/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160915.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 185 Headlines A & I TRANSPORT: Faces Labor Law Class Action in California ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Perez-White" Suit ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages AGROSTUDIES: Foreign Students File Suit Over Farm Training Course AIR CANADA: Sept. 16 Class Action Authorization Hearing Set ALON BLUE: To Pay Minority Shareholders in Class Action NIS6.3MM AMBAC FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Pirinea" Action in New York APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 6 Hardware Problem ARKANSAS: Sherwood Court Sued for Imprisoning People for Debt ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defending Suit Over Hep B Study ATLANTIC CAPITAL: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held ATOSSA GENETICS: Says Hearing on Case Appeal Not Yet Set AUSPEX: Averts Shareholder Class Action Over $3.5BB Teva Merger AUTHENTEC INC: November 17 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses "Willard" Suit BANKSIA: Supreme Court Approves $13.25MM Class Action Settlement BAPTIST HEALTH: "Whitley" Suit Removed to Arkansas Dist. Ct. BARRETT BUSINESS: Defends Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit BBX CAPITAL: Accord in NJ Tax Sales Case Awaits Final OK BRENT COON: Humana et al. Sue Asbestos Lawyers BRUCE SHEAR: Court Narrows Claims in "MAZ Partners" Suit CANADA: Ontario Solicits Public Input on Future of Huronia CAREFIRST BLUECROSS: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action CATAMARAN HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Smith" Suit CBL & ASSOCIATES: Has Until Sept. 29 to Answer Class Suit COX COMMUNICATIONS: Set-Top Box Class Action Faces Roadblock CR BARD: More Than 600 IV Filter Lawsuits Pending in Court CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Sallustro" Underway CVS CAREMARK: 1st Cir. Revives Suit Over Vit E Supplements DALLAS CENTRAL: 326 Colonial Suit Alleges Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: 2015 Market Center Suit Alleges Misappraisal DALLAS APPRAISAL: 3010 State Street Suit Alleges Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: 3146 Northgate Suit Alleges Misappraisal DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: First Hearing in Fraud Class Action Held DISNEY: Loses Bid to Delay "No Poaching" Class Action EAST COAST RESTAURANT: Court Allows Sodekson to Amend Complaint EAST COLUMBUS: Court Trims Claims in EOCC Sexual Harassment Suit ENERGY RECOVERY: Schubert Probes Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach EZCORP INC: Securities Litigation Moved Into Discovery Stage EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Securities Case Pending FOODSTATE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Holt" Suit FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Throttle Bodies FXCM: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Swiss Nat'l Bank Turmoil GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Last Two Ignition Switch Bellwether Cases HARVEST NATURAL: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit HARVEST NATURAL: Garland Sues Over Share Purchase Agreement IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "McCloskey" Suit ITT TECHNICAL: Employees File Class Action Over Shutdown JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Strikes Two Upcoming Talc Trials KOCH FOODS: Fixed Chicken Prices for 8 Yrs, Chicago Suit Claims LIONS GATE: "Teamsters" Sues Against Shady Merger Deal LOUISIANA CHILDREN'S: "Tillman" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Malvern Suit Moved to E.D. of Pennsylvania MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Suit in Tel Aviv MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Arpaio Faces Criminal Prosecution MARK DRISCOLL: Judge Dismisses Civil Racketeering Lawsuit MASTERCARD INC: Faces $18.6BB Lawsuit in UK Over Excessive Fees MDL 2196: UFP Technologies Received $432,000 Settlement MDL 2619: Twinlab Providing Indemnity to Defendants MEDIVATION: Directors Selling Company Too Cheaply, Suit Says MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Still Faces Airbag Litigation MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of LFR Suit Under Appeal MORGAN TSVANGIRAI: Traders Mull Class Action Over Riots MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bid for More Time to Seek Rehearing Pending NIANTIC INC: Fla. Condo Assoc. Sues Over Pokemon Go Pokestop OCWEN LOAN: "Delgado" Suit Sent to Trial on Existence of Contract OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Racketeering Lawsuit PAUL MICHAEL: Faces "Schacher" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York PHOTOMEDEX INC: Class Action vs. Radiancy Pending in D.C. Court PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery Underway in California Action PJT PARTNERS: Lead Plaintiff Must File Amended Suit by Sept. 23 PRECISE PAYROLL: Faces "Goebel" Suit in E.D. of New York PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Dismisses "Hallihan" Suit PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Expert Calls on Gov't to Help Seaweed Farmers RACKSPACE HOSTING: Law Firm Probes Breach of Fiduciary Claims RALPHS GROCERY: Sued by Laface for Not Giving Seats to Cashiers RELIABLE REXALL: Faces "Oliveira" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RESOURCE AMERICA: Faces "Gansman" Actions in Pennsylvania Courts RHONDA J. SAUNDERS: Calvary Suit Moved to S.D.W.Va. RICHMOND AMERICAN: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Blasting RJ REYNOLDS: Settles Class Action Over Camel Cash-C Notes ROSARIO'S INC: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages SAHOTACORP: Sued Over Regent Hotel Maintenance Issues SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in "Corban" Case Still Pending SONY CORP: Settlement with PlayStation 3 Buyers Has Tentative OK SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: $7MM Settlement Granted Final Approval ST CLOUD STATE: Sept. 21 Pretrial Conference Set in Title IX Case ST JUDE MEDICAL: Blames Muddy Waters for Share Price Drop STANDARD INNOVATIONS: Faces Privacy Suit in Chicago STATE FARM: Two Suits Over Labor Costs Certified as Class Action STERICYCLE INC: Class Cert. Bid in W.D. Pa. Suit Remains Pending STERICYCLE INC: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ill. Suit STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Amended "Kader" Complaint Pending TH HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: "Frisco" Suit Remains Pending in Fla. TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Provides Indemnity to "Mathews" Defendant UBER: 9th Cir. Sends Background Check Claims Into Arbitration VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Allergan Shareholder Action VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Salix Shareholder Suit Pending VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Synergetics Case Settlement Has Final OK VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Stay Ontario Suit Pending VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: RICO Class Actions Pending in New Jersey VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Solodyn(R) Antitrust Actions VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Contact Lens Suits VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Certify Afexa Class Pending VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Racketeering Class Action VANCOUVER ENGLISH: Students Mull Class Action Over Sudden Closure VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Securities Litigation Remains Pending in N.Y. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument Set for Oct. 7 in Appeal Bid VOLKSWAGEN AG: Engineer Pleads Guilty in Emissions Cheating Case VOLKSWAGEN AG: Nears Settlement Agreement with Vehicle Dealers VOLKSWAGEN AG: 40% of Vehicle Owners Seek Emissions Settlement VOLKSWAGEN AG: Proposed Settlements Boon for Some Dealers VOLKSWAGEN AG: Solicitor Taps Hausfeld to Help in Ireland Case WSFS FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement of Merger Suit XBIOTECH INC: Filed Demurrer in California Action YIRENDAI LTD: "Seong" Sues Over Drop in Yirendai Securities YIRENDAI LTD: Faces Class Action, Oct. 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Deadlines Held in Abeyance * CFTC, FIA Object to CFPB Arbitration Proposal * Maurice Blackburn Lawyer Targets Queensland Poker Machines * Securities Class Actions Rise to 119 in First Half of 2016 ********* A & I TRANSPORT: Faces Labor Law Class Action in California ----------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that contrary to popular belief, a truck driver's responsibilities are far more complex than sitting in the driver's seat and pushing the gas pedal. There are responsibilities for the cargo, ensuring the continuing operational safety of the rig, and the challenges inherent with piloting an oversized vehicle safely in concert with smaller vehicles. When California labor code violations are alleged against a trucker's employer, the insinuation of mistreatment against these unsung heroes serves to amplify the unfairness. A class action California labor lawsuit has recently been launched against A & I Transport Inc., an employer based in the Golden State. Various allegations against the employer include, but are not limited to a failure to pay the required minimum wages for non-driving tasks. Those tasks include the inspection of cargo and vehicle prior to, and following the actual transport of goods, and simply waiting for loads to be ready for transport, or so it is alleged. Plaintiffs claim they should be on the clock and paid for time spent waiting for a load, and while conducting inspections. Instead, drivers were paid on a piece-rate basis, or so it is alleged. The California and labor law class action also alleges the defendant failed to properly record all hours worked, and thus plaintiffs were not paid their minimum wages in accordance to requirements entrenched in California labor employment law. It is also alleged that drivers were not provided their meal periods and rest breaks, as provided under the law. The California labor code states that non-exempt, hourly workers are to be granted regular paid, uninterrupted rest periods and a 30-minute uninterrupted meal break commencing not later than the beginning of the fifth hour of work in a day. Plaintiffs allege such breaks were not provided, and compensation for the missed breaks was not forthcoming. The California labor lawsuit is Arturo Samaniego v. A & I Transport, Inc. Case No. 16-cv-01894, filed July 26 of this year in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Cruz. The four-count lawsuit alleges unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, and failure to provide wages when due. Mr. Samaniego, who no longer works for the defendant, hopes to serve as the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit that represents all class participants similarly affected. ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY: Court Narrows Claims in "Perez-White" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul G. Gardephe granted in part and denied, in part, the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the case captioned KATHY PEREZ-WHITE, MARTHA SANTOS, and BARBARA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY OF NEW YORK P.C., LAWRENCE JAEGER, and NICOLE MAULELLA, Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 4858 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.). In the putative collective and class action, Kathy Perez-White, Martha Santos, and Barbara Rodriguez asserted claims against the defendants, Advanced Dermatology of New York P.C., Lawrence Jaeger, and Nicole Maulella, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, for failure to pay overtime compensation. The plaintiffs also asserted claims for failure to provide proper wage notices and statements, breach of contract, failure to pay straight time, uniform reimbursement violations, failure to timely pay wages, and retaliation. The defendants moved for the entry of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 judgment as to certain claims, and for the dismissal of other claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). With respect to the plaintiffs' overtime and straight time claims -- the Amended Complaint's First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Claims for Relief -- the defendants argued that judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs and their claims dismissed as moot in light of the defendants' tender of full relief. Judge Gardephe, however, found that the defendants' September 2, 2015 offer of judgment did not offer the plaintiffs full monetary relief and that, while the defendants' January 27, 2016 letter offered the plaintiffs increased amounts, that letter did not state that the defendants consent to having judgment entered against them, nor did it acknowledge the plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, Judge Gardephe cannot find that the defendants' September 2, 2015 offer of judgment and later correspondence have rendered the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief moot. The Amended Complaint's Third Claim for Relief alleged that the defendants violated NYLL sections 195(1) and (3) by failing to provide the plaintiffs with required wage notices and statements. The defendants contended that this claim "must be dismissed as there is no private right of action under NYLL section 195." Judge Gardephe held that the plaintiffs may only assert a damages claim against the defendants for violating NYLL sections 195(1) and (3) if those violations occurred after April 9, 2011, the effective date of the Wage Theft Prevention Act. The judge found that Rodriguez began her employment with the defendants before April 2011, and she conceded that she does not have a claim under NYLL section 195(1)(a) and only has a claim for the defendants' failure to provide her with accurate wage statements under NYLL section 195(3). Thus, Judge Gardephe granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Claim for Relief as to Rodriguez's claim under NYLL section 195(1)(a), but the motion will otherwise be denied. The plaintiffs' Sixth Claim for Relief alleged that the defendants failed to reimburse Perez-White and Rodriguez and others similarly situated for uniform purchases. Judge Gardephe, however, found that the Miscellaneous Wage Order applies to the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs have not alleged that their uniform costs were such that their pay fell below the minimum wage. Thus, the judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for uniform cost reimbursement. The Amended Complaint's Seventh Claim for Relief alleged that the defendants violated NYLL section 191(3) by failing to timely pay Perez-White for her last three days of employment. Judge Gardepha found that although Perez-White frames her claim as one for failure to pay timely wages under NYLL section 191(3), it is clear that the gravamen of her claim is that the defendants "failed to provide [her] with full payment." Because there is doubt as to whether NYLL section 191 provides a remedy for unpaid wages, as opposed to wages not timely paid, Judge Gardepha dismissed the Seventh Claim for Relief. A full-text copy of Judge Gardephe's September 6, 2016 memorandum opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/vyRmqC from Leagle.com. Kathy Perez-White, Barbara Rodriguez, Martha Santos, Raquel Cooper are represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. SERRINS FISHER LLP 222 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (646)741-3490 Fax: (212)233-3801 Advanced Dermatology of New York P.C., Lawrence Jaeger, Nicole Maulella are represented by: Jamie Scott Felsen, Esq. Joseph Martin Labuda, Esq. MILMAN LABUDA LAW GROUP, PLLC 3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8 Lake Success, NY 11042 Tel: (516)328-8899 Fax: (516)328-0082 ADVOCATES FOR JUVENILE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- The Louisiana Record reports that two direct service workers have filed a class-action lawsuit against their former New Orleans employer alleging that they were not paid overtime. Beverly York and Linda Wilson filed a complaint on behalf of other persons similarly situated on July 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Advocates for Juvenile and Adults Rights Inc. alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek in order to complete their job assignments without receiving overtime premiums. The plaintiffs holds Advocates for Juvenile and Adults Rights Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to pay overtime compensation and failed to maintain proper records or pay wages for travel time. