/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160909.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 181 Headlines ABSOLUTE THAI: Faces "Villalva-Zeferino" Suit in S.D. of New York AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Plaintiff Drops Securities Class Suit AFFORDABLE AUTO: Sued in Mass. Over Motor Vehicle Leases AMERICAN HONDA: CR-Vs Have Noxious Oder, Chicago Suit Claims AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Kalkstein" Suit in S.D. of Florida ANAVEX LIFE: Motion to Dismiss "Cortina" Action Pending AR RESOURCES: Files Joint Bid to Certify "Kielbasinski" Class ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Hess" Suit in Eastern District of New York ASTRA HOME: "Shillingford" Suit Alleges NY Labor Laws Violations BERNIE MORENO: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Ransom" Class Suit CANADA: EMDC Inmates' Class Action v. Ontario Can Proceed CAVIAR INC: Faces "Rosen" Suit Alleging Cal. Labor Law Breach CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Court Ruling on "Ford" Case Settlement CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Mediation of Sinohui Lawsuit in October 2016 CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: PMFG Settlement Hearing Moved to September 14 CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Sued in N.Y. Over Gender Discrimination CHIASMA INC: Defending Against "Gerneth" Class Action CLECO CORPORATE: Sept. 15 Hearing on Case Dismissal Bid CONFORMIS INC: Court Dismissed Securities Class Action Claims CORAL TELL: Still Defends Class Action Over Phone Call Overages CORRECTION CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee COVENTRY HEALTH: Williams Wants to Send Class Notice Via E-mail CPI CARD: Preliminary Conference Set for September 15 in "Vance" CVB FINANCIAL: Class Action Appeal Pending CVB FINANCIAL: Service Manager's Class Suit in Discovery CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Suit Over Merger Still Pending DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 1325 South Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces LAT Preston Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Market East Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 1325 South Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Park Lane Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Partners Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Paul Nobel Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces US Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rouquette Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Santa Monica Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces SEPR Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Kumar" Suit Over Appraisal Policies DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces TPLP Office Suit Over Appraisal Policies DAVID BOONE: Adams Seeks Certification of Consultants Class DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Class Certification Sought in "Leon" Suit ELECTRO RENT: Defending Against "Chaklos" Action in Los Angeles ELECTRO RENT: Defending Against "Wadsworth" Action in C.D. Cal. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Retired Players Support Davis' Bid to Certify EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over OMERS Merger FALCON FLOWBACK: Lyles Seeks to Certify Class of Flowback Hands FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Parties in Talks on Definitive Settlement FIRST TRINITY: FBLIC's Petition to Appeal Denied FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set FORD MOTOR: NHTSA Investigates SUVs After Gas Smell Complaints FXCM INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action GENKI SUSHI: Starn O'Toole Files Class Action Over Hep-A Outbreak GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shterna" Suit Claims GORIS GROCERS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GREEN SOLAR: Woodson, et al. Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Code HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Biloxi City Council to File Oil Spill Claim HALSTED FINANCIAL: Lopez Amends Bid to Certify Classes/Subclasses HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation HARRIS COUNTY: Appraisal Dist. Over Property Assessed Value JOHNSON CONTROLS: MOU Reached in Suit Over Tyco Deal LINCOLN HERITAGE: Illegally Denies Insurance Claims, Action Says LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Howard Seeks to Certify Class of Stockholders LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes Sought in "Yagman" Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Florez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring MCGINNES: Polluted San Jacinto River, Houston Suit Claims MEDICENTRE: November 30 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set NATERA INC: Plaintiffs' Bid to Remand Case Pending NEOSTRATA COMPANY: "Horton" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California NEWELL BRANDS: Settlement of Jarden Merger Suit Still Pending NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Case Over Jarden Deal Remains Stayed OCWEN LOAN: Abraham Seeks to Certify Pa., N.J. and FDCPA Classes ONE GROUP: "Takahashi" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Code PEACOCK PAINT: "Ulloa" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations PFIZER INC: Deal Reached to Settle Celebrex and Bextra Claims PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss End-Payer Plaintiffs' Claims Pending PFIZER INC: Appeal in Zoloft Case Remains Pending PFIZER INC: Viagra Product Liability Lawsuits Pending PFIZER INC: Ontario Case Over Chantix/Champix Proceeding PNC BANK: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "Muhammad" Suit POPULAR INC: Discovery in "Valle" Action Underway POPULAR INC: Settlement in Quiles Case Awaits Court OK POPULAR INC: Motions to Dismiss "Fernandez" Case Still Pending POPULAR INC: Court Okayed BPPR Settlement in RadioShack Case PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: VW's Dieselgate Scandal May Affect Stock Value PPL CORPORATION: Discovery Schedule Through Q2 2017 QUANTUM SOLAR: Faces "Medrano" Suit in California Superior Court REACHLOCAL INC: "Miranda" Suit Over Gannett Merger Pending REACHLOCAL INC: To Defend Against "Casey" Suit Over Gannett Deal REGULATORY TECHNOLOGY: Has Until Sept. 12 to Respond to Complaint REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Defers Final Settlement Approval Until Feb. RESOURCE ENERGY: Moresi Seeks to Certify Welders & Fitters Class ROSE ACRE FARMS: Seeks to Decertify Purchasers Class in Egg MDL RTG FURNITURE: Hankinson Seeks Certification of Three Classes SAKUMA BROTHERS: Faces "Demetrio" Suit in W.D. of Washington SEAS & ASSOCIATES: Stamer Amends Bid to Certify 3 TCPA Classes SHERWOOD CITY, AR: Faces "Dade" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas SNYDER'S-LANCE: $2.9MM Settlement in IBO Litigation Paid in Q2 SNYDER'S-LANCE: Briefing Schedule in Merger Deal Not Yet Set SNYDER'S-LANCE: Mediation in Labor Suit Set for September 19 SOTHEBYS INC: Graham Files Appeal in Suit Seeking Royalty Fees SOULCYCLE INC: Faces "Cavka" Suit Over Unlawful Consumer Contract SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Has Not Commenced in "Melville" Case SPARK ENERGY: Paid $0.5MM Related to "Amaya" Case SPX CORPORATION: Certification of Class Sought in "Brass" Suit STATE COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Lawrence" Suit SUBWAY IP: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Actions over IPO SWICK MINING: Faces "Russell" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA TAMINCO US: Must Defend Against Suit Over Plant Emissions TAMPA ELECTRIC: Parties to Enter Into Formal Settlement Agreement THIRD AVENUE: Faces "Krasner" Suit in Delaware Court TIVO INC: "Klein" and "Graham" Actions Pending in N.D. Cal. TRANS ONE INC: Matthis Wants to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties Scheduling Mediation TROPICAL SMOOTHIE: Faces Class Suit Over Hep A Outbreak UNIT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Issues in Panola ISD Case Pending UNITED SERVICES: Defense Attorneys Appeal Court Abuse Claims US IMMIGRATION: "Zhang" Class Certification Bid Stayed VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Illegally Raises Drug Price, Suit Says VALLEY CREDIT: Lisiecki Seeks Certification of Class in Wisconsin VALVE CORP: Consumers Sue Over Alleged Gambling Law Violations VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Legal Battle Outside U.S. Over Emissions WALLACE RUSH: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA WATTS WATER: $14MM Settlement Awaits Court Approval WORK OUT WORLD: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Faces "Cunningham" Suit in S.D. of Florida * CFPB Says New Rule to Spur 1,200 More Class Actions A Year * Employers Face Ongoing Threat of Class Wage-and-Hour Litigation Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Adopts Grant of "Hillyer" Summary Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Jansen" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Appearance in "McSwain" OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estate of Uni Employee Cannot Pursue Benefits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss PI Claims vs. Cytec Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Burt" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Waived Right to Enforce Notice ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wayne Mfg. Wins Bid to Dismiss "Fish" ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Cos. Win Partial Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Flips Dismissal of Seamen Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: No New Trial in "Marquez," Cal. App. Says ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 NYCAL Suits Consolidated for Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Circ. Allows New Trial in "O'Malley" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Denial of WR Grace Class Cert. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Liability Totals $507MM at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Continues to Receive Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 6,480 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Continues to Defend Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Contribute Asbestos Insurance ASBESTOS UPDATE: OI Inc. Continues to Defend Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developer Pleads Guilty to Asbestos Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keizer Co. Fined for Asbestos Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Asbestos Review Sought for Brake Parts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 2nd Batch of Bldg Materials ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Cases for Asbestos Scare Firm Yuanda ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bag With Asbestos Left in Hobsonville Road ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Starts at Barwick Mills ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing of Bolton Nightclub Moved to Oct. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Appeals After Ex-Joiner Dies of Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Library Closes After Asbestos Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Firm Could Be Fined for Offenses ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter of Asbestos Victim Appeals for Info ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Back Closure of School Due to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Islands Need Help with Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bondex Bankruptcy Trust Now Accpeting Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: George Moody Stuart School to Relocate ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monitoring Improves Mesothelioma Diagnosis ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broke Hall Primary Closed After Asbestos Scare ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newport-Mesa Schools Refused Asbestos Reco ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined Over Asbestos Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACMs Illegally Dumped in New Hampshire ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valve Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestConnex Asbestos Claims Investigated ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at North Myrtle Beach High School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrexham Woman Continues Father's Asbestos Fight ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Succeeds in Asbestos Claim ********* ABSOLUTE THAI: Faces "Villalva-Zeferino" Suit in S.D. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Absolute Thai NYC Inc. The case is captioned Ponciano Villalva-Zeferino, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Absolute Thai NYC Inc., doing business as: Absolute Thai jointly and severally; Nitchamon Moramat, jointly and severally; and Kimhan Phaetphian, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06627 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2016). The Defendants operate a Thai Restaurant. The Plaintiff appears pro se. AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Plaintiff Drops Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Aerojet Rocketdyne 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 plaintiff in the Securities Class Action filed a voluntary dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. On February 11, 2016, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, by Juliann Travis, purporting to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from October 15, 2013 through February 1, 2016, against the Company, Eileen Drake, Kathleen Redd and Scott Seymour, Juliann Travis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., Eileen P. Drake, Kathleen E. Redd, and Scott J. Seymour, Case No. 2:16-cv-00961. The complaint arose out of the announcement of the restatement of the Company's financial statements on February 1, 2016. The complaint asserted that the Company's securities traded at artificially inflated prices as a result of such misstatements and alleged various violations of and related to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the defendants. On May 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. The Company had maintained the belief that this action was without merit and intended to contest it vigorously. AFFORDABLE AUTO: Sued in Mass. Over Motor Vehicle Leases -------------------------------------------------------- Sherill Valley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Affordable Auto Leasing, Inc., Case No. 16-2667 (Mass. Cmmw. Ct., August 26, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons who entered into consumer motor vehicle leases with Defendant containing one or more unlawful disclosures. Affordable Auto Leasing, Inc. is engaged in leasing, offering to lease, or arranging to lease personal property under a consumer lease. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. Quat, Esq. QUAT LAW OFFICES 929 Worcester Rd. Framingham, MA 0170 Telephone: (508) 872-1261 E-mail: kquat@quatlaw.com - and - Deborah G. Roher, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH G. KOHL 56 N. Main St. #413 Fall River, MA 02720 Telephone: (508) 672-1383 E-mail: info@roherlaw.net AMERICAN HONDA: CR-Vs Have Noxious Oder, Chicago Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that American Honda Motor Co. knows its 2016 CR-Vs are prone filling with a noxious odor, but it refuses to replace the defective vehicles and cannot repair the problem, consumers claim in a federal class action in Chicago. Honda allegedly suspects that the smell is coming from the combination of "Midwest fuel detergents and the material that new cars are made of." AMERICAN RECOVERY: Faces "Kalkstein" Suit in S.D. of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against American Recovery Systems, LLC. The case is styled Erica Kalkstein, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Recovery Systems, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62021-RNS (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert N. Scola, Jr. American Recovery operates as a collection agency. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse S Johnson, Esq. Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 961 5684 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Jordan Wagner, Esq. 2400 East Commercial Blvd., Suite 820 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (954) 491 3277 Facsimile: (954) 692 9186 E-mail: jiw@jordanwagnerlaw.com - and - James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 869 1919 E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com ANAVEX LIFE: Motion to Dismiss "Cortina" Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Anavex Life Sciences Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit by Kevin Cortina is pending before the court for the Southern District of New York. On December 30, 2015, Kevin Cortina filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Cortina v. Anaves Life Sciences Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-10162, against the Company, Christopher Missling, Sandra Boenisch, and Athanasios Skarpelos. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between May 17, 2013 and December 28, 2015. The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it used a paid stock promoter to artificially inflate the Company's share price. The complaint does not specify an amount of damages sought. On April 5, 2016 the court appointed Lam Truong as lead plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky to serve as lead counsel. On April 13, 2016, the court granted lead plaintiff thirty days to amend the complaint and set a briefing schedule. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 13, 2016. The parties have fully briefed this motion and it is currently pending before the court. Defendants believe this action is meritless and deny all allegations against them. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. AR RESOURCES: Files Joint Bid to Certify "Kielbasinski" Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS KIELBASINSKI; an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A.R. RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-00066-KRG (W.D. Pa.), jointly move the Court for an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action and granting preliminary approval of their class settlement agreement. The Class consists of: All consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom A.R. Resources, Inc. mailed a written communication, in connection with its attempt to collect a debt, which written communications included a statement that a $5.00 convenience fee would be added to all credit transactions, and which resulted in the consumer being charged such a fee, during a period beginning March 13, 2014, and ending October 31, 2015. The Plaintiff filed the Case pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges ARR violated the FDCPA by, inter alia, mailing consumers collection letters that made false representations concerning the nature character, amount of the debt, and attempted to collect a $5 "convenience fee" for all credit transactions, and which resulted in the consumer being charged a fee. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aRtXaXH6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1329 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532-5868 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com - and - Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C. 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 540-8888 Facsimile: (855) 540-8817 E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Wendy Testa, Esq. Henry F. Canelo, Esq. Jonathan Dryer, Esq. WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 2001 Market Street, Suite 3100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 627-6900 Facsimile: (215) 627-2665 E-mail: wendy.testa@wilsonelser.com henry.canelo@wilsonelser.com jonathan.dryer@wilsonelser.com ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Hess" Suit in Eastern District of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc. The case is titled Bassheva Hess, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04711 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 23, 2016). ARS is doing business in the accounts receivable management industry. The Plaintiff appears pro se. ASTRA HOME: "Shillingford" Suit Alleges NY Labor Laws Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELLA SHILLINGFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ASTRA HOME CARE, INC. d/b/a "True Care Home Health Care," MICHAEL WERZBERGER, REBECCA ROSENZWEIG, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-06785 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Wage Parity Act, the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. Astra Home Care Inc. is a large-sized organization in the home health care services industry located in Brooklyn, NY. The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 286-1425 Fax: (646) 688-3078 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com BERNIE MORENO: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Ransom" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Norman Ransom filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Norman Ransom v. Bernie Moreno Companies, Case No. 1:15-cv-01465, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. The Case arose from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Norman Ransom v. Bernie Moreno Companies, Case No. 16-3990, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Appellant's brief is due on October 11, 2016. The Appellee's brief is due on November 14, 2016. Plaintiff-Appellant Norman Ransom, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Shannon Marie Draher, Esq. NILGES.DRAHER LLC 4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201 Canton, OH 44718 Telephone: (330) 433-6000 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com Defendant-Appellee Bernie Moreno Companies is represented by: Ronald D. Holman, II, Esq. TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 3500 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 241-2838 Facsimile: (216) 241-3707 E-mail: rholman@taftlaw.com CANADA: EMDC Inmates' Class Action v. Ontario Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------- The class action relating to the conditions of the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre ("EMDC") was certified by the Honourable Justice Grace of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 23, 2016. In December 2013, McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP filed a class proceeding against Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario alleging the conditions at EMDC are overcrowded, fraught with violence, and violate sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The class action includes all persons incarcerated at the EMDC between January 1, 2010 and August 25, 2013, including those held at the EMDC pending trial or other court appearance. Among the issues the court approved for determination at trial are whether the Defendant breached a duty of care in how it operated and managed the EMDC, whether their actions violate the Charter, and whether this is an appropriate case for aggregate damages. Kevin Egan -- egan@mckenzielake.com -- a partner with McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP who spearheaded the action said, "We are very pleased that individuals who were exposed to the conditions at EMDC will be allowed to go forward with their claims on a class basis. We look forward to the next steps in this litigation." It is too early at this stage to quantify the claims of class members if the action is successful, but it is anticipated the amounts will be significant. Anyone who has been incarcerated in the EMDC during the class period or afterwards is encouraged to visit www.mckenzielake.com and/or call 1-855-772-3556 at which you can leave a message to which we will endeavor to reply as soon as possible. CAVIAR INC: Faces "Rosen" Suit Alleging Cal. Labor Law Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- NADEZHDA ROSEN and LA'DELL BREWSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAVIAR, INC. d/b/a TRY CAVIAR, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-04953 (N.D. Cal., August 29, 2016), alleges various wage and hour laws, including California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code. Try Caviar is a company that provides food delivery services for restaurants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Freedman, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 630-2651 E-mail: mfreedman@llrlaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Jill Kahn, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com jkahn@llrlaw.com CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Awaits Court Ruling on "Ford" Case Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Richard Seeborg held a hearing on Aug. 11, 2016, on the Motion for Settlement Final Approval of Class Action Settlement filed by Francesca Ford in the case, Ford v. CEC Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01420 (N.D. Cal.), and the parties await the Court's ruling on the matter. CEC Entertainment, 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 former CEC employee Franchesca Ford filed on January 27, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California who were employed from January 27, 2010 to the present, and she alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws. In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to California state court. In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement payment. On March 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement and setting a final approval hearing regarding the settlement for August 2016. The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Mediation of Sinohui Lawsuit in October 2016 --------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, 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 have scheduled mediation of the Richard Sinohui lawsuit for October 2016. On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of the Company in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify a class based on allegations that CEC wrongfully classified current and former California General Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that the Company failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff also alleged that the Company failed to reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On December 5, 2014, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that the Company had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage. On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. The parties have scheduled mediation of the Sinohui lawsuit for October 2016. If the parties are unable to resolve the case at mediation, trial is currently scheduled for June 2017. "We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: PMFG Settlement Hearing Moved to September 14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental 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 hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit over the Company's acquisition of PMFG, Inc., has been rescheduled for September 14, 2016. The Company completed the acquisition of PMFG, Inc. on September 3, 2015. Since the public announcement of the proposed merger on May 4, 2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of the PMFG board of directors have been named as defendants in three lawsuits related to the acquisition, which were filed by alleged stockholders of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17, 2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second and third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," and collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the merger failed to properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the related merger agreement, and that those breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a) that the PMFG board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger for inadequate consideration and pursuant to a tainted process by (1) agreeing to lock up the merger with deal protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG to solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2) participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG board of directors and management are divided, and (3) relying on financial and legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were conflicted; (b) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c) that the disclosure provided in the registration statement filed by CECO on June 9, 2015 was inadequate in a number of respects. In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to enjoin the defendants from completing the merger on the agreed- upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of the merger agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well as other equitable relief as the courts deem proper. Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit. In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders in order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not affect any stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the plaintiff, but placed on Texas court's two-week docket for a non- jury trial on August 15, 2016. On May 11, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and setting a hearing on July 13, 2016 during which it would consider whether to enter an order granting final approval of the proposed settlement, which hearing was subsequently rescheduled for September 14, 2016. CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Sued in N.Y. Over Gender Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------- Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that mirroring recent backlash against Fox News, the legal giant Chadbourne & Parke faces a federal class action in Manhattan that says the firm is run by an "all-male dictatorship." "Even in a field where inequities between male and female attorneys persist, Chadbourne stands out for its culture of discrimination against female attorneys," the complaint filed on August 31, states. Kerrie Campbell, a Maryland-based attorney who filed the lawsuit, says Chadbourne hired her as a lateral partner in 2014 and she quickly began generating millions for the international law firm. "Campbell's productivity and revenue generation have been consistent with the firm's top performing male partners but her pay consistently places her at the bottom ranks of male partners who have originated far less, and in some instances, zero revenue as a billing partner," the complaint states. "Campbell has called out and opposed gender-based pay and power inequities at Chadbourne and asked the firm's all-male five-member management committee, managing partner, and head of the litigation department to address and rectify these issues." On the heels of her complaints, Chadbourne says Campbell gave her the ax on Feb. 19, 2016. The firm called Campbell's $100 million class action meritless. "Chadbourne is proud of its commitment to firm diversity at all levels, and will fight Ms. Campbell's attempt to distort the firm's record for her personal gain," the firm said in a statement. Noting that it "categorically denies" every charge in the complaint, the firm called Campbell's complaint "riddled with falsehoods. "Once the facts are fully presented, the firm is confident that her allegations will be shown to be completely baseless," the statement concludes. Campbell meanwhile says the facts are clear. She notes that "Chadbourne is conspicuously absent from both the National Law Journal's list of the top 100 law firms on its most recent 'Women in Law Scorecard' and Law360's most recent list of 100 large law firms recognized for being 'Best Law Firms for Female Attorneys.'" "Female partners at Chadbourne regularly receive less compensation than similarly-situated male partners," the complaint states. "This pay disparity is the direct result of Chadbourne's male- dominated firm leadership. Women in the partnership at Chadbourne earn less than men and are virtually shut out of influential decision-making positions at the firm." Indeed "the 114-year-old firm only recently elected its first female partner to the management committee in July 2016 -- after Campbell filed a class charge of discrimination with the EEOC." Having been fired in February, Campbell notes that she never got to benefit from this woman's leadership. "Throughout the relevant time period, a committee of five men in Chadbourne's New York office made all compensation decisions for each and every Chadbourne partner worldwide," the complaint states. "Together, these five men made up Chadbourne's management committee, a centralized brotherhood with complete control over partner compensation." Campbell hopes to represent a class of "other female partners who have been disparately underpaid, systematically shut out of firm leadership, demoted, de-equitized and terminated." "Chadbourne's all-male dictatorship makes its decisions regarding firm partners in a black box, generally without input or scrutiny from the partnership at large," the complaint states. Complaining about the secrecy by which the committee operates, Campbell says a "wall of silence reinforces the firm's glass ceiling by shielding the management committee from meaningful oversight and giving it unchecked dominion over the compensation and employment of firm partners." As described in the class action, Chadbourne uses an arbitrary point-based system to keep its female partners underpaid. "Partnership points are supposed to be tied to the anticipated revenues that a partner will generate for the firm, or 'collections,'" the complaint states. "However, the management committee routinely overvalues the anticipated contributions of male partners, even where female partners have a demonstrated record of outperforming them. Point allocation is left entirely to the subjective will of the management committee." Campbell learned that women get less points than men at Chadbourne right away. While similarly or less productive male partners earned points in the 1,000-1,400 range, according to the complaint, Campbell says she was awarded just 500 points at her hiring. "From her first day at the firm, the deck was stacked against Campbell," the complaint states. "She was destined to make two to three times less than her male counterparts did." Campbell notes that 20 nonpartner attorneys left the firm in a two-year period from January 2014 through December 2015, and 17 of these attorneys were women. Chadbourne meanwhile says its "commitment to the advancement of women dates back over fifty years, when the firm elected its first female partner in 1964 -- at a time when such promotions were extremely rare." "Female equity partners have served and currently serve on the firm's management committee, as practice group leaders, and as managing partners of various firm offices," Chadbourne added. In May 2016, Chadbourne Parke agreed to a pay $35 million class action settlement to victims of R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme. Campbell is represented by Jeremy Heisler -- jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- at Sanford Heisler. CHIASMA INC: Defending Against "Gerneth" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Chiasma, Inc. is defending against the "Gerneth" class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company said, "On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of our officers were named as defendants in a purported federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. This lawsuit challenges our public statements regarding our Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for Mycapssa (octreotide) capsules and our ability to obtain FDA approval for the marketing and sale of Mycapssa, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of our common stock from July 15, 2015 to April 17, 2016." "We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to vigorously defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be material to us." CLECO CORPORATE: Sept. 15 Hearing on Case Dismissal Bid ------------------------------------------------------- CLECO Corporate Holdings LLC, and CLECO Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing is set for September 15, 2016, on Cleco' exceptions seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. In connection with the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 17, 2014, by and among Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and Cleco Corporation, four actions were filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The petitions also alleged that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation, Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions seek various remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses. The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish are captioned as follows: * Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27, 2014), * Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C (filed October 30, 2014), * Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and * L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,515F (filed November 14, 2014). On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Amended Petition). The consolidated action named Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Petition alleged, among other things, that Cleco Corporation's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The Consolidated Amended Petition further alleged that all defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty. Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Amended Petition are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Amended Petition. The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish are captioned as follows: * Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7, 2014), * Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and * Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21, 2014). Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants. The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants. On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an Amended Class Action Petition for Damages. Each petition alleged, among other things, that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because it allegedly did not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and Creative Life Services petitions also alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information about the Merger. Each petition further alleged that Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish or dismissed. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders held on February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement. Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions. On March 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Third Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction. On May 13, 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition. This petition eliminated the request for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an additional executive officer as a defendant. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended Petition and a hearing is set for September 15, 2016. CONFORMIS INC: Court Dismissed Securities Class Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ConforMIS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has dismissed all of the claims of the consolidated amended complaint in a securities class action. The Company said, "On September 3, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against us, our chief executive officer, and chief financial officer in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common stock in connection with our initial public offering or on the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015, which we refer to as the class period." "On January 11, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed purporting to allege claims arising under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated during the class period because the defendants allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding our manufacturing process prior to our voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient- specific instrumentation for certain of our knee replacement product systems. The complaint sought, among other relief, certification of the class, unspecified compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. "On March 18 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims of the consolidated amended complaint. On August 3, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety, denied the plaintiffs' request to replead their allegations, and dismissed the lawsuit. "We do not know at this time whether the plaintiffs will appeal the court's decision, and there can be no assurance that we would be successful either in an appeal proceeding, or, if such a proceeding ends adversely to us, in any subsequent court proceeding. An adverse outcome of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We are presently unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit. Additional complaints also may be filed against us and our directors and officers related to our voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for our iUni, iDuo, iTotal CR and iTotal PS knee replacement product systems." CORAL TELL: Still Defends Class Action Over Phone Call Overages --------------------------------------------------------------- Coral Tell Ltd. remains a defendant in a class action lawsuit regarding phone call overages, Digital Turbine, 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. Digital Turbine said, "On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19,200,000, or approximately $5,300,000, was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company that owns and operates a website offering advertisements. Coral Tell Ltd. is currently being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone call overages, and has served a third-party notice against Logia and two additional companies for our alleged involvement in facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to display a virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of their real cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for the connection time between two segments of the call, instead of the second segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge began upon initiation of the first segment); and that the caller was charged for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did not support delivery of text messages. "We have no contractual relationship with this company. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and a finding of liability on our part remote. After conferring with advisors and counsel, management believes that the ultimate liability, if any, in aggregate will not be material to the financial position or results or operations of the Company for any future period." The Company does not believe there is a probable and estimable claim. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability. CORRECTION CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Correction Corporation of America ("CCA" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CCA securities between February 27, 2012 and August 17, 2016 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased CCA securities during the Class Period, you have until October 24, 2016 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. CCA, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates privatized correctional and detention facilities in the United States. The Company owns, operates, and manages prisons and other correctional facilities, and provides inmate residential and prisoner transportation services for governmental agencies. As of 2015, CCA was the largest private corrections company in the United States, and manages more than 65 correction and detention facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) CCA's facilities lacked adequate safety and security standards and were less efficient at offering correctional services than the Federal Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") facilities; (ii) CCA's rehabilitative services for inmates were less effective than those provided by BOP; (iii) consequently, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") was unlikely to renew and/or extend its contracts with CCA; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, CCA's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 18, 2016, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates announced the DOJ's decision to end its use of private prisons, including those operated by CCA, after officials concluded that the facilities are both less safe and less effective at providing correctional services than those run by the federal government. On this news, CCA's share price fell $9.65, or 39.45%, to close at $17.57 on August 18, 2016. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. COVENTRY HEALTH: Williams Wants to Send Class Notice Via E-mail --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MIA WILLIAMS, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated v. COVENTRY HEALTH CARE OF FLORIDA, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-00731-GKS-TBS (M.D. Fla.), file with the Court their position statement regarding notice to similarly situated employees regarding the collective action. Mia Williams filed a complaint seeking unpaid overtime payments for herself, and her similarly situated co-workers. The parties filed a Stipulated Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Court-Authorized Notice on August 31, 2016. The purpose of this Motion is to allow similarly situated co-workers to receive Court- approved notice of the lawsuit and be given information on how to join the action. The parties agree that proposed NOTICE OF LAWSUIT REGARDING POTENTIAL OVERTIME WAGES and CONSENT TO BECOME PARTY PLAINTIFF IN THE COLLECTIVE ACTION FOR UNPAID OVERTIME WAGES should be sent to the putative class via First Class United States Mail. However, the Plaintiffs believe the Notice should also be sent to the putative class members via e-mail, with the e-mail address supplied by the Defendant, at the same time that the Notice is mailed via First Class Mail. The parties requested leave to file "Position Statements" regarding their respective positions on the appropriateness of using e-mail to convey Notice and Consent to the putative class. The Plaintiffs believe that sending the notice out to the Putative Plaintiffs via e-mail, in addition to US. Mail, is appropriate as it helps assure that the potential plaintiffs receive notice of this lawsuit, is inexpensive and cost effective, it promotes judicial economy, and is not burdensome on the Defendants. Hence, the Plaintiffs urge the Court to adopt the proposed Notice of Lawsuit Regarding Potential Overtime Wages and Opt-in Form, to allow the Plaintiffs to e-mail Notice of Lawsuit Regarding Potential Overtime Wages and Opt-In Form to all putative opt-ins in addition to serve by US Mail, and to require the Defendants to provide to the Plaintiff's counsel e-mail addresses for social workers/long term case managers as to the Plaintiff attorney within 10 days of the entry of the order for the purpose of e- mailing the proposed opt in forms. A copy of the Statement is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=djoiJ5Zy The Plaintiffs are represented by: John C. Davis, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. DAVIS 623 Beard Street Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: (850) 222-4770 E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net - and - Sean Culliton, Esq. SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC 150 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Telephone: (850) 385-9455 E-mail: Sean.culliton@gmail.com - and - Jeremiah J. Talbott LAW OFFICE OF JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A. 900 East Moreno Street Pensacola, FL 32503 Telephone: (850) 437-9600 E-mail: jj@talbottlawfirm.com CPI CARD: Preliminary Conference Set for September 15 in "Vance" ---------------------------------------------------------------- CPI Card Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has scheduled a preliminary conference for September 15, 2016, in the case, Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc. On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against CPI and certain of its officers and directors, along with the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI's October 2015 IPO. The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO, assert claims under Sec.11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and seek, among other things, damages and costs. In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard, and VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV cards") during the first half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels, and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, the remainder of the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, and the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO. On July 13, 2016, the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order to the Court that, subject to the Court's approval, will consolidate the Vance and Chipman actions and provide for a schedule for the consolidated case following the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court has scheduled a preliminary conference for September 15, 2016. CPI believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend these suits vigorously. CVB FINANCIAL: Class Action Appeal Pending ------------------------------------------ CVB Financial 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 scheduling conference with respect to discovery was set for July 25, 2016, in a class action appeal. A purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company on August 23, 2010, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256- MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10- 06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint. On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). At the same time, the District Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants, among other things, misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which was originally alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010 (but which has subsequently been shortened to the period between March 4, 2010 and August 9, 2010). Specifically, defendants are alleged to have violated applicable accounting rules and to have made misrepresentations in connection with the Company's allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan losses. The consolidated complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class. Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs, and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of this ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013, which became a final, appealable order on September 30, 2013. On October 24, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's final order of dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following the filing of appellate briefs by the respective parties, the Court of Appeals conducted a hearing and oral argument in the case on December 10, 2015. On February 1, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the case. The Ninth Circuit opinion affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed it in part and remanded the case for further proceedings in the District Court. Following remand of the case to the District Court, we expect to undertake discovery and motion practice with respect to the remaining claims of the plaintiffs which survived the appeal. The District Court held an initial status conference in the case on May 23, 2016, at which the defendants were directed to file an answer to the remaining claims in the plaintiffs' complaint and a scheduling conference with respect to discovery was set for July 25, 2016. The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest and defend the plaintiff's allegations with respect to the remaining claims in this case. CVB FINANCIAL: Service Manager's Class Suit in Discovery -------------------------------------------------------- CVB Financial 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 a class action lawsuit are engaged in discovery. A former employee and branch-based service manager filed a complaint against the Company, on December 29, 2014, in an action entitled Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, individually and on behalf of the Company's branch-based employees and managers who are classified as "exempt" under California and federal employment laws. The case is styled as a putative class action lawsuit and alleges, among other things, that (i) the Company misclassified certain employees and managers as "exempt" employees, (ii) the Company violated California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, (iii) certain employees did not receive proper expense reimbursements, (iv) the Company did not maintain accurate and complete payroll records, and (v) the Company engaged in unfair business practices. On February 11, 2015, the same law firm representing Morgan filed a second complaint, entitled Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the Company's "non-exempt" hourly employees. On April 6, 2015, these two cases were consolidated in a first amended complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The first amended complaint sought class certification, the appointment of the plaintiffs as class representatives, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. On May 11, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the first amended complaint denying all allegations regarding the plaintiffs' claims and asserting various defenses. On May 24, 2016, the Company was served with a second amended complaint which, among other things, added a third and more recently-employed former employee, Theresa Ruiz, as one of the named plaintiffs in the action. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and the filing of briefs by the parties in connection with the class certification motion is not presently expected to commence until at least March the summer of 2017. The Company intends to vigorously contest both (x) certification of the class action as well as (y) the substantive merits of the plaintiffs' claims. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Suit Over Merger Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Cypress Semiconductor 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 is defending against a class action lawsuit realted to the merger with Spansion Inc. On March 12, 2015, the Company completed the merger ("Merger") with Spansion Inc. ("Spansion") pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, as of December 1, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), for a total consideration of approximately $2.8 billion. Consequently, the financial condition and results of operations includes the financial results of legacy Spansion beginning March 12, 2015. The comparability of our results for the six months ended July 3, 2016 to the same periods in fiscal 2015 is significantly impacted by the Merger. The Company said, "After our announcement of the merger between the Company and Spansion Inc. in December 2014, two separate putative class action complaints (Walter Jeter v. Spansion Inc., et. al. (No. 114-cv-274635) and Shiva Y. Stein v. Spansion Inc., el. al. (No. 114-cv-274924)) were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court in December 2014, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty against Spansion's board of directors and naming Cypress as a defendant for aiding and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. While Cypress believes these lawsuits to be meritless, Spansion and Cypress entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs, the terms of which required additional disclosures by the Company and payment of nominal attorneys' fees to the class counsel. Final resolution of these litigations will require court approval of a final settlement agreement. Due to the current stage of the proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the loss or the range of possible loss, if any." DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 1325 South Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- 1325 South Lamar Hotel, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10611 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Lang, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731-6758 Facsimile: (469) 854-3336 E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Appraisal Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Jon Smith and Cynthia Smith v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10704 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Estes, Esq. Niral R. Gandhi, Esq. ESTES & GANDHI, P.C. 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214)272-8030 Facsimile: (214) 390-3303 Fax E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com NGandhi@estesgandhi.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces LAT Preston Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- LAT Preston Wood LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10706 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Market East Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- Market East Associates LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10637 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 1325 South Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- 1325 South Lanar Hotel, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10611 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Lang, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731-6758 Facsimile: (469) 854-3336 E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Mitchell Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Bridgeport LLC, Westdale TIC Bridgeport LP, and Gilbert Bridgeport LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC- 16-10685 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Park Lane Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Park Lane Terrace Apts Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10702 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Gray, Esq. Lorri Michel, Esq. Shane Rogers, Esq. Natalie A. Maloney MICHEL GRAY, LLP 812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 477-0200 Facsimile: (512) 477-6636 E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com lorri@michelgray.com shane@michelgray.com natalie@michelgray.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Partners Suit Over Appraisal Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Partners North Story LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10643 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rhett Warren, Esq. THE WARREN FIRM, PLLC 4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (972) 885-0852 Facsimile: (972) 525-2321 E-mail: rhett@thewarrenfirm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Paul Nobel Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Nobel and Margaret Nobel v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10675 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Estes, Esq. Niral R. Gandhi, Esq. ESTES & GANDHI, P.C. 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214)272-8030 Facsimile: (214) 390-3303 Fax E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com NGandhi@estesgandhi.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Regency Centers LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10652 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces US Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- US Regency Retail I, LLC (Shiloh Springs I & II) v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10657 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rouquette Suit Over Appraisal Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Rouquette Revocable Trust v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10692filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Estes, Esq. Niral R. Gandhi, Esq. ESTES & GANDHI, P.C. 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214)272-8030 Facsimile: (214) 390-3303 Fax E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com NGandhi@estesgandhi.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Santa Monica Suit Over Appraisal Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- Santa Monica Properties, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10609filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Lang, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731-6758 Facsimile: (469) 854-3336 E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces SEPR Regency Suit Over Appraisal Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- SEPR Regency, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10666 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Kumar" Suit Over Appraisal Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Sundip Kumar v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16- 10679 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Estes, Esq. Niral R. Gandhi, Esq. ESTES & GANDHI, P.C. 1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214)272-8030 Facsimile: (214) 390-3303 Fax E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com NGandhi@estesgandhi.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces TPLP Office Suit Over Appraisal Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- TPLP Office Park Properties LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10607 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 29, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law. Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Parkway, Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931-9901 Facsimile: (972) 931-9208 E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com Asallusti@gpd.com DAVID BOONE: Adams Seeks Certification of Consultants Class ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DUSTIN ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DAVID BOONE OILFIELD CONSULTING and EP ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. 4:16-cv- 01566 (S.D. Tex.), asks the Court to conditionally certify a class consisting of: All current and former oilfield consultants who were staffed by David Boone Oilfield Consulting ("DBOC") to EP Energy Corporation ("EP Energy") at any time from _______________, 2013 to the present who: (1) worked as flowback Helpers, Operators, or Supervisors; (2) were classified as independent contractors; and (3) were paid a day-rate with no overtime compensation. Mr. Adams also asks the Court to approve his proposed Notice & Consent Form and opt-in procedures. David Boone Oilfield Consulting staffed out oilfield personnel providing flowback services to EP Energy Corporation. These workers include flowback Helpers, Operators (both Lead 1 and Lead 2), and Supervisors. In doing so, the Defendants misclassified these workers as independent contractors in order to avoid paying them overtime wages required under federal law, Mr. Adams contends. He adds that the Defendants maintained a uniform pay practice of paying these flowback "consultants" a day-rate without any overtime compensation, which flagrantly violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yU9jbMCN The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Class Certification Sought in "Leon" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled PEDRO LEON, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE, LLC, RYAN ROGERS, and BRADLEY ROGERS, Case No. 2:15-cv- 06301-CJB-MBN (E.D. La.), files with the Court his preliminary motion for class certification pursuant to Local Rule 23.1(B) and he reserves his right to supplement the Motion upon the conclusion of discovery. Mr. Leon also asks that the Court suspend the hearing date on the Motion until discovery has been completed. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=STo1EKD4 The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. THE COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com whbeaumont@gmail.com emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com ELECTRO RENT: Defending Against "Chaklos" Action in Los Angeles --------------------------------------------------------------- Electro Rent Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit by Chaklos related to a merger agreement, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016. The Company said, "On June 23, 2016, we entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Restated Merger Agreement") with Elecor Intermediate Holding II Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Elecor Merger Corporation, a California corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will be merged with and into us, and we will survive the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Platinum Equity, a Beverly Hills- based private equity firm ("Platinum Equity")." "On June 8, 2016, following the announcement of the Merger, a shareholder class action lawsuit, entitled Chaklos, et al. v. Electro Rent Corp., et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, against ELRC, our directors, Phillip A. Greenberg, Platinum Equity, Parent and Merger Sub. The lawsuit asserts that defendants variously breached, or aided and abetted others in breaching, state law fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger. The lawsuit seeks rescission of the merger agreement, an injunction barring consummation of the merger, imposition of a constructive trust of "benefits improperly received by defendants" as a result of any breaches of duty and costs and disbursements of the action." The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com ELECTRO RENT: Defending Against "Wadsworth" Action in C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Electro Rent Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit by Wadsworth related to a merger agreement, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016. The Company said, "On June 23, 2016, we entered into an Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Restated Merger Agreement") with Elecor Intermediate Holding II Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Elecor Merger Corporation, a California corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will be merged with and into us, and we will survive the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Parent and Merger Sub are affiliates of Platinum Equity, a Beverly Hills- based private equity firm ("Platinum Equity")." "On June 20, 2016, following the announcement of the merger, a shareholder class action lawsuit, entitled Wadsworth v. Electro Rent Corp., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against ELRC, its directors, Platinum Equity, Parent and Merger Sub. The lawsuit asserts that defendants variously breached, or aided and abetted others in breaching, state law fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger. The lawsuit further asserts that the defendants violated securities law in connection with an assortment of alleged material omissions from the preliminary proxy statement. The lawsuit seeks rescission of the merger agreement, an injunction barring consummation of the merger, imposition of a constructive trust of "benefits improperly received by defendants" as a result of any breaches of duty and costs and disbursements of the action. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534 2590 Facsimile: (610) 667 9029 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com ELECTRONIC ARTS: Retired Players Support Davis' Bid to Certify -------------------------------------------------------------- The Retired NFL Plaintiffs file with the Court their reply brief in support of the motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL E. DAVIS, aka TONY DAVIS, VINCE FERRAGAMO, and BILLY JOE DUPREE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS (N.D. Cal.). The Retired NFL Plaintiffs contend that EA fails, among other things, to (i) address the evidence and argument in the Plaintiffs' Motion establishing that California has sufficient contacts to the claims of each class member so that the application of California law to the nationwide class comports with due process burden of establishing that a foreign state's law should apply, and (ii) satisfy its burden of establishing foreign law should apply and its burden of establishing a "true conflict." It is undisputed that all licensing decisions related to the Madden NFL video games -- including the decisions to use the Retired NFL Class Members likenesses without a license or authorization -- were made by EA's Business Affairs and Legal Department located in California, according to the Brief. Because California law provides broad remedies, EA is a California resident, and the conduct at issue emanated from California, there is no "true conflict" in the application of California law to the nationwide Class claims, the Retired NFL Plaintiffs argue. The Court will commence a hearing on September 22, 2016, 1:30 p.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Brief is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qFbQ3mS2 * * * Electronic Arts 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 Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed on July 29, 2010, a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March 2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where the case is pending. The Retired NFL Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian D. Henri, Esq. HENRI LAW GROUP 640 W. California Ave, Suite 210 Sunnyvale, CA 94806 Telephone: (650) 614-5807 Facsimile: (650) 618-1937 E-mail: brianhenri@henrilg.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. FEAZELL & TIGHE LLP 6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard Building C-101 Austin, TX 78730 Telephone: (512) 372-8100 Facsimile: (512) 372-8140 E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com EPIQ SYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over OMERS Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Aug. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf of stockholders of Epiq Systems, Inc. (EPIQ) ("Epiq" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the Company to OMERS Private Equity ("OMERS"). If you would like to join the class action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook - www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. On August 2, 2016, the two parties announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which OMERS will acquire Epiq in a merger in a deal worth $1 billion. As a result of the merger, Epiq shareholders are only anticipated to receive $16.50 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Epiq. The consideration Epiq shareholders are expected to receive is inadequate. While the Company claims that shareholders will receive a significant premium for their shares, the Company recently traded as high as $15.33 as of June 6, 2016, which represents only a 7.6% premium to the merger consideration. Our investigation has also revealed that the process leading up to the announcement of the merger appears to have significant conflicts of interest with Epiq management, thus making the process and consideration unfair. On August 2, 2016, an Epiq shareholder represented by another law firm filed a class action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, 16th Judicial District, Missouri, Case No. 1616-CV18720, challenging the merger. If you own shares of Epiq and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases- investigations/epiq-class-action-investigation or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook - www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. FALCON FLOWBACK: Lyles Seeks to Certify Class of Flowback Hands --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOHN LYLES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FALCON FLOWBACK SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01198-R (W.D. Okla.), asks the Court to conditionally certify a class defined as: All current and former Flowback Hands who worked for Falcon Flowback Services, LLC at any time from three years before the date of mailing of this notice and were classified as independent contractors. John Lyles sued the Defendant to collect unpaid overtime allegedly owed to him and the class of similarly situated workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. He is a former flowback hand of the Defendant. He asserts that he and the class members were misclassified as independent contractors and paid a flat hourly rate regardless of hours worked without overtime compensation. Mr. Lyles informs the Court his Motion is unopposed and that the parties have agreed on a proposed notice to be sent to all putative class members. The parties also agreed on a proposed consent form for the putative class members to sign and file to opt-in to the lawsuit. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZBEjfmNq The Plaintiff is represented by: Noble K. McIntyre, Esq. MCINTYRE LAW PC 8601 S. Western Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73139 Telephone: (405) 917-5250 Facsimile: (405) 917-5405 E-mail: noble@mcintyrelaw.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Parties in Talks on Definitive Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- First Commonwealth Financial 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 parties in a class action lawsuit are negotiating the terms of a definitive settlement agreement. First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015 by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees, including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to oppose class certification. The Bank has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, set-off and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and as representatives of the putative class. The Bank and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the litigation during the second quarter. The parties are negotiating the terms of a definitive settlement agreement which would be subject to court approval and other customary conditions. The estimated cost of the settlement to the Bank was recorded as a liability as of June 30, 2016. As set forth in the preceding paragraph, all current litigation matters, including this action, are believed to be within the range of reasonably possible losses set forth in the preceding paragraph. FIRST TRINITY: FBLIC's Petition to Appeal Denied ------------------------------------------------ First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that FBLIC's Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District asking for permission to appeal the Court's class certification has been denied. Prior to its acquisition by Trinity Life Insurance Company, Family Benefit Life Insurance Company developed, marketed, and sold life insurance products known as "Decreasing Term to 95" policies. On January 17, 2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted that, effective March 1, 2013, it was not approving, and therefore was not providing, a dividend for the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On November 22, 2013, three individuals who owned Decreasing Term to 95 policies filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri asserting claims against FBLIC relating to FBLIC's decision to not provide a dividend under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95 policies the same as that provided during the first year of coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in premium. The main difference between the original Petition and the amended Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95 years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law, specifically, Sec. 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies are void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums collected under these policies. In addition, as part of the MMPA claim, plaintiffs are now alleging that FBLIC undertook a fraudulent scheme to sell the Decreasing Term to 95 policies as a level premium for level benefit even though FBLIC never intended to pay dividends for the life of the policies and that part of this alleged fraudulent scheme included having a dividend option which is not allowed under Missouri law. FBLIC denies the allegations in the amended Petition and will continue to defend against them. On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared void. FBLIC opposed the request for class certification. On July 21, 2016, the Court certified three classes to maintain the claims for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of contract, violation of the MMPA, reformation, and to void the Decreasing Term to 95 policies. On August 1, 2016, FBLIC filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District asking for permission to appeal the Court's class certification. The Petition for Leave to Appeal was denied. FBLIC intends to defend vigorously against the class and individual allegations. The Company is unable to determine the potential magnitude of the claims in the event of a final certification and the plaintiffs prevailing on this substantive action. FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, on Aug. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Flowers Foods, Inc. (FLO) ("Flowers Foods" or the "Company") securities during the period between February 7, 2013 and August 10, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until October 11, 2016 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Flowers Foods securities during the Class Period. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was improperly classifying employees as independent contractors, that the misclassification exposed the Company to legal liability and/or negative regulatory action, and that proper classification would have a negative impact on the Company's operations. According to the complaint, following an August 10, 2016 announcement that the U.S. Department of Labor notified Flowers Foods that the Company was scheduled for a compliance review under the Fair Labor Standards Act, that the revenue for the second quarter was below the Wall Street projection, and that it was lowering its 2016 guidance, the value of Flower Foods shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Flowers Foods securities purchased on or after February 7, 2013 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. FORD MOTOR: NHTSA Investigates SUVs After Gas Smell Complaints -------------------------------------------------------------- Clark Fouraker, writing for WTLV, reports that a man on the First Coast says he has a problem with his car, which is one of the most popular American made SUV's on the market -- a Ford Explorer. When he drives, especially on roads with high speed limits, gas that he says he believes to be carbon monoxide comes into the car. "It smells like exhaust in the cabin," says Colin Olson. "Some people describe it as burnt egg smell. It will smell really bad for a few minutes and then it will just be gone." Mr. Olson originally bought a 2015 Explorer from a Jacksonville dealership. Concerned about the smell, he took the car back to the dealership he bought it from. A long road of maintenance appointments, internet research and Olson says concern for his health followed. "I got it right in, right away to the service department," he says. "There was a technical service bulletin. It's not an official recall." Ford made multiple attempts to service the car. The automaker had issued a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB) titled Exhaust Odor in Vehicle. The bulletins serve as a guide sheet for mechanics on what to do for a specific consumer complaint. "Sometimes the fumes are so bad inside that it gives me a head ache," Mr. Olson says. CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT Earlier in August, Ford settled a multi-year federal class action lawsuit. The complaint called the 2011-2015 model years of the Explorer "dangerous and defective." It says "exhaust and other gases, including lethal quantities of carbon monoxide, may enter the passenger compartments." When the judge approved the class action lawsuit, he said "plaintiff's showed substantial evidence demonstrating that the exhaust contamination system is a systemic problem caused by a combination of design and manufacturing defects." "The parties reached a general agreement on terms, but details need to be worked out before it's submitted to the court for approval," a Ford spokeswoman wrote in an email to us. Federal court records say attorney's for both sides will go before the court this month. FEDERAL INVESTIGATION UNDERWAY The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is also investigating complaints against the 2011-2015 Explorer. Documents published on the agency's website about the investigation suggest more than 630,000 cars could be impacted by the investigation. "The NHTSA investigation is ongoing and we will continue to cooperate with NHTSA on this investigation as we always do," says Ford via email. Currently, no recalls have been issued. An investigation by NHTSA does not mean a recall is forthcoming. "If it's true that there's carbon monoxide leaking into the cabin, it's a very serious issue and Ford needs to deal with it immediately," says Kelsey Mays. Mr. Mays is the Senior Consumer Affairs Editor at Cars.com, a website owned by First Coast News' parent company. He says there's no threshold number of complaints needed to trigger a federal investigation. "Certainly this is a significant number of people that have complained to them and so the fact that NHTSA has moved to an investigation and not a recall indicates Ford is probably going to have to provide more information," Mr. Mays says. CARBON MONOXIDE TEST When Mr. Olson took First Coast News on a drive in his 2016 Explorer, we brought a Sensorcon carbon monoxide detector. We paid about $150 for it on Amazon and used it to get non- scientific results about the levels of Carbon Monoxide in Olson's car. During our drive on Interstate 295, the readings went as high as 23 parts per million (ppm). We tested 5 other cars, including an older model Ford Explorer, driving at interstate speeds under similar conditions. In those other tests, Carbon Monoxide levels never went above 1ppm. Federal agencies say at levels between 35 ppm and 70 ppm people can begin to have mild exposure symptoms. "Without having administered or seen this test performed, we can't speak to outcome," a Ford spokeswoman writes. "Safety continues to be one of the highest priorities in the design of our vehicles and we are committed to designing and building vehicles that meet or exceed applicable laws and regulations." FROM 2015 TO 2016 After at least 4 attempts to repair Mr. Olson's 2015 Explorer, an arbitrator under Florida's Lemon Law required Ford replace it with a 2016. "Ford was pretty much forced to replace my vehicle," Mr. Olson says. Concerned the 2016 is no better than the model he had before, Mr. Olson tried to use Florida's Lemon Law a second time. The arbitrator denied to force Ford to replace the 2016 Explorer. With a baby on the way and his family's health on his mind, he's still trying to get rid of his Explorer. "I want to get rid of this car," he says. "I want my money back. I'm done." FXCM INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- FXCM Inc. and certain officers were named defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 8, 2015. On August 18, 2016, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all the claims asserted in the complaint against defendants. The Plaintiffs were given thirty days to file an amended complaint, should they choose to do so. GENKI SUSHI: Starn O'Toole Files Class Action Over Hep-A Outbreak ----------------------------------------------------------------- Khon2 reports that there's now a class action lawsuit over the hepatitis A outbreak that's sickened more than 200 people. The Honolulu law firm Starn O'Toole Marcus & Fisher partnering with foodborne illness attorney Bill Marler to file the lawsuit against Genki Sushi, Koha Foods and Sea Port Products. Mr. Marler says at least two people have suffered liver failure because of the disease, and one is waiting for a transplant. "Liver failure, whether it's mild or severe, is a very painful, all-consuming infection," he said, "which is rare in hepatitis A cases, but these were otherwise healthy women in their 60s." A website has been set up for potential class members to register for more information about pursuing a legal claim relating to the recent hepatitis A outbreak in Hawaii. The public can also email questions to hepaclassaction@starnlaw.com The lawsuit was filed on behalf of anyone who ate or drank at Genki Sushi restaurants from April through August 2016 and: -- Obtained a hepatitis A vaccination or an immune globulin (IG) shot since April 2016 as a result of the outbreak, or -- Became ill with the hepatitis A virus since April 2016 as a result of the outbreak. The complaint was filed Aug. 23 in the First Circuit Court, following the Hawaii Department of Health findings that the hepatitis A infections were attributed to the consumption of contaminated scallops served raw at certain Genki Sushi restaurants. The scallops were imported to the United States from the Philippines by Sea Port Products and distributed to Genki Sushi by Koha Foods. The lawsuit alleges that all food and drink sold at Genki Sushi restaurants on Oahu and Kauai during the exposure period were unsafe as a result of the contaminated scallops and potentially exposed thousands of people to the virus. "This is quickly becoming one of the largest hepatitis A outbreaks in U.S. history. Not only are there over 200 illnesses in Hawaii, we are beginning to see cases on the mainland as well. Given the number of people that consumed scallops at Genki Sushi and became ill and worked at other restaurants on the islands, we estimate that over 10,000 people needed to be vaccinated to prevent an even larger disaster," said Mr. Marler. GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shterna" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Barouk Shterna, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-04825 (E.D.N.Y., August 25, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Global Credit & Collection Corp. is a debt collection firm in New York. Barouk Shterna is a pro se plaintiff. GORIS GROCERS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Maite Hernandez, Wilmer Rodriguez, and Ramon Trabous, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mark Goris, Goris Grocers Madison Ave. Corp. d/b/a NYC Fresh Market, and Jose Lopez Ortega, Case No. 1:16-cv-06777 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a grocery store located at 1666 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10029. Maite Hernandez, Wilmer Rodriguez, and Ramon Trabous are pro se plaintiff. GREEN SOLAR: Woodson, et al. Seeks Unpaid OT Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS JAMES WOODSON and SIMON KIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREEN SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; DOES 1-10, business entities, forms unknown; DOES 11-20, individuals; and DOES 21-30, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC631399 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid contractual wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, statutory penalties, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and other relief under the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and the California Labor Code. The class members were routinely suffered and/or permitted to work overtime, and Defendants failed to compensate the class members for all hours worked during the Class Period. As a result of Defendants' underpayment to the class members, the daily wages of the class members were less than the legal minimum wage for all hours actually worked, overtime wages were not paid in full, and the class members were not paid for each hour worked at their promised rate of compensation, and/or the California state- mandated rate of compensation. Green Solar provides affordable solar options for every home owner. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cody D. Knight, Esq. Chantal R. Mccoy, Esq. KNIGHT EMPLOYMENT LAW 11500 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 444 3039 Facsimile: (310) 870 7207 E-mail: codyknight@knightemploymentlaw.com chantalmccoy@knightemploymentlaw.com HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Biloxi City Council to File Oil Spill Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Perez, writing for Sun Herald, reports that like other communities in South Mississippi, Biloxi received millions from BP for damages after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. On Aug. 23, the City Council hired attorneys to file a claim against other companies involved in the 2010 disaster. "There's a chance for us to recover more than came from BP," said Gerald Blessey, city attorney. Attorney Peter Abide -- pabide@curriejohnson.com -- of Currie Johnson & Myer and W. Corban Gunn of Corban Gunn will represent the city in the class-action suit under the HESI/Transocean Settlement Program. Potential claims will be filed against Halliburton Energy Services Inc., Halliburton Co., Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Deepwater Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. and Transocean Holdings. Biloxi's contract calls for hourly fees with the total not to exceed $50,000. Mr. Abide said he believes Gulfport agreed to pay attorney fees of 15 percent of the settlement. Nobody knows how much Biloxi may collect under the settlement, but Mr. Abide said, "It's based on the amount of property you own." Biloxi's claim would be considerably more than an individual property owner, he said. In other action on Aug. 23, the council: -- Approved a three-year agreement with U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Special Operations Command to periodically hold military training exercises in the city. The training could include surveillance, raid, foot movement of troops and equipment, helicopter operations and other training. Special forces have trained in Biloxi before and coordinate with Biloxi Police Department. -- Agreed to submit a grant application to develop a city-wide driving and biking tour. -- Hired the Southern Mississippi Planning and Development District to complete a redistricting plan that is required following annexation. Mr. Blessey said the redistricting is required before next spring's municipal elections and SMPDD was most qualified and had the lowest price. HALSTED FINANCIAL: Lopez Amends Bid to Certify Classes/Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel C. Lopez, Jr., amends his motion to certify that the claims set forth in his complaint in the lawsuit entitled MANUEL C. LOPEZ, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HALSTED FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, FIRST FINANCIAL INVESTMENT FUND HOLDINGS, LLC, and FIRST FINANCIAL PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02539 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed on behalf of the Classes and Sub-Classes defined as: Halsted Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Halsted placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using an artificial or prerecorded voice (5) on or after February 24, 2012 (6) with respect to a debt purchased and owned by First Financial. First Financial Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) First Financial placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using an artificial or prerecorded voice (5) on or after July 22, 2012 (6) with respect to a debt purchased and owned by First Financial. Halsted Sub-Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Halsted placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using an artificial or prerecorded voice (5) on or after February 24, 2012 (6) with respect to a debt purchased and owned by First Financial (7) where Halsted or First Financial obtained the called number from a third party source. First Financial Sub-Class: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) First Financial placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using an artificial or prerecorded voice (5) on or after July 22, 2012 (6) with respect to a debt purchased and owned by First Financial (7) where Halsted or First Financial obtained the called number from a third party source. Mr. Lopez alleges that the Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers using a pre-recorded voice message without having the consumers' express consent to receive such calls. He also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, appoint his lawyers as counsel for the classes and sub-classes, and allow him to file a memorandum in support of the Amended Motion after taking class discovery. A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0gFKXj76 The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Timothy Sostrin, Esq. Michael Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that dscovery is ongoing in the case, In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 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 alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses. "On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. "On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class. "On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel. "On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5, 2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class. "On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2, 2008. "On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. "On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, in the In re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead Plaintiff appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") and, on June 23, 2015, the District Court's ruling was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On July 23, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for a rehearing en banc before the Court of Appeals, which was denied on August 26, 2015. The defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review on November 24, 2015, which was denied by the District Court on February 29, 2016. Discovery in this matter is ongoing." HARRIS COUNTY: Appraisal Dist. Over Property Assessed Value ----------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON 4500 LP, WASHINGTON DURHAM PARTNERS LTD, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016- 56121 (Harris County Ct., Aug. 23, 2016), asks the Court to fix the value of the Plaintiffs' property at actual fair its market value or equal uniform value. According to the complaint, the assessed value assigned by the District on the Plaintiffs' property is grossly in excess of its actual fair market value. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Montgomery Briscoe, Esq. EGGLESTONE & BRISCOE, LLP 4800 Three Allen Center 333 Clay Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 659 5100 Facsimile: (713) 951 9920 E-mail: wmb@eggstonbriscoe.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: MOU Reached in Suit Over Tyco Deal ---------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, that the defendants reached an agreement with the plaintiffs regarding a settlement of a class action lawsuit. Johnson Controls, Inc. (the "Company" or "Johnson Controls") is making the following supplemental disclosures to the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by the Company on July 6, 2016, in connection with the proposed settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of January 24, 2016, as amended by Amendment No. 1, dated as of July 1, 2016, by and among the Company, Tyco International plc ("Tyco") and certain other parties named therein, including Jagara Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among other things, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco (the "Merger"). Pursuant to the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed to provide the additional information set forth below under the heading "Supplement to Definitive Proxy Statement." The following supplemental disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety. To the extent that information herein differs from or updates information contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, the information contained herein supersedes the information contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Defined terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859 (the "Lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County (the "Court"), naming the Company, the individual members of its board of directors, Tyco and Merger Sub as defendants. On August 8, 2016, the defendants reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in the Lawsuit regarding a settlement of the action. That agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding that outlines the terms of the parties' agreement to settle, dismiss and release all claims which were or could have been asserted in the Lawsuit, and is subject to court approval. Defendants agreed to the memorandum of understanding solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and expense inherent in litigation and without admitting or denying that further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The memorandum of understanding is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including judicial approval of the proposed settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, following notice to the Company's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Court, it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a release of all claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of the Company's shareholders that they purport to represent challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to the Merger, any actions, deliberations or negotiations in connection with the Merger or any agreements, disclosures, or events related thereto, including the Merger Agreement and the disclosures made in connection therewith, and that the Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement. In either event, or certain other circumstances specified in the memorandum of understanding, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The settlement will not affect, among other things, the consideration to be paid to the Company's shareholders in connection with the Merger. On Sept. 6, 2016, Johnson Controls and Tyco announced the completion of the merger. A copy of their press statement is available at https://is.gd/Ev5zlA LINCOLN HERITAGE: Illegally Denies Insurance Claims, Action Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany L. Holmes McKenzie and Cyrus Scott, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lincoln Heritage Life Insurance Company and Londen Insurance Group, Inc., Case No. 160803545 (Phil. Cmmw. Pleas, August 26, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased individual life insurance policies sold in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by Lincoln, or were the representatives of the estates of such individuals, or the named beneficiaries of such policies, that submitted a claim for death benefits which was denied for reasons other than non- payment of premiums. The Defendants operate an insurance company licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc P. Weingarten, Esq. Andrew P. Bell, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM 601 Walnut Street, Suite 720 East 170 S. Independence Mall West Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215)893-0100 Facsimile: (215) 893-3333 E-mail: mweingarten@lockslaw.com abell@lockslaw.com - and - Richard M. Ochroch, Esq. Brett N. Benton, Esq. RICHARD M. OCHROCH & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 318 S. 16th Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215)735-2707 Facsimile: (215) 790-0491 E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com bbenton@ochroch-law.com LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Howard Seeks to Certify Class of Stockholders ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LEONARD HOWARD, individually and on behalf of all others situated v. LIQUIDITY SERVICES INC., WILLIAM P. ANGRICK III, and JAMES M. RALLO, Case No. 1:14-cv-01183-BAH (D.D.C.), seek certification of a class consisting of all persons and entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of Liquidity Services, Inc. during the period of February 1, 2012 through May 7, 2014, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. The Action seeks recovery under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against Liquidity, a provider of online auction marketplaces for surplus and salvage assets (also known as a "reverse supply chain"). The Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives, and appoint Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C., and Labaton Sucharow LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uQpmKilO Plaintiff Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec is represented by: Mark S. Willis, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C. 1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 756-3601 Facsimile: (202) 756-3602 E-mail: mwillis@srkw-law.com - and - Andrew D. Abramowitz, Esq. Daniel J. Mirarchi, Esq. Andrew N. Dodemaide, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: aabramowitz@srkw-law.com dmirarchi@srkw-law.com adodemaide@srkw-law.com Plaintiff Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund is represented by: Jonathan Gardner, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Thomas W. Watson, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com twatson@labaton.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes Sought in "Yagman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN YAGMAN, etc. v. ERIC GARCETTI, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05944-GHK-E (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court to certify two classes defined as: "all persons who were issued parking citations by the City of Los Angeles and who were required to pay the amount demanded on the citation in order to obtain an initial hearing on the validity of the citation, and/or who were not provided a valid initial hearing by the citation issuing agency, the City of Los Angeles, as is required by California law, and whose initial hearings instead were contracted out by the City to a private contractor, Xerox Corporation." Eric Garcetti is the mayor of the City of Los Angeles. The Court will commence a hearing on October 3, 2016, 9:30 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ciqJrbMW The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Reichmann, Esq. YAGMAN & REICHMANN 475 Washington Boulevard Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287 Telephone: (310) 452-3200 Facsimile: (310) 557-0420 E-mail: JReichm@aol.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Florez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ----------------------------------------------------------- Erin Florez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01418-LSC (N.D. Ala., August 29, 2016), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Hoaglund, Esq. MCCALLUM HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP 905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201 Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 824-7767 Facsimile: (205) 824-7768 E-mail: ehoaglund@mhcilaw.com MCGINNES: Polluted San Jacinto River, Houston Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that more than 200 named plaintiffs filed a class action in Houston against International Paper, McGinnes Industrial Maintenance and Waste Management, claiming they've fouled the San Jacinto River and its tributaries with carcinogenic dioxins and other chemicals for decades, in Harris County Court. MEDICENTRE: November 30 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- If you were a patient at a Medicentre clinic either in Edmonton or Calgary between May 2, 2011 and September 19, 2013, you may be affected by a settlement. A settlement has been reached in the Class Action with respect to the loss of a laptop computer containing names, dates of birth, Alberta Health Care Number and Alberta Health Diagnostic Codes ("Personal Information"). Compensation may be available for the following claims: (a) Actual out of pocket costs incurred for credit monitoring or identity theft protection purchased on or before December 18, 2015 directly and solely as a result of the loss of the Personal Information; (b) Registration Costs for an Equifax Credit Monitoring and Identity Theft Insurance Program; (c) Compensation for medically recognized psychological or psychiatric conditions caused or aggravated directly and solely as a result of the loss of the Personal Information, with supporting documentation from a physician or other healthcare professional as may be acceptable to the Claims Administrator; and (d) Out of Pocket costs incurred as a result of actual identity theft which occurred on or before December 18, 2015, related directly and solely to the loss of the Personal Information. The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault. Distribution of Settlement Funds The claims bar deadline for class members to file a claim for compensation from the Settlement Agreement is November 30, 2016. The Court has approved a protocol for the distribution of the Settlement Amount. Class Members can obtain additional information about the Distribution Protocol online at www.medicentreclassaction.mnp.ca or by calling 1-844-818-4112. The law firms of D'Arcy Deacon and James H. Brown and Associates are Class Counsel. QUESTIONS? VISIT www.medicentreclassaction.mnp.ca or call 1-844-818-4112. NATERA INC: Plaintiffs' Bid to Remand Case Pending -------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion to remand class action to the San Mateo Superior Court is pending. On February 17, 2016, March 10, 2016, March 28, 2016 and April 4, 2016, four purported class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo (the "San Mateo Superior Court"), against the Company, its directors and certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates, and each of the underwriters of its July 1, 2015 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The complaints assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's IPO contained materially false or misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that was required to be disclosed, about the Company's business and prospects. Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company has removed these actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; a motion to remand the actions to the San Mateo Superior Court is pending. The Company intends to defend the matter vigorously, but it cannot be certain of the outcome. NEOSTRATA COMPANY: "Horton" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Candle Horton, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Neostrata Company Inc., 24 Seven Inc., 24 Seven Employment Inc., 24 Seven Staffing Inc., Timothy L. Hix, 24 Seven Talent California, Inc., 24 Seven Recruiting, Inc., 24 Seven Creative Solutions, Celeste Gudas, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02016- 00024708-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02189-AJB-JLB to the proceeding. The case asserts labor-related claims. Neostrata Company Inc. develops and markets therapeutic and cosmetic dermatological products. 24 Seven Inc., 24 Seven Employment Inc., 24 Seven Staffing Inc., Timothy L. Hix, 24 Seven Talent California, Inc., 24 Seven Recruiting, Inc., 24 Seven Creative Solution, and Celeste Gudas operate a recruitment company in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE 3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 866-7224 Facsimile: (619) 259-5455 E-mail: rutledgelaw@cox.net The Defendant is represented by: Timothy L. Hix, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 270-9622 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 E-mail: thix@seyfarth.com NEWELL BRANDS: Settlement of Jarden Merger Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Newell Brands 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 settlement in a shaereholder class action over the Company's acquisition of Jarden remains pending. Subject to court approval of the settlement agreement and the lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the shareholder claims will be released, and the defendants will reimburse up to $0.6 million in attorney fees for the shareholders. A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E. Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross, Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros L'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16- CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden shareholders against the individually named director defendants, who were directors of Jarden. The Company and its subsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II are also named as defendants. The Complaint alleges claims under Sec. 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual director defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of the Company and Jarden concerning the proposed merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement omitted certain information. In March 2016, the parties entered into a settlement term sheet, pursuant to which the Company added certain disclosures to its Registration Statement on Form S-4. Thereafter, on July 19, 2016, the parties executed a Stipulation of Settlement, and the lead plaintiff and lead counsel contemporaneously filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement. That motion remains pending. NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Case Over Jarden Deal Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Newell Brands 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 lawsuit by Jessica Paree over the Company's acquisition of Jarden remains stayed. A putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E. Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10, 2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against the individually named director defendants, all of whom were directors of Jarden. The Company and two of its subsidiaries are also named as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jarden stockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and the process undertaken by the director defendants in connection with the Jarden transaction, and that the Company and two of its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants have (i) solicited stockholder action pursuant to a materially false and misleading joint proxy statement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all material information concerning the unfair sales process that resulted in the merger transactions, and (iii) materially omitted certain information related to the financial analyses performed by Jarden's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger transactions, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the Jarden transaction is consummated, an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and a direction from the court that Jarden's individual board members account for all damages allegedly suffered as a result of their alleged wrongdoing. On March 28, 2016, the parties filed an Agreed Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, seeking a stay of the litigation, pending the outcome of the above described Hirsch v. Lillie action. The court entered an order staying the proceedings on March 31, 2016, and the case remains stayed at this time, per the parties' request. OCWEN LOAN: Abraham Seeks to Certify Pa., N.J. and FDCPA Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LISA A. ABRAHAM, LISA CAVE, SCOTT CAVE, LEE ANN KAMINSKI, and MARK E. KAMINSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-04977-JP (E.D. Pa.), move the Court for certification of three classes: (1) The Pennsylvania Class -- brought by Plaintiffs Lisa Abraham, Lisa Cave and Scott Cave on behalf of themselves and a Class consisting of: All Pennsylvania homeowners whose mortgage loans have been serviced by Ocwen, and who have entered into a standard form template Loan Modification Agreement with Ocwen on or after February 14, 2007 that contains a "Balloon Disclosure" provision which does not disclose the amount of the balloon payment that the borrower will owe at the end of the term of the loan (the "Pennsylvania Class"). (2) The New Jersey Class -- brought by Plaintiffs Lee Ann Kaminski and Mark E. Kaminski on behalf of themselves and a Class consisting of: All New Jersey homeowners whose mortgage loans have been serviced by Ocwen, and who have entered into a standard form template Loan Modification Agreement with Ocwen on or after February 25, 2009 that contains a "Balloon Disclosure" provision which does not disclose the amount of the balloon payment that the borrower will owe at the end of the term of the loan (the "New Jersey Class"). (3) The FDCPA Class -- brought by Plaintiffs Lisa Cave and Scott Cave on behalf of themselves and a Class consisting of: All Pennsylvania and New Jersey homeowners for whom servicing of their mortgage loans was transferred to Ocwen at a time when such homeowners were in default on their loans, and to whom Ocwen sent a standard form template Loan Modification Agreement with Ocwen on or after July 21, 2010 that contains a "Balloon Disclosure" provision which does not disclose the amount of the balloon payment that the borrower will owe at the end of the term of the loan (the "FDCPA Class"). The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs Lisa Abraham, Lisa Cave and Scott Cave as representatives of the Pennsylvania Class, Plaintiffs Lee Ann Kaminski and Mark E. Kaminski as representatives of the New Jersey Class, Plaintiffs Lisa Cave and Scott Cave as representatives of the FDCPA Class, and their co-counsel, Berger & Montague, P.C. and Ann Miller, LLC, as lead counsel for the Classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SmyB1rHl The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd S. Collins, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4613 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net - and - Ann Miller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANN MILLER 1657 The Fairway # 132 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: 215-238-0468 Facsimile: 215-405-2653 E-mail: am@attorneyannmiller.com ONE GROUP: "Takahashi" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH TAKAHASHI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE ONE GROUP HOSPITALITY, INC., a Delaware corporation; STK WESTWOOD, LLC, a California limited liability corporation; CELESTE FIERRO, an individual; ROBERT LIBERATO, an individual; DENNIS CRUZ, an individual; and DOES 1- 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. Be 631176 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2016), seeks equitable and injunctive relief, economic and statutory damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief against the Defendants for Labor Code violations. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs routinely worked periods of eight hours or more, per work day, without receiving overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: SROURIAN LAW FIRM Daniel Srourian, Esq. 3440 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 915 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (310) 601 3131 Facsimile: (310) 388 8444 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com PEACOCK PAINT: "Ulloa" Suit Alleges FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL R. LUJAN ULLOA, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PEACOCK PAINT SUPPLIES INCORPORATED, R & A PAINTING LTD., EGOR ARONIN, and JOHN DOES # 1- 10, Case 1:16-cv-06774 Defendants (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 286-1425 Fax: (646) 688-3078 PFIZER INC: Deal Reached to Settle Celebrex and Bextra Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that the parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve Celebrex and Bextra claims for all defendants for $486 million. The Company said, "Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain of our current and former officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005. "In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted Pfizer's motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss causation and damages expert. We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by their expert. "In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to submit an amended report, and granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. "In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In April 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. "In July 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter for all defendants for $486 million, a portion of which was recorded in Other (income)/deductions -- net for the three months ended July 3, 2016, and the full amount of which was recorded in Other (income)/deductions -- net for the six months ended July 3, 2016. The agreement in principle is subject to the negotiation of a final settlement agreement and court approval, and the payment will be made in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss End-Payer Plaintiffs' Claims Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in the antitrust actions. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end- payer plaintiffs' remaining claims. PFIZER INC: Appeal in Zoloft Case Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that plaintiffs' appeal in the Zoloft case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit remains pending. The Company said, "A number of individual lawsuits and multi- plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among other types of actions, the Zoloft personal injury litigation includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of Zoloft." "In April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A number of plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions. In April 2016, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of almost all of the remaining plaintiffs. In May 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PFIZER INC: Viagra Product Liability Lawsuits Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that the Company continues to defend lawsuits related to Viagra. A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed melanoma and/or the exacerbation of melanoma as a result of the purported ingestion of Viagra. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In April 2016, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In Re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2691) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PFIZER INC: Ontario Case Over Chantix/Champix Proceeding -------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that the Ontario action related to Chantix/Champix is proceeding on a national basis. The Company said, "Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. "In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national basis." PNC BANK: Certification of Two Classes Sought in "Muhammad" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JAMES A. MUHAMMAD, Individually and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated persons v. PNC BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-16190 (S.D. W.Va.), asks the Court to certify these classes of similarly situated persons: Class A: All West Virginia citizens at the time of the filing of this action who had or have consumer home loans serviced by Defendant PNC and who were charged Speedpay fees and are listed on Exhibit C. Class B: All West Virginia citizens at the time of the filing of this action who had or have consumer home loans serviced by Defendant PNC and who were charged document request fees and are listed on Exhibit C. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kW3NlvE7 The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com skinney@baileyglasser.com POPULAR INC: Discovery in "Valle" Action Underway ------------------------------------------------- Popular, 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 discovery is ongoing in the class action by Josefina Valle. Popular Community Bank has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, PCB customers, allege among other things that PCB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleges that PCB improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and, additionally, that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by PCB violate New York's usury laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs. PCB removed the case to federal court (SDNY) and plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part PCB's motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to PCB's item processing policy. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further sought to compel arbitration. In June 2015, this matter was reassigned to a new judge and on July 22, 2015, such Court denied PCB's motion to compel arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint to replead certain claims based on item processing reordering, misstatement of balance information and failure to notify customers in advance of potential overdrafts. The Court did not, however, allow plaintiffs to replead their claim for the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On February 18, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part PCB's pending motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices claim to the extent it sought to recover overdraft fees incurred prior to September 2011. On March 28, 2016, PCB filed an answer to second amended complaint and on April 7, 2016, it filed a notice of appeal the partial denial of PCB's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs are to file a motion requesting class certification by August 19, 2016. Discovery is ongoing. POPULAR INC: Settlement in Quiles Case Awaits Court OK ------------------------------------------------------ Popular, 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 class action by Neysha Quiles are awaiting the Court's final determination of the settlement in the case. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a putative class action complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al., filed in December 2013 in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR). Plaintiffs essentially allege that they and others, who have been employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly titled positions, have been paid only for scheduled work time, rather than time actually worked. The complaint seeks to maintain a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all individuals formerly or currently employed by BPPR in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time during the past three years. Specifically, the complaint alleges that BPPR violated FLSA by willfully failing to pay overtime premiums. Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law. On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed. On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the FLSA action. Following the Court's order, plaintiffs sent out notices to all purported class members with instructions for opting into the class. Approximately sixty potential class members opted into the class prior to the expiration of the opt-in period. On June 25, 2015, the Court denied with prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 20, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the referenced action for an immaterial amount, subject to their reaching an agreement on the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees. The parties submitted briefing to the Court on this issue and are currently awaiting the Court's final determination. POPULAR INC: Motions to Dismiss "Fernandez" Case Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, 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 Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action by Nora Fernandez are pending the Court's determination. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and Popular Securities have also been named defendants in a putative class action complaint captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) on May 5, 2014 on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico, another named defendant, is the sponsor and co- sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co-sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. Plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against Popular Securities, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against BPPR, and similar claims against the UBS entities. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees. On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties. The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular defendants joined the opposition and motion filed by UBS. By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court granted defendants' motion to transfer. On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the SDNY containing virtually identical allegations with respect to Popular Securities and BPPR. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on June 18, 2015. Those motions are pending the Court's determination. POPULAR INC: Court Okayed BPPR Settlement in RadioShack Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Popular, 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 Texas court has held a settlement fairness hearing whereby it accepted the parties' settlement agreement in all relevant respects concluding this matter with respect to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico. BPPR was named a defendant in a putative class action complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that certain employees of RadioShack incurred losses in their 401(k) plans because various fiduciaries elected to retain RadioShack's company stock in the portfolio of potential investment options. The complaint further asserts that once RadioShack's financial situation began to deteriorate in 2011, the fiduciaries of the RadioShack 401(k) Plan and the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan (collectively, "the Plans") should have removed RadioShack company stock from the portfolio of potential investment options. Popular was a directed trustee, and therefore a fiduciary, of the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan ("PR Plan"). Even though the PR Plan directed BPPR to retain RadioShack company stock within the portfolio of investment options, the complaint alleges that a trustee's duty of prudence requires it to disregard plan documents or directives that it knows or reasonably should know would lead to an imprudent result or would otherwise harm plan participants or beneficiaries. It further alleges that BPPR breached its fiduciary duties by (i) failing to take any meaningful steps to protect plan participants from losses that it knew would occur; (ii) failing to divest the PR Plan of company stock; and (iii) participating in the decisions of another trustee (Wells Fargo) to protect the Plans from inevitable losses. On November 23, 2015, the parties attended a mediation session, as a result of which the parties agreed to settle this matter for an immaterial amount, with BPPR contributing approximately $45,000. On February 22, 2016, the RadioShack defendants submitted an opposition to the bar provisions of BPPR's proposed settlement whereby they conditioned such settlement to BPPR's agreement to a proportional methodology to any subsequent settlement. Under this scenario, BPPR could have remained potentially liable for an additional proportional amount, should plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their claim and win on appeal. On July 18, 2016, the court held a settlement fairness hearing whereby it accepted the parties' settlement agreement in all relevant respects concluding this matter with respect to BPPR. PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: VW's Dieselgate Scandal May Affect Stock Value ----------------------------------------------------------------- DIESELGATE may have negatively affected the value of your stock! Research of the US Department of Justice suggests that former Porsche Automobil Holding SE CEO Martin Winternkorn had actual knowledge of violations of applicable clean air standards by cars manufactured by the Porsche SE group of companies at the latest in early 2014. There are further indications suggesting knowledge of these manipulations as early as in November 2009, when Winterkorn became CEO of Porsche Automobil Holding SE. Despite the capability to substantially influence the stock price of Porsche Automobil Holding SE shares, relevant information had not been made public. The main asset of Porsche Automobil Holding SE is shares in Volkswagen AG. The board of Porsche Automobil Holding SE was therefore obligated to inform its shareholders truthfully and without delay. WE PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS! Should you have been a shareholder in Porsche Automobil Holding SE prior to September 18, 2015, please contact us now through this contact form. You may be entitled to substantial compensation. PPL CORPORATION: Discovery Schedule Through Q2 2017 --------------------------------------------------- PPL 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 a District Court has issued an order setting a discovery schedule through the second quarter of 2017 related to the Cane Run Environmental Claims. In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. In addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory violations. Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and diminished property values for a class consisting of residents within four miles of the Cane Run plant. In their individual capacities, these plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged adverse health effects. In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and Louisville Gas and Electric Company, in July 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss their common law tort claims. Upon motion of LG&E and PPL, the district court certified for appellate review the issue of whether the state common law claims are preempted by federal statute. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an order granting appellate review regarding the above matter. Oral argument before the Sixth Circuit was held in August 2015. In November 2015, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's ruling that plaintiffs' state law claims are not preempted by the Clean Air Act and remanding the matter to the District Court for further proceedings. The District Court has issued an order setting a discovery schedule through the second quarter of 2017. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter. LG&E retired one coal- fired unit at the Cane Run plant in March 2015 and the remaining two coal-fired units at the plant in June 2015. QUANTUM SOLAR: Faces "Medrano" Suit in California Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Quantum Solar Designs Inc. The case is captioned Anthony Medrano an Individual on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current or former employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v. Quantum Solar Designs Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 56-2016-00485628-CU-WT-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 23, 2016). Quantum Solar Designs is a family-owned solar company, located in Camarillo, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven D. Waisbren, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN D. WAISBREN 5850 Canoga Ave., Ste 400 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 710 7102 E-mail: www.waisbrenlaw.com REACHLOCAL INC: "Miranda" Suit Over Gannett Merger Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Reachlocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will defend against Todd Miranda's putative class action lawsuit challenging a merger deal. On June 27, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which Gannett Co., Inc. ("Parent") and Raptor Merger Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") on July 11, 2016 to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock at a purchase price of $4.60 per share in cash, subject to reduction for any applicable withholding taxes, without interest ("Merger Consideration"). Upon the completion of the tender offer on August 9, 2016, Purchaser acquired over 92% of the Company's outstanding common stock and, promptly afterwards, Purchaser merged with and into the Company without a vote of the Company's stockholders (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. The Company is now in the process of deregistering under the Exchange Act. On July 15, 2016, Todd Miranda filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the Merger in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Company said, "In addition to the Company, the members of our Board of Directors and certain Gannett entities were named as defendants. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual members of our Board in connection with the Merger Agreement by allegedly accepting an inadequate offer price and allegedly agreeing to unreasonable deal protection provisions, among other actions. The complaint further alleges that we, Parent and Purchaser aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs generally seek equitable and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the defendants from completing the proposed merger transaction, rescission of any consummated transaction, unspecified amounts in damages and attorneys' fees." "We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against it. REACHLOCAL INC: To Defend Against "Casey" Suit Over Gannett Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Reachlocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company will defend against Donal Casey's putative class action lawsuit challenging a merger deal. On June 27, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which Gannett Co., Inc. ("Parent") and Raptor Merger Sub, Inc. ("Purchaser"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") on July 11, 2016 to acquire all of the Company's outstanding shares of common stock at a purchase price of $4.60 per share in cash, subject to reduction for any applicable withholding taxes, without interest ("Merger Consideration"). Upon the completion of the tender offer on August 9, 2016, Purchaser acquired over 92% of the Company's outstanding common stock and, promptly afterwards, Purchaser merged with and into the Company without a vote of the Company's stockholders (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. The Company is now in the process of deregistering under the Exchange Act. On July 27, 2016, Donal Casey filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the Merger in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Company said, "In addition to the Company, the members of our Board of Directors were named as defendants. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual members of our Board in connection with the Merger Agreement by allegedly failing to properly value the Company, allegedly agreeing to unreasonable deal protection provisions, and allegedly failing to make adequate disclosures regarding the Merger, among other actions. The plaintiffs generally seek equitable and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the defendants from completing the Merger, rescission of any consummated transaction, unspecified amounts in damages and attorneys' fees. We believe this lawsuit is without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against it." REGULATORY TECHNOLOGY: Has Until Sept. 12 to Respond to Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Casano v. Regulatory Technology Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-00096 (Bankr. M.D. Fla., January 14, 2016), Judge Mary S. Scriven entered an order granting Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Defendant shall have up to and including September 12, 2016, to file a response to the Motion for Class Certification. The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli. REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Defers Final Settlement Approval Until Feb. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC.com, reports that the federal judge overseeing a proposed class action settlement involving millions of allegedly defective Remington firearms says the parties can go ahead with a revised plan to notify gun owners of their right to get the triggers replaced. But in a unique twist, the judge is delaying final approval of the settlement until he sees how many people file claims. The case involves Remington's popular Model 700 rifle as well as a dozen other models with a similar design, which were the subject of a 2010 CNBC documentary and a follow-up investigation last year. Plaintiffs allege that for decades, Remington covered up a design flaw that allowed the guns to fire without the trigger being pulled, resulting in at least two dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries. Remington denies the allegations and says the guns are safe, but agreed in 2014 to replace the triggers on some 7 million guns free of charge in order to end the costly litigation once and for all. But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith in Kansas City, balked at the agreement and sent the parties back to the drawing board after only a handful of gun owners responded to the initial offer. "The Court cannot conceive that an owner of an allegedly defective firearm would not seek the remedy being provided," Smith wrote in December. The parties came back with a revised plan in June, developed in part by former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, that added social media, talk radio, and internet banner ads to the original direct mail and print campaign designed to alert gun owners of the offer. That plan drew even more criticism, including a scathing letter to the court from an authority on class action settlement notices -- Philadelphia-based consultant Todd Hilsee -- who wrote in July that the plan was "designed to fail," and seemed geared more toward addressing "Remington's public relations concerns" than actually getting guns fixed. Remington and the plaintiffs fired back with their own expert, calling Mr. Hilsee's letter "false, rife with misinformation, and derived from a foregone era of media consumption." In an order issued on Aug. 23, Judge Smith sided with the company and the plaintiffs for now, but with one important change: Rather than giving final approval to the settlement now -- and allowing plaintiffs' attorneys to collect $12.5 million in fees -- he is deferring final approval of the settlement until February, apparently depending on how many people file claims between now and then. "The Court expressly reserves its decision with regard to the adequacy and reasonableness of the Plan," Judge Smith wrote. Judge Smith also ordered a new opportunity for gun owners to object or opt out of the settlement; a previous window had long since expired. The new deadline is November 18. The new schedule means that at least in theory, Remington owners will be bombarded with notices about the class action settlement just as the fall hunting season approaches. An attorney for the plaintiffs hailed the ruling. "We applaud Judge Smith's clear concern for safety, dedication to increasing claims and getting as many new triggers in guns as possible," said Eric Holland in an e-mail to CNBC. Attorneys for Remington did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the latest ruling. The settlement covers some of Remington's top-selling models including the 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725, produced since 1948. RESOURCE ENERGY: Moresi Seeks to Certify Welders & Fitters Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DYLAN JOHN MORESI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RESOURCE ENERGY VENTURES AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LLC and GULF SOUTH SERVICES, INC., Case No. 6:15-cv-02224-RFD-CBW (W.D. La.), seeks conditional certification of a class consisting of welders, fitters and welder helpers. The Case is brought over alleged failure by the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff, and those similarly situated overtime, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hence, the Plaintiff asks the Court to: (1) conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice and discovery; (2) order that judicially-approved notice be sent to all Putative Class Members by first class mail and e-mail; (3) approve the form and content of the Plaintiff's proposed judicial notice and consent forms (4) order the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff's Counsel the contact information for each Putative Class Member in a usable electronic format; and (5) authorize a 60-day notice period for Putative Class Members to join the Case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dk9XpNdq The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq. KENNETH D. ST. PE, APLC 311 W. University Ave., Suite A Lafayette, LA 70506 Telephone: (337) 534-4043 Facsimile: (337) 534-8379 E-mail: kennethstpe@aol.com ROSE ACRE FARMS: Seeks to Decertify Purchasers Class in Egg MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Rose Acre Farms, Inc., Michael Foods, Inc., and Ohio Fresh Eggs, Inc., ask the Court to de-certify the class of shell egg direct purchasers it previously certified in the multidistrict litigation styled In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2:08-md-02002-GEKP, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The document applies to all direct purchaser actions. In light of developments in the case since the briefing on class certification concluded and the Court's September 21, 2015 decision granting in part Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' ("DPPs") motion for certification, continuing class treatment is inappropriate, the Moving Defendants contend. They add that it has become clear that individual questions will predominate at trial and that the class representatives cannot adequately represent the claims of the absent class members. When the DPPs' expert's econometric analysis is adjusted to reflect the Court's ruling on the appropriate class period, the results indicate that egg prices were actually lower than they would have been but -- for the alleged conspiracy -- meaning that DPPs cannot demonstrate antitrust injury nor damages using evidence common to the class, the Moving Defendants argue. They add that a post-class certification analysis of flock size and egg production submitted by Dr. Rausser with his merits report demonstrates that if the alleged conspiracy did reduce the egg supply, it did not do so until 2007. This egg production analysis also creates a defense against the claims of up to 20% of the class members -- class members who did not purchase shell eggs from a defendant after 2006 -- putting those class members' interests at odds with the named plaintiffs, the Moving Defendants assert. Because the DPPs cannot meet their burden to demonstrate that the requirements of Rules 23(a) and (b) are met, the class should be decertified, the Moving Defendants conclude. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jeVzVqQ8 Defendant Michael Foods, Inc., is represented by: Carrie Mahan, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 1300 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 Facsimile: (202) 857-0940 E-mail: carrie.mahan@weil.com - and - William L. Greene, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-1500 Facsimile: (612) 335-1657 E-mail: william.greene@stinson.com Defendant Rose Acre Farms, Inc., is represented by: Donald M. Barnes, Esq. Jay L. Levine, Esq. Jetta C. Sandin, Esq. PORTER, WRIGHT, MORRIS & ARTHUR, LLP 1900 K Street, NW, Suite 1110 Washington, DC 20006-1110 Telephone: (202) 778-3056 Facsimile: (202) 778-3063 E-mail: dbarnes@porterwright.com jlevine@porterwright.com jsandin@porterwright.com Defendant Ohio Fresh Eggs, LLC, is represented by: Joseph M. Callow, Jr., Esq. KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 579-6419 Facsimile: (513) 579-6457 E-mail: jcallow@kmklaw.com RTG FURNITURE: Hankinson Seeks Certification of Three Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Benjamin Hankinson, James Guerra, and Jeanette Gandolfo, Lisa Palmer, Donald Anderson, and Lisa Prihoda, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp., d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG America, LLC, The Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust, RTG Furniture Corp. of Georgia, d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG Furniture of Texas, L.P., d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG Texas Holdings, Inc., and R.T.G. Furniture Corp. of Texas, Case No. 9:15-cv-81139-JIC (S.D. Fla.), seek class certification for these classes: a) Florida Class: All residents of Florida who purchased ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from August 12, 2010 to August 12, 2015. i. Florida "Slamming" Subclass: All residents of Florida who purchased ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, whose ForceField Protection Plans were added to their bills without their knowledge from August 12, 2011 to August 12; 2015 b) Georgia Class: All residents of Georgia who purchased ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from August 12, 2009 to August 12, 2015; and c) Texas Class: All residents of Texas who purchased ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from August 12, 2011 to August 12, 2015. Plaintiffs Hankins, Guerra, and Gandolfo, Florida residents, seek appointment as the representatives for the class of Florida purchasers. Plaintiff Palmer, a Florida resident, seeks appointment as the representative for the Florida slamming subclass. Plaintiff Prihoda, a Texas resident, seeks appointment as the representative for the class of Texas purchasers. Plaintiff Anderson, a Georgia resident, seeks appointment as the representative for the class of Georgia purchasers. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint their counsel, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, as class counsel for all classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0w6eSQ74 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq. Diana L. Martin, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401 E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com dmartin@cohenmilstein.com - and - Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. Eric A. Kafka, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW East Tower, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com ekafka@cohenmilstein.com Defendant R.T.G. Furniture Corp. is represented by: Jamie Zysk Isani, Esq. Douglas C. Dreier, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 810-2500 Facsimile: (305) 810-1675 E-mail: jisani@hunton.com ddreier@hunton.com - and - Walfrido J. Martinez, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 309-1316 Facsimile: (212) 309-1100 E-mail: wmartinez@hunton.com - and - Randi Engel Schnell, Esq. Frank M. Lowrey IV, Esq. Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq. BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: schnell@bmelaw.com flowery@bmelaw.com thorpe@bmelaw.com SAKUMA BROTHERS: Faces "Demetrio" Suit in W.D. of Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Sakuma Brothers Farms Inc. The case is titled Ana Lopez Demetrio and Francisco Eugenio Paz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sakuma Brothers Farms Inc. and Garnishee MUFG Union Bank NA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-mc-00141-RSL (W.D. Wash., Aug. 23, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert S. Lasnik. Sakuma Bros. is a family-owned farming operation spanning four generations with over 85 years of experience in the small fruit industry. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lori Isley, Esq. COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES (YAKIMA) 6 S 2nd St., Ste 510 Larson Bldg. Yakima, WA 98901 Telephone: (509) 575 5593 E-mail: lori.isley@columbialegal.org - and - Marc C Cote, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816 6603 Facsimile: (206) 319 5450 E-mail: mcote@terrellmarshall.com The Defendants are represented by: Adam S. Belzberg, Esq. STOEL RIVES (WA) 600 University St., Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101-3197 Telephone: (206) 386 7516 Facsimile: (206) 386 7500 E-mail: adam.belzberg@stoel.com SEAS & ASSOCIATES: Stamer Amends Bid to Certify 3 TCPA Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- David Stamer amends his motion to certify classes in his lawsuit captioned DAVID STAMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SEAS & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., BLAST FITNESS GROUP, LLC., Case No. 1:15-cv-08277 (N.D. Ill.). Mr. Stamer also asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, appoint his lawyers as counsel for the classes, and allow him to file a memorandum in support of the Amended Motion after further class discovery. He brings the Class Action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and defines the classes as: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Seas placed a debt collection telephone call (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice (5) within the 4 years prior to the filing of the complaint (6) whose number was listed as an emergency contact in Defendants' records; (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Seas placed a debt collection telephone call (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice (5) within the 4 years prior to the filing of the complaint (6) after Defendants' records listed a "wrong number" or equivalent notation that the number did not belong to the person alleged to owe the debt in question; and (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Seas placed a debt collection telephone call (4) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice (5) within the 4 years prior to the filing of the complaint (6) whose number was listed as an emergency contact in Defendants' records and was called regarding a Blast Fitness debt. A copy of the Amended Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wqMUXNmJ The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Timothy Sostrin, Esq. Michael Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com SHERWOOD CITY, AR: Faces "Dade" Suit in E.D. of Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Sherwood City, Arkansas. The case is captioned Charles Dade, Nakita Lewis, Nikki Petree, Lee Andrew Robertson, and Philip Axelroth, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sherwood Arkansas, City of, Pulaski County Arkansas, and Milas H Hale, III, In his official and individual capacities, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16- cv-00602-JM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 23, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. James M. Moody Jr. Sherwood is a city in Pulaski County, Arkansas, United States. As of the 2010 census, the population of the city was 29,523. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bettina E. Brownstein, Esq. BETINNA E. BROWNSTEIN LAW FIRM 904 West Second Street, Suite 2 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 920 1764 E-mail: bettinabrownstein@gmail.com - and - Hallie Ryan, Esq. LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 662 8359 - and - J. Alexander Lawrence, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55th Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 468 8000 E-mail: alawrence@mofo.com - and - Reggie Koch, Esq. KOCH LAW FIRM 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive, Suite 707 Little Rock, AR 72212 Telephone: (501) 223 5310 Facsimile: (501) 223 5311 E-mail: reggie@reggiekoch.com SNYDER'S-LANCE: $2.9MM Settlement in IBO Litigation Paid in Q2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Snyder's-Lance, 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 $2.9 million settlement amount in the IBO Litigation was paid in the second quarter of 2016. In January 2013, plaintiffs comprised of independent business owners ("IBO") filed a putative class action against our distribution subsidiary, S-L Distribution Company, Inc., in the Suffolk Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit sought statewide class certification on behalf of a class comprised of IBOs in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as independent contractors and should be considered employees. The plaintiffs were seeking reimbursement of their out-of-pocket business expenses. "We believe we have strong defenses to all the claims that have been asserted against us," the Company said. On December 22, 2015, the parties to this litigation reached a tentative settlement on a class wide basis. "We do not admit any fault or liability in this matter; however, in an effort to resolve these claims, we agreed to pay $2.9 million to fully resolve the litigation. This amount was paid in the second quarter of 2016." SNYDER'S-LANCE: Briefing Schedule in Merger Deal Not Yet Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Snyder's-Lance, 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 schedule has not yet been set for briefing of anticipated motions to dismiss the complaints in the Merger-related Litigation. The Company said, "On October 27, 2015, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") with Diamond. Diamond is a leading snack food company with five brands including Kettle Brand(R) potato chips, KETTLE(R) Chips, Pop Secret(R) popcorn, Emerald(R) snack nuts, and Diamond of California(R) culinary nuts. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, we agreed to acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of Diamond in a cash and stock transaction, including our repayment of $651.0 million of Diamond's indebtedness, accrued interest and related fees. The acquisition was subject to the approval of our stockholders of the issuance of our shares and the approval of the stockholders of Diamond of the adoption of the Merger Agreement." "On February 26, 2016, our stockholders approved the issuance of our shares and the stockholders of Diamond adopted the Merger Agreement. The acquisition closed on February 29, 2016 and, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Diamond became our wholly-owned subsidiary. "On November 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Diamond stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint names as defendants Diamond, the members of Diamond's board of directors, Snyder's-Lance, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of Diamond's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Diamond's stockholders in connection with negotiating, entering into and approving the merger agreement with Snyder's-Lance, Inc. The complaint additionally alleges that Snyder's-Lance, Merger Sub I and Merger Sub II aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought injunctive relief, including the enjoinment of the merger, certain other declaratory and equitable relief, damages, costs and fees. An amended complaint was filed on December 21, 2015. The amended complaint adds further allegations related to the merger process and disclosures contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Snyder's-Lance on November 25, 2015. "On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for expedited proceedings requesting a preliminary injunction and expedited discovery, which the Court denied on February 3, 2016. On January 19, 2016, another action was filed in Delaware similar to the above matter. "A schedule has not yet been set for briefing of anticipated motions to dismiss the complaints. If we determine that a loss is possible and a range of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we will disclose the range of the possible loss. SNYDER'S-LANCE: Mediation in Labor Suit Set for September 19 ------------------------------------------------------------ Snyder's-Lance, 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 mediation is scheduled to occur on September 19, 2016, in the California Labor Code Litigation. Former employee Patricia Sparks filed a putative class action lawsuit against Diamond on November 25, 2015 in San Francisco Superior Court alleging Diamond's violation of the California Labor Code by failing to include on wage statements the start date of the pay period and by failing to include on wage statements the name and address of legal entity that is the employer. Plaintiff amended her complaint on January 4, 2016 to add a claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act based on the same underlying violations. Diamond timely answered the First Amended Complaint on March 7, 2016. The parties attended the initial case management conference on May 2, 2016 and a further case management conference occurred on August 1, 2016. Mediation is scheduled to occur on September 19, 2016. Adjudication or resolution of the claims asserted in this action could have a material impact on our business or financial condition. "We accrued $8.3 million associated with this outstanding claim in the Diamond opening balance sheet as that represents our best estimate of the probable liability at that time. This accrual remains outstanding and is included in other payables and accrued liabilities in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of July 2, 2016. We will adjust this accrual as we obtain additional information related to this estimate," the Company said. SOTHEBYS INC: Graham Files Appeal in Suit Seeking Royalty Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Estate of Robert Graham, Chuck Close and Laddie John Dill filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sothebys, Inc., Case No. 2:11- cv-08604-MWF-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Sotheby's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Plaintiffs indicated that they will appeal a district court decision that granted Sotheby's motion to dismiss the remaining claims. The Case was brought on behalf of U.S. artists (and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the state of California or at auction by California sellers and for which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale Royalties Act. The Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. The appellate case is captioned as Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sothebys, Inc., Case No. 16-56234, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Appeals Court sets this schedule: -- Mediation Questionnaire is due on September 6, 2016; -- Transcript must be ordered by September 26, 2016; -- Transcript is due on December 27, 2016; -- Appellants Chuck Close, Laddie John Dill and Estate of Robert Graham's opening brief is due on February 6, 2017; -- Appellee Sothebys, Inc.'s answering brief is due on March 8, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants ESTATE OF ROBERT GRAHAM, CHUCK CLOSE, and LADDIE JOHN DILL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ira Bibbero, Esq. Michael A. Bowse, Esq. Eric M. George, Esq. BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: ibibbero@bgrfirm.com mbowse@bgrfirm.com egeorge@bgrfirm.com Defendant-Appellee SOTHEBYS, INC., a New York corporation, is represented by: Philip Besirof, Esq. Paul Terry Friedman, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 E-mail: pbesirof@mofo.com pfriedman@mofo.com - and - Deanne Maynard, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-1500 E-mail: dmaynard@mofo.com - and - Howard B. Comet, Esq. Steven Alan Reiss, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8424 E-mail: howard.comet@retired.weil.com steven.reiss@weil.com SOULCYCLE INC: Faces "Cavka" Suit Over Unlawful Consumer Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marko Cavka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Soulcycle, Inc. and Does 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 30- 2016-00871915-CU-AT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2016), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's failure to provide contracts that adhere to California's Health Studio Services Contract Law. Soulcycle, Inc. operates indoor cycling studios where indoor biking classes are offered to customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Scott, Esq. Stephen M. Hauptman, Esq. NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP 895 Dove Street, 5th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 854-7000 Facsimile: (949) 854-7099 E-mail: robert.scott@ndlf.com stephen.hauptman@ndlf.com SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Has Not Commenced in "Melville" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery has not yet commenced in the case, John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC. John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breached its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for himself and the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. On March 14, 2016, Spark Energy Gas, LLC and Spark Energy, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On April 25, 2016, Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss. "The Motion to Dismiss was set on the Court's submission docket for May 2, 2016. The parties are currently waiting on the Court's ruling. Discovery has not yet commenced in this matter. We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case," the Company said. SPARK ENERGY: Paid $0.5MM Related to "Amaya" Case ------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company expensed and paid $0.5 million during the six months ended June 30, 2016, related to the case, Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC. Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on May 22, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that certain door-to-door sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC allegedly engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the California Civil Code, California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act while marketing Spark Energy Gas, LLC's gas services to consumers in California. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. On September 29, 2015, Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and a motion to compel arbitration in the case of one of the named plaintiffs. On April 11, 2016 the Court issued an Order denying without prejudice Spark Energy Gas, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and denying the Motion to Dismiss. The Court also reset the date to hear any Motion for Class Certification that plaintiffs may file in this matter to August 5, 2016. On April 15, 2016, the parties attended a court-ordered mediation during which a confidential resolution of this matter was reached. Subsequently, a confidential settlement agreement and release of all claims was executed by the parties. On July 5, 2016, a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice was filed with the Court. On July 6, 2016, the Court issued an Order Dismissing the Entire Action. "We expensed and paid $0.5 million related to this litigation during the six months ended June 30, 2016 in our condensed consolidated statement of operation." SPX CORPORATION: Certification of Class Sought in "Brass" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuits captioned (i) DAVID BRASS, RICHARD HAMILTON, and CHARLES KOZITZKY as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW v. SPX CORPORATION, and (ii) RON BEEGLE, DAVID BOBCOCK and CARL VAN LOON, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW v. SPX CORPORATION, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00656-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), seeks class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and 23 (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them and Class Counsel as representatives of the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=du1i1m9t The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Fayette, Esq. Pamela K. Bratt, Esq. PINSKY, SMITH, FAYETTE & KENNEDY, LLP 146 Monroe Center, NW, Suite 805 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 451-8496 E-mail: mfayette@psfklaw.com STATE COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Lawrence" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Lawrence moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit styled DEANNA LAWRENCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01188-CNC (E.D. Wisc.), and further 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=LqRbI3sK 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 SUBWAY IP: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Olegario Flores de Jesus a/k/a Tomas Garcia, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Subway IP Inc. d/b/a Subway, Subway Inc., Jamie's Catering Inc. d/b/a Subway, Suzanne Greco, Richard Schragger, and Emily Ascatio, Case No. 1:16-cv-06773 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a fast food restaurant franchise that primarily sells submarine sandwiches and salads. Olegario Flores de Jesus is a pro se plaintiff. SUNRUN INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Actions over IPO ------------------------------------------------------------ Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against various shareholder class action lawsuits. On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false or misleading statements in connection with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the continuation of net metering programs. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial public offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief deemed appropriate by the court. On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Mancy v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538303, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On April 22, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Brown et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538311, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On May 6, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Greenberg v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case 3:16-cv-02480, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. On June 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Steinberg v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 539064, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. The Mancy, Brown, Baker, Greenberg, Nunez and Steinberg complaints are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported class. On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false or misleading statements in connection with an August 5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company's business practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments. The Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek similar relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Mancy, Brown, Greenberg, Nunez, Steinberg and Baker actions. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against these complaints. The Company is not able to estimate the ultimate outcome or a range of possible loss at this time. SWICK MINING: Faces "Russell" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- WENDELL RUSSELL, MICHAEL OELKE, RICKY ROWLAND and RANDY MCGRATH, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. SWICK MINING SERVICES (USA), INC. a Nevada corporation, and ABC ENTITIES 1-20, JOHN AND JANE DOES 1- 20. Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-02887-JJT (D. Ariz., August 29, 2016), seeks to recover wages and damages from Defendants alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant, Swick USA, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Swick Mining Services, one of Australia's largest mineral drilling contractors. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com TAMINCO US: Must Defend Against Suit Over Plant Emissions --------------------------------------------------------- Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a chemical company with a history of being accused of failing to control its emissions was unsuccessful in its attempt to shut down a noxious-odors class action brought by its neighbors. Taminco US Inc., a subsidiary of global firm Eastman Chemical Company, has a chemical plant in Pace, Fla., where three of its neighbors claim the company is emitting pernicious odors. In November 2015, plaintiffs Danny Lombardozzi, Michael Dabney and Patricia Dabney sued Taminco for public nuisance, private nuisance, negligence and gross negligence, claiming it emits ammonia and ammonia derivatives into the atmosphere. Lombardozzi and the Dabneys live in residential homes within two miles of the chemical plant. They claim "noxious and offensive odors emanating from the facility 'physically invade' their 'homes, land, and property,' thereby diminishing their full use and enjoyment of the properties and decreasing the properties' value," court records show. The plaintiffs seek class certification, punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Taminco argued that a federal judge in Northern Florida should dismiss the case because it involves "'technical matters related to air quality and air emissions' that are not within the conventional knowledge of judges or jurors and require the specialized expertise of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to resolve." The company also argued that because the FDEP has been trying to control the Pace facility's emissions in the past, the court should not be able to try the case. Taminco claims its permit given by the FEDP "insulates it from public nuisance liability." But U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers ruled Aug. 24 that the FDEP has no authority over the case and "the plaintiffs' claims are uniquely within the court's purview." "Defendant has not persuaded the court that the FDEP's expertise and specialized knowledge is essential in adjudicating the common law tort claims in this case," Rodgers wrote in a 13-page opinion. The judge denied Taminco's motion to dismiss the claims for private nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence. He gave the Lombardozzi and the Dabneys 14 days to file an amended complaint that more specifically alleges the nature of the injuries suffered by the general public and the injunctive relief sought. Taminco has an alleged history of failing to control its noxious odors, and the plaintiffs' complaint lists 10 instances. For example, "On June 8, 2011, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection fined defendant $24,000 for an Aug. 30, 2010, release of ammonia above the allowed reportable quantities and for violating notification requirements by failing to immediately notify the National Response Center as soon as the plant knew the release exceeded the allowed quantities." Eastman Chemical Company's corporate communications team did not return an emailed request for comment by September 1. Christopher Bailey of Florida-based Aronfeld Trial Lawyers represents the class and did not return a phone call seeking comment. He may be reached at: Christopher Bailey, Esq. Aronfeld Trial Lawyers 3132 Ponce De Leon Blvd Coral Gables, FL 33134 The case is captioned, DANNY LOMBARDOZZI, MICHAEL DABNEY, and PATRICIA DABNEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly Situated Plaintiff, v. TAMINCO US INC., Defendant, Case No. 15cv533/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla.). TAMPA ELECTRIC: Parties to Enter Into Formal Settlement Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tampa Electric 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 subsequent to the closing of a merger transaction, the parties in a class action lawsuit are expected to enter into a formal settlement agreement. On July 1, 2016, TECO Energy and Emera, Inc. completed the Merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement entered into on Sept. 4, 2015. As a result of the Merger, Merger Sub merged with and into TECO Energy with TECO Energy continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Emera. Twelve securities class action lawsuits were filed against the company and its directors by holders of TECO Energy securities following the announcement of the Emera transaction. Eleven suits were filed in the Circuit Court for the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. They alleged that TECO Energy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger Agreement and sought to enjoin the Merger. In addition, several of these suits alleged that one or more of TECO Energy, Emera and an Emera affiliate aided and abetted such alleged breaches. The securities class action lawsuits have been consolidated per court order. Since the consolidation, two of the complaints have been amended. One of those complaints has added a claim against the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duty to disclose. The twelfth suit was filed in the Middle District of Florida Federal Court and has subsequently been voluntarily dismissed. In November 2015, the parties to the lawsuits entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the various shareholder plaintiffs to settle, subject to court approval, all of the pending shareholder lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger. As a result of the Memorandum of Understanding, the company made additional disclosures related to the proposed Merger in a proxy supplement. Subsequent to the Merger closing the parties were expected to enter into a formal settlement agreement in August, which will be filed with the Hillsborough Circuit Court Judge for approval. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into a stipulation of settlement. While the outcome of such proceeding is uncertain, management does not believe that its ultimate resolution will have a material adverse effect on the company's results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. THIRD AVENUE: Faces "Krasner" Suit in Delaware Court ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Third Avenue Management, LLC, Martin J. Whitman, David M. Barse, Vincent J. Dugan, W. James Hall III, Michael Buono, William E. Chapman, II, Lucinda Franks, Edward J. Kaier, Eric Rakowski, Patrick Reinkemeyer, Martin Shubik, Charles C. Walden. The case is captioned Daniel W. Krasner, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Third Avenue Trust, Plaintiff, v. Third Avenue Management, LLC, Martin J. Whitman, David M. Barse, Vincent J. Dugan, W. James Hall III, Michael Buono, William E. Chapman, II, Lucinda Franks, Edward J. Kaier, Eric Rakowski, Patrick Reinkemeyer, Martin Shubik, Charles C. Walden, Case No. 12681 (Del. Ch., August 24, 2016), Third Avenue Management LLC -- http://thirdave.com/-- is a mutual-fund company. TIVO INC: "Klein" and "Graham" Actions Pending in N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- TiVo, Inc., said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 11, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that alleged stockholders of TiVo filed on August 3 and August 10, 2016, putative class actions captioned Rebecca Graham v. TiVo, Inc., et al., Case Number 16-cv- 04367-LHK, and Melvyn Klein v. TiVo, Inc., et al., Case Number 16- cv-04503, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (together, the "California Federal Actions"). The defendants in the California Federal Actions include TiVo and the five members of the TiVo board of directors who approved the merger agreement. The Klein action also names the remaining members of the TiVo board of directors, Rovi Corporation, Titan Technologies Corporation, Nova Acquisition Sub, Inc., and Titan Acquisition Sub, Inc. as defendants. The complaints in the California Federal Actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose all material facts concerning the TiVo merger in the draft joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on June 6, 2016, and as amended on July 8, July 25, and August 2, 2016. The complaints in the California Federal Actions seek orders: declaring that the actions are properly maintainable as class actions; declaring that the joint proxy statement/prospectus is materially misleading and contains omissions of material fact in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder; preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the proposed TiVo merger unless and until defendants disclose the alleged material information omitted from the joint proxy statement/prospectus; directing the board of directors to disseminate a proxy statement/prospectus that does not contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all material facts required in it to make the statements contained therein not misleading; awarding plaintiff and the proposed class rescissory damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the extent the proposed TiVo merger is consummated; awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys' and expert fees and expenses; awarding extraordinary, equitable, and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law; and granting such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. The defendants believe the complaints in the California Federal Actions are meritless and intend to defend the actions. TRANS ONE INC: Matthis Wants to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled PHILLIP MATTHIS, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. TRANS ONE INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:15-cv-07607 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to enter an order allowing notice to be sent to a putative class of past and present employees of the Defendant defined as: All Trans One, Incorporated employee delivery drivers who, within the last three (3) years have been compensated on a "per stop" delivery basis, and who have worked in excess of forty (40) hours in any week without receiving time and one-half their regular rate of pay for said hours in excess of forty (40). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ODeGVfON The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 W. Jackson, Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties Scheduling Mediation ---------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares 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 are in the process of scheduling a class action complaint for mediation. On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to the observance of meal and rest periods and seeking to represent a class of current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt personal bankers, or employees with the same or similar job duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California during the preceding four years. On or about June 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint expanding the class definition to all current and formerly hourly-paid or non-exempt branch employees employed by Defendant's within the State of California at any time during the period from September 15, 2010 to final judgment. The Bank has responded to the First Amended Complaint, denying the charges, and the parties have engaged in written discovery. The parties are in the process of scheduling the matter for mediation in the July, 2016 time period. On January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who worked for the Bank during the time period beginning October 18, 2013 through the date of the filing of this action. The Company and the Bank have responded to the First Amended Complaint, deny the charges, and has engaged in written discovery with Plaintiff. The parties intend to mediate this matter in a joint mediation with the above matter this summer. TROPICAL SMOOTHIE: Faces Class Suit Over Hep A Outbreak ------------------------------------------------------- Brandi Buchman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a class action in Fairfax, Va., claims Tropical Smoothie Cafe used contaminated strawberries that led to a widespread hepatitis A outbreak across six states. The 23-year old restaurant chain, with roughly 500 locations in 40 states, imported the tainted strawberries from Egypt. According to a video statement from Tropical Smoothie Cafe CEO Mike Rotondo released on the company's website, the Virginia Department of Health contacted the smoothie purveyor on Aug. 5, informing it of the "potential link between hepatitis A cases and frozen strawberries from Egypt." The class-action lawsuit was filed on August 30, in Fairfax County Circuit Court and named 29 separate defendants with Tropical Smoothie franchise locations scattered throughout Virginia. Cities impacted by the contamination include Fredericksburg, Alexandria, Centreville, Chesapeake, Yorktown, Mechanicsville, Falls Church, Haymarket, Glen Allen, Richmond, Virginia Beach, Stafford and Herndon. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that Virginia was the most impacted state, with 44 confirmed cases of consumers contracting hepatitis A. Infections were also reported in Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, Oregon and Wisconsin. No franchises in those locations were named in the lawsuit. The apparent irony of the company's slogan, "Eat Better, Feel Better," was not lost on Rotondo, who told consumers that the slogan "is not just marketing. . . it's a promise and it's something that I believe in very dearly." "While recently some strawberries have made their way into our supply chain that could challenge the concept, I sincerely apologize for any issues that may have caused for any of our customers," Rotondo said. Hepatitis A can spread from person-to-person and is usually transmitted via the fecal-oral route. It is most commonly communicated through contaminated food that comes into contact with water carrying the disease. Those who have been exposed to the disease have been urged to by the CDC to receive a vaccine or immune globulin injection within two weeks of exposure. "Exposure to hepatitis A virus can cause acute infection of the liver that is typically mild and resolves on its own," the complaint states. "The symptoms and duration of the illness vary a great deal, with many persons showing no symptoms at all." The virus typically has a 28-day gestation period in the body, but symptoms can begin as early as 15 days or as late as 50 days after exposure. Those symptoms include persistent headaches, fever and the onset of jaundice all over the body but particularly in the eyes and surrounding mucous membranes. The complaint says this "occurs because bile flows poorly through the liver and backs up into the blood." Members of the class action who contracted the disease likely also experienced other symptoms such as the darkening of their urine, which occurs when the fluid is saturated with bile. The disease can thoroughly wreak havoc on the kidneys if left untreated. Relapses can also be prolonged for up to six months after treatment, the complaint states. The plaintiffs brought claims of negligence and breach of warranty against Tropical Smoothie for the incident, claiming that the "defendants owed a duty to the plaintiffs to use supplies and raw materials that compiled with federal, state and local food laws, ordinances and regulations. . . [and] were from safe and reliable sources that were clean, wholesome and free from adulteration." The consumers also claimed that Tropical Smoothie grossly failed to "use reasonable care in the selection, supervision and monitoring of their employees, suppliers or other subcontractors." The complaint did not specific an amount of damages sought. The proposed class is represented by Salvatore J. Zambri -- szambri@reganfirm.com -- and Christopher J. Regan -- cregan@reganfirm.com -- of Regan Zambri & Long in Washington, D.C. UNIT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Issues in Panola ISD Case Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Unit 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 case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, there is no timetable for when the court will issue its ruling on class certification issues. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production. We have asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where, in addition to the defenses described, the Company argued that the amended class definition is still deficient under the court of civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending. UNITED SERVICES: Defense Attorneys Appeal Court Abuse Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that three defense attorneys followed the path of the plaintiffs' attorneys and filed notice that they will appeal Chief U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III's finding that they abused the court system in their manipulation of a controversial class-action case. The defense attorneys who are appealing are Lyn P. Pruitt, a member at Mitchell Williams Selig Gates & Woodyard of Little Rock; Wystan Ackerman, a partner at Robinson & Cole LLP of Hartford, Connecticut; and Stephen Edward Goldman, a managing partner at Robinson Cole. Earlier in August, Judge Holmes found they had abused the judicial process, but he did not sanction them because he said their misconduct did not didn't rise to the level of bad faith. The question on appeal is whether Judge Holmes made a mistake in concluding that the defense attorneys abused the judicial process. The defense attorneys are being represented by attorney David Matthews of Rogers. On Aug. 8, 12 plaintiffs' attorneys filed notice that they would appeal Judge Holmes' finding that they abused the court system in the class-action case. Judge Holmes reprimand five of the plaintiffs' attorneys, including John Goodson of Texarkana -- the husband of a state Supreme Court justice -- because he found that they acted in bad faith in their handling of the case. The other seven attorneys weren't reprimanded because their abuse didn't rise to the level of bad faith. The case at the root of the controversy was Mark and Katherine Adams v. United Services Automobile Association. The Adams case, which concerned the method used to calculate homeowners' insurance claims, was pending in Judge Holmes' court for 17 months until both sides jointly agreed to dismiss it in June 2015. (Under court rules, the judge did not have to approve the agreed dismissal.) The case was refiled the next day, with a settlement agreement attached, in Polk County Circuit Court, where the settlement was approved without any questions by Circuit Judge Jerry Ryan. Judge Holmes, who learned that the case was moved to Judge Ryan's court for settlement from an article in Arkansas Business in December, said the settlement that was negotiated "benefited everyone but the class members" and indicated that he would not have approved it had the case still been in his court. The attorneys have maintained they didn't do anything wrong in moving the case to state court. US IMMIGRATION: "Zhang" Class Certification Bid Stayed ------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ZHANG et al v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00995 (D.D.C.), Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 7, 2016, entered a minute order staying Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion and Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint pending the Court's consideration of the parties' Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. The Judge cited Curtin v. United Airlines, Inc., 275 F. 3d 88, 92 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (holding that the order in which motions for summary judgment and class certification are resolved is a "question of discretion for the trial court"); and also Nat'l Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. Dep't of Educ., 366 F. 3d 930, 945 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("A district court has discretion to deny a motion to amend on grounds of futility where the proposed pleading would not survive a motion to dismiss."). Plaintiffs are represented by: Ira J. Kurzban, Esq. John Patrick Pratt, Esq. Edward F. Ramos, Esq. Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, & Pratt, P.A. 2650 SW 27th Ave Miami, FL 33133 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Illegally Raises Drug Price, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund and the Detectives Endowment Association of the City Of New York v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Andrew Davenport, and Matthew Davenport, Case No. 1:16-cv-06779 (S.D.N.Y., August 29, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of raising the prices of drugs it had acquired from other drug companies. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. markets various prescription pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and medical devices throughout the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Lometti, Esq. Joel P. Laitman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Facsimile: (212) 838-7745 E-mail: clometti@cohenmilstein.com jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Steven J. Toll, Esq. Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW Suite 500 West Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com jreiser@cohenmilstein.com - and - A. Arnold Gershon, Esq. William J. Ban, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Eleven Times Square 640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 688-0782 E-mail: agershon@barrack.com wban@barrack.com - and - Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. Julie B. Palley, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com jbarrack@barrack.com jpalley@barrack.com VALLEY CREDIT: Lisiecki Seeks Certification of Class in Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Lisiecki moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled MICHELLE LISIECKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VALLEY CREDIT SERVICES, INC. and FINANCE SYSTEM OF GREEN BAY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01192 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the Motion 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, Ms. Lisiecki says, 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. Ms. Lisiecki 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. Lisiecki 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=4doR9tGf 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 VALVE CORP: Consumers Sue Over Alleged Gambling Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a group of more than 30 consumers is suing multiple companies, alleging violation of Washington state and federal gambling laws. The consumers filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug. 4 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Valve Corporation, CSGOLOTTO Inc., OPSKINS Group, Inc., James Varga, Phantomlord Inc., CSGO Shuffle, Trevor A. Martin, and Thomas Cassell, alleging they allowed their users to link accounts to online gambling websites. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered damages from having valve's steam users able to participate in online gambling. The plaintiffs allege the defendants allowed users under the age of 21 to participate in online gambling despite being aware of this illegal practice. The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, damages, restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained, injunctive relief against the defendant, all legal fees and interest, and all other relief the court deems just. Their legal representation includes attorneys Kim D. Stephens -- kstephens@tousley.com -- and Jason T. Dennett of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC in Seattle, Jasper D. Ward IV -- jasper@jonesward.com -- Alex C. Davis -- alex@jonesward.com -- and Patrick Walsh -- Patrick@jonesward.com -- of Jones Ward PLC in Louisville, Kentucky, and Paul C. Whalen of Law Offices of Paul C. Whalen PC in Manhasset, New York. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington Case number 2:16-cv-01227-JCC VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Legal Battle Outside U.S. Over Emissions ------------------------------------------------------------- William Boston and In-Soo Nam, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that governments, investors and car owners around the world are gaining ground in efforts to pressure Volkswagen AG for settlements over its emissions-cheating scandal, aiming for terms similar to a $15 billion U.S. agreement. From Australia to South Korea to Ireland, governments and consumers are ratcheting up legal and regulatory demands in part because such moves in the U.S. yielded a speedy shift to contrition from combativeness. In many of the countries where Volkswagen still faces legal action, it is arguing the so-called defeat device on its diesel engines wasn't illegal or the car emissions didn't violate local rules, according to court records and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. If the efforts succeed, the costs to resolve the diesel scandal could rise well beyond the EUR18.4 billion ($20.5 billion) the company has set aside. Of the roughly 11 million vehicles affected by Volkswagen's yearslong effort to cheat on diesel emissions standards, about 10.4 million are outside the U.S. While outcomes are still unclear, the company's position has been chipped away by recent decisions. In Germany, the cost could rise as much as EUR4 billion following a ruling earlier in August by a court in Braunschweig, near Volkswagen's headquarters. The court said it would address more than 170 suits filed by hundreds of Volkswagen investors who allege the company failed to quickly inform them of the diesel probe. Volkswagen has rejected the allegation. Another German court in August dismissed Volkswagen's objections in ruling that local owners of tainted diesel vehicles had a right to return their cars to dealers for a full refund because of Volkswagen's "massive fraud" with its diesel-powered cars. South Korea in August banned the sale of 80 Volkswagen models, affecting more than 80,000 vehicles, and around 4,400 Korean consumers are suing Volkswagen and its luxury-car unit Audi for damages from its false emissions claims. Korean authorities also fined Volkswagen and indicted a local executive on charges of fraud linked to the diesel scandal. The auto maker faces additional class-action lawsuits, investigations by prosecutors and punitive damages in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. Johannes Thammer, chief executive of Volkswagen's Korean unit, recently apologized for misleading Korean authorities, saying: "We will do everything, faithfully, to cooperate with the prosecutor." Attorneys outside the U.S. are striving to build on the success of American legal action against Volkswagen. In the June settlement, Volkswagen agreed to pay up to $10 billion to repurchase from consumers affected cars with two-liter diesel engines, including Jettas, Passats, Golfs and Audi A3s. It also agreed to devote another $4.7 billion to environmental remediation and investments in promoting zero-emission vehicles such as electric cars. European lawyers working with Michael Hausfeld, a leading U.S. class-action lawyer who was part of the plaintiff's committee that won the U.S. settlement, are assisting Australian and Irish attorneys. Australia has become a significant battleground because its vehicle-emission regulations are almost identical to European Union laws. If an Australian court determines that Volkswagen's emissions system contained an illegal element known as a defeat device, Australia could become a precedent for billions of euros in claims in Europe. In the U.S., Volkswagen admitted to using a defeat device. Australian Federal Judge Lindsay Foster, who is presiding over a class-action suit in Sydney brought by law firms Maurice Blackburn and Bannister Law, chastised Volkswagen's lawyers at a hearing on April 29, saying company executives in Germany "obviously think this is some kind of backwater," according to the court transcript. He accused Volkswagen of intentionally stalling to delay a ruling in the Australian case until it was able to "bed down" lawyers and regulators in a settlement in the U.S. "That's what's going on, I think, and I'm not having it," he said, according to the transcript. An attorney for Volkswagen denied Judge Foster's charge. Maurice Blackburn attorney Jason Geisker said the two sides are fighting over "the definition of what is a defeat device" and Volkswagen's legal team isn't yielding as it did in the U.S. "A lot of effort is being put into this case by Volkswagen because of the broader consequences across Europe," Mr. Geisker said. In July, Volkswagen's attorneys in Australia denied the existence of illegal software to manipulate emissions. "There is no defeat device. That's our case," Noel Huntley, an Australian barrister representing Volkswagen, told the court, according to an official transcript of the hearing. In Europe, Volkswagen has denied that its customers suffered any damages and has ignored or denied claims seeking compensation. European lawyers allege that Volkswagen is stalling. They note that the one-year statute of limitations for damages suits in many European countries expires on Sept. 18. "Before that, Volkswagen will do nothing so that as many claims as possible will just go away," said Eric Breiteneder, an attorney preparing class-action suits in the Netherlands on behalf of 106,000 European car owners and funds with more than EUR13 billion invested in Volkswagen stocks and bonds. Volkswagen has declined to enter settlement negotiations with Mr. Breiteneder. Evan O'Dwyer, an Irish attorney, has filed 20 individual claims against Volkswagen in low-level Irish courts, seeing damages that could go as high as EUR15,000 a vehicle. Under Irish law, Mr. O'Dwyer is not permitted to comment on the cases to the media. A&L Goodbody, a law firm representing Volkswagen in Ireland, has threatened to sue Mr. O'Dwyer and his clients for legal fees if he takes the cases to trial. In a letter dated Dec. 16, Goodbody urged Mr. O'Dwyer to drop a lawsuit on behalf of Eithne Higgins, a car owner, saying her complaint was without merit. WALLACE RUSH: Faces "Thomas" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ DE'MARCUS THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Plaintiff, v. WALLACE, RUSH, SCHMIDT, INC. Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-00572-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La., August 29, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. DE'MARCUS THOMAS was allegedly hired following the flooding that plagued central Louisiana in August of 2016 to perform disaster restoration work. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen M. Hair, Esq. VARADI, HAIR, & CHECKI 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA 70112 Phone: (504) 684-5200 Fax: (504) 613-6351 E-mail: hair@vhclaw.com - and - David Vicknair, Esq. Chris Meeks, Esq. SCOTT, SEVIN & VICKNAIR 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 1130 Metairie, LA 70002 Phone: (504) 264-1057 Fax: (504) 264-5557 E-mail: brad@ssv-law.com chrism@ssv-law.com WATTS WATER: $14MM Settlement Awaits Court Approval --------------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2016, that the $14 million settlement of the Connector Class Actions remains pending court approval. In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of water heater connectors. On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). Watts Water Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was temporarily withdrawn pending final approval of the settlement. After initial discovery was conducted the parties agreed to a mediation of all claims, which resulted in the below-referenced settlement. In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors (hereinafter "Klug"). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and sought to correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Watts Water Technologies, Inc. was dismissed as a defendant. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint on February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted. The Company participated in joint mediation sessions of the Ponzo and Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in both cases. The proposed total settlement amount is $14 million, of which the Company is expected to pay approximately $4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million. The parties executed final written settlement agreements in April 2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements were submitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal Court and are pending with that Court. The settlement is subject to preliminary court approval and final court approval after a fairness hearing. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the proposed settlements will be approved in their current form. If the settlements are not approved, the Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the allegations in these cases. WORK OUT WORLD: Judge Dismisses TCPA Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Jason C. Gavejian, Esq. -- GavejiaJ@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that earlier in August, United States District Court Judge Peter Sheridan dismissed a class action brought against Work Out World ("WOW") under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In doing so, Judge Sheridan relied on the recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. The named plaintiff, Norreen Susinno, filed a class action complaint on July 30, 2015, against WOW. The complaint alleged that WOW negligently, knowingly and/or willfully contacted the plaintiffs on their cellular telephones in violation of the TCPA and thereby invaded their privacy. Specifically, Ms. Susinno alleged that on July 28, 2015, WOW left a pre-recorded message on her cellular telephone's voicemail regarding membership. The complaint went on to allege that the plaintiff and class members incurred various types of harm, including incurring certain cellular telephone charges or reduced cellular telephone time for which they had previously paid, having to retrieve or administer messages left by WOW during the telephone calls, and invading the privacy of the plaintiff and class members. Ms. Susinno sought to certify a nationwide class of all persons who, in the preceding four years, had received telephone calls from WOW which were made with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and/or used an artificial or prerecorded voice. On June 10, 2016, WOW filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. WOW argued that Ms. Susinno had failed to allege any concrete harm and that, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, the complaint should be dismissed. In opposition to WOW's motion, Ms. Susinno alleged she suffered actual damages, including that WOW's calls (1) were a nuisance and invasion of privacy, (2) trespassed upon and interfered with her rights and interest in her cellular telephone, (3) intruded upon her seclusion, (4) caused her aggravation and annoyance, (5) wasted her time, (6) caused the loss of use of her phone during the time that her phone was occupied by incoming calls, and (7) depleted the battery life on her cellular telephone. WOW countered that the entirety of Ms. Susinno's claim under the TCPA rested on her receipt of a single, unanswered phone call and Ms. Susinno could offer nothing more than procedural harm in support of her claim. Interestingly, WOW also sent Ms. Susinno an offer of judgment, including injunctive relief and payment to her in full and final satisfaction of her claims. WOW's offer included the deposit of $1,501.00 on Ms. Sussino's credit card. Ms. Susinno did not accept WOW's offer. Nevertheless, as part of its motion to dismiss, WOW argued that dismissal was also warranted and consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, as Ms. Susinno no longer had a "live claim" following the offer of judgment. In doing so, WOW pointed to the fact the Supreme Court's Campbell-Ewald decision left open the question "whether [the determination that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case] would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court entered judgment for the plaintiff in that amount." Following a hearing on the motion to dismiss, Judge Sheridan granted WOW's motion and dismissed the matter with prejudice. Judge Sheridan's order did not address WOW's arguments for dismissal based on the offer of judgment. Although Ms. Susinno filed an appeal of the district court's decision, the decision may be very helpful to companies that are looking for various arguments to dispose of and otherwise defend against class claims, particularly where the alleged harm at issue is negligible, to the extent there is any harm at all. YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: Faces "Cunningham" Suit in S.D. of Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Yellowstone Capital LLC. The case is entitled Craig Cunningham, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yellowstone Capital LLC and Integrity Capital Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62029-WPD (S.D. Fla., Aug. 23, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas. Yellowstone is a Houston-based, private equity solutions and venture capital investment firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Raymer Weintraub, Esq. BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP 360 Central Avenue, Suite 1500 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 894 6745 Facsimile: (727) 894 2649 E-mail: mweintraub@baileyglasser.com * CFPB Says New Rule to Spur 1,200 More Class Actions A Year ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has put a price tag on the deterrent effect it says it will unleash by banning class-action waivers in consumer financial contracts: At least 1,200 additional class actions a year, costing more than $100 million a year in legal fees. The CFPB says that's a good thing, but thousands of banks, credit- card issuers and other businesses that will be affected by the proposed new rule disagree. In letters filed with CFPB Director Richard Cordray before the official comment period closed on Aug. 22, they use the agency's own data to argue against the idea that class actions are the best way to resolve consumer disputes. Buried in the CFPB's 300-plus-page report defending the rule is a difficult-to-read chart -- it appears sideways on computer screens -- adding up the expected costs to businesses from additional class actions in federal and state courts. The CFPB's researchers figure there will be at least 6,042 more class actions filed against many of the 53,000 businesses covered by the new rule over the first five years, a pattern that will continue forever. Consumers will reap $342 million a year in payments from those new federal class-action settlements, the CFPB reckons, although elsewhere in the report the agency acknowledges some discouraging statistics about what that really means to the average customer. The agency studied 251 class actions and found an average payout of $32, and that number was skewed upward by $1 billion in settlements in a overdraft cases that accounted for the bulk of the money in the study period. Elsewhere in the report, the CFPB says 87% of class actions resulted in no payment to consumers and even in those that did have favorable settlements, the weighted average claims rate was 4%. That fits with other studies showing the odds of anybody collecting money in a class action are less than 1 in 400, or less than the odds of a straight flush in a 7-card poker hand. Taxpayers will bear the