class action in Washington to protect their homes. The controversy stems from the plan to overhaul Brookland Manor Apartments, a 20-acre apartment complex at the intersection of Rhode Island and Montana Avenues that has housed D.C. families for decades. According to a complaint filed August 25, Brookland Manor has offered subsidized housing under the federal Section 8 program since 1977, and less than 10 percent of the complex's 535 apartments are rented at full, market-rate without public assistance. Adriann Borum and Lorretta Holloman, two of the plaintiffs behind the lawsuit, say that is set to change under a proposed redevelopment filed with the local zoning board in 2014 by Mid- City Financial Corp. Along with property manager Brentwood Village, Mid-City is planning to expand Brookland Manor to 1,760 units, of which 1,646 will be apartments. One critical change, the complaint says, is that "the redeveloped property would have zero four- or five-bedroom apartment units." Borum and Holloman both rent four-bedroom apartments -- just like the 116 households total at Brookland Manor residing in four- and five-bedroom apartment units, as of June 2015, according to the complaint. "They live in their apartments with their minor children or with their minor children and extended family members, and these larger-size apartments are necessary to accommodate their families," the complaint states. Brookland Manor has 75 three-bedroom units currently, but the redeveloped property will have just 64. Borum and Holloman say the message is clear: large families are "not consistent with the creation of a vibrant new community." "Defendants have publicly stated that they will not build four- or five-bedroom apartment units in the redeveloped property because defendants believe that allowing large families to reside in large units at apartment complexes is unsuitable for such families, has an 'adverse' impact on residential quality of life, and is inconsistent with the new community defendants seek to create," the complaint states. Facing homelessness, the women are accusing the developers of discriminating against them on the basis of familial status. Catherine Cone, a staff attorney with Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, says the redevelopment of Brookland Manor is indicative of other redevelopment efforts in the city to push out long time residents, and construct properties to bring new, more affluent residents into gentrified areas. In this instance, the redevelopment project will have a disparate impact on larger families, Cone said in an interview. "Generally what we think this case shows is that not only can redevelopment that goes unchecked lead to displacement of longtime residents, it can also specifically affect families," Cone said. According to the complaint, Brookland Manor is among the only affordable residences in the northeastern part of the city that offers larger units for bigger families. D.C. housing codes stipulate that large families cannot reside in smaller units. Many of the families at Brookland Manor require at least a three- bedroom apartment to be in compliance, the complaint states. Though Mid-City refused to comment on the pending litigation, an article on its website says the redeveloped complex, which will span eight blocks, will be "mixed income." Affordable housing will make up 20 percent of the units, and the new property will include multifamily buildings, the article says. Mid-City's founder, the late Eugene F. Ford Sr., has been memorialized as a champion of affordable housing. According to the D.C. Zoning Commission's first-stage approval of the plan, the redevelopment will have a minimal impact on current residents. "Mr. Meers stated that the applicant's research of the families that are currently living in the four and five-bedroom units resulted in the finding that all but 13 of the existing four and five-bedroom households can be housed in smaller units based on prevailing HUD occupancy standards," the document says, referencing Michael Meers, Mid-City's vice president. "Mr. Meers stated that the Applicant would meet with those 13 families in order to ensure that they will be reasonably accommodated into the new Brentwood Village project." But the residents who filed the complaint disagree with that assessment. "Under the current redevelopment plan, all 183 households currently living in three, four, or five-bedroom apartments at Brookland Manor would be forced to vie for 64 three-bedroom units at the redeveloped property," the complaint alleges, adding that the remaining units will not be affordable. Cone says the redevelopment of Brookland Manor is reflective of a general shortage of affordable housing in the district -- units with more than three bedrooms are in short supply. A 2015 Urban Institute report on D.C. housing that Cone referenced shows that only 21 percent of housing units in the district are three bedrooms. Meanwhile, only 8 percent have four bedrooms, while only 4 percent have five or more bedrooms. "Those are pretty stark numbers," Cone said. Cone noted that some Brookland Manor families have already been displaced from their original units, while other families have been broken up or have already moved off of the property. Other Brookland Manor residents have begun looking for alternative housing, but have found few units available, many of them in Wards 7 and 8, the poorest and most segregated parts of the city, she said. Others are looking for housing in Maryland in Prince George's County, which raises a host of additional concerns, Cone added. Those forced to move outside of the district will be cut off from community support systems - access to doctors, schools and churches, she said. The complaint goes into detail about how the redevelopment will affect Borum, a mom of five who has lived in Brookland Manor for 25 years. Borum's younger children attend school nearby, and she lives within walking distance of her job. She also says she relies on her community church for religious and communal support, and that her children enjoy recreational activities and programs at a neighborhood recreation center. "Ms. Borum will have an extremely difficult time finding an adequately sized apartment in D.C. for her family because of the scarcity of affordable housing of her unit type," the complaint states. When it comes to households like Borum's, the Urban Institute report found that families of five or more are at higher risk for homelessness. Just 1 percent to 2 percent of families with four or less family members are at risk for homelessness, compared with 6 percent of large households. "Mid-City's proposed redevelopment disproportionately impacts families and exacerbates the affordable housing and homelessness crises in the district and threatens the wellbeing of the city's most vulnerable populations," according to a statement about the lawsuit from Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. Attorneys from Covington & Burling joined the Washington Lawyers' Committee in filing the class action against Mid-City, Brentwood Village LLC, Brentwood Associates LP and Edgewood Management Corp. Along with the individual residents, Organizing Neighborhood Equity in Shaw and the District of Columbia joined the class action as a lead plaintiff. They allege violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. BURGER KING: Roman Seeks Final Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RONALD JOSEPH TORRES ROMAN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-20455-KMM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for final class certification of: "all persons currently employed by Burger King or previously employed by Burger King within the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit in the position of Sales, Profit and Operations Coach who elect to opt-in to the action." Approximately 130 former sales, profit and operations coaches filed written consents to join the lawsuit. The Eleventh Circuit has endorsed a two-step certification process for collective actions, whereby the court conditionally certifies the class early in the litigation, then makes a final determination of whether the class members are similarly situated after the Parties have had an opportunity to conduct discovery, the Plaintiff's lawyers said, citing Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208, 1219 (11th Cir. 2001). On June 2, 2015, the Court conditionally certified the class. Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an Order confirming its decision to certify this collective action, and to finally certify the collective action for trial. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PSZLYhpb The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP PA 1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 639 9366 E-Mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com CARRIER IQ: $9MM Settlement in Privacy Suit Gets Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Carrier IQ will pay $9 million to settle claims that it collected personal information from smartphone users without their permission before sending it to Sprint, AT&T and other companies. Carrier IQ and several telecoms were hit in 2011 with a raft of consumer privacy class actions alleging Carrier used a device called IQRD to access smartphones while hiding its presence and subverting standard operating system functions or other applications. Plaintiffs said the software allowed Carrier IQ to log users' keystrokes, including their private text messages and web searches, in violation of federal and state wiretap laws. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on Thursday granted final approval of the $9 million settlement and $2.25 million in attorneys' fees after throwing it in limbo in July over questions about how many people knew they were eligible for an award. However, Chen denied approval of incentive awards to named plaintiffs who spent less than 26 hours on the case, lowering the award to $3,000 from the requested $5,000. Once attorneys' fees, costs and incentive awards are subtracted from the settlement fund, an estimated $5.9 million will remain for distribution to about 42,000 class members, according to an order Chen issued. It's estimated that each member will receive between $138.35 and $149.28. "The number of objections and opt-outs is small, which indicates that the class largely supports the settlement," Chen said in his 12-page ruling. "While the number of claims is also small, this cannot be said to be the result of inadequate notice." In deferring to grant final approval in July, Chen ordered class counsel to provide more information about the "reach" of the class notice, citing the low number of claims submitted by class members as a potential indicator that not enough people learned about the settlement and their eligibility for an award during the notice period. With a response rate of 0.14 percent, Chen said the reach may have been insufficient. He asked for more information about how people were reached through both paper publications and the Internet, as well as what additional notice could be done and how much it would cost. In response, plaintiffs' counsel provided a declaration from settlement administrator Alan Vasquez explaining that the publication notice placed in USA Today and People magazine, as well as a banner advertisement notice, likely reached 81 percent of the class. "In our experience, the claims rate in this settlement is consistent with many other settlement administrations with similar class characteristics," Vasquez said in his declaration. Based on Vasquez's declaration, Chen found that "a substantial portion of the settlement class were likely exposed to the multi- faceted notice provided by the administrator." The plaintiffs were represented by Daniel Warshaw with Pearson, Simon & Warshaw in Sherman Oaks, Calif. Carrier IQ was represented by Tyler Newby of Fenwick & West in San Francisco. Neither attorney could be reached for comment on Friday afternoon. The case is captioned, IN RE CARRIER IQ, INC., CONSUMER PRIVACY LITIGATION., Case No. 12-md-02330-EMC (N.D. Cal.). CCB CREDIT: "Schmitz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT SCHMITZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CCB CREDIT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1125 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BVQYQjzC The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss Held ------------------------------------------------------------- Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit was to be held August 17, 2016. On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also named Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The complaint alleged that during the class period, June 18, 2014, through April 7, 2015, the Company made material misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The complaint alleged a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the individual defendants. The complaint did not state the amount of the damages sought. On June 3, 2015, defendants were served. On June 29, 2015, the Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties, that defendants are not required to respond to the initial complaint in this action until such time as a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed. The deadline for filing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and selection of lead counsel was June 22, 2015. On that date, one motion was filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative plaintiff Michelle Jackson. On August 3, 2015, having received no opposition, the Court appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Law Firm as class counsel. As stipulated among the parties, Jackson filed an amended class action complaint on September 17, 2015. On January 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff submitted a response on March 1, 2016 and oral argument on the motion to dismiss took place on April 20, 2016. The decision on the motion to dismiss is pending as of the filing date of this Form 10-Q. Discovery will be stayed pending the decision on the motion to dismiss. The amended complaint names ten additional individuals and entities as defendants ("additional defendants"), none of whom are affiliated with the Company, and asserts an additional claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder that the Company purportedly engaged in a scheme with the additional defendants to promote its securities. The amended complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Liu. On January 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was argued on April 20, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend. On June 6, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, and on June 30, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. Oral argument on the motion was to be held August 17, 2016. The Company believes the suit is without merit and filled with patently false information, and will vigorously defend the Company in the matter. At this early stage of the proceedings, it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate the range of potential loss. Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. is a biomedicine company, principally engaged in the development of new treatments for cancerous and degenerative diseases utilizing proprietary cell- based technologies. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement of Merger Case Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit related to the merger of Charter Communications, Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. remains subject to approval of the New York Supreme Court. On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as CCH I, LLC, the "Company" or "Charter") completed its previously reported merger transactions among the Company, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Legacy TWC"), Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy Charter"), and certain other subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC Transaction"). Also on May 18, 2016, the Company completed its previously reported acquisition of Bright House Networks, LLC ("Legacy Bright House") from Advance/Newhouse Partnership (the "Bright House Transaction," and, together with the TWC Transaction, the "Transactions"). As a result of the Transactions, the Company became the new public parent company that holds the combined operations of Legacy Charter, Legacy TWC and Legacy Bright House and was renamed Charter Communications, Inc. In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast and Legacy TWC of their intent to merge, Breffni Barrett and others filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New York against Comcast, Legacy TWC and their respective officers and directors. Later five similar class actions were consolidated with this matter (the "NY Actions"). The NY Actions were settled in July 2014, however, such settlement was terminated following the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger in April 2015. In May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge. Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), removing Comcast as a defendant and naming TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and attorneys' fees. In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU, the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is conditioned on, among other things, approval by the New York Supreme Court. In the event that the New York Supreme Court does not approve the settlement, the defendants intend to vigorously defend against any further litigation. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Sciabacucchi Case Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Matthew Sciabacucchi remains pending. In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband announced by Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the "Transactions"). The lawsuit names as defendants Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Transactions. Plaintiff requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N. On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on the Transactions. Charter has filed a motion to dismiss this litigation. Charter denies any liability, believes that it has substantial defenses, and intends to vigorously defend this suit. CITIBANK: "Cain" Class Removed Suit to District Maryland -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Clifford Cain, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. C-02-CV-16-02160, was removed from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to the U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02930-ELH to the proceeding. Citibank, N.A. operates a financial services company headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Holland, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM PC PO Box 6268 Annapolis, MD 21401-0268 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 Facsimile: (410) 280-8650 E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Edward Hutchinson Robbins Jr., Esq. Zachary Schultz, Esq. MILES AND STOCKBRIDGE PC 100 Light St Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385-3408 Facsimile: (410) 698-4518 E-mail: erobbins@milesstockbridge.com zschultz@milesstockbridge.com CITY OF HOPE: "Seper" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN A. SEPER on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, a California corporation; and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC630925 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover wages for workdays the Defendants failed to provide legally compliant meal periods; wages for workdays the Defendants failed to provide third rest periods when employees worked over 10 hours in a day; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate and complete wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages; applicable civil penalties; and injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Labor Code. City of Hope is a private, not-for-profit clinical research center, hospital and graduate medical school located in Duarte, California, United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan D. Bello, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite.200 Beverly Hills, CA 902Tl Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com jbello@lelawfirm.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Loveland Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled PETER LOVELAND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1124 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class and appoint the Plaintiff as its representative, and appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel. The Plaintiff asks the Court to stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of the motion. According to the Plaintiff, to avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zAmBhty1 The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com COOK CITY, IL: Sept. 22 Hearing on Williams' Bid to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 23, 2016, in the case captioned Walter Williams, et al. v. Sheriff of Cook County, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-07639 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Gary Feinerman. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class entered and continued to September 22, 2016; -- for the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and the Defendant's motion to reconsider and strike preliminary injunction hearing date are denied as moot; -- the August 24, 2016 preliminary injunction hearing is stricken; -- for the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff's conditional motion to add additional plaintiff is granted; -- Defendants will answer or otherwise plead to the amended complaint by September 13, 2016; and -- status hearing set for September 22, 2016, will stand. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=piO7xbBE CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Faces "Grae" Securities Lawsuit in Tenn. ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIKKI BOLLINGER GRAE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, DAMON T. HINIGER, and DAVID M. GARFINKLE, TODD J. MULLENGER, Case No. 3:16-cv-02267 (M.D. Tenn., August 23, 2016), is a securities class action on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired CCA securities between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016, both dates inclusive. Corrections Corporation of America, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates privatized correctional and detention facilities in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P. O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Phone: 615.248.2828 Fax: 866.816.4116 E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (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 Phone: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (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 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 1-800-977-7401 Fax: 1-800-536-0065 E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com COUNTRY CLUB OF STOW: Sued Over Unredeemable Cash Card ------------------------------------------------------ EDWARD KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COUNTRY CLUB OF STOW, INC., and STOW FOOD SERVICES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2016-2381 (Mass. Super. Ct., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover actual and/or statutory damages, triple damages, and attorney fees. On August 23, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased a gift card (the Gift Card) for $75.00 from the Defendants for use of future goods and services. The expiration date of the Gift Card was not clearly printed on the Gift Card or the sales receipt. The Gift Card states that "additional value may be added to this card at any time" and any "unused value remains on card and cannot be redeemed for cash." The Defendants allegedly refused to accept the gift card or provide cash reimbursement in the spring of 2016. Founded in 1987, Country Club of Stow Inc. is a small organization in the public golf courses industry located in Stow, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Gardner, Esq. Nick Rosenberg, Esq. GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C. 1 State Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: 857 225 2743 E-mail: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Appraisal Dist. Sued Over Excess Appraised Value ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN TOWER II, L.P. (BRYAN TOWER), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. DC-16-10119 (D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's property). In May, 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District allegedly appraised the value of the Property at an amount in excess of the appraised value required by law. The complaint says the value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of the fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and assessment. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. 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 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com kdonovan@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Appraisal Dist. Sued Over Incorrect Valuation ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN B. SCHORSCH, JR., AND KIRSTEN SCHORSCH, the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16- 10113 (D. Tex., Aug. 18, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiffs' Property in accordance with the requirement of law pursuant to the Texas Property Tax Code. According to the complaint, the appraised value of the Property exceeds the market value of the Property as of January 1, of the tax year at issue. The appraised value is unequal compared to other properties similarly situated, and exceeds the median value of other similarly situated property by at least 10%. The levying of a tax on the Property based on the incorrect valuation is excessive and will cause injury to the Plaintiffs. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: John B. Schorsch, Jr. MORRIS & SCHORSCH, PC 8080 N. Central Expressway Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 888 3324 Facsimile: (214) 888 3327 E-mail: jschorsch@mstxlaw.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Paramount Suit Alleges Misappraisal --------------------------------------------------- Paramount Jr, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10320, (S.D. Tex., August 23, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for violation of the Texas Tax Code. Plaintiff owns The Resort at Jefferson Ridge Apartments located at 5301N MacArthur Blvd in Irving, Dallas County, Texas. Plaintiff alleges that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $32,679,170, an amount in excess of the appraised value required by law. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas 75247-6195. Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Tel: (972) 931-9901 Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax) Email: ddonovan@gpd.com kdonovan@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: 3662 Camp Wisdom Suit Alleges Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------------- 3662 Camp Wisdom, LLC d/b/a Southwest Center Mall, Plaintiff, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16- 10349, (S.D. Tex., August 8, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for violation of the Texas Tax Code. Plaintiff was and is the owner of certain real property and improvements known as the Southwest Center Mall located at 3662 W. Camp Wisdom Road in Dallas County, Texas. The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas 75247-6195. Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Tel: (972) 931-9901 Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax) Email: ddonovan@gpd.com kdonovan@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: HMK Ltd. Seeks Review of Protest Valuation Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- HMK LTD., HANNA E. KHRAISH and KHRAISH H. KHRAISH, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Case No. DC-16-10308 (In The District Court Dallas County, August 23, 2016), seeks de novo review of the decision and wrongful denial of protest valuation issued by the Appraisal Review Board. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles W. McGarry, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES MCGARRY 701 Commerce Street, Suite 400 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 748-0800 Fax: (214) 748-9449 E-mail: cmcgarry@ix.netcom.com DANISCO USA: Class Certification Bid in "Rixen" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Frederick J. Kapala entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Christopher E. Rixen, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Danisco USA Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-50283 (N.D. Ill.), granting the joint motion for approval of settlement agreements, dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim, and denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. The order is based on a report and recommendation (R&R) from the magistrate judge recommending that the court grant the joint motion to approve the settlement agreements and that the pending motion for class certification be denied as moot. The parties had an opportunity to object to the R&R by August 19, 2016. No objection has been received. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vJvBlUzr DIMITRI CONSTRUCTION: Soto Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE FRANCISCO MARADIAGA SOTO, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DIMITRI CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORP., and RICARDO A DIMITRI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23564-FAM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants have allegedly employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of the complaint back three years. Dimitri Construction provides home/office interiors finishing, furnishing and remodeling. 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 DIRECTV LLC: "Jones" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT, Commissions -------------------------------------------------------------- Ricardo Jones v. DirecTV LLC, Multiband Corporation and Simplified Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02108 (N.D. Ohio, August 23, 2016), seeks applicable statutory minimum wages, overtime pay, commissions, compensatory damages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio State Constitution. DirecTV is a satellite television provider and installs and repairs equipment in the homes of many of its subscribers though contractors called Home Services Providers such as Multiband and Simplified Solutions. Plaintiff worked for these contractors as a technician. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Superior Building 815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325 Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel: (440) 498-9100 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Thomas A. Downie, Esq. 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Tel: (440) 973-9000 Email: tom@chagrinlaw.com EAST PENN: "Mcevoy" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY MCEVOY, 7929 Boyertown Pike, Boyertown, PA 19512, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EAST PENN MANUFACTURING COMPANY, P.O. 147, Deka Road, Lyon Station, PA 19536, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv- 04542-JLS (E.D. Penn., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover compensation and overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant violated the Family and Medical Leave Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act. The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendant where she worked as an Industrial Occupational Health Nurse. During the course of her employment, the Plaintiff did not have her hours of work accurately tracked and recorded by the Defendant, and also regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not properly compensated for her work/or was not paid overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. East Penn is a private company and the world's largest single- site, lead-acid battery facility. The Plaintiff is represented by: MEGAN LINSLEY DAVIS, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP LLC 1628 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 PHONE: (267) 273 - 1054 FAX: (215) 525 - 0210 ENCOMPASS SERVICES: "McDonald" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Randy McDonald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Encompass Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01203 (W.D. Pa., August 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the collective action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Massachusetts Labor Law and the Massachusetts Wage Act. Encompass provides route reconnaissance, survey, map generation, well package development, title research, and other services for the oil and gas industry. Randy McDonald worked for Defendant performing surveying work surrounding the pre-construction of pipelines in the oilfield. He claims to have never received overtime compensation. Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: 412-766-1455 Fax: 412-766-0300 Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com ENVESTNET INC: $200,000 Agreement on Fees and Expenses Reached -------------------------------------------------------------- Envestnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that during the second quarter of 2016, the parties reached an agreement with respect to fees and expenses in the amount of $200,000, and on July 13, 2016 the Court entered a Stipulation and Order directing payment of the settlement amount to plaintiffs' counsel. Envestnet Inc. ("Envestnet"), Yale Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), Yodlee Inc. ("Yodlee"), and all members of Yodlee's board of directors at the time of Yodlee's acquisition (the "Acquisition") by Envestnet were named as defendants in two putative class actions challenging the Acquisition. The suits, captioned Suman Inala v. Yodlee, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11461) (filed September 2, 2015 and amended on October 14, 2015) and Guillaume Wieland-Paquet v. Yodlee, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11611) (filed October 14, 2015), were pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaints alleged, among other things, that the Yodlee directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Yodlee through a conflicted process and by failing to ensure that Yodlee's stockholders received adequate and fair value for their shares. The complaints also alleged that the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Envestnet, which contained Yodlee's proxy statement, failed to disclose material information to Yodlee's stockholder. The complaints also alleged that Envestnet and Merger Sub aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought as relief, among other things, an injunction against the merger, rescission of the Merger Agreement to the extent it was already implemented, an award of damages and attorneys' fees. On October 16, 2015, plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings and discovery, so as to be in a position to seek injunctive relief preventing Yodlee's shareholders from voting on the proposed Merger. On October 28, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and on November 19, 2015, the Merger was completed. On March 15, 2016, Plaintiffs advised the Court that they intended to voluntarily dismiss the suits and to seek an as yet unspecified award of fees for purportedly compelling Yodlee to supplement its proxy statement in order to moot certain of plaintiffs' claims. On May 17, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") entered a Stipulation and Proposed Order Concerning Voluntary Dismissal of the Action and Plaintiffs' Anticipated Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. The Court dismissed the Actions and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining any application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses by the plaintiffs and their counsel, who contend that supplemental proxy materials filed by Yodlee on October 26, 2015 contained supplemental disclosures of material fact that mooted plaintiffs' disclosure claims. During the second quarter of 2016, the parties reached an agreement with respect to such fees and expenses in the amount of $200,000 (the "settlement amount"), and on July 13, 2016 the Court entered a Stipulation and Order directing payment of the settlement amount to plaintiffs' counsel (the "Order"). The Company has denied any wrongdoing, and agreed to pay the settlement amount to avoid incurring further costs of litigation. The Company agreed to pay the settlement amount within 10 business days after the entry of the Order, which the Company did. The Court did not pass on the amount of the settlement. Any stockholder seeking additional information about this matter should contact W. Scott Holleman, counsel for plaintiffs, at ScottH@johnsonandweaver.com or (212) 802-1486, or Jonathan Medow, counsel for Envestnet, at jmedow@mayerbrown.com or (312) 701-7060. On November 19, 2015, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated August 10, 2015, among Yodlee, the Company and Yale Merger Corp. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Envestnet, Merger Sub was merged (the "Merger") with and into Yodlee with Yodlee continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of Envestnet. Yodlee, operating as Envestnet | Yodlee, is a data aggregation and data analytics platform powering dynamic, cloud-based innovation for digital financial services. Yodlee powers digital financial solutions for over 22 million paid subscribers and over 1,000 financial institutions, financial technology innovators and financial advisory firms. Founded in 1999, the company has built a network of over 15,000 data sources and been awarded 78 patents. FBR & CO: Motion to Amend Waterford Complaint Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- FBR & CO. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to to amend their complaint a third time is pending. On March 30, 2016, the putative class action lawsuit of Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, was dismissed in its entirety. The Court ruled that the operative amended complaint, filed on January 23, 2015, failed to allege any material misstatements. As previously disclosed, the Second Amended Complaint asserted claims against all the underwriters, including FBRCM, under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act in connection with offerings in September and December 2013. Plaintiffs have requested that the court grant them permission to amend their complaint a third time. Briefing on that motion is complete as of June 23, 2016 and a ruling is pending. Regional Management continues to indemnify all of the underwriters, including FBRCM, pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement. FBR & CO: Defendants Opposing Remand of Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- FBR & CO. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in class action lawsuits are currently seeking to remand to Tennessee state court; defendants are vigorously opposing the remand. In November 2015, MLV & Co. LLC was named a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits alleging substantially identical claims against the officers and directors and underwriters of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"). The lawsuits, styled Goldberg v. Miller et al., and Gaynor v. Miller et al., are currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with 6 offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26; 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller. The plaintiffs are currently seeking to remand to Tennessee state court; defendants are vigorously opposing the remand. A subsequent complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on May 12, 2016. The lawsuit, styled Hull v. Miller et al., alleges identical claims to the previously filed complaints under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against eight of the same underwriters, including MLV, and the officers and directors of Miller. FCA US: Faltermeier Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled DAVID FALTERMEIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00491-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Mr. David Faltermeier asks the Court to certify a class of: "all current owners of a Model Year 2002-2007 Jeep Liberty vehicle or a Model Year 1993-1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicle that was not equipped with a fuel tank shield/skid plate at the time of purchase, who purchased the vehicle in the State of Missouri for personal, family or household purposes at any time from June 4, 2013 to the present." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UPTRF4Kd The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Moore, Esq. Christopher S. Shank, Esq. David L. Heinemann MO, Esq. Stephen J. Moore, Esq. SHANK & MOORE, LLC 1968 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Suite 100 Mission Woods, KS 66205 Telephone: (816) 471 0909 Facsimile: (816) 471 3888 E-mail: chriss@shankmoore.com davidh@shankmoore.com sjm@shankmoore.com FERRELLGAS: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Damages Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Morgan-Larson, LLC, Johnson Auto Electric, Inc., Speed Stop 32, Inc., and Yocum Oil Company, Inc. took an appeal from the district court's dismissal of their claims for damages in their action against Defendants Ferrellgas and AmeriGas under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, see 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1. The district court determined that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The court concluded that none of the tolling theories advanced by Plaintiffs were sufficient to adjust or toll the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the district court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for damages. Plaintiffs timely appealed. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in failing to find that the continuing violations theory, which has the effect of restarting the limitations period, prevented the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims. No other issues are raised on appeal. On Aug. 25, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. Courthouse News Service reported that it is too late, the Eighth Circuit agreed, for consumers to seek damages from propane-tank distributors Ferrellgas and AmeriGas over price-fixing that already resulted in settlements with the Federal Trade Commission and a prior class action in St. Louis. FIFTH STREET: $14MM Deal Subject to Additional Discovery -------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the FSC Class-Action Lawsuits have not yet filed the settlement agreement with the court. The deal is subject to discovery and court approval. The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative securities class-action lawsuits. The first lawsuit was filed on October 1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall, Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759-LAK. The second lawsuit was filed on October 14, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488. The case was later transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where it is pending as Case No. 16-cv-00088-LAK. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908-LAK. The defendants in all three cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Richard Petrocelli, the Company and Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. ("FSAM"). The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased our common stock between July 7, 2014, and February 6, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuits allege in general terms that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate the true value of the Company's investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as our asset manager and investment adviser. For example, the lawsuits allege that the Company improperly delayed the write-down of at least three of its investments until the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014, after FSAM had conducted its IPO in October 2014, even though the Company purportedly should have taken the write-down before FSAM's IPO. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in any of the actions. On February 1, 2016, the court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed its consolidated complaint on April 1, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges claims similar to those pled in the original complaints on behalf of the same putative class. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 31, 2016. After defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in a mediation to explore the possible settlement of the action. Following the mediation, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the case for $14,050,000 to a settlement class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from July 7, 2014 through February 6, 2015. Approximately 99% of the settlement amount will be paid from insurance coverage. The proposed settlement is subject to plaintiff's completion of additional discovery and approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after notice has been sent to the settlement class. The parties have not yet filed the settlement agreement with the court. FIFTH STREET: Hearing on "Mootness Fee" Held -------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court was to hear argument on plaintiff's motion for "mootness fee" on August 23, 2016. On January 29, 2016, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et. al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et al., C.A. No. 11947-VCG. The defendants in the case are Bernard D. Berman, James Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G. Owens, Douglas F. Ray, Fifth Street Management LLC, FSAM, the Company and Fifth Street Holdings L.P. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by, among other things, issuing an incomplete or inaccurate preliminary proxy statement that purportedly attempted to mislead our stockholders into voting against proposals to be presented by another shareholder (RiverNorth Capital Management) in a proxy contest in connection with the Company's 2016 annual meeting. The competing shareholder proposals had sought to elect three director nominees to our Board of Directors and to terminate the investment advisory agreement with Fifth Street Management LLC. The complaint also charged that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by perpetuating and failing to terminate the investment advisory agreement and by seeking to entrench themselves as directors and have Fifth Street Management LLC remain in place. The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction preventing the Company and its Board of Directors from soliciting proxies for the 2016 annual meeting until additional disclosures were issued; a declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to terminate the investment advisory agreement and by keeping the Company's Board of Directors and Fifth Street Management LLC in place; a declaration that any shares repurchased by the Company after the record date of the 2016 annual meeting would not be considered outstanding shares for purposes of the Company's stockholder approvals sought at the annual meeting; and awarding plaintiff costs and disbursements. The plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction. Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings and moved to dismiss the case. The Company also filed another amendment to the preliminary proxy statement, making additional disclosures relating to issues raised by plaintiff and RiverNorth. On February 16, 2016, plaintiff informed the Delaware court that the basis for his injunction motion had become moot and that he was withdrawing his motions for a preliminary injunction and expedited proceedings. On February 18, 2016, the Company announced that it had entered into an agreement with RiverNorth Capital Management pursuant to which RiverNorth would withdraw its competing proxy solicitation. Plaintiff later informed the court that his case has become moot, and he moved for a "mootness fee." The court was to hear argument on plaintiff's motion on August 23, 2016. FORD MOTOR: Cars Stall or Suddenly Decelerate, Class Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in Santa Ana, Calif., claims Ford vehicles with a Delphi Gen 6 electronic throttle body in model years 2011 to 2015 have a dangerous defect that makes them stall or suddenly decelerate. FOREVER 21: Faces "Patterson" Class Suit in District New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Forever 21, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive. The case is captioned Tifany Patterson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Forever 21, Inc. and Does 1- 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-05087-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., August 19, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Clark, Esq. CLARK LAW FIRM, PC 811 Sixteenth Avenue Belmar, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 443-0333 Facsimile: (732) 894-9647 E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com GENERAL NUTRITION: Bid to Certify Class in "Howes" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 25, 2016, in the case styled Katherine Howes, et al. v. General Nutrition Centers, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02168 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve. The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as moot in light of the dismissal of the Defendants in the Howes' action. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NTLE8KSl GOOGLE INC: Fillekes Seeks Certification of Class in "Heath" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Fillekes, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ROBERT HEATH, and CHERYL FILLEKES, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-01824-BLF (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court to conditionally certify an opt-in Fair Labor Standards Act collective action of certain applicants age 40 and older, who allegedly were discriminated against by Google in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Ms. Fillekes asks that the Court conditionally certify this class: All individuals who interviewed in-person for any Software Engineer ("SWE"), Site Reliability Engineer ("SRE"), or Systems Engineer ("SysEng") position with Google in the United States during the time period from August 13, 2010 through the present; were age 40 or older at the time of the interview; and were refused employment by Google. The Court will commence a hearing on November 10, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U1aO2hYA Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes is represented by: Daniel L. Low, Esq. Daniel Kotchen, Esq. KOTCHEN & LOW LLP 1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101 Washington, DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 471-1995 Facsimile: (202) 280-1128 E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com dkotchen@kotchen.com GREENE'S ENERGY: "Matte" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ DONNIE MATTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREENE'S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, d/b/a GEG CONSULTANTS, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01258-DSC (W.D. Penn., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Greene's Energy is a diversified oilfield services company providing integrated testing, rentals and specialty services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15212 HERC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Fully Briefed -------------------------------------------------------------- Herc Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in the case, In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, is now fully briefed. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming the Company (under its former Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. name) and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, the Company responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and the Company responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included additional allegations, named additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, the Company filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May 6, 2016. On June 13, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss. The matter is now fully briefed. The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and New Hertz, which is responsible for managing this matter, has informed the Company that it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to the Company. However, the Company is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material to the Company's consolidated and combined financial condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular reporting period. Herc Holdings Inc. is among the largest equipment rental companies in North America. It conducts substantially all of its operations through subsidiaries, including Herc Rentals Inc. ("Herc"). HP INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over 401(k) Plan Fiduciary Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- MARK BURGESS, RHONDA JOHNSON, LARRY LOPEZ, HOLGER MEYER, and ALAN B. MUNNS, the Plaintiffs, v. HP INC., FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY, FIDELITY INVESTMENTS INSTITUTIONAL OPERATIONS COMPANY, and UNITED AIRLINES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-04784 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2016), seeks to declare that Defendant has breached its fiduciary duties to 401(k) Plan and engaged in prohibited transactions. The individual Plaintiffs in the case are employees of HP Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. and participants, respectively, in the Hewlett-Packard Company 401(k) Plan and the United Airlines Ground Employee 401(k) Plan, both of which are profit-sharing plans with cash-or-deferred arrangements. Fidelity Management Trust Company, as trustee and fiduciary to the HP and UAL Plans and the putative Float Plans Class and HP and UAL Plan Participant Class, manages the cash generated by its qualified retirement plan customers. After the cash generated by a Plan transaction is credited to the account of the Plan, Fidelity effectively withdraws that cash from the Plan and deposits that cash into an account maintained in the name of or for the benefit of Fidelity, and Fidelity allegedly uses that cash for its own benefit or for its own account, in violation of its fiduciary obligations under ERISA HP Inc. is an American technology company, created on November 1, 2015, as one of two successors of Hewlett-Packard, along with Hewlett Packard Enterprise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Mark T. Johnson, Esq. Kyle G. Bates, Esq. Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. John J. Nestico, Esq. Michael C. McKay, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421 7100 Facsimile: (415) 421 7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com kbates@schneiderwallace.com gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com jnestico@schneiderwallace.com mckay@schneiderwallace.com HRG GROUP: Settlement Completion in "Cressy" Case Extended ---------------------------------------------------------- HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the deadline for settlement completion in the case by Eddie L. Cressy has been extended from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016. On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et al. ("Cressy") in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "LA Court"), Case No. BC- 514340. The complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an action in federal court. The complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity- indexed insurance policies. On January 2, 2015, the LA Court entered final judgment in Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement reached on April 4, 2014. On August 10, 2015, FGL tendered $1.3 million to the settlement administrator for a claim review fund. The Company implemented an interest enhancement feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement, which enhancement began on October 12, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the January 2, 2015 final order and judgment, to extend the deadline for settlement completion from January 28, 2016 to October 24, 2016. At June 30, 2016, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to Cressy would be $9.2 million, with a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $0.6 million. FGL has incurred and paid $5.0 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3 million related to settlement costs as of June 30, 2016. Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. HRG Group, Inc. is a diversified holding company focused on owning businesses that the Company believes can, in the long term, generate sustainable free cash flow or attractive returns on investment. HRG's shares of common stock trade on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "HRG." The Company's reportable business segments are organized in a manner that reflects how HRG's management views those business activities. Accordingly, the Company currently operates its business in four reporting segments: (i) Consumer Products, (ii) Insurance, (iii) Energy, and (iv) Asset Management. HRG GROUP: Appeal in "Ludwick" Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------- HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the appeal in the case by Dale R. Ludwick remains pending. On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated ("Plaintiff Ludwick") v. Harbinger Group Inc. (HRG's former corporate name), FGL Insurance, Raven Re, and Front Street Cayman (the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), requested injunctive and declaratory relief, sought unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not specified, treble damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity. On April 13, 2015, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a notice of appeal. As of June 30, 2016, HRG and FGL did not have sufficient information to determine whether FGL is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1.5 million, which was accrued during the nine months ended June 30, 2016. HRG Group, Inc. is a diversified holding company focused on owning businesses that the Company believes can, in the long term, generate sustainable free cash flow or attractive returns on investment. HRG's shares of common stock trade on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "HRG." The Company's reportable business segments are organized in a manner that reflects how HRG's management views those business activities. Accordingly, the Company currently operates its business in four reporting segments: (i) Consumer Products, (ii) Insurance, (iii) Energy, and (iv) Asset Management. HUMAN RESOURCE: "Lamones" Sues Over Adverse Background Check ------------------------------------------------------------ Ralph Lamones, Jr., individually and as a representative of the classes, Plaintiff, v. Human Resource Profile, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02422, (E.D. Ohio, August 23, 2016), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, costs and all available other appropriate relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendant is a consumer reporting agency with its principal office in Cincinnati, Ohio. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully reported adverse information about his criminal charges which did not result in a conviction, even though the charges were dismissed more than seven years previously. He missed employment opportunities because of this. Plaintiff is represented by: John Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 223-5402 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com - and - Anna P. Prakash, Esq. Eleanor Frisch, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 Email: aprakash@nka.com efrisch@nka.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Dismissal of Customer Action Sought -------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by an individual customer. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company believes that the complaint is without merit and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss it. Among other things, the Company's customer agreement, federal law and associated industry rules grant broker-dealers broad discretion to close out margin deficient customer accounts for the broker's protection. Further, the Company does not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case shall be fully pursued against the plaintiff. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $55MM Accord Up for Sept. 8 Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the proposed class action settlement on September 8, 2016. The Company said, "On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants. These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014." "The lawsuits alleged that we made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in our public disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to our January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claimed that the January 9, 2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. "On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the order of the Court. The lead plaintiff was seeking unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24, 2015. On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint on April 13, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class certification and appointment of class representatives and class counsel. On September 14, 2015, the defendants opposed the plaintiff's class certification motion. The plaintiff filed its reply to the defendants' opposition on October 14, 2015, to which the defendants filed a sur-reply on November 10, 2015. Oral arguments on the class certification motion were held on January 20, 2016. "On May 2, 2016, we reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff to seek Court approval of a proposed resolution. The plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on May 5, 2016. On May 23, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The Court ordered that notice be provided to the class and preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, including the payment of $55 million, of which $10 million was agreed to be funded by our insurers. The settlement was paid into escrow in June 2016, with distribution to the class to occur after the Court has finally approved the settlement and a plan of allocation of those proceeds. The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the proposed settlement on September 8, 2016. "Under the proposed settlement, the defendants do not admit any liability. The defendants also continue to deny all allegations against them and to maintain that the suit has no merit. It is anticipated that the settlement will not have a material impact on our business." INTERCLOUD SYSTEMS: Securities Litigation in Discovery Phase ------------------------------------------------------------ Intercloud Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the case, In re InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, are currently engaged in discovery. In March 2014, a complaint entitled In re InterCloud Systems Sec. Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01982 (D.N.J.) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Munro, The DreamTeamGroup and MissionIR, as purported securities advertisers and investor relations firms, and John Mylant, a purported investor and investment advisor. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of certain persons who purchased the Company's common stock between November 5, 2013 and March 17, 2014. The complaint alleged violations by the defendants (other than Mark Munro) of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and other related provisions in connection with certain alleged courses of conduct that were intended to deceive the plaintiff and the investing public and to cause the members of the purported class to purchase shares of the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices based on untrue statements of a material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading. The complaint also alleged that Mr. Munro and the Company violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act as controlling persons of the other defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs. On November 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an order appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel and Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & Knopf LLP as liaison counsel for the pending actions. The lead filed an amended complaint in January 2015 adding additional third-party defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in late January 2015 and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in early March 2015. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. The Company's motion to dismiss was denied by the Court on October 29, 2015. The Court held a status conference on February 29, 2016, and entered a PreTrial Scheduling Order on February 29, 2016. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. INTREXON CORPORATION: 2 Shareholder Lawsuits Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------- Intrexon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has entered an order consolidating two shareholder lawsuits and appointing a lead plaintiff. In May 2016, two purported shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v. Intrexon Corporation et al. and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Intrexon's common stock between May 12, 2015 and April 20, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The complaints name as defendants Intrexon and certain of its current officers (the "Defendants"). The complaints allege, among other things, that, in violation of the federal securities laws, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements in the Company's periodic reports on Forms 10-K and 10-Q filed during the Class Period with respect to the Company's business, operations and prospects. The basis for the plaintiffs' claims derived from a report published in April 2016 on the Seeking Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In July 2016, the court hearing the matters entered an order consolidating the lawsuits and appointing a lead plaintiff. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits. J.B HUNT: Drivers File Class Action in Los Angeles -------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in Los Angeles accuses J.B. Hunt Inc. of stiffing drivers for overtime and expenses. J2 GLOBAL: Motion for Summary Judgment in Paldo Sign Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the j2 Global affiliates' motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims in a class action lawsuit by Paldo Sign and Display Co. remain pending. On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former employee as additional defendants in an existing putative class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13- cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of a j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc. ("Sabon"), was added. On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for summary judgment on all remaining claims. The summary judgment motions are pending. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes our j2 Cloud Connect, which is primarily focused on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology and gaming markets, reaching in- market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business- to-business space. J2 GLOBAL: Settlement of LEO and Dancel Case Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the class-based settlement reached in the case by Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") remains subject to court approval. On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles ("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class action against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and consolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO, which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff. On June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, the parties in the case brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentative class-based settlement that remains subject to court approval. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes our j2 Cloud Connect, which is primarily focused on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology and gaming markets, reaching in- market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business- to-business space. JOHN KASICH: Ball, et al. Seek Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Phyllis Ball, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. John Kasich, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00282-EAS- EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities residing in the state of Ohio who, on or after March 31, 2016, are institutionalized, or at serious risk of institutionalization, in an Intermediate Care Facility with eight or more beds, and who have not documented their opposition to receiving integrated, community-based services." The Plaintiffs request that the Court appoint Disability Rights Ohio, Sidley Austin, LLP, Attorney Samuel Bagenstos, and the Center for Public Representation as co-class counsel in the action. The Plaintiffs also request oral argument which is essential to the fair resolution of the Motion. The Plaintiffs contend that the service system for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities provides support for tens of thousands of individuals and their families across Ohio. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EDPwjrnM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kerstin Sjoberg-Witt, Esq. Kevin J. Truitt, Esq. Alison McKay, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS OHIO 50 West Broad Street, Suite 1400 Columbus, Ohio 43215 Telephone: (614) 466 7264 Facsimile: (614) 644 1888 E-mail: ksjobergwitt@disabilityrightsohio.org ktruitt@disabilityrightsohio.org amckay@disabilityrightsohio.org - and - Neil R. Ellis, Esq. Kristen A. Knapp, Esq. Kristen E. Rau, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-736-8075 Facsimile: 202-736-8711 E-mail: nellis@sidley.com kknapp@sidley.com krau@Sidley.com - and - Cathy E. Costanzo, Esq. Kathryn L. Rucker, Esq. Anna Krieger, Esq. CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION 22 Green Street Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Telephone: 413-586-6024 Facsimile: 413-586-5711 E-mail: ccostanzo@cpr-ma.org krucker@cpr-ma.org akrieger@cpr-ma.org - and - Samuel R. Bagenstos, Esq. E-mail: sbagen@gmail.com 625 South State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Telephone: (734) 647 7584 JOLIET STAFFING: "Gordon" Suit to Recover Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Travis Gordon, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Joliet Staffing LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07995 (N.D. Ill., August 10, 2016), seeks federally and state-mandated minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Defendant has been in the business of providing logistics services to warehouses in Illinois including Trader Joe's warehouse in Minooka, Illinois, where Plaintiff worked as an electric pallet jack operator. Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. Christopher J. Williams, Esq. Workers' Law Office, PC 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312) 795-9121 K12 INC: Faces "Tarapara" Securities Class Action in N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- K12 Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a securities class action lawsuit captioned Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc. et al. was filed on July 20, 2016, against the Company, two of its officers and one of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-04069. The Company said, "The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, inclusive, and alleges violations by us and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act." "The complaint alleges, among other things, that we and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts concerning students' academic progress, graduate eligibility for University of California and California State University admission, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of the instruction provided by us, the quality of materials provided to students, reporting with respect to student attendance and funding, and that as a result of the aforementioned practices we were exposed to liability and would be forced to end these purported practices. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to defend vigorously against each and every allegation and claim set forth in the complaint." K12 is a technology-based education company. LAWTON CORRECTIONAL: Court Defers Ruling on Class Cert. Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Suzamne Mitchelle entered an order in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL D. LEATHERWOOD, the Plaintiff, v. HECTOR RIOS, Warden, Lawton Correctional Facility, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-00767-C (W.D. Okla.), declining to rule on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and motion for appointment of counsel for purposes of class certification, until after ruling on the pending dispositive motions. The Defendants' joint motion for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, is denied as moot. If necessary, the court will grant Defendants time to respond to the motion at a later date. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mBLvNWfb LASERSHIP INC: Faces "Caraballo" Suit Over FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- RICARDO CARABALLO, of himself and those similarly situated, v. LASERSHIP, INC., a Foreign Corporation, and LASER COURIER, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-01081-GBL-MSN (E.D. Va., August 23, 2016), alleges that delivery/courier drivers for LaserShip were misclassified as "independent contractors" in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. LaserShip, Inc. -- http://www.lasership.com-- is a regional parcel carrier. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 587-9373 Fax: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfimi.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407)420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@.forthepeoDle.com - and - Michael N. Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954)318-0268 Fax: (954)327-3016 E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com LENDINGCLUB CORP: Defending Cases Related to Public Offering ------------------------------------------------------------ LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the first and second quarter of 2016, five putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in California Superior Court, San Mateo County, naming as defendants the Company, current and former directors, certain officers, and the underwriters in the December 2014 initial public offering (the IPO). All of these actions were consolidated into a single action (Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re LendingClub Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) based on allegedly false and misleading statements in the IPO registration statement and prospectus. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO registration statement and prospectus, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Stay Securities Case Denied ------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to stay a consolidated securities lawsuit was denied. In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions (entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV- 2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV- 2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors (Federal Securities Class Actions). Both actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and one of them asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act similar to those alleged in the Consolidated State Court Action. A hearing on plaintiffs' motions to consolidate these cases and to appoint lead plaintiffs is set for mid-August 2016. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On August 5, the Company's motion to stay the consolidated case was denied. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending ------------------------------------------------------ LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to compel arbitration of the federal consumer class action on an individual basis is pending. In April 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York, alleging that persons received loans, through the Company's platform, that exceeded states' usury limits in violation of state usury and consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO statute. The defendants, in addition to the Company, are WebBank, Steel Partners Holdings, L.P. and the Lending Club Members Trust. The Company has agreed to indemnify WebBank and Steel Partners Holdings, L.P. against certain liabilities in connection with this matter. The plaintiff seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis, which is now pending. The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to defend this matter vigorously. LIFE INSURANCE: Sept. 22 Hearing Set on Dolemba's Bid to Certify ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 25, 2016, in the case entitled Scott Dolemba v. Life Insurance Center, LLC, The, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08091 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is continued to October 13, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.; -- Scheduling Conference is set for October 13, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.; and -- Parties Rule 26 report is to be filed by October 11, 2016. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h3CtfDgv LIFE LINE: "Neuharth" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CYNTHIA NEUHARTH and DUANE LINDENBACH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LIFE LINE BILLING SYSTEMS, LLC, d/b/a LIFEQUEST SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1123 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class, appoint the Plaintiff as its representative, and appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay the class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oJAioibX LIFELOCK INC: Settlement in "Ebarle" Case Awaits Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is awaiting the court's final ruling of the settlement in the Ebarle class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs alleged that we engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and seek declaratory judgment under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act." "On January 20, 2016, the court overseeing the Ebarle Class Action granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval conditionally approving the parties' proposed settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the court overseeing the FTC Action entered an order allowing the $68 million to be transferred from the court's registry to the court-ordered settlement administrator in the Ebarle Class Action to fund the settlement. Notice has been sent to the class members. The deadline for class members to object was April 14, 2016, and the deadline for class members to submit claims was April 29, 2016. A hearing on final approval was held on June 23, 2016, and we are awaiting the court's final ruling. "As of June 30, 2016 we have $13.0 million accrued for settlement of this claim, which was not included within the $100 million settlement paid to the court registry in connection with the settlement of the FTC Contempt Action and nationwide class action claims. In addition, we have $3.0 million accrued for a potential settlement with states attorneys general for related claims." LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection services for consumers and consumer risk management services for enterprises. LIFELOCK INC: Lead Plaintiffs May Amend "Avila" Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss and granted lead plaintiffs twenty-one days to seek leave to amend their complaint. The Company said, "On July 22, 2015, Miguel Avila, representing himself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from July 30, 2014 to July 20, 2015, inclusive, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. His complaint alleges that Todd Davis, Christopher Power, and we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts about our business, operations, and prospects, including with regard to our information security program, advertising, recordkeeping, and our compliance with the FTC Order. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs. "On September 21, 2015, four other Company stockholders, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Larisa Gassel, and Donna Thompson, and their respective attorneys all filed motions seeking to be appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this class action. Lead plaintiffs moved to lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act on January 21, 2016. "We, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, opposed that motion on February 8, 2016. On April 22, 2016, the Court denied lead plaintiffs' motion. We, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 29, 2016. On August 3, 2016 the Court granted our motion to dismiss and granted lead plaintiffs twenty-one days to seek leave to amend their complaint." LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection services for consumers and consumer risk management services for enterprises. LIFELOCK INC: 9th Cir. Appeal in Securities Litig. Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that briefing of a class action appeal has been completed, but oral argument on the appeal has not been set by the Ninth Circuit. The Company said, "On March 3, 2014, and March 10, 2014, two securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, against us, Mr. Todd Davis, and Mr. Christopher Power. On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the complaints into a single action captioned In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel." "On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the Consolidated Amended Complaint), seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014, inclusive (the Class Period). The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that we, along with Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Ms. Schneider, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order. "The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result, certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period and certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power during the Class Period, were false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On September 15, 2014, we, along with Ms. Schneider, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On December 17, 2014, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint and gave the lead plaintiff 21 days to seek leave to amend. "On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed his Second Consolidated Amended Complaint which contained similar allegations, but no longer named Ms. Schneider as a defendant. On January 30, 2015, we, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 21, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss, without leave to amend, and entered judgment in our favor. "On August 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff along with another shareholder, City of Hallandale Beach Police and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund, moved to vacate the judgment on the grounds that the FTC's July 21, 2015 motion seeking to hold us in contempt of the FTC Order constituted surprise and newly discovered evidence. Plaintiffs also sought permission to file a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. "We, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power opposed plaintiffs' motion. On September 18, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the July 21, 2015 judgment and plaintiffs' request to file another complaint. On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs appeal from the lower court's July 21, 2015 order dismissing the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and entering judgment in our favor, and the court's September 18, 2015 order denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate that judgment. Briefing of the appeal has been completed, but oral argument on the appeal has not been set by the Ninth Circuit." LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection services for consumers and consumer risk management services for enterprises. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bennett" Class Suit Transferred to W.D.N.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Brian Bennett, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05299, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Asheville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00281-MOC-DLH to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: RAhdoot@ahdootwolfson.com TWolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Dunkin" Suit Transferred to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Wendy Dunkin, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05276, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-01347-RLW to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Hotaling" Suit Transferred to E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Karen Hotaling, Margaret Markoski, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv- 05302, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04646- JFB-GRB to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Transferred "Ryan" Suit to District Nevada -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Kelly Ryan, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05287, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court District of Nevada (Las Vegas). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01978-JAD-GWF to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Goodling" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Louanne Goodling, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05414, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana (Monroe). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01201 to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "McPherson" Suit Transferred to W.D. Penn. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Matthew McPherson, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05409, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01263-AJS to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Strong" Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Raymond Strong, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05283, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00357-RAW to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Leonard" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Tina Leonard, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05286, was transferred from the District of California Central to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02091-SO to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com MCKESSON CORP: Bid for Class Cert. in "True Health" Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-02219-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam entered an order denying certification of a nationwide class of: "[a]ll persons or entities who received faxes from 'McKesson' from September 2, 2009, to May 11, 2010, offering 'Medisoft,' 'Lytec,' or 'Revenue Management Advanced' software or 'BillFlash Patient Statement Service,' where the faxes do not inform the recipient of the right to 'opt out' of future faxes." The Court also denies Defendants' motion for a stay as moot. The Court sets a case management conference for Tuesday, September 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. The parties should be prepared to discuss case scheduling at the hearing. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dDT3d8aw MDL 2295: $18MM Settlement of TCPA Suit Awaits Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the $18 million settlement of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation remains subject to final court approval. The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers' cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action"). Following the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place since May 20, 2014. In January 2016, the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle ("the Settlement Agreement") under which the parties agreed to seek court approval of class certification and the proposed settlement. As required by the Settlement Agreement, which remains subject to final court approval, the parties sought preliminary Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, and the Company paid $18 million to resolve the MDL action during second quarter of 2016. The Company had fully accrued for the settlement amount as of December 31, 2015. MDL 2371: UMS Class Action Appeal Still Pending ----------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC and the j2 Global affiliate's appeal in a class action lawsuit is still pending. On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of defendants. While claims against some defendants have been settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14- 1611). The appeal is pending. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes our j2 Cloud Connect, which is primarily focused on our number-based voice and fax services. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology and gaming markets, reaching in- market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business- to-business space. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Christian Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04635-WFK-RML (E.D.N.Y., August 20, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation, Inc. is a collection agency which provides adjustment and collection services for insurance and financial sectors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 Facsimile: (347) 244-7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com NCC BUSINESS: Certification of Class Sought in "Woodward" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Maranda Woodward moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled MARANDA WOODWARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCC BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01144-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.). The Plaintiff also asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence, the Plaintiff states. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZR4FmLJN The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com NEW MEXICO: Faces Workers' Class Action for Back Pay ---------------------------------------------------- Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that it took six years for New Mexico to adjust wages under its Public Works Minimum Wage Act, so the state owes tens of thousands of workers back pay for those years, 52 workers say in a federal class action in Albuquerque. When the Legislature amended the Public Works Minimum Wage Act in 2009, the Labor Relations Division of the Department of Workforce Solutions was tasked with adjusting the minimum and prevailing wages and benefits for mechanics and laborers in all public works projects with budgets of $60,000 or more. But the state didn't do this until 2015, lead plaintiff Randy Cummings et al. say in the Aug. 23 lawsuit, so it owes more than 10,000 workers pay adjustments and benefits. They sued the Department of Workforce Solutions and its Labor Relations Division for violations of due process. They seek class certification, liquidated damages, back pay and benefits, and punitive damages, because they call the state actions "intentional, willful, wanton and in reckless disregard" of their rights. They are represented by James Montalbano, with Youtz & Valdez. NEW YORK: OTDA Faces Suit Over Civil Rights Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Brooks, Clifton DeMeco, and Brian Blowers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Samuel D. Roberts, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, Case No. 1:16-cv-01025-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., August 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Civil Rights Act. New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance is the Department of social services in New York City, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Cohan, Esq. Petra T. Tasheff, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & ECONOMIC JUSTICE, INC. 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 633-6967 Facsimile: (212) 633-6371 E-mail: cohan@nclej.org tasheff@nclej.org - and - Saima A. Akhtar, Esq. Susan C. Antos, Esq. EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER 119 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor Albany, NY 12210 Telephone: (518) 462-6831 Facsimile: (518) 462-6687 E-mail: sakhtar@empirejustice.org santos@empirejustice.org NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Dismissal Bid Up for Oral Argument ------------------------------------------------------------- Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument has been set for October 11, 2016, on the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit in Delaware. On June 19, 2015, two purported shareholders filed a complaint purportedly suing on behalf of a class of similarly situated shareholders and derivatively on behalf of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit names Cognate BioServices, Inc., Toucan Partners, Toucan Capital Fund III, our CEO Linda Powers and the Company's Board of Directors as defendants, and names the Company as a "nominal defendant" with respect to the derivative claims. The complaint generally objects to certain transactions between the Company and Cognate and the Toucan entities, in which Cognate and the Toucan entities provided services and financing to the Company, or agreed to conversion of debts owed to them by the Company into equity. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief for the Company and the plaintiffs, and various forms of equitable relief, including disgorgement of allegedly improper benefits, rescission of the challenged transactions, and an order forbidding similar transactions in the future. On September 1, 2015, the Company and other named defendants filed motions to dismiss. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 6, 2015. The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on January 19, 2016. The plaintiffs filed an answering brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 4, 2016. The Company and the other defendants filed reply briefs on May 18, 2016. Oral argument has been set for October 11, 2016. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case. Northwest Biotherapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on developing immunotherapy products to treat cancers more effectively than current treatments, without toxicities of the kind associated with chemotherapies, and, through a proprietary batch manufacturing process, on a cost-effective basis, initially in the United States, Canada and Europe. NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Case Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit in Maryland remains pending. On August 26, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit names the Company and Ms. Powers as defendants. On December 14, 2015, the court appointed two lead plaintiffs. The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 12, 2016, purportedly on behalf of all of those who purchased common stock in NW Bio between January 13, 2014 and August 21, 2015. The amended complaint generally claims that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making misleading statements and/or omissions on a variety of subjects, including the status and results of the Company's DCVax trials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company and Ms. Powers filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on April 12, 2016. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on June 13, 2016. The Company and Ms. Powers filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on July 28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend the case. Northwest Biotherapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on developing immunotherapy products to treat cancers more effectively than current treatments, without toxicities of the kind associated with chemotherapies, and, through a proprietary batch manufacturing process, on a cost-effective basis, initially in the United States, Canada and Europe. OMNI LIMOUSINE: "Keen" Suit Seeks Overtime, Waiting Time Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Keen and Robin Mooney on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Omni Limousine and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-01903 (D. Nev., August 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages due, waiting time wages as well as overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Nevada Revised Statute and Nevada State Constitution. Defendant is in the business of providing limousine services, with principal place of business at 1401 Helm Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiffs worked as drivers. Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK, LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Tel. (775) 284-1500 Fax. (775) 703-5027 Email: mark@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com ON TIME SECURING: "Hane" Suit to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Hane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. On Time Securing, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02002, (E.D. Ohio, August 10, 2016), seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Prompt Pay Act. On Time Securing Inc. is a small, fairly new organization in the business services industry located in North Canton, OH. Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201 Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com ONSITE HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Hearing Continued on Sept. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit entitled Able Home Health, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Onsite Healthcare, Inc.,S.C., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08219 (N.D. Ill.), continuing the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. According to the entry made by the Clerk on August 22, 2016, an initial status hearing is set for September 19, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. The parties are to report the following: (1) possibility of settlement in the case; and (2) if no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and length of discovery necessary to get the case ready for trial. The Plaintiff is ordered to advise all other parties of the court's action. The Lead counsel is directed to appear at the status hearing. The parties are requested to file a joint status report at least two days prior to the initial status A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4Qz7XFCX ORANGE COUNTY: "McMahon" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ Jennifer A. McMahon, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Orange County New York Office of the Medical Examiner and Department Of Health, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-06364, (S.D. N.Y., August 10, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and damages from untimely payment of wages and violations of notice requirements under New York Labor Law. Plaintiff worked for the Orange County New York Office of the Medical Examiner and Department of Health as a Child Fatality Review Specialist. She claims to be denied overtime pay. Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq. CHARNY & ASSOCIATES 9 West Market Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Tel: (845) 876-7500 Email: ncharny@charnyandassociates.com ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES: Sued in Tex. Over FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- STEPHANIE CRAMM, CHRISTOPHER BORNER, JAMES M. KIRKSEY, ARNOLD E. BENJAMIN, AND HAJRO MURATI, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A ELITE LIMOSINE OF HOUSTON, ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES, INC D/B/A ELITE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS, ET AL., Case No. 4:16- cv-02576 (S.D. Tex., August 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. ORMSBEE ENTERPRISES, INC. is a car service which provides chauffeurs/drivers for cars owned by Defendants to drive Defendants clients within local areas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Defreitas, Esq. Williams Tower 2800 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (832) 390-2388 (832) 794-6792 Fax: (281) 784-3777 E-mail: a.defreitas@lawyer.com OUTERWALL INC: "Filippov" Sues Over Acquisition by Apollo Global ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOROTHY FILIPPOV, On Behalf of Herself 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-01329 (W.D. Wash., August 23, 2016), seeks to enjoin the acquisition of Outerwall by Funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management VIII, L.P. Outerwall, Inc. provides kiosks to retail stores, and owns several of the most visible brands, including Redbox, Coinstar, and ecoATM. 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 - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 971-1341 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 983-1300 Fax: (212) 983-0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com OWENS & MINOR: "Snyder" Suit Removed to District of Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Janet H. Snyder, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., Owens & Minor, Inc., Joshua B. Waxman, Mary Cook, Joshua B. Waxman, Mary McKenna, Bert Smith, and Joshua B. Waxman, Case No. C-02-cv-16-001049, was removed from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02932-RDB to the proceeding. The Defendants operate a healthcare logistics company in Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil R. Lebowitz, Esq. LEBOWITZ LAW FIRM 10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy., Suite 590 Columbia, MD 21044 Telephone: (410) 730-9010 E-mail: neil@lebowitzlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Joshua B. Waxman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 815 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 842-3400 Facsimile: (202) 478-2623 E-mail: jwaxman@littler.com PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Has Reached Settlement of Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Bank has reached a tentative settlement of a class action in Oregon and the lawsuit by the Berjac of Oregon trustee. The settlement of the Class Action will require approval of the Circuit Court judge. The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition. On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively, "Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company, Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently asserts three claims against Pacific Continental Bank, Fred "Jack" W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth, P.C., and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that Pacific Continental Bank is jointly and severally liable for materially aiding or participating in Berjac's sales of securities in violation of the Oregon Securities Law. Claimants seek the return of the money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, plus interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. The current version of the complaint seeks $100 million in damages from all defendants. The matter is currently set for trial beginning October 3, 2016. On August 28, 2014, the court-appointed bankruptcy trustee for Berjac of Oregon filed an adversary complaint (Trustee's Lawsuit) in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon alleging that the Company, the Bank, Umpqua Bank, Century Bank and Summit Bank provided lines of credit that enabled continuation of the alleged Ponzi scheme operated by Berjac of Oregon and the two partners of the pre-existing Berjac general partnerships, Michael Holcomb and Gary Holcomb. Pacific Continental Corporation acquired Century Bank on February 1, 2013. The Trustee's Lawsuit was transferred from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Eugene Division), where it is currently pending. In addition to seeking an award of punitive damages, the trustee is asserting fraudulent transfer law and unjust enrichment in an effort to recover payments made by Berjac to Century Bank and Pacific Continental Bank. Among other claims for relief, the trustee is seeking the disgorgement of monies advanced to the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership by Century Bank and returned to the estate by court order following the post-petition cash collateral hearing, and of monies received by Pacific Continental Bank from the proceeds of the sale of stock held by the Holcomb Family Limited Partnership and securing one of the lines of credit previously held by Century Bank. The trustee also asserts a claim for alleged aiding and abetting of breaches of duties owed to Berjac. The complaint in the Trustee's Lawsuit indicates the range of damages sought by the trustee which include, among other claims for relief, an award of punitive damages not to exceed $10 million, recovery of payments associated with allegedly fraudulent transfers totaling up to approximately $55.3 million, including up to $20.7 million from Century Bank and up to $7.7 million from Pacific Continental Bank. This case is not currently set for trial. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court judge stayed all deadlines in the Trustee's Lawsuit and all parties were ordered to participate in a judicial settlement conference. The judicial settlement conference sessions were held on February 18, 2016 and on April 20, 2016. At the April 20, 2016, settlement conference, the Bank reached a tentative settlement of the Class Action and the Trustee's Lawsuit. The settlement of the Class Action will require approval of the Circuit Court judge. The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition. PCP FOR LIFE: "Bunker" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------- CRISTY BUNKER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, v. PCP FOR LIFE, PA and NAJMUDDIN K. KARIMJEE, Case No. 4:16-cv-02573 (S.D. Tex., August 23, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as Nurse Practitioner and Physician Assistant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wiley, Esq. Kalandra N. Wheeler, Esq. ROB WILEY, P.C. 2613 Thomas Avenue Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 528-6500 Fax: (214) 528-6511 E-mail: kwheeler@robwiley.com PETROQUEST ENERGY: "Urban" Suit Transferred to W.D. Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Richard M. Urban, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PetroQuest Energy Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-03980, was transferred from the District of New York Southern to the U.S. District Court Western District of Louisiana (Lafayette). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-01203 to the proceeding. PetroQuest Energy Inc. operates an oil and gas company in Lafayette, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORINSKY 30 Board St 24th Fl New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: Lewis Richard Clayton, Esq. Cameron Sloan Friedman, Esq. Robert Neil Kravitz, Esq. PAUL WEISS ET AL 1285 Ave of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6064 Telephone: (212) 373-3215 Facsimile: (212) 373-2070 E-mail: lclayton@paulweiss.com cfriedman@paulweiss.com rkravitz@paulweiss.com - and - Ray Thomas Torgerson, Esq. PORTER & HEDGES 1000 Main St Ste 3600 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 226-6650 Facsimile: (713) 228-1331 E-mail: rtorgerson@porterhedges.com PIZZA THEATRE: "Huntley" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Tips ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Huntley, Brian Devlin, William Seufert, and Nardico Sims on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Pizza Theatre, Inc., an Ohio corporation, Theatre Pizza, Inc., an Ohio corporation, and Stephen Gfell, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01995, (N.D. Ohio, August 10, 2016), seeks compensation for unpaid minimum wages, withheld tips, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements of this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate over a number of Domino's Pizza restaurants including one located at 1 Berea Commons, Ste. #2, Berea, OH 44017 where Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers. Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 (216) 395-4226 Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. 6000 Freedom Square Dr. Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 525-8890 Facsimile: (216) 642-5814 Email: jameslsimonlaw@yahoo.com PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Andrews, et al. Seek Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled KEITH ANDREWS, an individual; TIFFANI ANDREWS, an individual; BACIU FAMILY LLC, a California limited liability company; ROBERT BOYDSTON, an individual; CAPTAIN JACK'S SANTA BARBARA TOURS, LLC, a California limited liability company; MORGAN CASTAGNOLA, an individual, THE EAGLE FLEET, LLC, a California limited liability company; ZACHARY FRAZIER, an individual; MIKE GANDALL, an individual; ALEXANDRA B. GEREMIA, as Trustee for the Alexandra Geremia Family Trust dated 8/5/1998; JIM GUELKER, an individual; JACQUES HABRA, an individual; ISURF, LLC, a California limited liability company; MARK KIRKHART, an individual; MARY KIRKHART, an individual; RICHARD LILYGREN, an individual; HWA HONG MUH, an individual; OCEAN ANGEL IV, LLC, a California limited liability company; PACIFIC RIM FISHERIES, INC., a California corporation; SARAH RATHBONE, an individual; COMMUNITY SEAFOOD LLC, a California limited liability company; SANTA BARBARA UNI, INC., a California corporation; SOUTHERN CAL SEAFOOD, INC., a California corporation; TRACTIDE MARINE CORP., a California corporation; WEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING INC., a California corporation; and STEPHEN WILSON, an individual, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs; v. PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, PLAINS PIPELINE, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D. Cal.). A hearing on the request will be held on November 7, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, before the Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, in Courtroom 880 of the United States District Court, Central District of California, located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012-3332. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z7DL3OVG The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Lieff, Esq. Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq. Robert J. Nelson, Esq. Sarah R. London, Esq. Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956 1000 Facsimile: (415) 956 1008 - and - Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Daniel Mensher, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 1900 Facsimile: (206) 623 3384 - and - Juli Farris, Esq. Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456 1496 Facsimile: (805) 456 1497 - and - A. Barry Cappello, Esq. Leila J. Noel, Esq. Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq. David Cousineau, Esq. CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP 831 State Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101-3227 Telephone: (805) 564 2444 Facsimile: (805) 965 5950 - and - William M. Audet, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102-3275 Telephone: (415) 568 2555 Facsimile: (415) 568 2556 PROJECT INVESTORS: CRYPTSY Owners Class Certified in Leidel Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kenneth A. Marra granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned BRANDON LEIDEL, and MICHAEL WILSON, individually, and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PROJECT INVESTORS, INC. d/b/a CRYPTSY, a Florida corporation, PAUL VERNON, an individual, and LORIE ANN NETTLES, an individual, Case No. 9:16-cv-80060-KAM (S.D. Fla.). The Class is defined as: All CRYPTSY account owners who held Bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency at CRYPTSY as of November 1, 2015 to the present. Excluded from the Class are: (1) employees of CRYPTSY, including its shareholders, officers and directors and members of their immediate families; (2) any judge to whom this action is assigned and the judge's immediate family; and (3) persons who timely and validly opt to exclude themselves from the Class. The Class claims are the conversion, negligence, unjust enrichment, specific performance, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraudulent conveyance and civil conspiracy claims contained in counts I-V and VII - IX of the Amended Complaint. Judge Marra also appoints (i) Brandon Leidel and Michael Wilson as representatives of the Class, and (ii) Marc A. Wites, Esq., and Wites & Kapetan, P.A., and Scott L. Silver, Esq., and David C. Silver, Esq. of The Silver Law Group, as counsel to the Class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l0JPGPTM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES & KAPETAN, P.A. 4400 N Federal Hwy Lighthouse Point, FL 33064-6507 Telephone: (954) 570-8989 E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com - and - Scott L. Silver, Esq. David C. Silver, Esq. The Silver Law Group 11780 W Sample Rd. Coral Springs, FL 33065-3141 Telephone: (954) 755-4799 Facsimile: (954) 755-4684 E-mail: ssilver@silverlaw.com dsilver@silverlaw.com PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss "Hsu" Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the case, Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et al., remains pending. The Company said, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG). On October 16, 2015, lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that we and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief." "On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard oral argument on March 14, 2016. We intend to vigorously defend this matter." QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY: Court Entered Final Judgment in "Nguyen" ------------------------------------------------------------- Quotient Technology Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has entered final judgment in the Company's favor in a class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed against us, the members of our board of directors, certain of our executive officers and the underwriters of our IPO: Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. CGC-15- 544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County). The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for our IPO." "Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a dismissal without prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed another complaint with substantially the same allegations in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15- CV-278777 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015). Three other complaints with substantially the same allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and Silverberg v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891 (California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015). "On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action. The Court sustained defendants' demurrer to the consolidated complaint with leave to amend. On December 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The Court sustained defendants' demurrer to the amended consolidated complaint without leave to amend on May 25, 2016, and on July 13, 2016 entered final judgment in our favor. "We intend to defend the litigation vigorously if plaintiffs continue to litigate. Based on information currently available, we believe that the potential for liability for the above claims is remote." Quotient Technology Inc., formerly known as Coupons.com Incorporated, is a provider of digital promotions and media solutions driven by consumer-shopping data. R & A OYSTERS: Cordova, et al. Seek Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned MIGUEL ANGEL FUENTES CORDOVA, LEOBARDO MORALES INCLAN, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. R & A OYSTERS, INC., RODNEY L. FOX, and ANN P. FOX, the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-00462-WS- M (S.D. Ala.), the Parties ask the Court to grant conditional class certification for settlement purposes only and appoint Southern Poverty Law Center as class counsel. The Parties filed the Motion in conjunction with their Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Drozkr0q The Plaintiffs are represented by: Meredith B. Stewart, Esq. Daniel Werner, Esq. Eunice H. Cho, Esq. James M. Knoepp, Esq. Samuel Brooke, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1055 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 526 1497 Facsimile: (504) 486 8947 E-mail: Meredith.stewart@splcenter.org Eunice.cho@splcenter.org Jim.knoepp@splcenter.org Samuel.brooke@splcenter.org The Defendant is represented by: Rick A. La Trace, Esq. Alan C. Christian, Esq. Celia J. Collins, Esq. Spencer H. Larche, Esq. Post Office Box 1988 Mobile, AL 36633 Telephone: (251) 432 7682 Facsimile: (251) 432 2800 E-mail: ral@johnstoneadams.com acc@johnstoneadams.com cjc@johnstoneadams.com shl@johnstoneadams.com REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Hirthe Moves for Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ Melissa Hirthe moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint filed in the lawsuit styled MELISSA HIRTHE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC. d/b/a RAB INC., Case No. 2:16-cv- 01143-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.). Ms. Hirthe also asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence, Ms. Hirthe states. She contends that she is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, Ms. Hirthe contends. Ms. Hirthe also asks to be appointed as class representative and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IwqJCfF4 The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com RESOLUTE FOREST: Motion to Dismiss "Reynolds" Case Awaits Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified nor has a date been set to hear a motion to dismiss. The Company said, "Effective January 1, 2015, we modified our U.S. OPEB plan so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare eligibility, are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare Exchange program rather than via a Company-sponsored medical plan." On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee; Catawba, South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama mills, and their spouses and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the modifications described breach the collective bargaining agreements and plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the lawsuit. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the action. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. "The proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified nor has a date been set to hear our motion to dismiss," the Company said. RESOURCE CAPITAL: Bid to Dismiss Amended Complaint Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Resource Capital Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the Douglas Drees action remains pending. The Company said, "In September 2015, Daren Levin filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015. In November 2015, the Court appointed Douglas Drees as the lead plaintiff in the action, and thereafter entered a stipulation and order directing the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint." "In February 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that we and certain of our officers and directors materially misrepresented certain risks of our commercial loan portfolio and our processes and controls for assessing the quality of our portfolio. Based on these allegations, the amended complaint asserts claims for violation of the securities laws and seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costs and attorneys' fees. We believe the amended complaint is without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. In April 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains pending." SANTANDER CONSUMER: Class Certification in "Espejo" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Charles P. Kocoras entered an order in the lawsuit captioned Henry Espejo, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:11-cv-08987 (N.D. Ill.), denying Levin's motion for class certification as moot and duplicative of her Motion for class certification filed in the correct action (Document No. 100 in Case No. 12-cv-9431), according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 22, 2016. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E4FbEbBQ SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Bid to Dismiss "Weller" Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Servicesource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the Weller Lawsuit has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the court. On July 8, 2015, a single plaintiff filed a putative securities class action lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Weller Lawsuit") against the Company and the Company's former Chief Executive Officer. The Weller Lawsuit was brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the period January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014, and alleges violations under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). In connection with the mandatory lead plaintiff appointment process under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), various law firms issued press releases between July 2015 and September 2015 to search for additional shareholders that would be willing to serve as lead plaintiffs in this lawsuit. This solicitation period ended on September 29, 2015 and no other shareholders came forward, leaving only the named plaintiff as the sole shareholder seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff. The court appointed Weller a lead plaintiff on October 21, 2015. At this time, no motion to certify a class has been filed. The Company believes that the claims are meritless, and will vigorously defend itself against such claims. On December 9, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Weller Lawsuit. The motion has been fully briefed, and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the court. ServiceSource International, Inc. (NASDAQ: SREV) is the global leader in customer and revenue lifecycle solutions that power enterprise revenue relationships. Based on the science of Revenue Lifecycle Management ("RLM"), ServiceSource provides some of the world's leading business to business ("B2B") companies with expert, technology-enabled services and solutions that are proven to grow and retain revenue from existing customers, directly or through a channel. SHERWIN-WILLIAMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gaitan" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Fabian Gaitan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Sherwin-Williams Company and Does 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-02105-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal., August 19, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Sherwin-Williams Company engages in the development, manufacture, distribution, and sale of paints, coatings, and related products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryce Aaron Dodds, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BRYCE A. DODDS 100 E. San Marcos Blvd., Ste. 400 San Marcos, CA 92069 Telephone: (760) 593-7353 E-mail: bdodds@brycedoddslaw.com SOLARCITY CORP: Motion to Dismiss 3rd Amended Complaint Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on March 28, 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 two of its officers. The Company said, "The complaint alleges claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the District Court dismissed the complaint and allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in an attempt to remedy the defects in the original complaint. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, and the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss on August 7, 2015. On January 5, 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and allowed plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint in an attempt to remedy the defects in the existing complaint. The plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint, and the Company has once again filed a motion to dismiss. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit." SOLARCITY CORP: Still Defends TCPA Action in California ------------------------------------------------------- SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on November 6, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls to the plaintiff and others, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf of himself and a certified class. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the District Court denied on April 6, 2016. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. SOLARCITY CORP: Defending "Gibbs" Action in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on June 1, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gibbs v. SolarCity, alleging that the Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The two named plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf of themselves and a certified class. The Company is reviewing the complaint and will respond accordingly. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. SUNBURST CONSULTING: Faces "Baker" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- BROCK BAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SUNBURST CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00124- SPW-CSO (D. Mont., August 23, 2016), alleges that Sunburst failed to pay certain oilfield workers overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Dakota law. SUNBURST CONSULTING, INC. -- http://www.sunburstconsulting.com-- is a geology service company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip McGrady, Esq. MCGRADY LAW FIRM P.O. Box 40 Park City, MT 59063 Phone: 406-322-8647 Fax: 406-322-8649 - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Phone: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com SWIFT TECHNICAL: "Herod" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------ Daryl Herod, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Swift Technical Services, LLC and Swift Worldwide Resources Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02447, (S.D. Tex., August 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Swift is a professional staffing business, providing engineering and management employees to oil and gas companies around the world. Herod began working for Swift in 2012 as a Rig Clerk. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. Burch BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faigy Rapaport, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Synergetic Communication, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04648 (E.D.N.Y., August 19, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Synergetic Communication, Inc. operates a collection agency located at 5250 E Seltice Way, Post Falls, ID 83854. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com TILGHMAN BEACH: "Humphries" Suit Removed to Dist. of S. C. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Jill Keck Humphries, Dennis L. Johnson, Delona Penny Rice, Whitmel L. Brown, Jr., Gary Steven Robinson, Elizabeth Erin Humphries, Dennis L. Johnson, Jr., Nancy H. Johnson v. Tilghman Beach and Racquet Club Condominium Association Inc., James H. Austin III, Daniel G. Coe, C. Doug Madison, George P. White, and Steele Brice Windle III, Case No. 2016-CP-26-04464, was removed from the Horry County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Florence). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-02880-RBH to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract. The Defendants operate a condominium complex located at 2nd Ave N, North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howell V. Bellamy III, Esq. Howell V. Bellamy Jr., Esq. BELLAMY LAW FIRM 29th Avenue North Building Number 1004, Suite B Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Telephone: (843) 445-2805 Facsimile: (843) 626-6478 E-mail: hbellamyiii@bellamylaw.com nrichardson@bellamylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Bonnie A. Lynch, Esq. H. Sam Mabry III, Esq. Joshua D. Spencer, Esq. HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD PO Box 2048 Greenville, SC 29602 Telephone: (864) 240-3312 Facsimile: (864) 240-3300 E-mail: blynch@hsblawfirm.com smabry@hsblawfirm.com jspencer@hsblawfirm.com TIVO INC: "Klein" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal --------------------------------------------- Melvyn Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TiVO, Inc., Peter Aquino, Jeff Hinson, Dan Moloney, Thomas S. Rogers and Wendy Webb, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-04503 (N.D. Cal., August 10, 2016), seeks to enjoin consummation of merger, as well as full disclosure of all material information, costs and disbursements of this action, including attorney, accountants and expert fees and such other and further relief for breach of fiduciary duties. The proposed merger of TiVo, Rovi, Titan Technologies Corporation, Nova Acquisition Sub, Inc. and Titan Acquisition Sub, Inc. was opposed by two of its independent directors, thus casting a shadow of doubt over the merits of the merger. Their view were not made accessible to the shareholders. Plaintiff is a stockholder of TiVo and owned TiVo common stock. TiVo is a next-generation video technology software services and innovative cloud-based software-as-a-service solutions provider. Jeff Hinson, Peter Aquino, Jeff Hinson, Dan Moloney, Thomas S. Rogers and Wendy Webb are members of its board of directors. Plaintiff is represented by: Adam C. McCall, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 985-7290 Email: amccall@zlk.com - and - Brian Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 Email: BDL@rl-legal.com GMS@rl-legal.com TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Paid $0.3 Miillion in Attorneys Fees --------------------------------------------------------- Tobira Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that te Company has paid the award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $0.3 million on August 4, 2016. The Company said, "On February 2, 2015, a purported stockholder of Regado filed a putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, or the Court, challenging the proposed stock-for-stock merger of Regado with Tobira, or the Proposed Merger. On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative class action (captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10720-CB) was filed in the Court challenging the Proposed Merger. On May 4, 2015, the Proposed Merger was consummated and Tobira became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Regado and changed its name to Tobira Development, Inc. The complaints named as defendants: (i) each member of Regado's Board of Directors, (ii) Regado, (iii) Private Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc. Plaintiffs alleged that Regado's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Regado's stockholders by, among other things, (a) agreeing to merge Regado with Private Tobira for inadequate consideration, (b) implementing a process that was distorted by conflicts of interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of the Merger Agreement that are alleged to favor Private Tobira and deter alternative bids. Plaintiffs also generally alleged that the entity defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors." "On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs (captioned In re Regado Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10606-CB). On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for preliminary injunction. On April 20, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the litigation (subject to approval by the Court) and signed a memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a proposed settlement to provide additional disclosures related to the Merger Agreement and to cover Court-awarded fees. On April 23, 2015, as part of the proposed settlement, Regado provided additional disclosures to its stockholders. "On May 4, 2015, Regado and Private Tobira completed the Merger. In connection with the proposed settlement, the parties engaged in confirmatory discovery. On April 22, 2016, the parties filed with the Court a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release, or the Stipulation, which provides for a release of all claims against defendants related to any disclosures concerning the Merger and any fiduciary duty claims concerning the decision to enter into the Merger. "In addition, the Stipulation of Settlement provides that the Company or its insurer(s) or successor(s) in interest will be responsible for payment of, and will not oppose, any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs up to $0.3 million, which the Company recognized as an accrued expense in its accompanying Condensed Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2016. "On July 27, 2016, the Court issued a final order and judgment approving the settlement, granting plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $0.3 million, and dismissing the litigation with prejudice. The Company paid the award of attorneys' fees and expenses of $0.3 million on August 4, 2016." TOKAI PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Jackie 888 Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik III, BMO Capital Markets Corp. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, William Blair & Company, L.L.C. Janney Montgomery Scott LLC. The case is captioned Jackie 888, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Jodie P. Morrison, Lee H. Kalowski, seth L. Harrison, Timothy J. Barberich, David A. Kessler, Joseph A. Yanchik III, BMO Capital Markets Corp. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, William Blair & Company, L.L.C. Janney Montgomery Scott LLC, Case No. CGC 16 553796 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 20, 2016). TRUECAR INC: Continues to Defend NY Lanham Act Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- TRUECAR, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against an amended complaint that survived the Company's motion to dismiss. On March 9, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (the "NY Lanham Act Litigation"). The complaint in the NY Lanham Act Litigation, purportedly filed on behalf of numerous automotive dealers who are not participating on the TrueCar platform, alleges that the Company has violated the Lanham Act as well as various state laws prohibiting unfair competition and deceptive acts or practices related to the Company's advertising and promotional activities. The complaint seeks injunctive relief in addition to over $250 million in damages as a result of the alleged diversion of customers from the plaintiffs' dealerships to TrueCar Certified Dealers. On April 7, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint, and on July 13, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 6, 2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to some, but not all, of the advertising and promotional activities challenged in the amended complaint. The Company believes that the portions of the amended complaint that survived the Company's motion to dismiss are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. "We have not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of June 30, 2016, as we do not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable," the Company said. TRUECAR INC: Appeal in "Mahapatra" Case Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- TRUECAR, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has granted plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal in the case by Satyabrata Mahapatra. On May 27, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Federal Securities Litigation") by Satyabrata Mahapatra naming the Company and two other individuals not affiliated with the Company as defendants. On June 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Errata and Correction purporting to name Scott Painter, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer, and Michael Guthrie, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as individual defendants in lieu of the two individual defendants named in the complaint. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. As amended, the complaint in the Federal Securities Litigation seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees based on allegations that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that during the putative class period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's business practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice laws (i.e., the issues raised in the NY Lanham Act Litigation); (ii) the Company acts as a dealer and broker in car sales transactions without proper licensing, in violation of various states' laws that govern car sales (i.e., the issues raised in the CNCDA Litigation); and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's registration statements, prospectuses, quarterly and annual reports, financial statements, SEC filings, press releases, and other statements and documents were materially false and misleading at times relevant to the amended complaint and putative class period. The amended complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 16, 2014 to July 23, 2015. On October 19, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 9, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its entirety. On January 8, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On June 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The motion was granted by the Court on June 27, 2016. As the case has been dismissed, no loss is deemed probable and no accrual related to this matter has been recorded as of June 30, 2016. TRUECAR INC: 2nd Status Conference in "Rose" Suit on October 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- TRUECAR, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a second status conference is scheduled for October 12, 2016, in the lawsuit by Gordon Rose. On December 23, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Gordon Rose in the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles (the "California Consumer Class Action"). The complaint asserted claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and Professions Code, based principally on factual allegations similar to those asserted in the NY Lanham Act Litigation and the CNCDA Litigation. The complaint sought an award of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. In the complaint, the plaintiff sought to represent a class of California consumers defined as "[a]ll California consumers who purchased an automobile by using TrueCar, Inc.'s price certificate during the applicable statute of limitations." On January 12, 2016, the Court entered an order staying all proceedings in the case pending an initial status conference, which was previously scheduled for April 13, 2016. On March 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. As a result of that reassignment, the initial status conference was rescheduled for and held on May 26, 2016. By stipulation, the stay of discovery has been continued until a second status conference, which is scheduled for October 12, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint. The amended complaint continues to assert claims for unjust enrichment, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. The amended complaint retains the same proposed class definition as the initial complaint. Like the initial complaint, the amended complaint seeks an award of unspecified damages, interest, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter as of June 30, 2016, as the Company does not believe a loss is probable or reasonably estimable. TWITTER INC: Misappropriates People's Identities, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action accuses Twitter of colluding with an app-maker to misappropriate people's identities so game-players could collect and trade profiles "of real-life people as if they were baseball cards." Lead plaintiff Jason Parker on August 24, sued Twitter and Hey Inc., maker of the app "Famous: The Celebrity Twitter," claiming both companies violate Alabama's Right of Publicity Act. He sued in San Francisco for a class of Alabama residents because both tech companies are based in California. He seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each misappropriation of identity, destruction of the names, photos and profiles, disgorgement of unjust profits, and punitive damages. Twitter agreed in June 2015 to give Hey unfettered access to import its users' profile data into its gaming app, including names and photos. Originally called "Stolen," the game "encouraged players to 'buy,' 'own' and even steal' real-life people by using virtual currency. But this version of the app received intense public scrutiny," Parker says in the complaint. The app disappeared in January this year after Massachusetts Congresswoman Katherine Clark sent a letter to Twitter's CEO urging him to suspend Hey's access until nonconsenting profiles were removed and safeguards were put in place. Less than a month later, the app re-emerged as "Famous." Rather than urging players to buy and sell profiles, "Famous" had users "invest in" people's profiles with "hearts," instead of virtual currency. "Aside from giving it a new name, the nature of the app and core functionality remain exactly the same as before: the app still displays real life Twitter users, including their full names and photographs, without their consent, and players still collect these real life people from the app's marketplace using virtual currency," Parker says in the complaint. The game gives each player a limited number of virtual credits for free, allowing them to buy additional currency, or hearts, with real money. Parker says the app has imported profiles of tens of thousands of people without their consent and exploits their identities for profit. The mobile game's developer, Siqi Chen, created another game in 2007 called "Friends for Sale," which allowed Facebook users to buy and sell their friends' Facebook profiles. "The pernicious nature of ownership was a reflection of Chen's vision for the game," Parker says in the 17-page lawsuit. In 2009, Chen sold "Friends for Sale" to the gaming company Zynga for an undisclosed sum before launching his new Twitter-based profile-collecting game in 2015. Parker cites a January 2016 review of the app from the technology news website, The Next Web, or TNW, written by Lauren Hockenson. The article reports that the game "commoditizes users without their knowledge" and "crafts a potential opening for harassment" because people who "own" others' profiles can rename them. Parker cites an interview with the app's founder, Chen, in which he "admits the game wouldn't work if he had to obtain consent from each user." When asked if it would make more sense to feature people in the game only with their permission, Chen allegedly said: "It doesn't really work if we can't show you the people that you actually follow and care about on Twitter." Parker says he joined Twitter in May 2008 and discovered in July this year that his profile, name and photo were uploaded to the app and displayed for players to collect with virtual currency. He seeks class certification for all Alabama residents whose profiles have appeared in the app without their consent, an injunction, and damages as noted above. He also wants Twitter ordered to revoke Hey's access to its application programming interface. He is represented by Stewart Pollack with Edelson PC in San Francisco. Twitter did not respond on August 25 to an email request for comment. Hey founder and CEO Chen did not return a phone call seeking comment. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Arguments Heard on Bids to Exclude Experts ------------------------------------------------------------ Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Diego, heard arguments on August 26, from attorneys on both sides of a class action claiming Trump University tricked students into paying for bogus real estate tips, as the lawyers tried to convince the judge that a host of experts should be excluded from testifying. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a tentative order on August 25, granting in part and denying in part motions from lead class-action plaintiff Art Cohen and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump asking to bar witnesses retained for the 3-year-old case. Cohen and the other plaintiffs sued Trump in 2013 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act, claiming he knowingly defrauded students out of thousands of dollars when they paid for Trump University seminars based on the claim that they would learn insider real estate secrets from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself. The experts at issue at Friday's hearing were retained to determine the educational value of a Trump University education. Cohen's expert Paul Habibi found that a real estate education from Trump University was worth nothing, while Trump's expert Alan Wallace found a Trump University education did, in fact, have value. Both sides requested Curiel bar the other's expert from testifying. Also at issue were surveys created by Cohen's expert Michael Kamins and economics expert DeForest McDuff, who is retained by Trump. Cohen attorney Jay Alvarez argued McDuff brought a new affirmative economic analysis of damages that he called "untimely." Alvarez said the plaintiffs have not retained an expert who can rebut the "charts upon charts and graphs upon graphs" filed in relation to McDuff's expert opinion on Trump University. He asked Curiel to allow the plaintiffs to retain an economics expert with the same education and background as McDuff to challenge the methodology he used. "This is something out of left field. [McDuff] is examining all these different documents and surveys Mr. Habibi did not," Alvarez said. Trump's attorney David Kirman countered Alvarez's characterization of McDuff's testimony and expertise, saying he is being used as a "classic rebuttal" to Habibi finding a Trump University education had zero value. "If Mr. Habibi does not testify, neither will Dr. McDuff because there will be nothing for him to rebut," Kirman pointed out. Kirman also said Trump's experts -- Wallace and McDuff -- served "completely different functions," as Wallace was not "equipped" to prove the value of a Trump University education. "Plaintiffs have only themselves to blame based on the quality of the opinion they're giving," Kirman said. Cohen attorney Daniel Pfefferbaum addressed Trump's motion to exclude a survey conducted by Kamins, which he noted was being used to support a finding of misrepresentation as to the importance of Trump's celebrity in getting many of his "number one fans" to attend and pay for Trump University. Kirman claimed the survey goes beyond the class certification, which was based on the alleged misrepresentation made through the "university" title as well as the misrepresentation Trump "handpicked" the seminar's real estate experts and mentors. "We believe the court should exercise protecting the jury from getting this 'junk science,'" Kirman said about the survey at issue. Pfefferbaum said Trump had an issue with a control group not being used in the survey since Kamins only allowed those people interested in attending Trump University participate. But that was done on purpose, Pfefferbaum said, since Trump University spent $6 million a year on their marketing department and arguably directed most of their efforts at getting Trump's fans to invest in the real estate seminar. "Defendants haven't identified any 'noise' that needed to be controlled for. They don't have a concern about this study other than they found case law excluding experts in other surveys who didn't use a control," Pfefferbaum said. Kirman countered that the plaintiffs' survey would be a "gross expansion" of the terms of the class certification and would require more trial time, which Curiel did not dispute. "In a RICO case, you look at the scheme which relied on mail or wire fraud. It seems it would become sterile if you excluded some of the context, but I do think there is a line to be drawn between context and backing up a dump truck of evidence in the case. My question is: isn't that a proper outgrowth of the case certification?" Curiel said. Kirman disagreed and further reiterated he thought the "new facts injected into the case" by plaintiffs' experts' testimony would open Pandora's box. Curiel said he would likely issue a written order on the matter on August 29 or August 30. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL: "Pixler" Suit Alleges Vehicle Defect ---------------------------------------------------------- Susan Abusamra-Pixler and Charles Pixler v. U-HAUL International, Inc., Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico General Insurance Company, Dawn M. Grant Insurance Services, Inc., FCA US LLC f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC) and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC631370, (Cal. Super., August 23, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of wrongfully obtained profits, injunctive relief, damages for failure to provide insurance benefits, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and litigation costs, economic and consequential damages, general damages and such other and proper relief resulting from product liability, negligence, breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. U-HAUL is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, assembling, and distributing trailers for rent, specifically the 1994 Trailer Bearing License Plate Number B730139 and VIN 14HUI2200RPRV7029 involved in a vehicular accident at 215 Freeway in the County of Riverside, State of California. Susan Abusamra- Pixler was injured in the accident. Plaintiff alleges that this was a result of vehicle defect and malfunction. Plaintiff also claims that Government Employees Insurance Company, Geico General Insurance Company and Dawn M. Grant Insurance Services, Inc. denied their insurance claims. Plaintiff is represented by: Garo Mardirossian, Esq. Annen Akaragian, Esq. MARDIROSSIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 6311 Wilshire Boulevara Los Angeles, CA 90048-5001 Telephone: (323) 653-6311 FacsImile: (323) 651-5511 - and - Chant Yedalian, Esq. CHANT & COMPANY 1010 North Central Avenue Glendale, CA 91202 Telephone: (877) 574-7100 FacsImile: (877) 574-9411 UNITED AIRLINES: Court Takes Class Cert. Bid Under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned FELICIA VIDRIO, the Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC. ET AL, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07985-PSG- MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Philip S. Gutierrez takes Plaintiff's motion for class certification under submission. A ruling will be issued after full consideration of the submitted pleadings. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jqXCIuzZ The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Jackson, Esq. Kirk Hanson, Esq. JEFFREY JACKSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP 2200 North Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 861 8833 Facsimile: (713) 682 8866 The Defendant is represented by: Adam KohSweeney, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS San Francisco Telephone: 1-415-984-8912 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com VALDEMAR 5108: "Lara" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------- Veronica Lara, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Valdemar 5108 LLC d/b/a Fat Valdy's Bar & Grill and Valdemar Rodriguez Escobar, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV- 1058, (E.D. Wis., August 10, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys fees, and/or any such other relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin Wage Laws. Valdemar 5108 LLC operates Fat Valdy's Bar & Grill located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin with Valdemar Rodriguez Escobar as owner. Lara has worked for Fat Valdy's as a server and bartender since 2013. Plaintiff is represented by: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: 414-271-8650 Fax: 414-271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com VALENCE HEALTH: "Burns" Files Suit Over FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ NELLIE BURNS AND LAURA MACHALA v. VALENCE HEALTH, Case No. 3:16- cv-02445-D (N.D. Tex., August 23, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Valence Health, Inc. operates in the healthcare services field. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Dortch, Esq. Maryssa J. Simpson, Esq. COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: (214) 712-9500 Fax: (214) 712-9540 E-mail: Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com Maryssa.Simpson@cooperscully.com - and - Tom Carse, Esq. CARSE LAWFIRM 6220 Campbell Road, Ste. 401 Dallas, TX 75248 Phone: (972) 503-6338 Fax: (972) 503-6348 E-mail: tom@carselaw.com WALGREEN CO: Certification Bid in "Cintron" Suit Denied as Moot --------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on August 25, 2016, in the case entitled Nilsa Cintron v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-01314 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve. The minute entry states that the "Plaintiff's motion for class certification [2] is denied as moot in light of the filing of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed in 15C5070." A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KYF87gs0 WALTER INVESTMENT: $24MM Settlement Up for Oct. 14 Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has scheduled a hearing for October 14, 2016, to decide whether to enter an order finally approving the proposed $24 million settlement of a class action lawsuit. On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The amended complaint named as defendants the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Ditech Financial, the liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint sought class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014. On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS. On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that, among other things, added certain allegations concerning the Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. On July 24, 2015, the Company and Messrs. Anderson and Corey filed an answer to the third amended complaint, which denied the substantive allegations and asserted various defenses. On August 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in substantial part on March 16, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the parties entered into an agreement to fully resolve all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the action for a total payment of $24 million, which is inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and all other costs associated with the proposed settlement. The proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval, provides that defendants, including the Company, are not making any admission of liability or wrongdoing. On June 13, 2016, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and directing that potential members of the class be notified of the proposed settlement. The court also scheduled a hearing for October 14, 2016 to decide whether to enter an order finally approving the proposed settlement. In accordance with the settlement agreement, certain insurers of the Company have paid the full amount of the proposed settlement into an escrow account. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of the action or that such an outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. WALTER INVESTMENT: Settlement Hearing Moved to Aug. 30 ------------------------------------------------------ Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing for final approval of the settlement in the case, Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al., was originally scheduled for May 12, 2016, and was rescheduled for August 30, 2016. Ditech Financial is subject to several putative class action lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance. These actions allege that Ditech Financial and its affiliates improperly received benefits from lender-placed insurance providers in the form of commissions for work not performed, services provided at a reduced cost, and expense reimbursements that did not reflect the actual cost of the services rendered. Plaintiffs in these suits assert various theories of recovery and seek remedies including compensatory, actual, punitive, statutory and treble damages, return of unjust benefits, and injunctive relief. One such matter is Circeo-Loudon v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC et al. filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 17, 2014 and amended on October 16, 2014. A settlement agreement was reached between the parties in the Circeo-Loudon matter on September 11, 2015. This settlement received preliminary approval by the court on December 8, 2015 and a hearing for final approval originally scheduled for May 12, 2016 has been rescheduled for August 30, 2016. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, all of the defendants collectively, including Ditech Financial, are required to pay damages to class members who timely file a claim, administrative costs to effectuate the settlement and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes it has accrued the full amount expected to be paid under the settlement agreement in its consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2016. The settlement agreement also provides that Ditech Financial and its subsidiary, Green Tree Insurance Agency, Inc., and their affiliates will be released from certain claims and may no longer receive commissions on the placement of certain lender-placed insurance for a period of five years commencing 120 days from the effective date of the settlement. The Company expects that this settlement, if approved by the court, will lead to the ultimate resolution of the other putative class action lawsuits related to lender-placed insurance to which Ditech Financial is currently subject, although the proposed settlement does not apply to potential claims by class members who opt out of the proposed settlement. WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Now Closed ------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the case, In re Weight Watchers International, Inc. Securities Litigation have not appealed a court decision and the matter is now closed. In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors, and Artal Group S.A. ("Artal") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012 and October 30, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaints alleged that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts. The complaints alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs sought to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013 and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously named as defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on December 23, 2014. On May 11, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs did not appeal the decision and the matter is now closed. WEIGHT WATCHERS: Motion to Dismiss "Roberts" Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the case, Raymond Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc., is ongoing. On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of contract and violations of the New York General Business Law. On February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court, Sothern District of New York. On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that, as a result of the temporary glitches in the Company's website and app in November and December 2015, the Company has: (1) breached its Subscription Agreement with its OnlinePlus members; and (2) engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section 350 of the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as his attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The plaintiff filed his opposition papers on June 9, 2016 and the Company filed its reply papers on June 23, 2016. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. WENDCENTRAL CORP: "Solarek" Suit Seeks Damages and Reinstatement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Solarek, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wendcentral Corp. d/b/a Wendpartners Group, Integrated Food Systems, Inc., Wendstick, LLC, Lewis E. Topper, Jeffrey J. Coghlan and Doe Corporations 1-329, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02116 (N.D. Ohio, August 23, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unlawful deductions and charge backs and unreimbursed expenses as well as reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, emotional damages, punitive damages and interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Constitution. WendPartners is a consortium of franchise groups controlled by Lewis E. Topper, Jeffrey J. Coghlan with subsidiary entity Wendstick, LLC, which operates the Wendy's restaurant located at 14180 Airport Highway in Swanton, Ohio where Plaintiff worked as restaurant crew. Solarek was allegedly terminated because of his autism. Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Kimble, Esq. KIMBLE LAW, LLC 1675 Old Henderson Road Columbus, OH 43220 Tel: (614) 983-0361 Fax: (614) 448-9408 Email: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com WHITEWAVE FOODS: "Louie" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------- Edward Louie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Whitewave Foods Company, Gregg L. Engles, Joseph S. Hardin, Jr., Stephen L. Green, Doreen A. Wright, Michelle Goolsby, W. Anthony Vernon, Anthony J. Magro, Danone S.A. and July Merger Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02132, (D. Colo., August 23, 2016), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a merger. It also seeks rescissory damages, costs of action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants allegedly issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Preliminary Proxy Statement in connection with the proposed merger where WhiteWave Foods Company will be acquired by Danone S.A. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, July Merger Sub Inc. and stockholders of WhiteWave will receive $56.25 per share in cash. Said Merger Agreement prohibits solicitation of alternative proposals and severely limits options with other potential buyers who may have better offers. WhiteWave is a consumer packaged food and beverage company that manufactures, markets, and sells branded plant-based foods and beverages, coffee creamers and beverages, premium dairy products, and organic produce. Gregg L. Engles, Joseph S. Hardin, Jr., Stephen L. Green, Doreen A. Wright, Michelle Goolsby, W. Anthony Vernon and Anthony J. Magro are members of its Board of Directors. Plaintiff is represented by: Rusty E. Glenn THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Kip B. Shuman, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM Post-Montgomery Ctr. One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 536-7849 Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP Richard A. Maniskas 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Tel: (484) 588-5516 WILLIS TOWERS: Consolidated Merger Action Closed ------------------------------------------------ Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, the court has entered a proposed order submitted by the parties closing the consolidated action for all purposes. Five putative class action complaints challenging the Merger of Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company and Towers Watson & Co. were filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015), Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31, 2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB (filed on August 24, 2015). The Stein action was voluntarily dismissed on July 28, 2015. These complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Towers Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers Watson stockholders. The complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the Merger, and generally alleged that Towers Watson's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal protection devices. The complaints also alleged that Willis and the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the Merger aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Towers Watson directors. On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, and Cordell actions (the Mills action had not yet been filed) and any other actions then pending or thereafter filed arising out of the same issues of fact under the caption In re Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11270-CB. On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action and in Mills filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions from a preliminary proxy statement and prospectus for the Merger dated August 27, 2015. On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction, which motions plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew on October 19, 2015. On December 14, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On April 1, 2016, the court consolidated the Mills action into the consolidated action. On April 18, 2016, the court dismissed the consolidated action as moot, set a briefing schedule for plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' fee and expense application for June 28, 2016. On April 27, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, requesting an aggregate fee and expense award of at least $1.7 million. On June 8, 2016, defendants filed their opposition to the petition. After negotiations, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the petition for a payment of $250,000 to plaintiffs' counsel by the Company. On July 29, 2016, the court entered a proposed order submitted by the parties closing the consolidated action for all purposes. WILLIS TOWERS: Still Defending Lawsuits Related to Stanford ----------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend lawsuits related to Stanford Financial Group. The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group ('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The 13 actions are as follows: * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA'). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green, Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants- appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML'). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert. * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague. * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague, which stipulation was 'so ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur. * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria. On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. We believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are likely to be reinstated. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar. On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala- Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court. * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle. The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting standards. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and we have therefore increased our provisions by $50 million. The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford, which may not be given. Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these matters may differ from the amount provided for. The Company continues to dispute the allegations and, to the extent litigation proceeds, to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Settlement-in-Principle On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the Stanford litigation matter. The Company has agreed to the Settlement Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and uncertainty of further litigation. In particular, if the settlement and the related bar orders are approved by the Court and become effective, the Company (a newly-combined firm) would be able to conduct itself with the bar orders' protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have occurred approximately a decade ago. Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provides that the parties understand and agree that there is no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the Stanford litigation. Specifically, the parties to the Settlement Term Sheet are Ralph S. Janvey (in his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver (the 'Receiver') for The Stanford Financial Group and its affiliated entities in receivership (collectively, 'Stanford')), the Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz, Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal, Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A. (collectively, 'Plaintiffs'), on the one hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (formerly Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company), Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc. and Willis of Colorado, Inc. (collectively, 'Defendants'), on the other hand. Under the terms of the Settlement Term Sheet, the parties have agreed in principle to settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the 'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related to Stanford. If the settlement, including the bar orders, is approved by the Court and is not subject to further appeal, Willis North America Inc. will make a one-time cash payment of $120 million to the Receiver to be distributed to all Stanford investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made. The Company expects the Actions to be stayed pending final approval of the settlement agreement and bar orders. The timing of any final decision is subject to the discretion of the Court and any appeal, and the Court may decide not to approve the settlement. The Settlement Term Sheet also provides the parties' agreement to seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not. The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all Stanford- related litigation, and not just the Actions, including any pending matters and any actions that may be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders is a condition of the settlement. The settlement is also subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and other related documentation, notice to Stanford's investor claimants, and approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. WILLIS TOWERS: Oct. 2017 Trial Date Set in "Sanchez" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has set an October 2, 2017 trial date in the case by Elma Sanchez, et al. On August 6, 2013, three individual plaintiffs filed a putative class action suit against the California Public Employees' Retirement System ('CalPERS') in Los Angeles County Superior Court. On January 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added as defendants several members of CalPERS' Board of Administration and three Legacy Towers Watson entities, Towers Watson & Co., Towers Perrin, and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin ('Towers Perrin'). Plaintiffs' claims all relate to a self-funded, non-profit Long Term Care Program that CalPERS established in 1995 (the 'LTC Program'). Plaintiffs' claims seek unspecified damages allegedly resulting from CalPERS' 2012 decision to implement in 2015 and 2016 an 85 percent increase in the premium rates of certain of the long term care policies it issued between 1995 and 2004 (the '85% Increase'). The amended complaint alleges claims against CalPERS for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. It also includes a single cause of action against Towers Perrin for professional negligence relating to actuarial services Towers Perrin provided to CalPERS relating to the LTC Program between 1995 and 2004. Plaintiffs principally allege that CalPERS mismanaged the LTC Program and its investment assets in multiple respects and breached its contractual and fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and other class members by impermissibly imposing the 85% Increase to make up for investment losses. Plaintiffs also allege that Towers Perrin recommended inadequate initial premium rates at the outset of the LTC Program and used unspecified inappropriate assumptions in its annual valuations for CalPERS. Plaintiffs claim that Towers Perrin's allegedly negligent acts and omissions, prior to the end of its retainer in 2004, contributed to the need for the 85% Increase. In May 2014, the court denied the motions to dismiss filed by CalPERS and Towers Perrin addressed to the sufficiency of the complaint. On January 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The certified class as currently defined includes those long term care policy holders whose policies were "subject to" the 85% Increase. The court thereafter set an October 2, 2017 trial date. In May, 2016, the case was reassigned to a different judge. The court has agreed that Towers Perrin may file a motion for summary judgment which will be heard on February 3, 2017. The court has also agreed to consider potential motions by Towers Perrin and CalPERS to decertify or modify the class. To date, the plaintiffs have not identified any amount of damages or any basis for calculating damages they are seeking against defendants, including Towers Perrin. For this reason and given the stage of the proceedings, the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously. YELP INC: 9th Circuit Appeal in Securities Case Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------- YELP INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act by the Company and certain of its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on May 21, 2015. On November 24, 2015, the court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in the Company's favor on December 28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. YELP INC: $600,000 in Meal & Rest Case Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- YELP INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the $0.6 million settlement of a class action lawsuit is currently awaiting final court approval. On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants the Company and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24 customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to approximately $0.6 million, which the court preliminarily approved on June 27, 2016. The settlement is currently awaiting final court approval. YELP INC: $200,000 Accord in Employee Suit Awaits Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- YELP INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the $0.2 million settlement of a class action lawsuit is currently awaiting final court approval. On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit, on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages, allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, the Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle this matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to approximately $0.2 million. Once finalized, the settlement will be subject to court approval. ZARA USA: Faces "Rose" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Zara USA Inc. and Does 1-10. The case is captioned Devin Rose, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Zara USA Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-06229-RSWL-RAO (C.D. Cal., August 22, 2016). Zara USA Inc. is a clothing and accessories retailer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark John Geragos, Esq. Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq. GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC 644 South Figeuroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone: (213) 625-3900 Facsimile: (213) 232-3255 E-mail: mark@geragos.com meiselas@geragos.com ********* 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 * * *