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an award for damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, penalties and interest and for all other legal and/or equitable relief to which they may be entitled. They are represented by Derek M. Mercer of Mercer Law Firm LLC in New Orleans. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case number 2:16-cv-12487 AGROSTUDIES: Foreign Students File Suit Over Farm Training Course ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Blumetti, writing for Haaretz, reports that when Abdul Aziz Diop, an agriculture student from Senegal, signed up for a work- study course in Israel, he thought he'd be participating in an advanced educational program that would teach him about the Jewish state's cutting-edge farming methods. Instead, he says, he was given a plastic bucket and a crop-picking quota. "Early on it was clear that this was not a practical curriculum but simply a plan to hire cheaply and take advantage of people," says the 25-year-old Diop, who claims in a sworn affidavit that the program he signed up for boiled down to nine-hour days in the fields under the watchful eye of supervisors authorized to dock pay and expel anyone who dared to protest. Over the last decade, thousands of foreign students have been brought to Israel from around the world under at least six programs that promise to teach them practical agricultural skills. Mr. Diop was one of the participants in the largest of these programs, Agrostudies, which has brought more than 4,500 students to Israel since 2008 -- mainly from Africa, Southeast Asia and South America. But last year, Mr. Diop and other fellow students banded together with Kav LaOved, an Israeli NGO that assists foreign workers and asylum seekers, and filed a class-action lawsuit seeking more than 100 million shekels (about $264,000) in damages from Agrostudies, alleging that the program had defrauded its participants. In an interview with Haaretz, Agrostudies officials denied all the accusations, saying the program complies with Israeli laws and provides real training to foreign students. Noa Shauer, coordinator of foreign workers at Kav LaOved, says she first learned about the program during a visit to a moshav in the Arava desert in 2014. She was there investigating allegations of abuse suffered by Thai workers employed as laborers by the Israeli farm industry. In the process, she met two students workers who had been recruited from other Southeast Asian countries. After inquiring within agricultural communities across Israel, Ms. Shauer began to view Agrostudies and programs like it as duplicitous new mechanisms for labor recruitment. "Farmers know exactly what's going on with the students. From the testimonies we've received, there's no difference between the way Thai workers and the students are treated, except that [students] are here for less time and have less rights," Ms. Shauer says. The class-action suit filed in July 2015 in the Lod District Court claims that the program falsely represents itself as an academic institution. It includes sworn affidavits from more than a dozen former Agrostudies students who state that recruitment officials misrepresented the program and that the program itself didn't provide any real education, exploiting the participants as laborers instead. Mr. Diop, who is the spokesman for the group, declared in his affidavit that "there was no relationship between school and work; we didn't learn anything about managing a farm or the growth process, nothing about irrigation systems or agricultural technology." Agrostudies officials argue that students received substantial training in all fields of operation. In response to the allegations of false advertising, two top Agrostudies officials, who asked not to be named, said that "the terms and conditions of the program clearly state that we are not a university. We do not promise anything regarding academia." "Our purpose is to take those students who have already gained the theoretical knowledge in university and bring them to Israel to practice modern agriculture," the officials told Haaretz. The officials say it's possible that some of the students were unaware of how difficult large-scale farming really is, with a five-day workweek of hard, physical labor. The lawsuit argues that Agrostudies' mission statement, methods and use of academic language are deeply misleading. For 11 months, students work five days a week -- what the mission statement refers to as "learning by doing," whereby Israeli farmers "are able to pass on their knowledge and experience in commercial farming." On the sixth day, students convene in a classroom for theoretical studies. Mr. Diop stated in his affidavit that those who taught theory did not have an academic background of any kind, or even a college degree. Moreover, Mr. Diop says that the practical studies lacked any guidance or structured learning after the initial training. "All we did was simple, physical labor. All that mattered to [the] farmers was to harvest as much as possible," his affidavit says. "All we do is pick, pick, pick. There was no education. No guidance." Admission to the Agrostudies program costs nearly 15,000 shekels between tuition and one-time fees, not including airfare. The lawsuit claims that Agrostudies acts as a recruitment agency for the farm industry, and the tuition and administrative costs are nothing but masked broker fees. Recruitment or manpower agencies have often been at the center of controversy over Israel's use of foreign laborers due to the high fees they charge, which often leave workers deeply indebted. Under a 2011 agreement between Israel and Thailand -- the country from which the overwhelming majority of Israel's migrant farm workers hails -- laborers must be hired directly by their employers, rather than through a recruiter. The lawsuit against Agrostudies claims the program sidesteps this agreement, as well as laws that prohibit exchange students from working in Israel. The Agrostudies officials rejected the accusations, saying that they have a special permit from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, the Agriculture Ministry and the Interior Ministry. "We work under their guidance to operate this program," they said. According to the lawsuit, students were required to pick up to 2.4 tons of produce a day when in the fields. The complainants say they worked for minimum wage and had their salary docked if the yield was low. Money for accommodation, income tax and insurance costs was also deducted from their paycheck. The plaintiffs allege that any protests could have lead to their expulsion from the program and deportation from Israel. "If we do something to the dismay of farmers we are punished by not being allowed to work and not being paid," says Mouhamed Diouf, a Senegalese student, in his affidavit, adding that "farmers are constantly threatening to send us back to our country." Another Senegalese student, Lamine Nidaye, states that he witnessed the arrest of a female Senegalese student who was detained for several days and then deported because she failed to apologize for participating in a labor strike for fair wages. The Agrostudies officials acknowledged that farmers had withheld pay, but added they had stepped in to stop the practice. They said that there had been disciplinary issues, but insisted these were increasingly rare and always mediated by the student's home university. "There was not a single student who was unhappy with the program that we didn't console immediately, offer to refund tuition or help in any way," they told Haaretz. Mr. Diop, who is now back in Senegal, was one of those offered a refund, but he refused it, they said. The program's website includes testimonials of graduates' success stories featuring alumni starting their own farms or receiving agricultural grants. "The only bad press we get is in Israel. Everywhere else we get good reviews," the officials said. The representatives from Agrostudies are confident the lawsuit will get dismissed, and are counting on the support of Israeli and foreign diplomats who are expected to take the stand for the defense. But Mr. Shauer claims this support is politically motivated, as officials are likely to turn a blind eye to worker exploitation to foster diplomatic ties. "It's not easy for Israeli ambassadors to create lasting bonds with countries like Nepal and South Sudan -- programs like [Agrostudies] help," she says. A preliminary hearing in the case was held in March and witnesses will be heard in December, according to officials from Kav LaOved and Agrostudies. AIR CANADA: Sept. 16 Class Action Authorization Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- On September 16, 2016, the proposed representative plaintiff will be presenting his proposed class action against Air Canada on behalf of all Canadian consumers who purchased a Flight Pass from Air Canada's website on August 25-28, 2015, and thereafter had their Flight Passes revoked by Air Canada due to an alleged pricing error. The hearing will take place on Sept. 16 at the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal. At the hearing, the Court will be deciding whether this proposed class action will be "authorized" as a class action. If the action is "authorized", the case will then proceed to a trial on the merits. For more information, please visit http://evolinklaw.com/air-canada-flight-pass-class-action/ Mr. Simon Lin of Evolink Law Group is the putative class counsel, with assistance from Mr. Jeremie John Martin. ALON BLUE: To Pay Minority Shareholders in Class Action NIS6.3MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alon Blue Square Israel Ltd. disclosed that on August 28, 2016, the District Court in Lod, Israel gave its final approval for the proposed debt arrangement between the Company and its financial creditors and shareholders under Section 350 of the Israeli Companies Law, 5759-1999, as revised per our announcement on August 10, 2016. In accordance with the District Court's final approval, the aggregate sum payable to the Company's minority shareholders upon closing will be NIS6,328,500. The total amount of reward and/or legal fees payable to the representatives of the minority shareholders in court who submitted the class action and the opposition on behalf of the minority shareholders, and legal expenses for two minority shareholders who opposed the debt arrangement, will be NIS546,500. The Company will provide an updated timeline for closing accordingly. AMBAC FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Pirinea" Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Ambac Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to defend against the case, Joseph Pirinea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Diana N. Adams, David Trick, Jeffrey S. Stein and Nader Tavakoli (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Civil Action No.16-cv-05079-RMB, filed on June 28, 2016). On Sept. 13, 2016, Judge Richard M. Berman entered an order adjourning a case conference until October 20, 2016 at 10 a.m. On Aug. 29, Ori Wilbush filed papers asking the Court to appoint him to serve as lead plaintiff(s). A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Ambac and certain of its present and former officers and directors, for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's securities from November 13, 2013 through June 30, 2015. It alleges, among other things, that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's (a) risk management policies and procedures, (b) credit mitigation strategies, (c) internal controls over financial reporting, and (d) loss exposures on its public finance bond portfolio. In particular, the suit alleges that defendants did not sufficiently disclose Ambac's exposure to bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, despite allegedly being aware of significant risks associated with those exposures. Ambac believes the lawsuit is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against it. Shannon Lee Hopkins, Esq. -- shopkins@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, represents Mr. Pirinea. APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone 6 Hardware Problem ------------------------------------------------------------ Chance Miller, writing for 9to5Mac, reports that repair guide website iFixit published a detailed blog post discussing an issue plaguing a growing number of iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus users. Referred to as "Touch Disease," a hardware problem causes iPhone displays to become unresponsive and feature a thin gray flickering line along the top. Now, a trio of iPhone users have filed a class action lawsuit against Apple over the issue, claiming that Apple has refused to repair devices that are affected for free. The class action suit was filed by Todd Cleary of California, Jun Bai of Delaware, and Thomas Davidson of Pennsylvania in the U.S. District Court of Northern California. Specifically, the complaint accuses Apple of violating the consumer fraud statutes in place in California, as well as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. As for what the plaintiffs are demanding, the paperwork shows requests for Apple to repair, recall, and/or replace iPhones affected by Touch Disease, as well as to extend the warranties for all iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus users for issues related to Touch Disease. The plaintiffs are also requesting unspecified damages, we well. From the filing (via MR): "Apple has long been aware of the defective iPhones. Yet, notwithstanding its longstanding knowledge of this design defect, Apple routinely has refused to repair the iPhones without charge when the defect manifests. Many other iPhone owners have communicated with Apple's employees and agents to request that Apple remedy and/or address the Touchscreen Defect and/or resultant damage at no expense. Apple has failed and/or refused to do so. "As a result of Apple's unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent business practices, owners of the iPhones, including Plaintiffs, have suffered an ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or value. The unfair and deceptive trade practices committed by Apple were conducted in a manner giving rise to substantial aggravating circumstances." iFixit report claimed that the Touch Disease issue could be so widespread that "almost every" iPhone 6 and 6 Plus could be "ticking bombs just waiting to act up." Whether or not that's true remains to be seen, but even if it's remotely the case, Apple could have a relatively big problem on its hands. On the other hand, this could just be another attempt by people to make a quick buck by hitting Apple with a lawsuit. ARKANSAS: Sherwood Court Sued for Imprisoning People for Debt ------------------------------------------------------------- According to Black Agenda Report, the district court in Sherwood, Arkansas, is in gross violation of a 1983 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional to imprison people for debt, according to a class action suit filed by the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the Arkansas ACLU. Much like the pattern of abuse documented by the U.S. Justice Department in Ferguson, Missouri, Sherwood derives as much as 12 percent of its revenues from "imposing mounting fines or fees tied to very low level offenses," said Lawyers Committee president Kristen Clarke. One of Ms. Clarke's clients wound up spending 25 days in jail and owing nearly $3,000 to the courts because she bounced a $28.93 check. "Our hope is that we can bring national attention to this problem, and that we might inspire action by the Congress to breathe life back into this Supreme Court ruling," said Ms. Clarke. ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defending Suit Over Hep B Study ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and certain of its officers and directors have been named as defendants in a consolidated class action pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug research. The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the facts underlying the securities claims. An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5, 2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16, 2015). Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive relief. The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to this matter. The Company does not expect this matter to have a material effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements. With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees related to this matter or any other legal matters, the Company's recognizes such costs as incurred. ATLANTIC CAPITAL: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held -------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a final fairness hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2016. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the acquisition of First Security. Knutson v. First Security Group, Inc. et al., filed April 15, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board of directors, and Atlantic Capital as defendants. Meade v. Kramer, et al., filed April 24, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board of directors, FSGBank, Atlantic Capital, and the Bank as defendants. Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the First Security directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger agreement and that the other named defendants, including Atlantic Capital, aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief preventing the parties from consummating the merger, rescission of the transactions completed by the merger agreement, an award of attorney's fees and expenses for plaintiffs and other forms of relief. On June 1, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating these two suits under the caption In re First Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 15-0212. On June 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated class action complaint in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Chattanooga. The amended complaint repeats many of the same allegations of the original complaints but also makes additional allegations with respect to disclosures contained in the joint proxy statement/prospectus. On July 24, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 25, 2015, First Security, Atlantic Capital and the other named defendants and the plaintiffs entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the above- described lawsuits. The MOU agreed on the terms of a settlement of the lawsuits, including the dismissal with prejudice of the suit captioned In re First Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and a release of all claims that were made or could have been made therein against all of the defendants. The parties have agreed on a Stipulation of Settlement, a Proposed Order on Notice and Scheduling, a Proposed Notice to class members, and a Proposed Final Order and those documents have been submitted to the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the parties have agreed on an amount of attorneys' fees and expenses, $265,000, that Plaintiffs' counsel will request from the Court and to which the defendants will not object. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, final approval of the proposed settlement by the Court after notice is given to shareholders. The Court gave preliminary approval to the settlement on May 23, 2016 and certified a settlement class as owners of First Security common stock from March 25, 2015 through October 31, 2015. Defendants and their affiliates are excluded from the settlement class. The Court also approved the notice to the class, which has been sent to the First Security shareholders. A final fairness hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2016, at which time objections to the settlement, if any, would be heard and the attorneys' fees issue would be decided. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement in all respects and if the court does not approve the proposed settlement, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU could become void. The settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that First Security shareholders received in the merger. Plaintiffs' Counsel: Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 - and - Michael H. Rosner, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Counsel for First Security Group, Inc., D. Michael Kramer, Larry D. Mauldin, William F. Grant III, Adam G. Hurwich, Kelly P. Kirkland, Robert R. Lane, Henchy R. Enden, William C. Hall and Carol H. Jackson: Britt K. Latham, Esq. Jamie L. Brown, Esq. BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC 150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800 Nashville, TN 37201 Counsel for Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc.: C. Crews Townsend, Esq. Meredith C. Lee, Esq. MILLER & MARTIN, PLLC 832 Georgia Avenue Suite 1200 Volunteer Building Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289 Garden City Group, LLC serves as claims administrator. ATOSSA GENETICS: Says Hearing on Case Appeal Not Yet Set -------------------------------------------------------- Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing for a class action appeal has not been set. The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount." "On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi, Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co- lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. On October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. On October 30, 2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. "On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief. Defendants filed an answering brief on April 13, 2015 and plaintiffs fileda reply brief in support of their appeal on May 18, 2015. A hearing for the appeal has not been set." The Company believes this complaint is without merit and plan to defend ourselves vigorously; however failure to obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations and financial condition. AUSPEX: Averts Shareholder Class Action Over $3.5BB Teva Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Greene, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Auspex Pharmaceuticals Inc. shareholders can't proceed with a would-be class action challenging the company's $3.5 billion merger with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the Delaware Chancery Court ruled Aug. 25 (Larkin v. Shah, 2016 BL 277097, Del. Ch., No. 10918-VCS, 8/25/16). The shareholder plaintiffs alleged that venture capital firms that owned Auspex stock and directors that had ties to the firms pushed through the all-cash transaction at the expense of other stockholders. Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights III dismissed the claims, finding that the case didn't involve a controlling shareholder that tainted the deal. He found that even if a controller had existed, the plaintiffs couldn't show the venture capital firms had a conflict of interest. The court also concluded that absent a controlling stockholder, the deal must be reviewed under the deferential business judgment rule, citing two recent Delaware Supreme Court rulings -- Corwin v. KKR Fin. Holdings LLC, 2015 BL 323544 (193 SLD, 10/6/15) and Singh v. Attenborough, 2016 BL 145197 . This ruling marks the second time in as many days that the chancery court has applied Corwin and Singh, which make it harder for plaintiffs to succeed in certain merger challenges. The court applied the two cases Aug. 24 in dismissing a shareholder lawsuit over C&J Energy Services Inc.'s $2.86 billion merger with a unit of Nabors Industries Ltd. Corwin and Singh hold that where a transaction is approved by a fully informed, uncoerced stockholder vote, the business judgment standard of review--which defers to corporate decision-making-- must be applied unless challenged on the basis of waste. Two-Step Merger Teva, one of the largest generic drug producers in the world, in 2015 acquired Auspex in a two-step merger. Under the transaction, a buyer purchases a majority of a public company's shares through a tender offer, then completes the back-end of the merger by acquiring the remaining shares. Because more than half of Auspex's outstanding shares were tendered to Teva, the merger occurred under Delaware's two-step merger statute -- General Corporation Law Section 251(h) -- without a stockholder vote. Judge Slights applied a July chancery court ruling -- In re Volcano Corp. Stockholder Litig. -- that provided that stockholders' acceptance of a tender offer under Section 251(h) has the same cleansing effect as a stockholder vote in favor of the transaction (128 SLD, 7/5/16). AUTHENTEC INC: November 17 Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and The Weiser Law Firm, P.C. regarding the AuthenTec, Inc. Shareholder Litigation: LEGAL NOTICE If You Owned AuthenTec, Inc. Common Stock as of October 4, 2012, You May Be Entitled to Settlement Benefits What Is This About? A class action lawsuit concerning the 2012 acquisition of AuthenTec, Inc. ("AuthenTec") for $8.00 per share has been settled (the "Settlement"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that AuthenTec's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of AuthenTec to Apple Inc. As part of the Settlement, those shareholders who owned AuthenTec common stock as of October 4, 2012 may be entitled to receive additional payment through a cash-payment common fund ("Common Fund"). The Settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. The Court has not decided who is right and who is wrong. Instead, the parties have decided to settle their dispute. Am I a Member of the Class? Unless you are a named defendant in the settled litigation or one of their affiliates, as that term is defined in the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement dated July 14, 2016 (the "Stipulation"), or you exclude yourself from the Settlement, you are a member of the Class if you held AuthenTec common stock any time between and including July 27, 2012 and October 4, 2012. What Are the Settlement Benefits for the Class? A $10 million common fund ("Common Fund") has been established for the benefit of Class Members. After the deduction from the $10 million fund of notice and administration expenses, any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court, any service awards to the Plaintiffs, and taxes, the remainder of the Common Fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Class Members who both owned AuthenTec common stock on October 4, 2012 and submit timely and valid Proof of Claim forms. How Do I Participate in the Settlement Benefits? To participate in the Common Fund cash payment, you must mail or submit online a completed Proof of Claim form by December 21, 2016. If you do not wish to participate in the Settlement, you may exclude yourself from the Class by October 21, 2016, or you may remain in the Class and object to any aspect of the Settlement by October 27, 2016. Visit www.authentecshareholderlitigation.com for important information about your options in the Settlement. Hearing on the Proposed Settlement The Court will hold a Final Settlement Hearing on November 17, 2016 at 11:15 A.M. to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, to approve any attorneys' fees and expenses, and any service awards for Plaintiffs. The hearing date may be changed by the Court, and you should check www.authentecshareholderlitigation.com for updates. The Final Settlement Hearing will take place at Moore Justice Center, 2825 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Viera, Florida 32940. You do not have to attend the hearing. To get additional information, including a copy of the detailed Notice and Proof of Claim form for the Common Fund cash payment, visit www.authentecshareholderlitigation.com or call 1-888-264- 2889. BANK OF AMERICA: Court Dismisses "Willard" Suit ----------------------------------------------- Judge Eduardo C. Robreno dismissed with prejudice the amended complaint in the case captioned G. VERONICA WILLARD, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-01199 (E.D. Pa.). On March 15, 2016, G. Veronica Willard filed a class action complaint pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. She also raised state law claims for unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation. Willard sued Bank of America ("BOA"), Banc of America Consumer Card Services ("BACCS"), BA Credit Card Funding ("Funding") (collectively the "Bank Defendants"), Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC ("BHLM")1, and 100 John Does. Willard alleged that she opened a credit card account with Bank of America (BOA) on August 24, 2004. She asserted that at some point thereafter, BOA sold the receivables for the credit card account to Banc of America Consumer Card Services (BACCS), which in turn sold them to BA Credit Card Funding (Funding), which ultimately sold them to Wilmington Trust Company. Willard claimed that by securitizing the credit card receivables and selling them to Wilmington Trust, BOA relinquished its beneficial interest in the entire credit card account and she no longer owed a debt to BOA. Thus, she contended that BOA had no right to collect the credit card payments or attempt to collect from her when she defaulted. Willard also asserted that, even if the sale of the receivables was possible, the bank defendants failed to follow the proper procedures after she defaulted on her debt. Specifically, she contended that the receivables could not be returned to BOA so that it could start a collection action until Wilmington Trust filed a UCC termination statement. Judge Robreno held that the bedrock of Willard's Amended Complaint is unsound, considering that many courts across the country have concluded that a bank does not lose its interest in a credit card account when it securitizes the receivables associated with the account. Moreover, Judge Robreno also held that Willard has failed to establish that before receivables associated with a defaulted credit card account may be transferred from a trust back to the bank that issued the card, the bank must request that the trust issue a termination statement. A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's September 6, 2016 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/md30r9 from Leagle.com. G. Veronica Willard, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Evarts. Bank of America, Bank of America Consumer Credit, Bank of America Funding LLC, Defendants, represented by Kristopher Issac Devyver - - kdevyer@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP. Blatt Hasenmiller, Defendant, represented by Kami S. Miller, Blatt Hasenmiller Liebsker & Moore. BANKSIA: Supreme Court Approves $13.25MM Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everard Himmelreich, writing for The Standard, reports that south- west investors in the failed Banksia finance company are likely to get another two cents in the dollar return on their investment following the Supreme Court's approval of a settlement offer. Supreme Court Justice Ross Robson in August approved a settlement of $13.25 million to be paid by Banksia's directors, solicitors and auditors RSD chartered accountants and other professional firms. The settlement follows court action by the Banksia investors class action, fronted by Laurence Bolitho of Kyabram, and Banksia'a receivers/liquidators. Those who made the settlement offer include Banksia directors Grenville Skewes of Warrnambool, Peter Keating, Patrick Godfrey, Nicholas Carr and Neil Mathison. The offer follows negotiations between the parties. Two of the co-founders of the Kyabram Banksia