increased costs of all those cases working their way through state and federal courts, the American Bankers Association and other financial-services associations say in their letter to Mr. Cordray filed on Aug. 22. The CFPB agrees that companies will likely pass through some of the cost of this permanent increase in legal expense to consumers, although it cites a study of credit-card issuers that agreed not to use arbitration for three years as part of a legal settlement and didn't raise prices to support the idea companies will eat most of the cost. The U.S. Chamber disagrees, saying in its letter to Mr. Cordray that the credit-card issuer study is flawed because it stopped before the U.S. Supreme Court authorized class-action waivers in its 2011 decision AT&T v. Concepcion. As for the CFPB's argument consumers need class actions to resolve small-dollar complaints, the Chamber studied of 10 days of complaints to the agency, selected at random, and found that 90% of them involved individualized issues that can't be addressed through a class action, like incorrect information on a credit report. The CFPB identifies one constituency that will win big under its proposal: Lawyers. Plaintiff fees in federal court alone are likely to increase by $60 million a year while defense lawyers will bill another $36 million or so. * Employers Face Ongoing Threat of Class Wage-and-Hour Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Hanson and Christopher Eckhart, writing for The Indiana Lawyer, report that employers face countless labor and employment challenges every day. Wage-and-hour compliance issues are near the top of that list because employers have experienced an increase in the number of class- and collective-action lawsuits filed against them, and that trend is likely to continue. Understanding the dynamics of class and collective actions and what drives them should be a chief concern of every company that wants to avoid high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation. In the wage-and-hour context, class actions typically assert violations of state laws, such as Indiana's Wage Deduction Statute. Ind. Code Sec. 22-2-6-2. Class and collective actions are similar in that they are both "representative actions" brought by a single plaintiff or group of plaintiffs on behalf of other individuals in the same case. There are differences, however. While class actions typically assert violations of state wage-and-hour laws, collective actions are principally brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., the federal law that obligates employers to pay their employees at least the minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Class actions also tend to be larger in scope because class members in a class action are by default included in the class unless they affirmatively opt out, while class members in collective actions must affirmatively opt in to be included in the class. Damages in wage-and-hour class and collective actions can be staggering, particularly in industries with high turnover. The FLSA, for example, permits employees to collect unpaid wages, liquidated damages and attorney fees. Similarly, Indiana's Wage Payment Statute also provides the potential for liquidated damages on top of the unpaid wages. One need not look very far to find a multimillion-dollar settlement in a wage-and-hour class action. Identifying key problem areas will enable employers to make changes that will reduce the risk of a class or collective action. Independent contractor misclassification. Putative class- and collective-action lawsuits attacking the independent contractor status of groups of workers continue to pepper the dockets of state and federal courts across the country and are the aim of administrative investigations on both the federal and state level. The IRS and the U.S. Department of Labor have signed information- sharing agreements, and those agreements have now included 31 states. Misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor is typically not independently actionable, but plaintiffs must prove their employment status for the wage-and-hour laws to apply, making this question a key gateway issue in a significant number of wage-and-hour cases. Companies that utilize independent contractors should audit their independent contractor agreements, policies and practices to confirm the individuals providing services to the companies are correctly classified as independent contractors. Overtime exemption misclassification. Salaried employees claiming their employer misclassified them as exempt from overtime continue to file putative class and collective actions. And with the increase of the minimum salary requirement to $913 per week (or $47,476 annually) under the FLSA's white collar exemptions, employers will likely continue to face this problem. Other exemptions, like the FLSA's Motor Carrier Act Exemption, have also led to significant litigation in the transportation industry. Employers should conduct an audit of their exempt employees to confirm the employees satisfy the requirements of the applicable exemption. Wage deductions. States impose strict requirements on payroll deductions. For a wage deduction to be valid under Indiana law, the agreement must, among other things, be in writing, signed by the employee, and by its terms revocable at any time upon written notice. Indiana law also identifies the limited types of deductions employers can make. Employers that do not adhere to the technical requirements of state law or that make deductions not authorized by state law risk class-action lawsuits seeking repayment of the amounts deducted. Employers can minimize that risk by confirming all of the deductions made to their employees' checks are permitted under state law and are memorialized in a compliant agreement. Expense reimbursements. Employee-paid business expenses can wreak havoc if not monitored. For example, requiring an employee to pay for business expenses could cause the employee's regular rate of pay to drop below the minimum wage under the FLSA. Similarly, several state laws place limitations on the extent to which an employer can make an employee pay for business-related expenses. Indiana, for example, caps the amount of money an employer can deduct for uniforms or equipment necessary for the job at $2,500 per year or 5 percent of the employee's weekly disposable earnings. Employers that require employees to pay for business- related expenses should closely monitor their practices to ensure they do not run afoul of minimum wage and wage deduction requirements. Vacation pay policies. Several states, like Indiana, treat accrued vacation pay as wages. Failing to pay employees their accrued but unused vacation pay upon termination would violate Indiana law and subject the employer to a claim for the unpaid wages, and potentially liquidated damages and attorney fees. Vacation pay policies that do not clearly state how and when an employee accrues vacation pay, and under what circumstances the vacation pay is forfeited (i.e., a use-it-or-lose-it policy), increase the risk of a class action asserting vacation pay claims. Employers should carefully review their vacation pay policies and practices to confirm employees will not be shorted accrued but unused vacation pay. Recordkeeping. Some states require employers to put specific information on wage statements and provide for penalties if the employer violates their statutes. Employers should check the laws in each state in which they operate to confirm the employer uses compliant wage statements. All employers hope they never face a wage-and-hour class or collective action. Those that do will be happy they planned ahead. James H. Hanson -- jhanson@scopelitis.com -- and Christopher J. Eckhart -- ceckhart@scopelitis.com -- who are partners in the labor and employment group of Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feary P.C., represent clients in class and collective actions nationwide. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Adopts Grant of "Hillyer" Summary Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the United States District Court for the District Delaware issued an order dated August 24, 2016, adopting Magistrate Judge Fallon's Report and Recommendation in the case captioned IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARK E. HILLYER and CAROL HILLYER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 15-cv-378 (GMS-SRF)(D. Del.), and granted the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants ABB, Inc., CBS Corporation, BW/IP, Inc., Eaton Corporation, Union Carbide Corporation, and Gould Electronics, Inc. Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in a July 28, 2016, report and recommendation, recommended granting the motions for summary judgment filed by the Defendants. Plaintiffs Mark and Carol Hillyer filed this asbestos action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on March 23, 2015, asserting claims regarding Mr. Hillyer's alleged harmful exposure to asbestos. Defendant Crane Co. removed the action to the District Court on May 11, 2015. CBS, BW/IP, Eaton, Union Carbide, and Gould filed motions for summary judgment on June 17, 2016. ABB filed its motion on June 21, 2016. Plaintiffs did not respond to these motions. On July 6, 2016, counsel for CBS, Eaton, and Union Carbide sent a letter to the court seeking dismissal for Plaintiffs' failure to oppose the summary judgment motions. A full-text copy of Judge Sleet's Decision is available at http://tinyurl.com/hrufd9sfrom Leagle.com. Mark E. Hillyer, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II, Law Office of A. Dale Bowers. Carol Hillyer, Plaintiff, represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II, Law Office of A. Dale Bowers. ABB Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Oleh V. Bilynsky, O'Brien Firm. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba. BW/IP Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel M. Doner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. CBS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Copes-Vulcan Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D. Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC. Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Grinnell LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A. Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. Mine Safety Appliances Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross Defendant, represented by David C. Malatesta, Jr., Kent & McBride, P.C.. Oakfabco Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by David C. Malatesta, Jr., Kent & McBride, P.C.. Spirax Sarco Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Antoinette D. Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC. Gould Electronics Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by David Phillip Primack, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Jansen" ------------------------------------------------ Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in an order dated August 29, 2016, granted the application for the dismissal of the case captioned SAMUEL EDWARD JANSEN, Plaintiff, v. FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03385-EMC (N.D. Calif.). The Plaintiffs initiated the personal injury asbestos action in state court against more than 50 different companies. Defendant Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). A total of nine defendants have made an appearance before this Court. The Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order granting dismissal of the entire action, without prejudice. According to Plaintiffs, before filing the pending application, they contacted "all active Defendants" and asked for a stipulation of dismissal. Only two of the "active" defendants declined, namely, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation and John Crane, Inc. The Plaintiffs therefore filed the pending application. The Court has received no opposition to the Plaintiffs' application from any defendant, including Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation and John Crane, Inc. Although some defendants were not notified of Plaintiffs' application or their intent to file the application, those defendants have not made an appearance in this litigation. The Court discerns no prejudice to defendants from dismissal. Taking into account the circumstances, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' application. The instant case is dismissed, and without prejudice. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's Decision is available at http://tinyurl.com/zlbgcdgfrom Leagle.com. Samuel Edward Jansen, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Blumenfeld- James, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Randall Keith Bernard, Hugo Parker, LLP, Shelley Kaye Tinkoff, Hugo Parker LLP & Charles S. Park, Hugo Parker, LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP, Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. McNally Industries, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. FMC Corporation on behalf of its Former Peerless Pump, Chicago Pump and Northern Pump Businesses, Defendant, represented by Frank D. Pond, Pond North LLP, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Kevin Douglas Jamison, Pond North LLP & Rochelle Reyes Ileto, Foley Mansfield, PLLP. John Crane Inc., Defendant, represented by Julia Antigone Gowin, Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young LLP & Robert E. Thackston, Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young LLP. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Randall Keith Bernard, Hugo Parker, LLP. The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Randall Keith Bernard, Hugo Parker, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pro Hac Vice Appearance in "McSwain" OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division, in an order dated August 31, 2016, granted Marlowe Rary, III's Application for Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice of Sabrina Stone in the case captioned MINERVA McSWAIN, Individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of BUREN EDWARD McSWAIN, deceased, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-130 (W.D.N.C.), it appearing that Sabrina Stone is a member in good standing with the Texas State Bar and will be appearing with Marlowe Rary, III, a member in good standing with the Bar of this court, that all admission fees have been paid, and that the e-mail address of the attorney seeking admission has been provided. A full-text copy of Magistrate Howell's Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/zgvyznxfrom Leagle.com. Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan M. Holder, Dean Omar Branham LLP, pro hac vice. Minerva McSwain, Plaintiff, represented by Mona Lisa Wallace, Wallace & Graham, PA, Sabrina Stone, Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, W. Marlowe Rary, II, Wallace and Graham P.A. & William M. Graham, Wallace & Graham. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C., Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Airgas USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C. & Joseph Lawrence Nelson, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, PC. Aurora Pump, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. BW/IP Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Bowman White, Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Carboline Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Richard A. Farrier, Jr., K&L Gates LLP, pro hac vice & Ronald Alfonso Charlot, K&L Gates LLP. Crane Co. -- Cochrane and Chapman Valve Co., Defendant, represented by Ronald Alfonso Charlot, K&L Gates LLP & Richard A. Farrier, Jr., K&L Gates LLP. Crane Co. -- Chempump, Defendant, represented by Ronald Alfonso Charlot, K&L Gates LLP & Richard A. Farrier, Jr., K&L Gates LLP. Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A.. Fisher Controls International, LLC., Defendant, represented by Daniel Bowman White, Gallivan White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A.. Flowserve Corporation -- Anchor/Darling Valve Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Flowserve Corporation -- Byron Jackson Pump Company, Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A.. Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. & W. David Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kelly B. Jones, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. Goulds Pumps, Inc.;, Defendant, represented by Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP & Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Grinnell LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Linde LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert O. Meriwether, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. SEPCO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Teresa E. Lazzaroni, Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP. J.R. Clarkson Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. The Sherwin-Williams Company, Defendant, represented by John T. Holden, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcoat P.C.. Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A.. United Conveyor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Crosby Valve, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Estate of Uni Employee Cannot Pursue Benefits -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ESTATE OF JAMES ROCK, v. UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, SC 19465 (Conn.), the Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded that the plaintiff does not have standing to pursue any type of workers' compensation benefits and the Compensation Review Board incorrectly determined that an estate constitutes a legal representative under the Workers' Compensation Act, General Statutes Section 31-294c, and, thus, the board's decision is reversed in part. James Rock was employed by the University of Connecticut as a research associate for more than 35 years. In July, 2009, the decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He died on June 27, 2010. At the time of his death, the decedent had neither presumptive dependents nor dependents in fact. The decedent never filed a notice of claim for workers' compensation benefits or otherwise requested such benefits for asbestos exposure. He did not seek payment of either temporary total, temporary partial, or permanent partial disability benefits. On October 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of claim for workers' compensation benefits on behalf of the decedent. The defendant contested the claim for benefits. The threshold jurisdictional issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Estate of James Rock, has standing under Section 31-275 et seq., to seek benefits for temporary total disability and permanent partial disability, as well as reimbursement for, inter alia, medical expenses, when the deceased employee, James Rock (decedent), did not file a claim for benefits. The plaintiff appealed from the decision of the Board, which affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the Workers' Compensation Commissioner, who dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of standing. The board upheld the commissioner's ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue disability benefits under General Statutes Sections 31-307 and 31-308 but remanded the case to allow the plaintiff to advance a claim for burial expenses, any actual lost wages the decedent sustained between his injury and his death, and medical expenses attributable to a compensable injury. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that (1) under the act, an estate of a deceased employee has standing to pursue workers' compensation benefits, (2) a claim for temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits survives the employee's death, and an estate is entitled to these benefits, even when the deceased employee did not file a claim, and (3) denying an estate the right to pursue these benefits violates both the federal and state constitutions. The Supreme Court disagreed and concluded that, because an estate is not a legal entity capable of advancing a claim for any form of workers' compensation benefits, the board's decision must be reversed in part. The Supreme Court pointed out that it is well established that an estate is not a legal representative. It is incapable of bringing a claim under Section 31-294c or any other section of the act. The decision of the Compensation Review Board is reversed insofar as the board determined that the plaintiff is a legal representative that could pursue workers' compensation benefits under the act, and the case is remanded with direction to dismiss the plaintiff's claims; the decision of the board is otherwise affirmed. A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's Opinion officially released September 6, 2016, is available at http://tinyurl.com/zy2gez6from Leagle.com. Amity L. Arscott, with whom were Stephen C. Embry and Nathan Julian Shafner, for the appellant (plaintiff). Lawrence G. Widem, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were George Jepsen, attorney general, and Philip M. Schulz, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (defendant). ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss PI Claims vs. Cytec Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, in the case captioned HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR. and LENA MOORE, Plaintiffs, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00157-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), granted a Joint Motion to Dismiss and dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Cytec Engineered Materials Inc. A full-text copy of Judge Reidinger's September 1, 2016, Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/gscmb2gfrom Leagle.com. Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice. Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A.. Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A.. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. Ericsson, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen B. Williamson, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA. Phelps Dodge Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent Alan Rosser, Esq. -- brosser@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams, Wendy Cohen McGraw, Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice & Emma Claire Merritt, Hunton & Williams LLP. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Dismisses "Burt" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, having considered the stipulation between plaintiffs Jack W. Burt, Jr. and Margaret Burt and all remaining Defendants in the case captioned JACK W. BURT, JR. and MARGARET BURT, Plaintiffs, v. AVCO CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-03355-MWF-PJWx (C.D. Calif.), approves the stipulation and orders that the entire action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(2). A full-text copy of Judge Fitzgerald's September 2, 2016, Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/gqq5t32from Leagle.com. Jack W. Burt, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Goldstein, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC. Jack W. Burt, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Levy, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Crystal Gayle Foley, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Deborah R. Rosenthal, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC & Paul C. Cook, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC. Margaret Burt, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Goldstein, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Christopher J. Levy, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Crystal Gayle Foley, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Deborah R. Rosenthal, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Brent J. Zadorozny, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC & Paul C. Cook, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward R. Hugo, Hugo Parker LLP, Elsa Sham, Hugo Parker LLP & Shaghig D. Agopian, Hugo Parker LLP. Wyeth Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by John R. Lawless, Jr., Esq. -- jlawless@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Waived Right to Enforce Notice --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N12C-07-108 EMD CCLD (Del. Sup.), the Superior Court of Delaware held that Travelers Indemnity Company waived its right to enforce notice and cooperation provisions and that Travelers' indemnity payments extinguished its duty to defend no earlier than July 6, 2015, the date it reimbursed CNH for past settlements. This is a Complex Commercial Litigation Division case. The Plaintiff, CNH Industrial America LLC, filed a declaratory relief and breach of contract case against several insurance companies, including Travelers. CNH's complaint alleges Travelers breached its duty to defend and indemnify CNH in asbestos-related lawsuits. The parties in this action have engaged in aggressive litigation, including a motion practice that can only be characterized as extreme. The parties filed numerous summary judgment motions related to Travelers' duties under the Insurance Policies, including the Case Insurance Policy. On October 7, 2014, CNH filed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Travelers Regarding the Duty to Defend. CNH asked the Court hold that Travelers has a duty to defend and indemnify CNH in the numerous asbestos bodily injury lawsuits. On July 6, 2015, prior to the Court's written decisions on the remaining issues (including a decision on the Motion), Travelers filed a letter with the Court. In it, Travelers outlined its pending $1.6 million payment to CNH for indemnity and defense costs. Travelers paid $600,000 to indemnity CNH for prior settlements. Travelers calculated its indemnity payments by taking six cases CNH tendered in 2008-09, and spreading the remaining policy limits amongst them. Further, Travelers paid $1.0 million for all substantiated, post-tender defense costs CNH allegedly incurred through May 18, 2009, the latest date Travelers used in calculating its indemnity payment. Travelers contends that the payment fully exhausted the policies' remaining limits, extinguishing its duty to defend. On August 21, 2015, the Court granted in part and deferred in part the Motion. On the issue of the waiver of the duty to defend, the court found that the facts demonstrate that Travelers never defended CNH in the asbestos cases. According to the court, Travelers' actions left CNH to resolve the lawsuits on its own -- fully reserving its rights while telling CNH to "please take the steps you deem necessary to protect your interests in these matters." As such, the court held, Travelers cannot now claim it was prejudiced by CNH's resolving the lawsuits without Travelers' assistance. The court pointed out that Wisconsin law is clear on an insurer's obligations when given notice of an underlying claim. Travelers should have intervened in the underlying lawsuits while maintaining its reservation of rights, or it should have moved to stay the underlying lawsuits so coverage could be determined, but Travelers did neither, the court pointed out. It cannot benefit from its continued delays, the court said. On the issue of reimbursement, the court held that Travelers' duty to defend terminates only after Travelers (not CNH) exhausts its applicable limits of liability. Travelers cannot unilaterally declare its duty to defend terminated retroactively due to a settlement paid for by CNH, the court said. Instead, Travelers' duty to defend would only terminate on the date Travelers made its payment to CNH -- i.e., reimbursed CNH for the payments CNH made to satisfy a claim, the court added. Accordingly, the court ruled that Travelers waived its right to enforce notice and cooperation provisions. Further, Travelers' indemnity payments extinguished its duty to defend no earlier than July 6, 2015, the date it reimbursed CNH for past settlements, the court said. A full-text copy of the Decision dated August 19, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/34jZAw from Leagle.com. Brian M. Rostocki, Esquire -- brostocki@reedsmith.com, and John C. Cordrey, Esquire -- jcordrey@reedsmith.com, Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and James M. Davis, Esquire -- jdavis@reedsmith.com, Thomas A. Marrinson, Esquire -- tmarrinson@reedsmith.com, Evan T. Knott, Esquire -- eknott@reedsmith.com, and Emily E. Garrison, Esquire -- egarrison@reedsmith.com, Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, Illinois. Attorneys for CNH Industrial America LLC. Neal J. Levitsky, Esquire -- nlevitsky@foxrothschild.com, and Seth A. Niederman, Esquire -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Richard L. McConnell, Esquire -- rmcconnell@wileyrein.com, and Dale E. Hausman, Esquire -- dhausman@wileyrein.com, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC. Attorneys for Travelers Indemnity Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wayne Mfg. Wins Bid to Dismiss "Fish" ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Robert C. Fish, et al., v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al, Civil Action No. GLR-16-496 (D. Md.), Judge George L. Russell, III, of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Wayne Manufacturing Corporation's unopposed Motion to Dismiss or, alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as to Wayne. The Plaintiffs commenced the lawsuit against Wayne, as well as many others, alleging injuries sustained as a result of Mr. Fish's purported exposure to asbestos-containing products at New York Shipbuilding and Drydock in the early nineteen sixties. The Plaintiffs also allege Mr. Fish was exposed to asbestos-containing products when working with and around cars and automotive parts in the nineteen sixties and seventies. Wayne filed its Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56. Judge Russell noted that the Plaintiffs listed Wayne in the caption of their Amended Complaint, but the body of their Amended Complaint is wholly devoid of any allegations against Wayne. Consequently, the Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible claim against Wayne because they do not plead factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that Wayne is liable for the misconduct alleged, Judge Russell concluded. A full-text copy of the Memorandum to Counsel dated August 15, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/5KnYa2 from Leagle.com. Robert C. Fish, Plaintiff, is represented by Jacqueline Gagne Badders, Esq. -- The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC, Jonathan Ruckdeschel, Esq. -- The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC & Z. Stephen Horvat, Esq. -- The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC. Helen Thomas-Fish, Plaintiff, is represented by Jacqueline Gagne Badders, The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC, Jonathan Ruckdeschel, The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC & Z. Stephen Horvat, The Ruckdeschel Law Firm LLC. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Esq. -- floker@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC. Aurora Pump, Defendant, is represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Pamela Thomas Broache, Esq. -- pbroache@goldbergsegalla.com -- Goldberg Segalla. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Patrick C. Smith, Esq. -- psmith@dehay.com -- Dehay and Elliston LLP. CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, is represented by Philip A. Kulinski, Esq. -- pakulinski@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Esq. -- cmmaisano@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Douglas B. Pfeiffer, Esq. -- dpfeiffer@milesstockbridge.com -- Miles and Stockbridge PC. Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, Esq. -- nmacdonald@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- MacDonald Law Group, LLC & Rachelle A. Schofield, Esq. -- rschofield@macdonaldlawgroup.com -- MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, is represented by Warren N. Weaver, Esq. -- wweaver@wtplaw.com -- Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Foster-Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by David J. Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC & James T. Zois, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC. Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, is represented by Niccolo N. Donzella, Baxter Baker Sidle Conn and Jones PA & Siobhan R. Keenan, Baxter Baker Sidle Conn and Jones PA. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Matthew Thomas Wagman, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP, David W. Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Joel D. Newport, Moore and Jackson LLC. International Paper Company, Defendant, is represented by Philip A. Kulinski, Evert Weathersby Houff & Clare Marie Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Jonathan James Huber, Miles & Stockbridge P.C.. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Timothy McDevitt Hurley, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, is represented by Jamie Michelle Hertz, Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The Pep Boys -- Manny, Moe & Jack, Defendant, is represented by Douglas B. Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Vincent J. Palmiotto, DeHay & Elliston, LLP &Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Sargent Aerospace, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Robert T. Shaffer, III, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. SB Decking, Inc., Defendant, is represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, is represented by Anthony B. Taddeo, TaddeoSturm PLC &Stephanie A. Fox, Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC. Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, is represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Western Auto Supply Company, Defendant, is represented by Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5 Cos. Win Partial Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------- In the case IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to MARK E. HILLYER and CAROL HILLYER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ABB, INC., et al. Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-378-GMS-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recommended that the court grant in part and deny in part the motions for summary judgment filed by Defendants Mine Safety Appliances Company, Copes-Vulcan Inc., Spirax Sarco Inc., Crane Co., and Air & Liquid Systems Corporation. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants are liable for Mr. Hillyer's injuries for inadequate warning or failure to warn under a strict product liability theory. With respect to MSA, Magistrate Fallon held that summary judgment should not be granted on the grounds of product identification and causation as a reaonsbale jury could find that Mr. Hillyer was exposed to asbestos when he opened the box containing a suit, retrieved the suit, donned the suit, and was confined within it for close to an hour each time, and a fact question exists as to whether that exposure was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma. A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 19, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/Ug7ch6 from Leagle.com. Mark E. Hillyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II, Esq. -- Law Office of A. Dale Bowers. Carol Hillyer, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II, Law Office of A. Dale Bowers. ABB Inc., Defendant, is represented by Oleh V. Bilynsky, Esq. -- ovb@obfirm.com -- O'Brien Firm. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba. BW/IP Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel M. Doner, Esq. -- jdoner@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq. -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Esq. -- smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC. Copes-Vulcan Inc., Defendant, is represented by Antoinette D. Hubbard, Esq. -- adh@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Esq. -- pab@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC. Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. - - nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Joseph S. Naylor, Esq. -- jnaylor@swartzcampbell.com -- wartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Grinnell LLC, Defendant, is represented by Kelly A. Costello, Esq. -- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eileen M. Ford, Esq. -- eford@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Esq. -- mmantzavinos@moodklaw.com -- Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. Mine Safety Appliances Company, Defendant, is represented by David C. Malatesta, Jr., Kent & McBride, P.C.. Oakfabco Inc., Defendant, is represented by David C. Malatesta, Jr., Kent & McBride, P.C.. Spirax Sarco Inc., Defendant, is represented by Antoinette D. Hubbard, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC. Gould Electronics Inc., Defendant, is represented by David Phillip Primack, McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3rd Circ. Flips Dismissal of Seamen Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Court for further proceedings the appeals cases captioned IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI) relating to Lionel C. Wilson, Deceased by Creighton E. Miller Administrator of the Estate, Appellant (No. 15-1387). Estate of Joseph F. Braun, Creighton E. Miller, Administrator, Appellant (No. 15-1388). Thomas Guiden, Deceased, by Creighton E. Miller, Administrator, Appellant (No. 15-1389), Nos. 15-1387, 15-1388 and 15-1389 (3rd Cir.). Nearly three decades ago three former seamen -- Lionel Wilson, Joseph Braun, and Thomas Guiden sued the Matson Navigation Company, Inc., and the American President Line, Ltd., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. They alleged violations of the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. Section 30104 et seq., and general maritime law resulting in harmful exposures to asbestos. After a complicated procedural history that eventually saw their lawsuits consolidated in the Asbestos Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that Court dismissed their cases for lack of personal jurisdiction. Wilson, Braun, and Guiden have appealed, arguing, among other things, that Matson and American waived their personal jurisdiction defenses. The Third Circuit held that by stating their willingness to litigate the lawsuits of Wilson, Braun, and Guiden in the Northern District of Ohio at the hearing before chief Judge Lambros in January 1991, Matson and American waived their lack-of-personal jurisdiction defense. Those waivers were confirmed by their various post-transfer filings, the Third Circuit said. That they purported to preserve their personal jurisdiction defenses in their pleadings does not change the import of these clear waivers, the Third Circuit added. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated August 18, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/2CON9E from Leagle.com. Alan Kellman, Esq. -- akellman@desmaraisllp.com, Timothy A. Swafford, Esq. -- tswafford@jaquesadmiralty.com -- The Jaques Admiralty Law Firm, 645 Griswold Street, 1370 Penobscot Building, Detroit, MI 48226, Louis M. Bograd (Argued), Motely Rice, 3333 K Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, DC 20007, Counsel for Appellants. Harold W. Henderson, Esq. -- Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com (Argued), Thompson Hine, 3900 Key Center, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114, Counsel for Appellees. ASBESTOS UPDATE: No New Trial in "Marquez," Cal. App. Says ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ANTHONY MARQUEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PAC OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant and Respondent, No. B263403 (Cal. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court's judgment disagreeing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff Anthony Marquez' motion for a new trial. The Plaintiff appeals from a judgment following a jury trial in favor of defendant and respondent PAC Operating Limited Partnership on Marquez's claim for personal injuries caused by exposure to asbestos. Marquez contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted PAC's motion in limine to exclude evidence that PAC (through its corporate predecessor) had an ownership interest or operational role in a site of claimed asbestos exposure within the City of Coalinga, where Marquez lived from 1959 until 1972. Marquez also argues the trial court erred when it denied his motion seeking new trial. The appellate court held that denial of the Plaintiff's motion for new trial a proper exercise of the trial court's inherent authority to control the proceedings and ensure a fair trial. The appellate court pointed out that trial courts possess an "inherent power to control litigation before them[, and to] exercise reasonable control over all proceedings connected with pending litigation." Without question, this power includes the "inherent power to exclude evidence to ensure a fair and orderly trial" by excluding evidence in order "to prevent the taking of an unfair advantage and to preserve the integrity of the judicial system," the appellate court held. A full-text copy of the Decision dated August 18, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/c8eInl from Leagle.com. Levin Simes, William A. Levin, Esq. -- wlevin@levinsimes.com, Laurel L. Simes, Esq. -- lsimes@levinsimes.com, Mahzad K. Hite, Esq. -- mhite@levinsimes.com; The Ehrlich Law Firm and Jeffrey I. Ehrlich, Esq. for Plaintiff and Appellant. Yukevich|Cavanaugh, James J. Yukevich, Esq. -- jyukevich@yukelaw.com, Elizabeth M. Olsen, Esq. -- eolsen@yukelaw.com and Paul C. White, Esq. -- pwhite@yukelaw.com for Defendant and Respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 NYCAL Suits Consolidated for Trial ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to RICHARD CLARK AND THELMA CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVOCET ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190111/2015,2016 NY Slip Op 31527(U)(N.Y. Sup.), Judge Cynthia S. Kern of the Supreme Court, New York County granted the motion to consolidate six asbestos cases for trial. This court has been assigned six asbestos actions for trial, comprising the Meirowitz and Wasserberg, LLP, October 2015 In Extremis trial group. The Plaintiffs have brought the present motion to consolidate these actions into two separate groups for joint trial, claiming that there are common questions of law and fact. They have requested that there be two groups of trials as follows: Group 1: Monseratte Acosta, Dario Battistoni and Adrian Smith Group 2: Richard Clark, Angelo Guerra and Louis Votta A full-text copy of the Decision dated August 9, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/3ANbJX from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7th Circ. Allows New Trial in "O'Malley" --------------------------------------------------------- In the appeals case styled UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. DUANE L. O'MALLEY, Defendant-Appellant, No. 14-2711 (7th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the ruling and directed the district court to allow Duane O'Malley to proceed under Federal Rule of Criminal Rule 33 because the district court improperly required him to bring pieces of his evidence in a separate action. According to the Seventh Circuit, the entirety of O'Malley's submission falls within the scope of Rule 33(b)(1) even if his theories overlap with 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, and that the district court should have respected his choice between these available means of relief. Duane "Butch" O'Malley is serving ten years in prison for violating the Clean Air Act by improperly removing and disposing of insulation containing regulated asbestos. O'Malley filed in the district court what he dubbed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(b)(1) for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. That rule authorizes a district court to grant a timely request for a new trial "if the interest of justice so requires." The district court concluded that O'Malley's submission contains constitutional theories that, the court reasoned, are incompatible with Rule 33 and cognizable only under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255. And the remainder of O'Malley's motion could not entitle him to relief under Rule 33, the court added, because the new evidence is not material. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated August 17, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/ZYEC5E from Leagle.com. Eugene L. Miller, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee. Michelle L. Jacobs, Esq. -- mjacobs@biskupicjacobs.com -- Biskupic & Jacobs for Defendant-Appellant. Vanessa K. Eisenmann, Esq. -- veisenmann@biskupicjacobs.com -- Biskupic & Jacobs for Defendant-Appellant. Katherine Virginia Boyle, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Denial of WR Grace Class Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied Anderson Memorial Hospital's motion to alter or amend Judge Fitzgerald's May 29, 2008 memorandum opinion and order which denied AMH's motion for class certification. In 2002, Judge Fitzgerald issued a bar date order fixing March 31, 2003, as the deadline to file all present asbestos property damage claims. Prior to the bar date, AMH filed an individual Asbestos PD proof of claim and two class proofs of claim, one for South Carolina building owners and one for claimants without geographic specification, whose buildings are allegedly contaminated with asbestos. In October 2005, AMH filed a Motion for Class Certification, which Judge Fitzgerald denied with prejudice in the May 2008 Decision. In the May 2008 decision, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that AMH's putative class did not meet the Rule 23(a) numerosity requirement and Rule 23(b) superiority requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. AMH seeks to include in its class anyone who has not filed an Asbestos PD Claim by the bar date, either because of neglect, lack of actual notice, or because their claim has not yet accrued. There are two issues before the Court: 1. Whether the Plan and the Case Management Order for Class 7A Asbestos PD Claims attached to the plan bar AMH from having its denial of class certification reconsidered 2. Whether AMH has made a satisfactory showing for reconsideration of the May 2008 Decision under the appropriate legal standard Judge Carey concluded that the CMO is part of W.R. Grace & Co., et al.'s Chapter 11 Plan, which was confirmed by Judge Fitzgerald in January 2011, and which affirmed by the district court in 2012 and by the Third Circuit in 2013. "AMH is bound by the PD CMO to adjudicate its individual claim before commencing its class claims, and is barred from including post-bar date claims in its class action. Further, AMH's arguments regarding the change in controlling law as well perceived factual and legal errors do not warrant reconsideration of Judge Fitzgerald's May 2008 decision because they are a combination of previously lost arguments and subsequent, but not sufficiently material, developments after the decision," said Judge Carey. The case is In re: W.R. GRACE & CO., et al., Reorganized Debtors, Case No. 01-01139(KJC)(Bankr. D. Del). A full-text copy of Judge Carey's August 25, 2016 opinion is available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/deb01-01139-32771.pdf ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear's Liability Totals $507MM at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's asbestos-related liability and gross payments, including legal costs, total approximately $507 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and Federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 121,400 claims by defending and obtaining the dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled approximately $507 million through June 30, 2016 and $497 million through December 31, 2015. "A summary of recent approximate asbestos claims activity follows. Because claims are often filed and disposed of by dismissal or settlement in large numbers, the amount and timing of settlements and the number of open claims during a particular period can fluctuate significantly. Six Months Ended Year Ended (Dollars in millions) June 30, 2016 December 31, 2015 ---------------- ----------------- Pending claims, beginning 67,400 73,800 of period New claims filed 1,100 1,900 Claims settled/dismissed (3,600) (8,300) Pending claims, end of 64,900 67,400 period Payments (1) $ 12 $ 19 "We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $168 million and $171 million at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The recorded liability represents our estimated liability over the next ten years, which represents the period over which the liability can be reasonably estimated. Due to the difficulties in making these estimates, analysis based on new data and/or a change in circumstances arising in the future could result in an increase in the recorded obligation in an amount that cannot be reasonably estimated, and that increase could be significant. "We maintain certain primary and excess insurance coverage under coverage-in-place agreements, and also have additional excess liability insurance with respect to asbestos liabilities. After consultation with our outside legal counsel and giving consideration to agreements with certain of our insurance carriers, the financial viability and legal obligations of our insurance carriers and other relevant factors, we determine an amount we expect is probable of recovery from such carriers. We record a receivable with respect to such policies when we determine that recovery is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of a particular recovery. "We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $127 million and $117 million at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The increase in the receivable balance at June 30, 2016 is primarily related to changes in assumptions for probable insurance recoveries for asbestos claims in future periods which positively impacted the receivable by $10 million. We expect that approximately 75% of asbestos claim related losses would be recoverable through insurance during the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these amounts, $12 million, was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts Receivable at June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary and excess insurance carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery from certain of our other excess insurance carriers. "We believe that, at December 31, 2015, we had approximately $410 million in excess level policy limits applicable to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under coverage-in-place agreements. We also had additional unsettled excess level policy limits potentially applicable to such costs. We also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining aggregate limits pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense costs for asbestos premises claims pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements. "With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure), alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by us." The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The Company's business is the development, manufacture, distribution and sale of tires and related products and services across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Continues to Receive Asbestos Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., continues to receive asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Hartford continues to receive asbestos and environmental claims that involve significant uncertainty regarding policy coverage issues. Regarding these claims, The Hartford continually reviews its overall reserve levels and reinsurance coverages, as well as the methodologies it uses to estimate its exposures. Because of the significant uncertainties that limit the ability of insurers and reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses and related expenses, particularly those related to asbestos, the ultimate liabilities may exceed the currently recorded reserves. Any such additional liability cannot be reasonably estimated now but could be material to The Hartford's consolidated operating results and liquidity. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a holding company for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide property and casualty and life insurance, as well as investment products to both individual and business customers in the United States. The Company conducts business in six segments, including Property & Casualty Commercial, Consumer Markets, Property & Casualty Other Operations, Group Benefits, Mutual Funds and Talcott Resolution, as well as a Corporate category. The Company includes in its Corporate category the Company's debt financing and related interest expense, as well as other capital raising activities, and purchase accounting adjustments related to goodwill and other expenses not allocated to the segments. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand Still Defends Suits at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand Public Limited Company continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "It is involved in various litigations, claims and administrative proceedings, including those related to environmental, asbestos, and product liability matters. In accordance with ASC 450, "Contingencies," the Company records accruals for loss contingencies when it is both probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Amounts recorded for identified contingent liabilities are estimates, which are reviewed periodically and adjusted to reflect additional information when it becomes available. Subject to the uncertainties inherent in estimating future costs for contingent liabilities, except as expressly set forth in this note, management believes that any liability which may result from these legal matters would not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations, liquidity or cash flows of the Company. "The Company is currently a defendant to a lawsuit originally filed by a customer in 2012 relating to a commercial HVAC contract entered into in 2001, prior to the acquisition of Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) by Ingersoll Rand. The lawsuit has been amended several times, most recently in April 2016. The plaintiff seeks economic damages of $71.6 million for remediation costs and contractual claims, as well as treble damages. The Company believes the claim is without merit and denies liability. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in September 2016 in the Texas state court. As of June 30, 2016, the Company has not accrued any material amount related to this matter." Based in Dublin, Ireland, Ingersoll-Rand plc provides products, services and solutions to enhance the quality and comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties, and increase industrial productivity and efficiency. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Had 6,480 Claims at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- There were 6,480 claims against Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016 The Company states, "As of June 30, 2016, the Company was a co- defendant in cases alleging asbestos-induced illness involving claims by approximately 6,480 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 794 claims from those previously reported. In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 51,692 of those claims were dismissed, 22 were tried to defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of which is being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 758 were decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment motions." Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc.'s primary business is the design and manufacture of arc welding and cutting products, manufacturing a broad line of arc welding equipment, consumable welding products and other welding and cutting products. The Company is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Continues to Defend Suits at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "Due to the nature of our business, we and our affiliates are, from time to time, involved in litigation or subject to disputes or claims related to our business activities, including, among other things: * performance or warranty-related matters under our customer and supplier contracts and other business arrangements; and * workers' compensation claims, Jones Act claims, occupational hazard claims, including asbestos-exposure claims, premises liability claims and other claims. "Based upon our prior experience, we do not expect that any of these other litigation proceedings, disputes and claims will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows; however, because of the inherent uncertainty of litigation and other dispute resolution proceedings and, in some cases, the availability and amount of potentially applicable insurance, we can provide no assurance that the resolution of any particular claim or proceeding to which we are a party will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows for the fiscal period in which that resolution occurs." McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company focused on designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Units Contribute Asbestos Insurance -------------------------------------------------------------- McDermott International, Inc., units contribute substantial insurance rights providing coverage for, among other things, asbestos and other personal injury claims, to the asbestos personal injury trust, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "Upon the February 22, 2006 effectiveness relating to the Chapter 11 proceedings involving several subsidiaries of our former subsidiary B&W, most of our subsidiaries contributed substantial insurance rights providing coverage for, among other things, asbestos and other personal injury claims, to the asbestos personal injury trust. With the contribution of these insurance rights to the asbestos personal injury trust, we may have underinsured or uninsured exposure for non-derivative asbestos claims or other personal injury or other claims that would have been insured under these coverages had the insurance rights not been contributed to the asbestos personal injury trust." McDermott International, Inc. is an engineering, procurement, construction and installation company focused on designing and executing offshore oil and gas projects across the world. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OI Inc. Continues to Defend Suits at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc., continues to defend itself against asbestos lawsuits involving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "It is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos. From 1948 to 1958, one of the Company's former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based insulation material containing asbestos. The Company sold its insulation business unit at the end of April 1958. The typical asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seeks compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims"). "As of June 30, 2016, the Company has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2015, approximately 82% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 11% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages above the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, $15 million or less, and 7% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but less than or equal to $100 million. "Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages. The Company's experience resolving hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as the type and severity of the plaintiff's asbestos disease, the plaintiff's medical history and exposure to other disease-causing agents, the product identification evidence against the Company and other co- defendants, the defenses available to the Company and other co- defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, and the plaintiff's firm representing the claimant. "In addition to the pending claims, the Company has claims- handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by the Company's former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958. "The Company has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon its past experience, the Company believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and they are not included in the description of pending matters or in the following description of disposed matters. "Since receiving its first asbestos claim, the Company as of June 30, 2016, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 396,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $9,200. The Company's asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. Asbestos- related cash payments for 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $138 million, $148 million, and $158 million, respectively. The Company's cash payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were approximately $95,000, $81,000 and $93,000 for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. "The Company's objective is to achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain medical and product exposure criteria in the Company's administrative claims handling agreements has generally reduced the number of claims that would otherwise have been received by the Company in the tort system. In addition, certain court orders and legislative acts have reduced or eliminated the number of claims that the Company otherwise would have received by the Company in the tort system. These developments generally have had the effect of increasing the Company's per-claim average indemnity payment over time. "Beginning with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, the Company has accrued a total of approximately $4.9 billion through 2015, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related liability. The Company's estimates of its liability have been significantly affected by, among other factors, the volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States, the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for bankruptcy, the inherent uncertainty of future disease incidence and claiming patterns against the Company, the significant expansion of the defendants that are now sued in this litigation, and the continuing changes in the extent to which these defendants participate in the resolution of cases in which the Company is also a defendant. "The Company continues to monitor trends that may affect its ultimate liability and analyze the developments and variables likely to affect the resolution of pending and future asbestos claims against the Company. The material components of the Company's accrued liability are determined by the Company in connection with its annual comprehensive legal review and consist of the following estimates, to the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos claims already asserted against the Company; (ii) the liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against the Company; and (iii) the legal defense costs estimated to be incurred in connection with the claims already asserted and those claims the Company believes will be asserted. "The Company conducts a comprehensive legal review of its asbestos-related liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review. As part of its annual comprehensive legal review, the Company provides historical claims filing data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of disease incidence and mortality on future filing trends to develop information to assist the Company in estimating the total number of future claims to be filed. The Company uses this estimate of total future claims, along with an estimation of disposition costs and related legal costs as inputs to develop its best estimate of probable liability. If the results of the annual comprehensive legal review indicate that the existing amount of the accrued liability is lower (higher) than its reasonably estimable asbestos-related costs, then the Company will record an appropriate charge (credit) to the Company's results of operations to increase (decrease) the accrued liability. "The significant assumptions underlying the material components of the Company's accrual are: (a) settlements will continue to be limited almost exclusively to claimants who were exposed to the Company's asbestos-containing insulation prior to its exit from that business in 1958; (b) claims will continue to be resolved primarily under the Company's administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those set forth in those agreements; (c) the incidence of serious asbestos-related disease cases and claiming patterns against the Company for such cases do not change materially; (d) the Company is substantially able to defend itself successfully at trial and on appeal; (e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies do not change significantly the assets available to participate in the resolution of cases in which the Company is a defendant; and co-defendants with substantial resources and assets continue to participate significantly in the resolution of future asbestos lawsuits and claims. "The Company revised its method for estimating its asbestos- related liabilities in connection with finalizing and reporting its restated results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 and concluded that an accrual in the amount of $817 million and $939 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively was required. These amounts have not been discounted for the time value of money. The application of the revised method also resulted in charges of $16 million, $46 million and $12 million for the years ending December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. "The Company believes it is reasonably possible that it will incur a loss for its asbestos-related liabilities in excess of the amount currently recognized, which is $817 million as of December 31, 2015. The Company estimates that reasonably possible losses could be as high as $950 million. This estimate of additional reasonably possible loss reflects a legal judgment about the number and cost of potential future claims and legal costs. The Company believes this estimate is consistent with the level of variability it has experienced when comparing actual results to recent near-term projections. However, it is also possible that the ultimate asbestos-related liability could be above this estimate. "The Company expects a significant majority of the total number of claims to be received in the next ten years. This timeframe appropriately reflects the mortality of current and expected claimants in light of the Company's sale of its insulation business unit in 1958. "The Company's asbestos-related liability is based on a projection of new claims that will eventually be filed against the Company and the estimated average disposition cost of these claims and related legal costs. Changes in the significant assumptions have the potential to impact these key factors, which are critical to the estimation of the Company's asbestos-related liability significantly." Owens-Illinois, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells glass containers to food and beverage manufacturers primarily in Europe, North America, Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. Owens-Illinois, Inc. was founded in 1903 and is headquartered in Perrysburg, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Developer Pleads Guilty to Asbestos Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Giambrone, writing for Washington City Paper, reported that a 59-year-old businessman who oversaw renovations to one of Capitol Hill's most storied properties has pleaded guilty to federal charges that he neglected to properly remove asbestos from the site, putting workers and the public at risk. D.C. resident James Powers faces up to five years in prison and financial penalties for his unscrupulous work on the former Friendship House, now the Maples Condos, at 619 D St. SE. Francis Scott Key bought the home after writing "The Star Spangled Banner," and it was later the base of a nonprofit association, dedicated to ending poverty, for more than 70 years. The U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. says that Powers violated the U.S. Clean Air Act in part by posing as an asbestos-abatement company roughly five years ago to his development partners. Powers also concealed the extent of asbestos on the site to a waste- disposal business, which then relocated the contaminated debris to a dump not certified to receive the material, prosecutors say. Exposure to asbestos can lead to lung cancer, mesothelioma, and other ills, which is why the Clean Air Act requires safe removal of it before demolition. But according to USAO, Powers instructed Atlanta-based general contractor Larry Miller to proceed with the project, despite the fact that investigators had turned up asbestos at the house. Miller pleaded guilty to "negligent endangerment" in November, also under federal statutes, and has not yet been sentenced. Before the Maples opened last year, a certified asbestos-abatement company swept the site and its work was approved. Three townhouses there sold for close to $2 million apiece, and more than a dozen new condos were listed from $489,900 to $719,900, according to the Washington Post. "This prosecution holds this businessman accountable for his recklessness and shows we will enforce laws that protect the health and safety of workers and the citizens in the District of Columbia," U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips said in a statement Wednesday. Powers' sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 16. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Keizer Co. Fined for Asbestos Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Loew, writing for Statesman Journal, reported that state environmental regulators have fined a Keizer property company $10,644 for asbestos-related violations. D.C.I. Properties LLC specializes in residential renovation and development. In October 2015, the company's owners removed about 225 square feet of sheet vinyl flooring from the kitchen of a home it owns at 3380 Hyacinth St. NE in Salem. The company did not use a licensed asbestos abatement contractor, despite a September 2015 inspection that showed the flooring contained 40 percent asbestos, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality said in its order. The company's owners then disposed of the flooring at the Salem- Keizer Recycling and Transfer Station, which is not authorized to dispose of asbestos-containing waste. By not complying with asbestos regulations, the company could have caused the release of asbestos fibers into the atmosphere, exposing workers and the public, DEQ said. Asbestos fibers are a respiratory hazard proven to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestos, DEQ said in a news release. Asbestos is also a hazardous air contaminant for which there is no known safe level of exposure. The fine was reduced from the original $15,464 proposed in February. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Asbestos Review Sought for Brake Parts ----------------------------------------------------------- Pat Rizzuto, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that the health risks that imported asbestos-containing brake components pose should prompt the Environmental Protection Agency to make asbestos one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates under an updated toxic substances law, a vehicle parts organization says. "The continued importation of asbestos-containing brakes and brake component material presents an unreasonable risk to the health of American workers," the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association told the EPA in a Sept. 6 letter. The importation of these products also poses a risk to do-it-yourselfers who replace their own brakes, it said. Members of the association phased out manufacturing and importing brake pads and related equipment containing asbestos years ago, Ann Wilson, senior vice president of government affairs for the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 7. The association wants to encourage the use of safer alternatives throughout the market and level the playing field, Wilson said. Asbestos-containing parts, which are cheaper than ones made without asbestos, still are being used by service stations, independent auto repair shops and other operations that provide after-market service, she said. Brake pads and linings use composite materials, making it difficult to determine exactly what they contain, the association's letter said. Products are not required to be labeled as containing asbestos, it said. Reducing Risks of Asbestos The passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114-182), which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act as of June 22, provides a way for the EPA to identify the risks of asbestos-containing materials and protect people from asbestos exposure, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association's letter said. The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA by December to identify 10 high-priority chemicals for which it has undertaken risk evaluations. The EPA should include asbestos as one of those 10 and evaluate the risks that brake friction materials pose, Wilson said. As of January 2015, the phaseout of asbestos and other constituents in motor vehicle brake pads was completed due to California and Washington state laws, the letter said. State Laws Drove Industry The state laws drove what became a de facto industry standard, the EPA said in a January 2015 memorandum of understanding designed to make the industrywide practice apply nationwide. The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association was among eight industry groups that signed the memorandum, which was intended to protect watersheds and waterways from copper in particular, as well as from asbestos, cadmium, lead and mercury. As industry groups worked with states to phase out the use of these hazardous compounds, it became apparent that asbestos- containing brakes and brake components were still entering the U.S., Wilson said. In its letter to EPA, the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association backed up its concerns about imports with information it said the International Trade Administration provided Congress in 2015. "Roughly $2.2 million in asbestos-containing brake friction materials and pads were imported into the United States in 2013 (most recent full year available)," the association said, providing Bloomberg BNA an e-mail exchange it had with the agency confirming the trade agency provided the information to Congress. An agency press officer did not reply to Bloomberg BNA's Sept. 7 request for independent verification. Wilson said the imported volume of asbestos-containing brake friction materials is small, but adds up because there are so many vehicles that need brake pad to be replaced. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in 2nd Batch of Bldg Materials -------------------------------------------------------------- Allyson Horn and Stephanie Smail, writing for ABC News, reported that more building materials destined for the Queensland Government's new Executive Building in Brisbane have tested positive for asbestos. Manufacturing company Yuanda Australia imported the materials to be used in the construction of 1 William Street, in Brisbane's CBD. In July, asbestos was found at the site and another shipment of materials has now tested positive for the deadly fibre. In a statement, Yuanda said that shipment was another load of the original contaminated gaskets, which had been en-route from China for months. "This material was already at sea when the issue came to light, and this result was expected due to the fact that the material formed part of the same product order that had already tested positive," the statement said. "For this reason, when the material arrived, it had been sent to a secure quarantine facility to await testing and processing by accredited contractors. The company denies it is deliberately trying to import the asbestos-ridden products. "No attempt was ever made to bring the material through Australia's customs regime for use on the building site," it said. Yuanda said it ordered the materials be returned to China, but instead they were taken off the boat, reportedly to quarantine. The Asbestos Industry Association (AIA) said the company did the wrong thing in the first instance but has rectified the situation by flagging the next shipment with Border Force. But the AIA has questioned whether Border Force would have picked up the contaminated shipment if the company had not raised the alarm. The AIA said the company was not hiding from the issue and had engaged a contractor to test about 40 of its building sites around Australia for asbestos. "[The container] remains in the secure custody of the independent asbestos experts engaged by Yuanda, awaiting instructions from authorities on how it should be disposed of," Yuanda's statement said. In a statement, the Australian Border Force said investigations into Yuanda Australia were continuing and it would be inappropriate to comment further. However, the ABF said it was engaging with Yuanda, its suppliers and customers to ensure all products entering Australia complied with the strict ban on asbestos. The ABF said it makes decisions on whether or not to prosecute based on the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the offence, and whether there are reasonable prospects of a successful conviction. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) spokesman Andrew Ramsey said it wanted testing done at other sites that had used the company's products. "We'd like to see the Queensland Government a bit more vigilant to what's going on with Yuanda -- independent testing surely would go a long way," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Cases for Asbestos Scare Firm Yuanda --------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that the Chinese company at the centre of an asbestos scandal at construction sites in Brisbane and Perth has been caught trying to import another shipment of building products containing the potentially lethal material. The illegal asbestos was detected in one of Yuanda's containers seized by the Australian Border Force after the revelation in July that asbestos-tainted products were supplied to Brisbane's 1 William Street skyscraper and the $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital. The Australian understands the latest contaminated products were detected in a consignment at the Port of Brisbane and were also destined for 1 William Street, the new home for Queensland government ministers and public servants. The results of the tests on the Yuanda shipment were confirmed. Since mid-July, ABF has ordered independent testing on a further 37 of Yuanda's shipping containers and two airfreight shipments. Those tests were all negative. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has come under pressure from unions and business groups to ramp up efforts to stop asbestos at the border, following a string of incidents that have sparked health fears for hundreds of workers. In August, asbestos was discovered in equipment imported from China for the redevelopment of Nyrstar's lead and zinc smelter at Port Pirie in South Australia. In June, SA company Australian Portable Camps found that 8000 sheets of cement board it imported from China in 2010 and 2011 contained white asbestos. ABF commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg said testing of Yuanda's consignments was continuing and it was too early to comment on whether the company would be prosecuted. "The ABF makes decisions on whether or not to prosecute based on the prosecution policy of the commonwealth, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the offence, and whether there are reasonable prospects of a successful conviction," he said. Mr Quaedvlieg said the ABF was working with Yuanda, its suppliers and customers to ensure all products entering Australia complied with the ban on asbestos. Yuanda Australia commercial manager Mark Bottomley said in a statement that part of the contents of one of the company's shipping containers had returned a positive result. "This container was already on the water when the incident at 1 William Street was identified," he said. Mr Bottomley said independent testing was being conducted at 28 of the 68 sites at which Yuanda had supplied building products around the country in recent years. No asbestos had so far been detected. "Some sites have been fully tested, some partially, and in some locations tests are yet to begin," he said. "But where results have become available, they are 100 per cent clean." Mr Bottomley said the testing was funded by Yuanda but conducted by independent experts OccSafe Australia. The testing was still being conducted due to delays in obtaining records needed to ascertain which products were provided by Yuanda. Testers also had to work with building managers to agree on appropriate locations for drilling test samples that would cause the least damage to the building and disruption to building users. Yuanda has previously blamed a "fraudulent" certification process in China for the discovery of asbestos in its products in Brisbane and Perth. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bag With Asbestos Left in Hobsonville Road ----------------------------------------------------------- North Harbour News reported that a driver has noticed a black- wrapped plastic package lying in Hobsonville, Auckland, which is thought to contain asbestos. The source says he noticed the package, which is sectioned off by cones, when he came to work at about 6.30am. He phoned Auckland Council, who said they would send someone out to deal with it. He also contacted police to alert them, but was told it was a council issue. He says he expected the issue to be resolved, however found that the package had not been moved. When he rang council again, he was told they sent someone out but found they did not have the resources to deal with the problem, so the job had been marked as "complete". Another job needed to be logged to deal with it. The package was found near the corner of Wallingford and Clark Roads. The source says the product is irrelevant. "Regardless of what it is, it should be moved out of the way," he says. "It's not up to me or someone else to harass them to remove it. "Everyone tells us that asbestos is a hazardous product... and yet you tell someone, 'I've found a whole bunch of it sitting in the middle of the road', and no one takes it seriously." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removal Starts at Barwick Mills --------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that cleanup will begin at the former Barwick Mills site in North Georgia after a fire that happened last fall leaving behind exposed asbestos and rubble. The property owner, Drennon Crutchfield, settled with the Environmental Protection Agency in August. The agreement says Crutchfield will foot the $850,000 bill for the several-month project. This includes demolishing the burned part of the building and stabilizing the standing portion. Crutchfield had no comments. "I'm possibly optimistic it could be demolished and completed by Christmas," said EPA Site Coordinator David Andrews. "I've seen stuff like this happen pretty quickly. . . asbestos jobs, rubble, and demolition. If it goes into the New Year, it probably won't go past January, based on my experience." "This has been a long time coming. The city is excited to see it move forward, begin to see equipment on site, and start the process of cleaning up," said LaFayette City Manager David Hamilton. The hope is for the cleanup to take much less time than the months-long negotiation. According to Andrews, "This building was so old. . . it was about 100 years old. . . and there was apparently no abatement that had ever taken place. It's in the ceiling tiles and wraps around the plumbing. That was classic use of asbestos products, and that sort of went up with the fire." The initial fire set off with huge gas explosions, creating a fear of asbestos exposure. There was heavy, black, swirling smoke that could be seen from 25 miles away. As a result, residents within a half-mile of the area were advised to remain indoors and keep their heating and air units off. Those with respiratory problems, the elderly, and students in nearby schools were specifically warned. It took fire crews a few days to completely extinguish the flames. About 110,000 gallons of the asbestos-contaminated water used was relocated to a facility in Chickamuaga, but 50,000 gallons of water and plenty of rubble still remain at the site. The fire destroyed the former carpet mill's southern area of the building, which was occupied by Chattanooga-based company Ashgan Products. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was responsible for conducting the asbestos testing. "Emergency air monitoring conducted near the site in the hours and days after the fire did not show any asbestos particulates traveling off site," said Andrews. The LaFayette planning commission is currently in discussions about what to do with the Barwick Mills site post-cleanup. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sentencing of Bolton Nightclub Moved to Oct. ------------------------------------------------------------- The Bolton News reported that the sentencing of Bolton nightclub bosses for asbestos-related health and safety breaches has been adjourned until October. Previously called J2, three-storey Level in Mawdsley Street reopened under its new name following a major GBP700,000 refurbishment last summer. The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted the company which previously ran the venue, UK Night Life Ltd, as a corporate entity and its then-director Charles McGrath as an individual. Both each admitted three counts brought under the Health and Safety at Work Act earlier at Bury Magistrates' Court. The parties admitted failing to ensure as an employer that non- employees were not exposed to health and safety risks between August 1 and August 12 last year and to failing to prevent or otherwise reduce as much as reasonably practical the spread of asbestos between those same dates. The third count stated McGrath, of Failsworth, Manchester, and UK Night Life Ltd failed to carry out a "suitable and sufficient assessment" of the asbestos risks. The case was adjourned at Bury Magistrates' Court for sentencing by a district judge at Salford Magistrates' Court on October 3. McGrath previously reassured customers there was no threat as the charges relate only to the period during the refit when it was closed to the public. He said: "Customers should understand that the nightclub is entirely safe and open for business as normal." UK Night Life Ltd was dissolved in May and club co-owner Sam Zegrour is the sole director of successor Bolton Party Ltd. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Appeals After Ex-Joiner Dies of Cancer -------------------------------------------------------------- St. Albans & Harpenden reported that a grieving family of a joiner who died from an asbestos-related cancer is appealing to his former colleagues for help to trace the cause of his death. Allen Lavell, from Redbourn, died aged 78 in March 2015 after a painful battle with mesothelioma -- an incurable cancer caused by exposure to the deadly fibres. Before his death the dad-of-two said he thought he may have become ill due to prolonged exposure to asbestos when working as a joiner across London -- mainly in Willesden and Camden Town. Mr Allen not only worked as a carpenter and joiner for a number of firms, but was self-employed for certain periods. Due to the known latency period between asbestos exposure and eventual diagnosis of mesothelioma, his family's lawyers believe he may have come into contact with asbestos while working in north west London. He worked at T H W Hearle in Camden Town between 1952 and 1957, Hickmans in Brent between 1959 and 1962 and Heaton Tabbs & Co in Willesden between 1962 and 1964. Heaton Tabbs was a nationwide furnishing and decorating company that had an office in Willesden. Notably the company created interiors for British shipping company White Star Line. Describing the nature of his father's work, Mr Lavell's son, John, said: "We never knew too much about dad's work other than he was a carpenter and joiner, but once we found out he had mesothelioma, he told us about how he may have been exposed to asbestos. "He recalled manufacturing doors in the mid-1950s which he was required to fill with asbestos to fire-proof them. "Aside from this, he couldn't recall anything further, but we hope there are people out there that worked with dad who can help us to piece together how and where he might have come into contact with asbestos. "In reality, he could have come into contact with it across his whole working life, as regulations surrounding its use were far more relaxed than they are now." Keen to jog people's memories about his father, John Lavell added: "Dad was a very kind and caring man, which came across in his face and the way he acted towards people. "After he'd retired he led a very quiet life and would keep himself to himself. I know that before I was born he was a keen fisherman, and would often go fishing in Rickmansworth lakes." John added: "We were in total shock when we heard about dad's illness. To hear that he could have contracted it from being exposed to asbestos over 50 years ago left us flabbergasted, it was the last thing we were expecting." Former colleagues who knew Allen Lavell can get in touch with the law firm Hugh James by calling Hayley Hawkins on 0808 231 6604. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Library Closes After Asbestos Find --------------------------------------------------- Wakefield Express reported that a library has temporarily closed after asbestos was discovered in its ceiling. Wakefield Council planned to shut Ossett Library on September 10 for nine weeks whilst refurbishment work took place. But it brought forward the closure after the asbestos was found during preparatory work. And it said the building had been shut "as a precautionary measure" and air quality testing has shown there is no health risk to people. But a full survey is now being carried out to identify the extent of the issue and how the asbestos could affect the planned revamp. Coun Les Shaw, cabinet member for culture, leisure and sport, said: "We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause and we are providing a mobile library service in the car park, in the short term, while the survey is carried out." Once upgraded, the library will have new flooring, decor, furniture and shelving as well as a seating area and improved local studies section with film readers. Coun Shaw said: "These improvements at Ossett Library will make it a more modern and even more enjoyable space for visitors." A mobile library service will be available in the car park from Monday to Wednesday, from 9am until 4pm and on Fridays from 9am until 3pm. During the closure, the nearest computer facilities will be available at Horbury Library. Books can also be renewed at any other local library, or on the Council website. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Firm Could Be Fined for Offenses --------------------------------------------------------- Lincolnshire Echo reported that a Lincolnshire construction company could face fines of up to GBP1m for health and safety breaches involving asbestos if convicted at court. Gelder Ltd appeared at Lincoln Magistrates' Court accused of two health and safety breaches. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter of Asbestos Victim Appeals for Info ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Smith, writing for Halesowen News, reported that the heartbroken daughter of a former usherette from Cradley Heath is appealing to her mum's ex-colleagues after she died from asbestos- related cancer. Lynne's Halls' mother Margaret Rose Edgington was 71 when she first became ill in 2012 and was diagnosed with mesothelioma the following year. She died on September 8, 2014. Margaret worked as an usherette in Quinton's Classic Cinema between 1975 and 1976 and Birmingham Hippodrome from 1976 until 1986. Mrs Halls said: "Nothing will ever bring back my mum, but I really want to know how she could have come into contact with asbestos as the dangers were known back then and it is only right that her past employers are held to account for their negligent actions. "I'd be so grateful to anyone who worked with my mum or at Classic Cinema or Birmingham Hippodrome around that time to get in touch to help shed some light on how she would have been exposed to the substance." During her time at the Hippodrome, Margaret became friends with a colleague, Anne, and the two were pictured with Des O'Connor, who was appearing at the theatre at the time. Mrs Halls added: "I'd particularly like to hear from Anne and it would mean a lot to my family and I if she could get in touch. "Mum worked hard her whole life. "We're devastated to have lost her this way. If someone could just give us the answers we're looking for we'd feel like we could better come to terms with our loss." Alida Coates, Esq. -- alida.coates@irwinmitchell.com -- a specialist industrial disease lawyer at Irwin Mitchell said: "Margaret's family have been left devastated at the loss of their mother. "It was a complete shock to be told that her Margaret had a fatal asbestos illness." She added: "We are keen to speak to anyone who worked at or undertook refurbishment at Classic Cinema, Quinton or the Hippodrome during the period when Margaret was employed. "Any information from people engaged in refurbishment or fellow colleagues or friends who worked alongside her could prove vital in securing the information we need to secure justice for Margaret and her family." Anyone with information should contact Alida Coates at Irwin Mitchell on 0121 214 5230 or email alida.coates@irwinmitchell.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Back Closure of School Due to Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Geater, writing for Ipswich Star, reported that parents have praised a head teacher after she took the decision to delay the start of the new school term due to safety concerns. Builders working on the building at Broke Hall Primary School, Ipswich dislodged some asbestos. That has to be cleared up by specialist contractors -- and headteacher Jenny Barr wrote to parents to warn that the school could not open until September 12. Posting on our Facebook page, Lindsey Lambert said: "I'm glad they are taking precautions so our children are safe. It's just frustrating it's so close to the start of term when they have been doing building work since the beginning of July. "It's a pain for us parents but we have all rallied around and will all look after each other's children. Their health is the priority. Mrs Barr is a fantastic head and wouldn't have made this decision unless it was totally necessary." Meanwhile, Sylvia Ward added: "I wonder what would have happened if a parent decided to have an extra week's holiday with their child? They would have been fined." But Denise Hammond responded by saying: "It's not holiday. It's their health that's more important." Other parents expressed their dismay that after a big build up their child's first day at school was being delayedwhile Stefanie Racheal said: "It's for the health and safety of the children. People need to grow up. Would you rather children get ill in say 30 years time of a nasty possibly fatal condition? "So what if they only found it now? I would rather they found it now than expose our children!" Paulina Farouk said she was very concerned: "I shall have to tell my manager what has happened. I haven't been able to find anyone else to look after my daughter at such short notice." Tina Sallows-Dixon added: "Obviously the school wouldn't have closed if it wasn't necessary. It's a major health issue for both teachers and pupils. "On the positive you can get an all-inclusive holiday very cheaply this week! Not so good for those who have child care issues, though." And those with children at neighbouring schools were sad they missed the opportunity to extend the summer break. Kelly Ambrose said: "I wish my kids went here. I'd be more then happy with an extra week, these holidays have gone far too quickly." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cook Islands Need Help with Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------- RadioNZ.com reported that a suspected arson at a Cook Islands High School has brought the proliferation of asbestos in the country to light. The fire at Tereora College, on Rarotonga, was made more dangerous by levels of asbestos in the walls, and extensive air tests were carried out before the school was deemed safe again. If inhaled, asbestos can lead to an aggressive cancer, and with many buildings in the Cook Islands containing the material, the recent fire has escalated fears. A New Zealand air quality tester Stuart Keer-Keer helped with the clean-up, and he said the prevalence of asbestos poses a real challenge. "Lots and lots of residential, and quite a few government buildings [have asbestos], although they're slowly removing it," he said. "The biggest challenge for them is what to do with it when they've removed it, because the island's pretty small and the normal thing is to bury it but they're running out of places to bury it." Stuart Keer-Keer said asbestos should be banned, and suggested New Zealand could help with its disposal. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bondex Bankruptcy Trust Now Accpeting Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Lucarelli, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a new bankruptcy trust started accepting claims this July (2016). Its name is the Bondex Trust. Bondex made a number of asbestos- containing products for home renovation and repair, including joint compound and joint cement. What distinguishes Bondex joint compound and joint cement from other companies' products is that the Bondex products were made expressly for the "do-it-yourself" home market. The sanding of joint cement and joint compound on wall board to create a smooth surface creates very dusty conditions, leading to exposures to asbestos and potentially to mesothelioma. In addition to joint compound and joint cement, Bondex made asbestos-containing products such as texture paint, water putty, wood putty, Handy Patch, topping cement, block filler and primer, roof coating, and roof cement. The products were sold under a variety of names, including Bondex, Reardon, Trax, Dramex, Wards (through Montgomery Ward), and Penncraft (through J.C. Penney). If you or a loved one used one of these products and has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, we can help you file a claim with this trust. Please let us know. ASBESTOS UPDATE: George Moody Stuart School to Relocate ------------------------------------------------------- WinnFM.com reported that the Ministry of Education and the Board of Trustees of the George Moody Stuart School announced that the school will not be ready to receive students at the official start of the 2016 Academic Year, which is set for Monday, September 5, 2016. This difficult decision was taken in light of the result of a preliminary inspection of the school, which is currently located in the Factory Social Centre of the St. Kitts Sugar Manufacturing Corporation (SSMC) at Kittstodarts, Basseterre. The school's preliminary inspection, which was jointly conducted by the Bureau of Standards/Multi-Purpose Laboratory and the Environmental Health Department within the Ministry of Health, The east wing of the building is constructed of concrete and asbestos roof sheeting. It was observed that sections of the asbestos roofing material was severely damaged. As there is a risk of asbestos fibres being released from the damaged sheeting, the building and surrounding area should not be occupied for learning activities. In light of these unexpected developments, the re-opening of the George Moody Stuart School will be on Monday, September 12, 2016, at a temporary location to be announced in a subsequent release. It is expected that this temporary occupancy will be necessary, in the first instance, for a minimum of 90 days, or until the end of the first school term in December. By that time, the school's management will be in a better position to determine a more long- term arrangement for the school's relocation. The Board of Trustees, faculty and staff of the George Moody Stuart School sincerely apologise to parents and guardians for the considerable inconvenience created by this unfortunate development -- which is also now a public health concern. However, parents and guardians should be assured that this matter was only confirmed by the Bureau of Standards at approximately 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 2, 2016, just three days after an official request was made for the Bureau to inspect the premises. The official confirmation from Director of the Bureau of Standards, Mr Hiram Williams, was sent via email to the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees, Mrs Jennifer Dillon-Sirjue. It is naturally anticipated that parents and guardians will have concerns and questions which they would want addressed by the school's management and staff. As such, parents and guardians are encouraged to contact either of the following two individuals: 1. School Principal -- Mrs Elizabeth Condell at 667-1134 or 465-2005 2. Chairperson of the School Board -- Mrs Jennifer Dillon- Sirjue at 760-3571 The Ministries of Education and Health, and the Board of the George Moody Stuart School are anticipating the submission of a formal report from the Bureau of Standards, whose Director has indicated, will be submitted on Monday, September 5, 2016. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Monitoring Improves Mesothelioma Diagnosis ----------------------------------------------------------- Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that a Polish program designed to identify mesothelioma earlier in former asbestos plant workers could have implications for malignant mesothelioma patients around the world. Mesothelioma is the most deadly of a range of diseases associated with exposure to asbestos. Other illnesses linked to asbestos exposure include lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural plaques. A new report published by Poland's Nofer Institute of Occupational Health, says a 16-year-old mesothelioma monitoring program has led to better understanding of malignant mesothelioma, improved the ability to diagnose it, and identified more cases that might have otherwise gone undetected. Mesothelioma in Asbestos Workers Although asbestos was banned in Poland in 1997, because the disease has such a long latency period, many people are still being diagnosed with mesothelioma. Under the Amiantus program which started in 2000, people who worked around deadly asbestos dust in any of 28 Polish asbestos plants are entitled to free comprehensive medical examinations and medications to treat asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma. Thirteen regional occupational medicine centers administer the program, which includes yearly physicals, X-rays, CT scans, spirometry and other tests for early signs of mesothelioma. Between 2001 and 2014, about 1,700 former asbestos workers took part in the Amiantus program and 289 cases of mesothelioma were diagnosed. Unfortunately, that number represents only about 20 percent of the eligible asbestos workers who are at risk for mesothelioma. Improved Understanding of Mesothelioma Worldwide, mesothelioma is an extremely rare cancer. Because most doctors rarely see it, and because the symptoms of mesothelioma are similar to other diseases, it is often misdiagnosed or not diagnosed until in an advanced stage. The authors of the Amiantus report say, even though many asbestos workers did not participate and others, including asbestos cement workers, were left out, the program has improved mesothelioma diagnoses in Poland. It has also provided critical data for government monitoring of mesothelioma rates. According to the report in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, "When comparing data from the register for the period 2001 to 2010 with data from before the Amiantus programme (1991-2000), the number of recorded asbestos-related diseases increased almost twofold and in the case of mesothelioma, almost threefold during the implementation of the programme (Table 1)." The authors speculate that the increase is largely due to more aggressive monitoring. Advice for Mesothelioma Monitoring Programs The report concludes with recommendations for other groups that want to establish medical monitoring programs for pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma. Among the recommendations are public mesothelioma awareness campaigns, education for eligible asbestos workers and medical practitioners, creation of a national compensation fund for mesothelioma (such as the UK established), establishment of a national asbestos-related diseases register, and research studies on asbestos-exposed workers. The World Health Organization estimated that 125 million people are exposed to asbestos in their workplaces each year and more than 107,000 deaths are attributable to occupational asbestos exposure. Source: Swiatkowska, B, et al, "Medical monitoring of asbestos-exposed workers: experience from Poland", August 2016, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, pp. 599-604, http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/8/15-159426/en/ ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broke Hall Primary Closed After Asbestos Scare --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Geater, writing for Ipswich Star, reported that children will not be returning to Broke Hall Primary School, on Chatsworth Drive, until September 12 after builders discovered the asbestos while working in the school. An inspection showed that a major clean-up was needed and headteacher Jenny Barr has written to parents with the news. In her letter to parents she says: "It is with great disappointment that I am writing to inform you that the school will not be opening as planned on 5th September. "On 2nd September, as part of the ongoing building works being carried out at the school, asbestos was disturbed in the library area. "Following advice from specialist contractors and Suffolk County Council, myself and the governors have taken the difficult decision to close the school until at least 12th September. "Whilst the incident has been fully contained and clean-up work is already underway by a specialist contractor, I am not willing to have staff or pupils on site until I have received the 'all clear'. "As Heathlands has not been affected it remains open as normal and the Year 5 residential trip will go ahead as planned. "I know that this will have a significant impact on each and every one of you, but the health and safety of children and staff is and always will be my first priority. "Please check the school website for updates." The school has 650 pupils and their parents should be receiving e- mails or phone calls -- however there will be some members of staff outside the building to meet any parents or guardians who have not heard the news. The closure will be a blow to parents who were planning to return to work who may now have to make alternative childcare arrangements during the closure. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newport-Mesa Schools Refused Asbestos Reco ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Tucker, writing for Legal Reader, citing The Orange County Register, reported that the Newport-Mesa Schools refused asbestos related recommendations from the Orange County Grand Jury. On September 25, 2014, modernization construction was in progress on three schools, Hope View, Lake View and Oak View in the Ocean View School District, Orange County, CA. In September of that year, John Brisco, a school board member, filed a complaint with the California division of Occupational Safety and Health, Cal/OSHA, after learning that asbestos was being removed from the schools. On October 7th, the school board voted for the closure of the three schools pending confirmation that asbestos was not a threat. The schools remained closed that year and only two of the schools reopened at the beginning of the 2015 school year, Hope View and Oak View. Construction was not yet finished at Lake View and it would not reopen until the 2016 school year. As a result of this incident, the Orange County grand jury conducted an investigation and compiled a report on how schools could improve communications and hazardous materials management between campus projects and school communities. The grand jury recommendations included conducting asbestos inspections every three years and sharing that information with companies that bid on construction projects; a plan to communicate information about hazardous waste to parents and other stakeholders; maintain a database of school buildings and their characteristics; and ask the Department of Education, DOE, to address hazardous material handling at monthly meetings with school district representatives. The Newport-Mesa and several other districts in Orange County have refused to abide by the grand jury recommendations. They feel that their method of making inspection reports available is sufficient and in line with the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, and that a database would require money that the district does not have. To abide by the recommendations, it would have to transfer funds from educational programs or would have to find other funding. The district also did not feel that monthly meetings with the DOE were necessary because that department already distributes information to them on a regular basis. During its investigation, the grand jury found that 27 of the 28 school districts in Orange County had asbestos present in, at a minimum, one of its schools. Asbestos was used in a large number of building materials for many years prior to the 1980s. The asbestos does not present a problem unless it is disturbed. For example, during building remodeling or when the materials that contain asbestos deteriorate. When that happens, asbestos dust particles float into the air and are inhaled. A large number of people who inhale the dust end up with lung conditions, including a type of cancer called mesothelioma. School districts receive state funding based on the number of students that attend. As a result of the asbestos issue, the Ocean View School District lost 152 students at the start of the 2015 school year. That represents a loss of approximately $1.3 million for the year from state funding, according to The Orange County Register. Although the school districts in Orange County have been in financial trouble for a number of years, it is unthinkable that it would submit school children and personnel to such a deadly environment. While budgets are important, the health of the children and others should be one of the major concerns. This is especially true when the school district is made aware of a problem that can, and often does, result in death, even if it does not occur until years later. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Fined Over Asbestos Removal ------------------------------------------------------- Eric Freedman, writing for Great Lakes Echo, reported that an Indianapolis contactor -- whose company carries the ironic name of Work Done Right -- has been sentenced to four months of house arrest and fined $2,000 for illegally removing asbestos from an occupied apartment building. Contractor Paul Walker's failure to have a licensed abatement company do the work was intended to "save a buck" but endangered the health of residents, the U.S. Attorney's office said in a statement. "Doing so saved him the expense of hiring the professional abatement firm, but it also put the residents of the building at risk for exposure to harmful asbestos fibers," the statement said. Medical researchers have linked asbestos, a toxic hazardous air pollutant, to cancer and respiratory diseases. Walker pleaded guilty to negligent endangerment before U.S. Magistrate Judge Debra Lynch and faced a potential maximum penalty of one year in jail. His sentence includes two years of probation. According to court documents, Walker agreed to remove insulation that contained asbestos from piping and a boiler as part of a renovation project at the building in Indianapolis. He notified the building's owner that he'd hired a licensed abatement company as a subcontractor to remove the asbestos with the necessary permits and safety measures and sent the owner a bid estimate from an abatement company. Instead of using the subcontractor, however, he personally cut and stripped asbestos-containing material from the basement, dumped it into plastic bags and hauled them off-site. "Walker cut, stripped, bagged and disposed of the material while the material was dry and without following federal work practice standards and state laws for the safe and proper removal and handling of asbestos," the criminal complaint said. The crime occurred in July 2015. The complaint said Walker knew at the time that apartments in the building were occupied. Testing found no asbestos fibers had reached the occupied floors, and Walker later paid for a professional firm to remove the material, the U.S. Attorney's office said. Nobody else was charged in the case. The Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted the investigation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ACMs Illegally Dumped in New Hampshire ------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a 1,700- pound box of asbestos-containing construction building materials was illegally dumped in Candia, New Hampshire on a class VI section of North Road on Thursday, August 11. A resident reported the box to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Then an official from the department confirmed the box contained asbestos. The box was later removed. According to the National Cancer Institute, if asbestos fibers are inhaled, they can become lodged in the lungs and cause scarring and inflammation. Eventually, this will affect one's ability to breathe and lead to fatal health problems such as mesothelioma cancer. Although New Hampshire has no naturally occurring asbestos within its borders, it does have more than fifty different locations in which asbestos exposure has been a problem. These sites range from power generation plants and oil refineries to military bases, and even public buildings such as schools and banks. Shipyards and power plant facilities are two of the riskiest work environments when it comes to asbestos exposure. It was the S.S. Morro Castle incident in September 1934 that led shipbuilders to start using substantial amounts of asbestos in the construction of sea-going vessels. Naval personnel and civilian employees of the Portsmouth Navy Yard who worked or were stationed there prior to 1980 may be at risk for contracting asbestos disease. Those who believe they have been negligently exposed to asbestos should seek legal guidance from a mesothelioma lawyer. Petroleum is not only volatile, but highly toxic as well. Because of this, asbestos-containing products were used extensively in the construction of petroleum-related facilities. Like all asbestos products and building materials, these become friable as they age. In fact, three percent of work-related deaths have been attributed to mesothelioma at the Coastal Oil refinery. The entire energy industry has made use of asbestos at one point or another, including power generation plants and natural gas facilities such as the Dover and Exeter gas plants. Between 1980 and 2000, there were 234 asbestos-related deaths in New Hampshire. That's about one in every 7,000 people. Mesothelioma was slightly more prevalent with patients primarily concentrated in urbanized regions of Hillsborough and Rockingham. A number of job sites exist in New Hampshire where asbestos has been located, especially in the cities of Berlin, Concord, Dover, Manchester, Nashua, and Portsmouth. Candia officials ask for anyone who sees suspicious activity in the area to report it to the Candia Police Department at 603.483.2318. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valve Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York trial court has denied a valve manufacturer's motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case, concluding in part that the defendant could be held liable for the acts of its subsidiary. In the Aug. 17 order, the New York Supreme Court for New York City additionally rejected challenges to product identification and causation in the case. Gaspar Hernandez-Vega asserted the underlying claims, contending that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products during his career as a pipefitter. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestConnex Asbestos Claims Investigated -------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reported that claims that an excavation company has supplied asbestos-contaminated road base, used in Sydney's WestConnex motorway project, is being investigated by the state government. A former employee of Moits, a Sydney excavation company, claimed the company supplied asbestos-laden road base to the $16.8 billion road project, according to the ABC. SafeWork NSW confirmed to AAP in a statement on Thursday, it "will continue to look into practices at the recycling plant and will investigate whether WestConnex has received contaminated waste". Moits disputed the allegations made by the former employee, saying the company "does not and has never recycled products containing asbestos". "We will never put at risk the safety, health and wellbeing of any employee or the people we supply by playing fast and loose with asbestos," Moits said in a statement on Thursday. The company said it would continue to cooperate with every regulatory authority, including Safe Work NSW and the EPA to confirm its processes are safe and that the safety and wellbeing of its employees is not being jeopardised. "We welcome any investigation or inquiry to clear our operation." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at North Myrtle Beach High School ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that construction crews will be working at night to remove asbestos from North Myrtle Beach High School. Local news outlets report that renovations are planned at the school and that asbestos installed in the 1970s was found. District Spokeswoman Teal Britton says the asbestos does not present a danger because it is the type of asbestos that does not break up, allowing particles to be inhaled. Officials say renovations at the high school should take about 18 months and are expected to cost about $21 million. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrexham Woman Continues Father's Asbestos Fight ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Bagnall, writing for Daily Post, reported that David Turner claimed that working at the BICC factory gave him cancer, and his daughter Michelle is now appealing for help A woman has vowed to continue a legal battle launched by her father, who died of cancer before his claim against a former cable giant came to court. David Turner, of Bangor-on Dee, Wrexham, died of mesothelioma -- an asbestos-related cancer -- on February 25 this year. His death at the age of 83 came just days after his claim was served on Balfour Beatty PLC, successors in title to British Insulated Callendar Cables (BICC) Ltd, who were Mr Turner's former employers. Mr Turner had claimed the cancer could be related to his time working at the BICC factory in Wrexham. Now his daughter Michele Turner has appealed for witnesses to come forward who could help the case. According to law firm Leigh Day, who had acted for Mr Turner and are now acting for Michele, Balfour Beatty deny any responsibility. Mr Turner worked for BICC Ltd from 1971 until his retirement in 1992. In March 2015, David felt a pain in his chest and a swelling to his back and was referred to hospital for further investigations. He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma and his health soon deteriorated, requiring Michelle to move in with him to provide care. Although his condition improved following a course of palliative radiotherapy, it began to deteriorate again at the end of last year. Before his death, Mr Turner instructed Leigh Day to investigate his allegations that, while working in the factory, he was exposed to asbestos insulation on the pipework and equipment and through the air vents. Michele said: "A year before his death, my father was a fit and active man, but the cancer quickly attacked his health and left him weak and unable to care for himself. "I would ask anyone with information that can help determine why and how this happened to my father to please come forward and help us with this case." Speaking about the pain of losing her father, Michele said: "My dad was very fit and active and loved walking. "It was just terrible sitting, waiting and watching your dad die. I realised that this condition was endemic. "The fear of this happening to somebody else is too awful to contemplate, and we wanted to try and do something to stop it happening again to someone." Leigh Day lawyer Helen Ashton, Esq. -- hashton@leighday.co.uk -- has been instructed on behalf of Michele to take forward her father's claim. Ms Ashton said: "We are appealing to anyone who has any information about the presence of asbestos in the BICC Ltd factory in Wrexham between 1971 and 1992 to get in contact with us." A Balfour Beatty spokesman said: "As the case is ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Victim Succeeds in Asbestos Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Lexology.com wrote that specialist asbestos lawyer, Daniel Easton, Esq. -- deaston@leighday.co.uk -- at Leigh Day, has settled a complex high value case for a gentleman suffering from peritoneal (stomach) mesothelioma claim. According to Mr. Easton, Leigh Day was instructed following our client's diagnosis. After interviewing him, we identified that he suffered asbestos exposure in the late 1960's when working as a computer technician for English Electric while he was undertaking installation work at Fawley Power Station. "He was not a hands-on engineer and spent most of his time in a clean computer control room, occasionally venturing into the power station to monitor matters. "Cases of low level asbestos exposure in the late 60's/early 70's can be difficult because Defendants often plead ignorance about the risks of small amounts of asbestos, relying on unsatisfactory guidance issued during that time by the Government's Factory Inspector. "Our client could not positively identify asbestos, but remembered going into the power station and seeing other people doing dusty jobs. We were able to pursue matters by locating supporting witnesses who described asbestos dust at the power station. "We pursued three defendants; our client's employer English Electric, the factory owners and the company overseeing the construction work. None of the defendants admitted liability so we issued court proceedings and obtained a preliminary hearing in October 2015 where our barrister successfully argued that English Electric were liable. "We continued the claim against English Electric arguing the value of the claim. "Because our client ran his own company we had to obtain expert evidence from an accountant and surveyor to help assess the value of the case. We successfully argued that there was a significant value in the services he provided to his company managing properties and buying and selling shares. We then organised for our client to give his evidence at his home, rather than go to court. "After negotiations, we managed to agree a settlement at GBP350,000. "We had numerous meetings with our client to ensure we obtained the best information from him and to ensure he understood what was happening with the case. We always visited him at home where he was comfortable." ********* 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 * * *