Debenture Holders Action Group, Don McKenzie and Doug Crow, said the expected return to investors from the settlement of about two cents in the dollar should flow through in the next few months. The settlement should lift the return so far to Banksia investors to 82 cents in the dollar of their investment. However the two said they were "extremely disappointed" with the amount of money awarded and said the Banksia directors and other officers had "inadequate" professional indemnity insurance cover. "The Banksia Directors and Officers insurance cover was only $10 million which was also to cover any defence costs they incurred. The auditors also held a cover of just $10 million. "Given that the trustee (Banksia's trustee, The Trust Company) will also be taking action against these parties, it is felt that the settlement is probably as good a result as could be expected," the two said. Messrs. Crow and McKenzie said they believed The Trust Company was the most culpable party in the collapse of Banksia in 2012. The collapse left 16,000 investors, including more than 1000 debenture holders in the south-west, owed hundreds of millions. The two were hopeful separate court action being taken against The Trust Company, now owned by Perpetual, for $133 million plus interest will produce a higher settlement than that obtained from the Banksia directors and other officers. That case is due to be heard by the Supreme Court in March, next year. The two said The Trust Company had also been the trustee for Statewide Secured Investments when Banksia took over Statewide in 2008 and as such had a conflict of interest that should have stopped it agreeing to the merger. "This situation becomes even worse in regard their culpability where a forensics audit shows the expense, loss and damage Banksia incurred by agreeing to enter into and implement the amalgamation (with Statewide). "The forensic audit shows that Statewide had negative assets at the amalgamation date which included 26 loans that had a total loss of over $54 million with some $40 million of not permitted loans under the Trust Deed and that the Statewide merger virtually brought about the Banksia failure," the two said. They said Banksia investors were entitled to be "disgusted" at the incompetence of Banksia's and Statewide's management that was revealed in the court hearings and related investigations. "These matters should have been discovered by the trustee (The Trust Company) long before the appointment of receivers," they said. "After all it is duty of the trustee to oversee and protect the interest of investors. "Banksia could possibly have survived without the Statewide merger and with appropriate management decisions," Mr McKenzie and Mr. Crow said. BAPTIST HEALTH: "Whitley" Suit Removed to Arkansas Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Whitley, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, plaintiff, v. Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals, Diamond Risk Insurance, LLC, Continental Casualty Company, Admiral Insurance Company, Admiral Indemnity Company, Ironshore Indemnity Inc., Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, Defendants, Case No. 60CV-16-4187 (Ark. Cir., August 30, 2016), has bee removed to the United States District Court of the Eastern District Of Arkansas on August 30, 2016 under case No. 4:16-cv-00624. Brian Whitley had health coverage under an employer health insurance plan. He sustained injuries from an automobile collision and his treatment exceeded the liability coverage of liability insurer for the driver that caused his injuries. Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff that because he had been injured by the third party driver, they would not submit the medical bills to Plaintiff's health insurer, would not accept Plaintiff's health insurance for payment and would not provide him with sufficient billing and treatment codes which would have allowed the Plaintiff to submit the bills for payment by his health insurance. Plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Defendant is represented by: Dirk K. Campbell, Esq. Kendell W. Grooms, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. CAMPBELL & GROOMS, PLLC 8500 West Markham, Suite 105 Little Rock, AR 72205 Tel: (501) 313-4967 Email: don@campbellgrooms.com - and - Sach D. Oliver, Esq. Frank H. Bailey, Esq. T. Ryan Scott, Esq. Geoff D. Hamby, Esq. BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM 3606 W. Southern Hills Blvd. Rogers, AR 72758 Email: soliver@baileyoliverlawfinn.com fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com rscott@baileyoliverlawfirm.com ghamby@baileyoliverlawfirm.com BARRETT BUSINESS: Defends Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Barrett Business Services, 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 BBSI has filed its reply brief to plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss a class action complaint. On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against BBSI, Michael L. Elich, BBSI's Chief Executive Officer, and James D. Miller, BBSI's then Chief Financial Officer. The action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arose from the decline in the market price for BBSI Common Stock following announcement of a charge for increased workers' compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit sought compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert fees). On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint named the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserted similar claims for relief. Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint named the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserted similar claims for relief. On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The consolidated cases were recaptioned as In re Barrett Business Services Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. Discovery has not been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming BBSI, Elich and Miller as defendants. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On November 23, 2015, before the court had ruled on the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint, naming the same defendants. The first amended consolidated complaint included new allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 9, 2015. On February 16, 2016, BBSI filed a motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint. That same day, Messrs. Elich and Miller, through separate counsel, also filed motions to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, adopting BBSI's motion in its entirety. On March 21, 2016, before the court had ruled on the motion to dismiss the first amended consolidated complaint, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, naming the same defendants. The second amended consolidated complaint dropped certain allegations from the first amended complaint and added new allegations relating to disclosures in BBSI's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 9, 2016. Among other disclosures, BBSI reported that (1) previously issued financial statements could not be relied on, (2) Mr. Miller had reported making unsupported journal entries, (3) Mr. Miller's employment had been terminated, and (4) BBSI was in the process of engaging a Big Four accounting firm to conduct an independent forensic accounting investigation. In a Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 19, 2016, BBSI reported the results of the investigation, as well as the discovery of certain errors in BBSI's previously filed financial statements. BBSI responded to the second amended consolidated complaint by filing a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2016. Messrs. Elich and Miller joined in that motion. BBSI filed its reply brief to plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 25, 2016. BBX CAPITAL: Accord in NJ Tax Sales Case Awaits Final OK -------------------------------------------------------- BBX Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has reserved decision on final approval of the settlement in the New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation. On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants. The class action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%." Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in January 1998 and at least through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998, through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a subsidiary of BankAtlantic. Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T Transaction. BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March 2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main antitrust claim. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on January 6, 2014. While BBX Capital believed the claims to be without merit, BBX Capital reached an agreement to settle the action, subject to court approval. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court and the fairness hearing was held on April 25, 2016, during which the Court reserved decision on final approval. BRENT COON: Humana et al. Sue Asbestos Lawyers ---------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Humana, Aetna and United Healthcare sued five Texas law firms on September 6, demanding $19.5 million in medical benefits they paid the firms' asbestos clients. Asbestos became prized building material in the late 1800s for its fire-resistant and sound-absorption qualities. By the 1950s, the friable mineral had been incorporated into nearly every aspect of commercial and home buildings: flooring, roofing, concrete, insulation and bricks. But inhaling asbestos can cause lung diseases, including cancer. Class action lawsuits and government regulations have resulted in tens of billions of dollars in judgments and other costs, including remediation of buildings and asbestos mines. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 banned materials containing more than 1 percent asbestos from being sprayed on buildings, pipes and electrical lines. Most asbestos personal injury claims are settled through asbestos bankruptcy trusts, set up in the reorganization plans of bankrupt companies that manufactured asbestos, according to the insurers' Sept. 6 lawsuit in Galveston Federal Court. Once an asbestos trust is established, an asbestos claimant must seek a settlement from the trust rather than through a lawsuit against the debtor, the insurers say in the complaint. "There are presently more than 50 asbestos trusts in operation. Additional asbestos trusts are scheduled to be established or begin accepting claims within the next 12-18 months. Collectively, these trusts will hold more than $40 billion in assets," the lawsuit states. The three major insurance companies say the five defendant law firms have pocketed more than $19.5 million in bankruptcy trust settlements that belong to them, as reimbursement for medical benefits they provided for 297 of the firms' clients. The insurers say they had to review dozens of bankruptcy documents and file motions in bankruptcy courts to identify those 297 people, because asbestos bankruptcy trust claims operate "under a cloak of secrecy" with no public disclosure of who gets paid, how much they are paid, nor from which trust. The insurers say that as Medicare Part C providers, federal law requires the law firms to reimburse their medical benefit payments to the firms' clients. They say the law firms repay benefits to the federal government when their asbestos clients are covered by Medicare Parts A and B, which are administered directly by the feds, but ignore those bills when the clients are covered by private insurers under Medicare Part C. They allege ERISA and Medicare Act violations and unjust enrichment. They want the law firms ordered to hold asbestos settlements in a trust account. They also seek a declaration they are entitled to a list of the names of all asbestos claimants represented by the law firms, and reimbursement of medical benefits paid to the 297 claimants before the firms pay out any more asbestos settlements. The insurers are represented by John Thomas -- jthomas@hicks-thomas.com -- with Hicks Thomas in Houston. The defendants are Brent Coon & Associates, and Reuad Morgan & Quinn LLP, both based in Beaumont; The Bogdan Law Firm, and Shrader & Associates LLP, both of Houston; Arlington-based Foster & Sear LLP; and Austin-based Hissey Kientz LLP. None of the firms responded to requests for comment. Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare are three of the six largest health insurers in the United States. Together, they insure more than 100 million U.S. residents. BRUCE SHEAR: Court Narrows Claims in "MAZ Partners" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MAZ PARTNERS LP, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BRUCE SHEAR, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-11049-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris allowed, in part, and denied, in part, the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants' motion for summary judgment. In the class action, the plaintiff, MAZ Partners LP, alleged in Count I of its second amended complaint that the directors of PHC, Inc., breached their fiduciary duty by approving inadequate compensation for Class A shareholders in connection with PHC's merger with Acadia Healthcare, Inc. In Count II, MAZ contended that one director, Bruce Shear, then CEO of PHC, breached his fiduciary duty as PHC's controlling shareholder by negotiating a $5 million sweetener for his Class B shares at the expense of the Class A shareholders. Finally, in Count III, MAZ alleged that Acadia aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The defendants responded that the directors were independent and protected by the deferential business judgment rule, that Shear was not PHC's controlling shareholder, and that MAZ has provided no evidence that Acadia knowingly aided and abetted any alleged breach of the directors' fiduciary duty. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Judge Saris allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the directors' liability for any disclosure violations. The judge found that the plaintiff's disclosure allegations constituted violations of the duty of care, not the duty of loyalty, and the directors are protected by the exculpation clause for such violations. Judge Saris, however, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Count I. MAZ argued that the directors received improper personal financial benefits as part of the merger at the expense of the PHC shareholders. MAZ also contended that Shear, although he abstained from the merger vote, improperly controlled the other directors' merger votes. Although in their affidavits the directors flatly denied any coercion or intimidation by Shear, Judge Saris found that MAZ has provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute about whether Shear controlled the directors' merger votes. MAZ also argued that Shear, as PHC's controlling shareholder, violated his fiduciary duty by competing with the public shareholders for merger consideration. The defendants responded that Shear was not the controlling shareholder and did not owe any independent fiduciary duty to shareholders outside of his duty as director. Judge Saris, however, found that MAZ has provided sufficient evidence to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding Shear's status as the controlling shareholder of PHC, and thus denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to Count II of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. Judge Saris also denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Count III of the plaintiff's second amended complaint. The defendants argued that MAZ has produced no evidence to support its claim that Acadia knowingly aided and abetted the defendants' breach of fiduciary duty, but MAZ responded that Acadia's CEO negotiated almost exclusively with Shear and agreed to additional merger compensation for Shear, not shared by the majority of PHC's Class A shareholders. The judge thus found that MAZ has provided sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute about whether Acadia knowingly aided and abetted Shear's alleged breach of his fiduciary duty. Judge Saris denied the MAZ's motion for summary judgment to establish the standard of review for the merger transaction because the judge has already found that the defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on the questions of whether Shear was PHC's controlling shareholder and whether he dominated the other directors in their merger votes. Judge Saris, however, allowed summary judgment for MAZ on the defendants' on the equitable defense of unclean hands, and on defendants' affirmative defenses of mitigation, laches and estoppel. A full-text copy of Judge Saris' September 1, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/HXuyxR from Leagle.com. MAZ Partners LP, represented by Brian C. Kerr -- kerr@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, P.C., Chet B. Waldman -- cwaldman@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper Wolf Ross & Jones, Nathaniel L. Orenstein -- norenstein@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo & Norman Berman -- nberman@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo. Bruce A. Shear, Donald E. Robar, Douglas J. Smith, Howard W. Phillips, William F. Grieco, David E. Dangerfield, Defendants, represented by James H. Hulme -- james.hulme@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox, LLP, pro hac vice, Leonard H. Freiman -- lfreiman@goulstonstorrs.com -- Goulston & Storrs, PC, Matthew M. Wright -- matthew.wright@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox LLP, pro hac vice & Richard M. Zielinski -- rzielinski@goulstonstorrs.com -- Goulston & Storrs. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., Acadia Merger Sub, LLC, Defendants, represented by Douglas S. Curran -- dcurran@cov.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James H. Hulme, Arent Fox, LLP, pro hac vice, Leonard H. Freiman, Goulston & Storrs, PC, Matthew M. Wright, Arent Fox LLP, pro hac vice, Richard M. Zielinski, Goulston & Storrs & Whitney L. Becker -- whitney.becker@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, pro hac vice. CANADA: Ontario Solicits Public Input on Future of Huronia ---------------------------------------------------------- Ken Hashizume, writing for Bayshore Broadcasting, reports that the Ontario government is soliciting public input on the future of the Huronia Regional Centre in Orillia. The province is holding public consultations on what to the do with the 175-acre property located near the shores of Lake Simcoe at the south end of the city. One of the groups that are interested in the property is the Huronia Cultural Campus Foundation. They are hoping to turn the place into a cultural and arts destination. Foundation Chair Fred Larsen says this would be a really good change that would enhance the property. He says it could enhance the areas of artistic, educational, and cultural opportunities. Ms. Larsen says they had a survey out at the Huronia Arts Festival on August 13th asking people what the Province should do with the property. He says they had an idea that the Province was going to hold public consultations and thinks that is a good thing. Ms. Larsen says there have been a lot of different ideas as to what to do with the property. He says the consultation is a good way to see where the public want this to go. The Province closed the Huronia Regional Centre in 2009 and declared it surplus. A class-action lawsuit was launched by former patients of the centre alleging abuse while they were housed there. In 2013, there was a $35 Million out-of-court settlement between the Province and the former patients of the centre and their relatives. CAREFIRST BLUECROSS: Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- According to Legal Newsline's Andrew Burger, reports of data breaches have become commonplace, prompting U.S. courts to raise the bar on associated class action lawsuits. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in early August declined to grant standing to a class action filed in the wake of a data breach at CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. Hackers compromised health insurer CareFirst's IT systems in June 2014 and obtained personal data for more than a million BlueCross BlueShield policyholders. In dismissing the class action, Judge Christopher Cooper concluded that the plaintiffs failed to show that the private personal data allegedly obtained by hackers had caused any injury to plaintiffs or was sufficient in and of itself to do so. Significantly for the court, plaintiffs failed to provide evidence that the perpetrators of the data breach had obtained Social Security or credit card numbers. Merely establishing that private personal information had been illegally acquired via a data breach is no longer sufficient to warrant standing in a class action, Ballard Spahr attorney Edward McAndrew said. "In and of itself the CareFirst data breach is just another development in the establishment of precedent regarding standing in data breach cases," he told Legal Newsline. "What's new here is that courts are saying they're going to look at the particular types of data allegedly acquired in security breaches and determine if there's a high risk of stolen data to be used for criminal purposes. In CareFirst the court concluded that factual allegations regarding the data stolen provided by plaintiffs did not reveal any actual or impending injury, or demonstrate a substantial likelihood that personal injury could occur." The CareFirst decision reinforces and adds to a May U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a technical legal issue raised in Robins v. Spokeo, a class action in which a plaintiff asserted he had been harmed by false personal information sold by data broker Spokeo that had been published on the Internet. Reversing an appellate court ruling, the high court justices voted 6-2 in concluding that plaintiff failed to show he had suffered concrete harm. In that case, the court disagreed with plaintiffs attorneys' argument that even without demonstrating personal injury, violation of a statute -- in this case the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (DCPPA) -- was sufficient grounds for granting class action status. "We have made it clear time and time again that an injury, in fact, must be both concrete and particularized," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. He added that certain types of mistakes wouldn't qualify as evidence of injury. "An example that comes readily to mind is an incorrect ZIP code. It is difficult to imagine how the dissemination of an incorrect ZIP code, without more, could work any concrete harm." More broadly in CareFirst, the court's conclusion that private personal data allegedly acquired in a data breach is not likely to result in the misuse of that information is highly debatable, Mr. McAndrew said. "Other courts have reached the opposite conclusion," he said. "In Remigas class action, the Seventh U.S. Court of Appeals decided that class action plaintiffs had sufficient standing based solely on the alleged theft of personal data from the P.F. Chang restaurant chain." In that 2014 civil lawsuit, two Illinois men did show that the personal debit card data obtained in the breach was subsequently used to make fraudulent charges, he pointed out. "Some 350,000 credit card numbers allegedly were stolen, and plaintiff attorneys showed that over 9,000 of those actually had been used to commit credit card fraud, or ID theft," Mr. McAndrew said. In addition, in CareFirst, the court did not address the potential for hackers to obtain sufficient personal data to perpetrate fraud/ID theft or other criminal acts by assembling digital dossiers on consumers from multiple sources, Mr. McAndrew continued. "They wind up combining all the data they can acquire to create a much more comprehensive dossier that could be sold on the 'dark web.'" Email addresses were stolen in the CareFirst case, and plaintiffs did submit evidence that SSNs had been acquired subsequent to a court briefing on the issue. The court ruled that such evidence would not be considered as plaintiffs did not mention that in their complaint, however. CATAMARAN HEALTH: Court Dismisses "Smith" Suit ---------------------------------------------- Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned SHAREN SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CATAMARAN HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, f/k/a CATALYST HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., f/k/a HEALTHEXTRAS, INC., and STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-2846-BHH (D.S.C.). On July 20, 2015, Sharen Smith, a resident of South Carolina, filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all similarly situated South Carolina residents concerning allegedly fraudulent insurance practices. Smith asserted claims against the architect of the alleged fraudulent insurance scheme, Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, f/k/a Catalyst Health Solutions, Inc., f/k/a HealthExtras, Inc., and an underwriter, Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, which lent its name to the architect in order to facilitate solicitation of customers in South Carolina. Smith alleged that the defendants engaged in the fraudulent advertising, marketing, and sale of "group" disability insurance ("the Policy") to South Carolina residents who were not members of any group for which such an insurance product was authorized, and thus the policies were illegal. On September 21, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Smith lacks standing to sue because she has not suffered an injury in fact and the case should therefore be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The defendants further argued that even if Smith has standing, she has not set forth factual allegations that, accepted as true, are sufficient to show she is entitled to relief and her claims should be dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Hendricks found that all of Smith's causes of action are contingent on three alleged sources of injury: (1) that the Policy was "illegal" and void under South Carolina law, (2) that the Policy was "virtually worthless" because of "harsh and confusing exclusions" and because the defendants had no intent to pay claims, and (3) that the Policy was sold through an illegal scheme, where most of the premiums collected enriched HealthExtras and represented no benefit to the policy members at all. The judge, however, held that these allegations are either wrong as a matter of law or entirely speculative, and the face of Smith's complaint reveals no concrete, actual or imminent harm. Further, because Smith's lack of standing applies to all of her theories of liability, Judge Hendricks saw no need to conduct an independent analysis of each cause of action for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), as to do so would be extraneous effort. Accordingly, the judge granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. A full-text copy of Judge Hendricks' September 1, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/suZB1i from Leagle.com. Sharen Smith, Plaintiff, represented by William E. Hopkins, Jr., Hopkins Law Firm. Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin Kendrick Bell -- kbell@robinsonlaw.com -- Robinson McFadden and Moore, James David Brown -- dbrown@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, pro hac vice, Stephen Roy Clarke -- sclarke@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, pro hac vice & Thomas C. Van Arsdel -- tvanarsdel@winstead.com -- Winstead PC, pro hac vice. CBL & ASSOCIATES: Has Until Sept. 29 to Answer Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, The Allen J. and Sherry R. Potts Living Trust v. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. et al., 1:16-cv-00195 (E.D. Tenn.), CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., Stephen D Lebovitz, Farzana K Mitchell on Sept. 9 filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer to the Complaint. On Sept. 12, Magistrate Judge Christopher H Steger granted the Motion, and gave Defendants up to and including Sept. 29 to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. and CBL & Associates Limited Partnership said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that, "On May 27, 2016, Tommy French filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of himself and all persons who purchased our common stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016. Two additional suits were filed shortly thereafter with similar allegations. On June 9, 2016, The Allan J. and Sherry R. Potts Living Trust filed a putative class action in the same Court on behalf of the trust and all persons who purchased our common stock between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 2016, and on June 24, 2016, International Union of Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension Plan filed another putative class action in the same Court on behalf of itself and all persons who purchased our common stock between August 9, 2011 and May 24, 2016, containing similar allegations." On July 26, 2016, motions were submitted to the Court for the consolidation of these three cases, as well as for the appointment of a lead plaintiff. The deadline for the Court to act to appoint a lead plaintiff was September 1, 2016. "All three of these complaints are based on substantially similar allegations that certain of the Company's financing arrangements were obtained through fraud and/or misrepresentation, and that we and certain of our officers and directors made materially misleading statements to the market by failing to disclose material information concerning these alleged misrepresentations, and concerning the supposed involvement by insiders of the Company in alleged trading in the Company's stock by a United States senator on the basis of material nonpublic information. Based on these allegations, these complaints assert claims for violation of the securities laws and seek a variety of relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costs and attorneys' fees. We believe these complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously," the Company said. COX COMMUNICATIONS: Set-Top Box Class Action Faces Roadblock ------------------------------------------------------------ Edward Zuckerman, writing for Talk Media News, reports that consumers who say they are being ripped off by cable tv providers that collect a monthly rental fee for use of a set-top box that can be purchased for a fraction of the rental cost will have to wait for a rulemaking that is crawling through the Federal Communications Commission. A shortcut in the form of a class action antitrust lawsuit against Cox Communications ran into a roadblock at the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that the dispute should be resolved through an arbitration clause that Cox added to its subscriber agreements by relying on a "modification clause" authorized revisions without customers' approval. CR BARD: More Than 600 IV Filter Lawsuits Pending in Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Roopal Luhana, writing for The Legal Examiner, reports that more than 600 Bard IVC filter lawsuits are pending in court, with all federally filed cases consolidated in the District of Arizona in August 2015. A new case, filed on May 5, 2016, has now joined the MDL in Arizona. The plaintiff in this case name as defendants C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., and seek class action status for their case, hoping to represent thousands of individuals who received a Bard IVC filter and then suffered serious injuries as a result. The case was consolidated with the MDL on June 21, 2016. The plaintiffs seek in excess of $5 million in damages. Plaintiffs Accuse Bard of Aggressive Marketing Despite Negative Clinical Data The plaintiffs in the case are from a number of different states, including Florida, Colorado, Arizona, West Virginia, California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois. All were implanted with a Bard IVC filter -- a medical device that is implanted in the inferior vena cava, the main vein that goes from the legs back to the heart and lungs. The IVC filter is a small, cage-like device designed to trap blood clots before they can travel to the lungs and cause pulmonary embolism (PE, or blood clot in the lung). The plaintiffs received a variety of filters, including the Bard G2, the Bard G2 Express, the Bard Recovery, the Bard Eclipse, the Bard Denali, and the Bard Meridian. All plaintiffs in this case still have the filters inside of them--none have been removed. The plaintiffs alleged Bard of aggressively marketing their filters, "despite negative clinical data." According to their complaint, Bard became aware of numerous events in which the Recovery filter fractured, migrated, or perforated the inferior vena cava, causing blood clots, serious injuries, and even death, yet failed to respond with appropriate actions or warnings. In July 2004, Bard knew there were at least 12 filter migrations resulting in four deaths and at least 17 reports of filter fracture, six cases of which involved one of the "legs" of the filter penetrating the heart. Bard continued to market the Recovery until 2005, when the G2 filter, an updated design, was approved by the FDA. Bard Updated Designs Still Plagued with Problems The Bard G2, however, didn't seem to perform much better than the Recovery. It was also linked to a high incidence of fracture, and in a review of the FDA database for the years 2004 through 2008, Bard IVC filters were found to be responsible for 50 percent of all adverse events, 64 percent of all occurrences of IVC filter migrations, 69 percent of all vena cava wall perforations, and 70 percent of all filter fractures. These problems were associated with injuries like cardiac arrhythmia, fluid around the heart, hemorrhage, and death. Bard produced the Eclipse, which was FDA-approved in January 2010. The only difference between it and the G2 was that it was electropolished, which was supposed to increase fracture resistance. The new design continued to suffer from similar problems, and Bard released the Meridian in August 2011. The only difference between it and the Eclipse was a caudal anchoring system, which was supposed to reduce the risk of the filter migrating toward the groin. Bard received FDA approval for the Denali in May 2013, which included a caudal and cranial anchoring system to reduce filter migration. The plaintiffs claim that the Denali was still vulnerable to the same defects. Plaintiffs Seek Medical Monitoring In May 2014, the FDA issued a safety communication concerning IVC filters, and recommended that doctors should remove them within 29 to 54 days after implantation, as long as the danger for pulmonary embolism had passed. The plaintiffs seek damages for medical monitoring, in addition to seeking payment for damages, because they were exposed to a significantly higher risk of injury and death from Bard's IVC filters than they would have if the filters had been designed without defects. CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss "Sallustro" Underway --------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the case by Tanya Sallustro remains pending. On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York (the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were restated to $1,082,375 -- reduction of $192,625) and restated goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero). Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. After requesting several extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016. The Company's reply brief was filed on April 25, 2016. No hearing date has been set by the Court at this time. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time. CVS CAREMARK: 1st Cir. Revives Suit Over Vit E Supplements ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned RONDA KAUFMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendants, Appellees, No. 16- 1199 (1st Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing Ronda Kaufman's complaint. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. sells a Vitamin E dietary supplement with a label that touts the product as supporting "heart health." Having purchased CVS's Vitamin E product, Kaufman alleged that CVS's label deceives consumers because no scientifically valid studies show that the label's "heart health" statements are both truthful and not misleading. Kaufman marshalled her allegations in service of a putative class action complaint that advances two counts at issue on appeal: violation of the New York Consumer Protection Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law section 349, which makes unlawful "[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service" in New York, and a piggy-back common law claim of unjust enrichment The district court found that federal law preempts both of these statements because CVS's label on its Vitamin E product complied with labeling requirements for dietary supplements under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On appeal, however, the First Circuit found that Kaufman has adequately pled that CVS's labeling of its Vitamin E supplement is not in keeping with the requirements of FDCA section 343(r), and that federal law does not, therefore, preempt application of New York state law for the purpose of holding CVS accountable for misleading consumers by failing to satisfy those requirements. The First Circuit further held that the unjust enrichment count is also not preempted to the extent that its reference to deceptive conduct is solely to the conduct that would render the label misleading under section 343(r). A full-text copy of the First Circuit's September 6, 2016 decision is available at https://is.gd/vMrvAZ from Leagle.com. Brian D. Penny -- penny@lawgsp.com -- with whom Goldman Scarlato & Penny, P.C., was on brief, for appellant. Robert M. Andalman -- randalman@aandglaw.com -- with whom A&G Law LLC was on brief, for appellees. DALLAS CENTRAL: 326 Colonial Suit Alleges Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------------ 326 Colonial Apartment Complex, LLC, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10787, (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 30, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for violation of the Texas Tax Code. Plaintiff owns real property and improvements located at 3500 E Overton Rd., Village Oaks, Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed on the property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas 75247-6195. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Boling, Esq. Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq. 2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203 Plano, TX 75023 Tel: (214) 378-8788 Fax: (214) 378-8988 Email: michael@bolinglegal.com chris@bolinglegal.com DALLAS CENTRAL: 2015 Market Center Suit Alleges Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------------------ 2015 Market Center LLC, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10777 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 30, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief in violation of the Texas Tax Code. Plaintiff was and is the owner of a property located at 2015 Market Center Blvd. Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed on the property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas 75247-6195. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Boling, Esq. Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq. 2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203 Plano, TX 75023 Tel: (214) 378-8788 Fax: (214) 378-8988 Email: michael@bolinglegal.com chris@bolinglegal.com DALLAS APPRAISAL: 3010 State Street Suit Alleges Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------------------- 3010 State Street, L.P. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10759 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 30, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for violation of the Texas Tax Code. Plaintiff was and is the owner of real properties located at 2101 and 2201 Clark Street, 3010 and 3204 Thomas Avenue and 3010, 3108 and 3101 State Streets, Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed on the property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas 75247-6195. Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Dallas A. Sessions, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Tel: (972) 931-9901 Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax) Email: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com dsessions@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: 3146 Northgate Suit Alleges Misappraisal -------------------------------------------------------- 3146 Northgate LLC, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10729 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 30, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for violation of the Texas Tax Code. Plaintiff was and is the owner of a real property located at W. Northgate Drive, Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed on the property by the District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year 2016. The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas 75247-6195. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Lang, Esq. Heather H. Long, Esq. LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C. P.O. Box 261330 Plano, TX 75026 Telephone: (972) 731-6758 Facsimile: (469) 854-3336 E-Mail: mike@langlaw.com DEMOCRATIC NAT'L: First Hearing in Fraud Class Action Held ---------------------------------------------------------- Pam Martens and Russ Martens, writing for Global Research, report that Mavi Ramierez is a Mom, a social media entrepreneur and a dedicated citizen journalist who took a day off from work to cover the first hearing on August 23 in the Federal lawsuit that has been filed by Senator Bernie Sanders' supporters against the Democratic National Committee and its former Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The lawsuit, which currently has more than 100 plaintiffs and more than a thousand in the wings with retainer agreements, is charging the DNC with fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence. Leaked DNC documents and emails by Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks show Wasserman Schultz disparaging the Sanders' campaign while key DNC officials actually plotted to sabotage the Sanders' campaign by putting the word out that he is an atheist (which Sanders says he is not) and characterizing his campaign as "a mess." From a virtual unknown on the national stage, Sanders' campaign won 23 states in the primaries, raised over $228 million, predominantly from average Americans, and held rallies that ranged from 5,000 to more than 20,000 supporters while Clinton attracted hundreds. Sanders' supporters are demanding this court case to determine if the intentional sabotage by the DNC cost Sanders' his primary battle. Since mainstream media has failed to report on this first court hearing, the interviews conducted by Mavi Ramierez outside the Federal courthouse take on added significance. Ms. Ramierez interviewed the Sanders' supporters and attorney for plaintiffs as they emerged from the hearing. But throughout these interviews, there was a constant, annoying, and distracting honking coming from an SUV parked on the sidewalk. One gutsy interviewee, who goes by the Facebook name of Jessica Rose Grfl, strolled down to the SUV, peered inside, and tells the videographer that this is an unmanned vehicle. The honking appears to be by remote control. Ms. Ramierez and her videographer move closer to the SUV and show viewers that it is from the Federal Protective Service of the Department of Homeland Security. The head of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, is an Obama nominee. Johnson has spun four times through the revolving doors of the corporate/Wall Street law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to work in either the Bill Clinton or Obama administration. Johnson was a bundler for Obama in his 2008 campaign and personally donated $28,460 to the Obama Victory Fund and another $28,460 to the DNC in 2008, according to Federal Election Commission data. Clearly, Johnson is a big Obama fan and Obama is a big Debbie Wasserman Schultz fan. In June, Politico's Hanna Trudo reported that Obama appeared at a DNC fundraiser in Miami and told the crowd the following about Wasserman Schultz: "She's had my back, I want to make sure we have her back." Just two days after Wikileaks released the devastating emails in July, showing that key DNC officials had violated their own bylaws in overtly attempting to sabotage the Sanders' campaign, creating an instant scandal in the media and forcing Wasserman Schultz to resign from the DNC, President Obama remained unconscionably effusive in his praise for Wasserman Schultz. The White House released this official statement from the President on July 24, which stated in part: "For the last eight years, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful. Her leadership of the DNC has meant that we had someone who brought Democrats together not just for my re-election campaign, but for accomplishing the shared goals we have had for our country . . . Michelle and I are grateful for her efforts, we know she will continue to serve our country as a member of Congress from Florida and she will always be our dear friend." DISNEY: Loses Bid to Delay "No Poaching" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that the 9th Circuit denies permission for a review, bringing the studio closer to a trial scheduled for next year. On Aug. 29, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an effort by Disney and DreamWorks to delay a class action lawsuit that alleges that animation studios colluded with each other to deny its workers better job opportunities and keep wages low. Robert Nitsch, a former visual effects worker who worked on Matrix Revolutions and Kung Fu Panda, and others are moving forward after striking a $13 million settlement with Sony Pictures and a $5.9 million deal with Fox's Blue Sky Studios. A trial is currently scheduled for June 2017 to hear evidence in an antitrust lawsuit pertaining to the alleged way that these companies conspired about a decade ago not to "cold call" one another's employees. In May, U.S. District Court judge Lucy Koh partially certified the class over Disney's objections that the issue of statute of limitation precluded this outcome. Specifically, the defendants argued that plaintiffs must establish fraudulent concealment or else their claims are time-barred. They say that many class members had actual knowledge of their potential claims through meetings, blog posts and emails years before their action was filed, and that accordingly, it would be inappropriate to address claims on a class basis when knowledge from one class member to the next could be varying. After Judge Koh wouldn't let this argument stop certification, Disney and DreamWorks hired one of the nation's top appellate lawyers and told the 9th Circuit that the case raised "an important question on a recurring issue impacting a wide range of class actions." Despite this, the 9th Circuit denies the petition for permission to appeal. Disney and DreamWorks may attempt to get the 9th Circuit interested again on the same issue once the trial is complete and a judgment has been entered, but they needed the green light for an interlocutory appeal. On Aug. 29, the bid was denied without further comment by two of the 9th Circuit judges. EAST COAST RESTAURANT: Court Allows Sodekson to Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Lisa Sodekson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. East Coast Restaurant & Nightclubs, LLC d/b/a The Gold Club of Bedford, PML Clubs, Inc., and Michael Rose, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-02711-RBH (D.S.C.), Judge R. Bryan Harwell has issued an order: -- granting the plaintiff's motion to amend/correct complaint -- denying the plaintiff's motion for extension of time to complete discovery -- denying the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective action -- granting the plaintiff's motion to amend/correct the scheduling order to extend the mediation deadline for a period of 60 days from date of the order. On or about July 8, 2015, Lisa Sodekson filed suit against the defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking relief on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. Sodekson, a resident of Massachusetts, worked as an exotic dancer at The Gold Club in Bedford, New Hampshire for approximately five months in 2012. On December 24, 2015, Sodekson filed her motion to amend/correct complaint, seeking to add another plaintiff, add two defendants, and add additional South Carolina and New Hampshire state law claims. On June 9, 2016, the discovery deadline date, and nearly a year after the lawsuit was initially filed, Sodekson filed a motion to certify class and a motion for extension of time to complete discovery. Finally, Sodekson filed another motion to amend the scheduling order to extend the mediation deadline on August 5, 2016. Sodekson requested leave of court to add Chantel Kaneshige, a South Carolina resident who worked as an exotic dancer, as a named plaintiff in the action. While the defendants argued that Kaneshige is subject to an arbitration agreement, Judge Harwell found that the defendants have not filed a motion to compel Kaneshige to arbitrate her claims when she filed her consent to join the lawsuit. Thus, the judge allowed Sodekson to amend her complaint to add Kaneshige as a plaintiff to the case. Judge Harwell also allowed Sodekson to amend her complaint to include claims against the two corporate defendants, RT Entertainment, LLC and Dunnigan's Restaurant, Inc., including the alleged state law claims against the defendants. The defendants have not argued that they will be prejudiced by the inclusion of these additional defendants or state law claims, or that the Sodekson has acted in bad faith in filing her motion to amend/correct the complaint. Sodekson also sought to modify the Scheduling Order already in place to permit discovery in the case. However, because Sodekson has not met the standard for extending the discovery deadline, Judge Harwell denied Sodekson's motion. Judge Harwell likewise denied Sodekson's motion for conditional certification because Sodekson failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the standard for conditional certification. Finally, Judge Harwell extended the deadline for mediation through 60 days, given that the parties have had several motions pending that the court has ruled on. A full-text copy of Judge Harwell's September 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/J9QY1f from Leagle.com. Lisa Sodekson is represented by: David E. Rothstein, Esq. Michael G. Corley, Esq. ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM 1312 Augusta Street Greenville, SC 29605 Tel: (864)438-0969 Fax: (864)241-1386 PML Clubs Inc, Michael Rose, East Coast Restaurant & Nightclubs LLC are represented by: Kenneth Ray Moss, Jr., Esq. WRIGHT WORLEY POPE EKSTER AND MOSS 628 A Sea Mountain Hwy North Myrtle Beach, SC 29582-5802 Tel: (843)281-9901 - and - J. Michael Murray, Esq. Steven Daniel Shafron, Esq. BERKMAN GORDON MURRY AND DEVAN 55 Public Square, Suite 2200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216)781-5245 Fax: (216)781-8207 EAST COLUMBUS: Court Trims Claims in EOCC Sexual Harassment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James L. Graham granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in the case captioned Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, v. East Columbus Host, LLC (d/b/a Texas Roadhouse), and Ultra Steak, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-1696 (S.D. Ohio). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of 12 named complainants and a class of similarly situated women, brought claims for sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII against East Columbus Host, LLC (d/b/a Texas Roadhouse) and Ultra Steak, Inc. The EEOC presented evidence that Brian Price, a restaurant manager in his late 30s, sexually harassed young women and girls at a Texas Roadhouse restaurant for three years before being fired. The EEOC brought the case on behalf of 12 women: Bonnie Rene Fagan, Brandy Jones, Fawn Leathers, Courtney Faller, Lindsay Stover, Ashley Harry, Mirinda Heightland, Cheyenne Johnson, Savannah McGrath, Michelle Hessler, and Kathleen Brown. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the claims of 10 of the 12 women. Judge Graham granted the motion only as to four retaliation claims and three constructive-discharge claims, denying the balance. The defendants' argued that the court should reject most of the retaliation claims because the complainants failed to engage in any protected activity. Judge Graham found that the defendants were right for only three of the complainants, namely: Stover, Brown, and Fagan, who failed to present colorable evidence that they engaged in even the most basic of protected activity -- they did not resist or confront Price on his behavior. For the other complainants, the judge found that they either complained about Price's behavior directly to Price or through other channels (for example, to other local managers, corporate personnel, or HR hot- lines), and their testimony presents a genuine issue of material fact on whether they engaged in protected activity. Judge Graham also granted summary judgment on Hessler's retaliation claim for being untimely. Judge Graham also granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the following complainants' constructive discharge claims: -- Stover: Her own testimony provides overwhelming evidence for the reason for her resignation -- her other job and other commitments. -- Fagan: She did not quit, but she transferred to a different Texas Roadhouse restaurant, and the EEOC provided no evidence that this transfer was materially adverse to Fagan. -- Jones: she transferred to another Texas Roadhouse restaurant the same distance from her house. Jones presents no evidence of unusual circumstances, in fact, the transfer was her idea. A full-text copy of Judge Graham's September 2, 2016 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/g5Tf0i from Leagle.com. EEOC, Plaintiff, represented by Melanie M. Peterson, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Jessi Isenhart, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. East Columbus Host, LLC, Ultra Steak, Inc., Defendants, represented by Julie A. Crocker -- jcrocker@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Blake J. Burgan -- bburgan@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP, pro hac vice & Carolyn A. Davis -- cdavis@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP. Texas Roadhouse Inc., Movant, represented by Janay Marie Stevens -- janay.stevens@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & Robert C. Rives, IV -- robert.rives@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro hac vice. ENERGY RECOVERY: Schubert Probes Potential Fiduciary Duty Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder and consumer rights law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP has launched an investigation into whether certain officers and directors of Energy Recovery, Inc. breached their fiduciary duties by making false and misleading statements to shareholders and the market. Energy Recovery provides energy solutions to industrial fluid flow markets by converting wasted pressure energy into reusable assets and preserving or eliminating pumping technology in hostile processing environments. On January 27, 2016 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California upheld securities fraud class action claims against Energy Recovery and certain of its officers and directors regarding contractual negotiations with a prospective client. The Court found that former Chief Executive Officer Thomas S. Rooney, Jr. acted with "deliberate or conscious recklessness" in telling investors that Energy Recovery had secured a verbal agreement with a prospective client . The amended complaint filed in the class action on May 26, 2016 alleges additional violations of the federal securities laws during the period March 7, 2013 through March 5, 2015. Specifically, defendants are alleged to have made false and misleading statements regarding contractual negotiations with multiple prospective clients, commercial interest in oil and gas products, and the operability of core Energy Recovery products, causing the stock price to be artificially inflated. Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe's investigation concerns when and how much certain of Energy Recovery's officers and directors knew or should have known of the false or misleading statements, and whether any corporate insiders sold stock based on non-public information. Shareholders interested in seeking the recovery of damages on behalf of the company and securing other remedial measures should contact the firm. If you are a long-term holder of Energy Recovery stock and wish to obtain additional information about Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe's investigation and your legal rights, please contact Dustin Schubert either via email at dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com or by telephone at (415) 788-4220, or fill out the form on our website at http://classactionlawyers.com/energyrecovery About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe prosecutes securities claims, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. EZCORP INC: Securities Litigation Moved Into Discovery Stage ------------------------------------------------------------ Ezcorp, 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 case, In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation in New York has now moved into the discovery stage. On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel (our former chief executive officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer and former chief operating officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In general, the complaint alleges that the implementation of certain strategic and growth initiatives were less successful than represented by the defendants, that certain of the Company's business units and investments were not performing as well as represented by the defendants and that, as a result, the defendants' disclosures and statements about the Company's business and operations were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 17, 2014, the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan, also purporting to be the holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock and acting for itself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). The complaint names EZCORP, Inc., Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither as defendants, but also names Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership. The complaint likewise asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that (1) EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the business and prospects, and compliance history, of the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. and the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with entities owned by Mr. Cohen and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it, and (2) Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, participated in the preparation and dissemination of the Company's disclosures and controlled the Company's business strategy and activities. On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action filed a motion to consolidate the Close action and the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action and to appoint the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan as the lead plaintiff. On November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC), and on January 26, 2015, appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 12, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that: * EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. (Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history; * EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (as entity owned by Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it; * EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and * Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's alleged false and misleading statements and omissions. On April 27 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, and the parties submitted their respective supporting and opposing briefs. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. Specifically, it dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims insofar as they were based on (1) the alleged misstatements about the nature of and approval process related to the Company's consulting relationship with Madison Park, (2) the alleged misstatements regarding the impairment of the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond, and (3) some of the alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims survived the motions to dismiss insofar as they were based on certain alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 20(a) claims also survived the motions to dismiss. The case has now moved into the discovery stage. "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company said. EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Securities Case Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Ezcorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a motion to dismiss securities litigation in Texas remains pending. The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder." "The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business. "On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was also filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these 2 lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be consolidated. "On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel appointed as co-lead counsel. "On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2015 and October 20, 2015. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Grimshaw. "On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply on May 11, 2016. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 22, 2016, and the parties are waiting on the Court's decision. "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims," the Company said. FOODSTATE INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Holt" Suit -------------------------------------------------- Judge M. James Lorenz granted in part and denied, in part, the defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned KATHLEEN HOLT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOODSTATE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00078-L-JMA (S.D. Cal.). Foodstate, Inc. is a producer of various health and dietary supplements. Plaintiffs Kathleen Holt and Jose Ruvalcaba purchased and consumed two different vitamin products that Foodstate produces: One Daily Multivitamin and Men's One Daily. The plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, that Foodstate falsely represents that its products are either entirely or largely from whole food sources when in fact they are also derived from synthetic sources. The plaintiffs also alleged that Foodstate fails to disclose the presence of magnesium stearate in its products. Neither of the plaintiffs in alleged that they actually purchased or consumed 107 of the 109 different products produced by Foodstate that form the basis of the putative class action. Foodstate moved to dismiss all claims to the extent they are based on products the plaintiffs have not purchased or the omission of the presence of magnesium stearate on the ingredient labels. Given the diversity of functions between the products, and because the plaintiffs have failed to articulate any meaningful commonality as to ingredients or packaging, Judge Lorenz found that the plaintiffs have failed to allege standing as to the 107 products they did not purchase. Accordingly, the judge granted Foodstate's motion to dismiss with respect to these products. Foodstate also contended that the court should dismiss the fraud based claims as to both the purchased and unpurchased products for lack of adequate particularity, arguing that the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint failed to cure this deficiency. Judge Lorenz, however, found that unlike the First Amended Complaint, which was vague as to which specific additive was fraudulently omitted from the label, the Second Amended Complaint specifically identifies magnesium stearate as the stearic acid additive which, though allegedly contained in the products, is omitted from the product labels. Accordingly, the judge denied Foodstate's motion to the extent it sought dismissal of the magnesium stearate claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Foodstate further contended that the plaintiffs' claims under the California Business and Professions Code are barred by the safe harbor rule to the extent they are based on the omission of magnesium stearate from the ingredient labels. However, Judge Lorenz found that Foodstate's motion failed to cite to any California state law for the proposition that they need not disclose the presence of magnesium stearate. Accordingly, the judge found Foodstate's safe harbor argument unpersuasive. A full-text copy of Judge Lorenz's September 6, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/kQ1zSW from Leagle.com. Kathleen Holt, Jose Ruvalcaba are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (949)612-9999 Fax: 1-800-520-5523 Kathleen Holt is represented by: Jessica R.K. Dorman, Esq. Joshua Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino De Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619)233-7770 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- and -- Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 9171 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (216)220-6496 Fax: (866)633-0228 Foodstate, Inc is represented by: Edward P. Swan, Jr., Esq. Truc T. Do, Esq. JONES DAY 12265 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130-4096 Tel: (858)314-1200 Fax: (858)314-1150 Email: pswan@jonesday.com trucdo@jonesday.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Throttle Bodies ------------------------------------------------------------- Jenie Mallari, writing for Northern California Record, reports that two California residents allege their Ford Edge vehicles contain defective throttle bodies that cause the vehicle to drop speed while in use. Janis Benkle and John Kovak filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated on Aug. 24, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division against Ford Motor Co. alleging violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they purchased/leased defendant's vehicles containing a Delphi Gen 6 electronic throttle body, which caused their vehicles to spontaneously stall or suddenly decelerate to a near idle speed while in operation. The plaintiffs hold Ford Motor Co. responsible because the defendant allegedly concealed and failed to disclose its knowledge of the throttle defect and failed to acknowledge or correct the defect. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek for the case to be maintained as a class action, damages, attorneys' fees, costs of action and other relief as the court deems just. They are represented by Roland Tellis, Mark Pifko and David Fernandes of Baron & Budd PC in Encino, Blake P. Green of BG Law LLC in Kansas City, Missouri and Eric D. Barton, Tyler W. Hudson and David P. Barclay of Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP in Kansas City, Missouri. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division Case number 16-cv-01569 FXCM: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Swiss Nat'l Bank Turmoil ---------------------------------------------------------------- Avi Mizrahi, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that a New York district court has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against FXCM over its performance in the aftermath of the Swiss National Bank turmoil in 2015. The plaintiffs in the case alleged that FXCM misled investors by claiming that its agency business model is less risky than it really was. In addition the lawsuit was charging some other executives in the company, including the broker's CEO Drew Niv, with scienter. The allegations went as far as to say that FXCM had no risk management department nor any protocols that manage risk. GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Last Two Ignition Switch Bellwether Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that General Motors Corp. has settled the last two bellwether cases scheduled for later this year over alleged faulty ignition switches following a number of successful outcomes before juries. The settlements, which are confidential, resolve cases scheduled for trials on Sept. 12 and Nov. 14 alleging that GM's ignition switches slipped into the accessory position, disabling air bags and electrical systems and injuring drivers in accidents. GM has been largely successful so far at trial. In the first bellwether trial this year, plaintiffs lawyers withdrew the case after their client lied. The second ended with a jury finding that the defect didn't cause the injuries. A third settled, and a fourth was voluntarily dismissed. On Aug. 25, a Texas state court jury in Houston gave GM a defense verdict. Those trials "have been extremely helpful," wrote GM spokesman James Cain wrote in an email on Sept. 5. "We have learned that juries care deeply about the cause and contributing factors of each accident, and the merits of the claims. Importantly, they have carefully considered engineering and other evidence, not just the mistakes GM has already admitted, and they're holding plaintiffs to their burden of proof." Robert Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, lead plaintiffs attorney in the injury and death suits, said GM's decision to settle the cases "creates momentum to continue the process of full resolution of all MDL cases." U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who is overseeing most of the injury and death cases in federal court in New York, is expected to hear details of the settlements at a Sept. 7 status conference. The next wave of bellwether trials in federal court are set to start July 10. Trials in state courts are scheduled for January and February in California and March in Missouri. Still in limbo are cases filed over accidents that predated GM's 2009 bankruptcy. On July 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a 2015 decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber that had barred those claims. GM has filed a petition for an en banc rehearing. HARVEST NATURAL: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Harvest Natural Resources, 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 Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action case, John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edminston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013), remains pending. The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J. Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W. Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013). The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into the John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edminston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013). The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits. "We are currently unable to estimate the amount or range of any possible loss," the Company said. HARVEST NATURAL: Garland Sues Over Share Purchase Agreement ----------------------------------------------------------- Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Robert Garland, a stockholder of the Company, filed on August 9, 2016, a lawsuit in the 215th Civil District Court of Harris County, Texas against the members of the Company's board of directors (the "Board") and CT Energy (and the Company, as a nominal defendant). On June 29, 2016, Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. (the "Company"), and its wholly owned subsidiary, HNR Energia BV, ("HNR Energia"), entered into a share purchase agreement (the "Share Purchase Agreement") with CT Energy Holding SRL ("CT Energy"), pursuant to which HNR Energia agreed to sell to CT Energy all of HNR Energia's 51% interest in Harvest-Vinccler Dutch Holding B.V. ("Harvest Holding"). Harvest Holding owns, indirectly through wholly owned subsidiaries, a 40% interest in Petrodelta, S.A., through which all of the Company's Venezuelan interests are owned. On August 2, 2016, the Company filed a Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the Securities and Exchange Commission soliciting stockholder approval of the proposed sale of the Company's Venezuelan interests, among other proposals. The lawsuit asserts several class action and derivative claims, including that (i) the Board members breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by negotiating and causing the execution of the Share Purchase Agreement, (ii) CT Energy aided and abetted the Board members in breaching their fiduciary duties and (iii) the Proxy Statement contained inadequate disclosures about the proposed transaction. Among other relief, the lawsuit requests that the court grant an injunction to prevent the completion of the proposed transaction, in addition to unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and other costs. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Amended Complaint Filed in "McCloskey" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, McCloskey et al v. Match Group Inc et al., 3:16-cv- 00549 (N.D. Tex.), Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint With Jury Demand against Allen & Company LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp, BNP Paribas Securities Corp, Barclays Capital Inc, Gregory R Blatt, Cowen and Company LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc, Fifth Third Securities Inc, JP Morgan Securities LLC, Joseph M Levin, Match Group Inc, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer & Co Inc, PNC Capital Markets LLC, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, SG Americas Securities LLC, Michael H Schwerdtman, Gary Swidler, Gregg J Winiarski. On Aug. 17, 2016, a First Amended Scheduling Order was entered in the case docket. Pursuant to the Order, the court vacates the Scheduling Order and Mediation Order issued July 20, 2016, and issues the First Amended Scheduling Order. Lead Plaintiffs were directed to file, or designate, an operative consolidated complaint no later than Sept. 6, 2016. Defendants shall answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint no later than Nov. 5. In the event that Defendants file a motion or motions to dismiss the Complaint, response due by Dec. 23, and replies due by Feb. 6, 2017. IAC/Interactivecorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed in federal court in Texas against Match Group, five of its officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of Match Group's Company's initial public offering in November 2015. See David M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). The complaint alleges that Match Group's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with its initial public offering were materially false and misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU (as defined in "Item 2- Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-General-Key Terms") would decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint asserts that these alleged failures to timely disclose material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint pleads claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in, or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement, the prospectus, and related communications in violation of Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's alleged violations. The complaint seeks class certification, damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees. On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different named plaintiff. See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case. On April 27, 2016, various current or former shareholders in Match Group and their respective law firms filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative class. On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants' response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for determination. On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel. In accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV- 549-L. On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. "We and Match Group believe that the allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and will defend vigorously against them," the Company said. ITT TECHNICAL: Employees File Class Action Over Shutdown -------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the for-profit college chain ITT Technical Institute is facing more lawsuits from employees following its decision to shut down. According to The Indianapolis Star, two new lawsuits say the company violated federal law by not providing 60 days' notice. Another lawsuit sought class-action status on behalf of the 8,000 employees who are losing their jobs as a result of ITT's decision to shut down more than 130 ITT Technical Institute campuses in 38 states. The three lawsuits were filed in Indiana and Delaware. "There's no doubt in my mind here that there is a plant closing or mass layoff and the employees did not get the 60 days' notice," said Ken Dau-Schmidt, the Willard and Margaret Carr professor of labor and employment law in the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University. "The lawsuit seems fine on its surface." But legal experts say ITT could counter by claiming it was the victim of an "unforeseeable" regulatory assault and never had the chance to defend itself. An "unforeseeable event" would be an exception to the 60-day notice rule. ITT announced it's closing all 130 of its U.S. campuses, saying it can't survive recent sanctions by the U.S. Department of Education banning the school from enrolling new students paying tuition with federal financial aid. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Strikes Two Upcoming Talc Trials --------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a New Jersey trial court judge has struck two upcoming trials over talcum powder's link to ovarian cancer after concluding that two plaintiffs' experts had "made-for-litigation" scientific methods. In his Sept. 2 ruling, Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson found that the experts, whose testimony was instrumental at trials earlier this year in which plaintiffs attorneys obtained verdicts of $72 million and $55 million, had gaps in their scientific methodologies and failed to explain how talcum powder specifically caused ovarian cancer. "Throughout these proceedings the court was disappointed in the scope of plaintiffs' presentation; it almost appeared as if counsel wished the court to wear blinders," Judge Johnson wrote. "No witness for plaintiffs ventured to articulate just how it is that talc in the ovaries, or, what it is about talc in the ovaries, that sets off a chain of events which purportedly causes ovarian cancer." Given that finding, Judge Johnson granted summary judgment to the defendants in both cases. The first trial, from among nearly 200 lawsuits in New Jersey state court, had been scheduled for Oct. 11. The ruling came as a big shock to plaintiffs attorneys, who say they plan to appeal. "This came out of the blue," said Ted Meadows -- ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com -- a principal at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama. He said that Judge Johnson, in striking Drs. Graham Colditz and Daniel Cramer, "went too far in his analysis and started weighing evidence instead of determining whether or not their methodology was sound." The ruling bolstered previous attacks made by Johnson & Johnson and its lawyers against the science behind plaintiffs' talc cases. "The ruling goes right to the heart of the issues in this litigation and affirms our position from the beginning that science does not support the allegations plaintiff lawyers have been making," wrote Gene Williams -- gmwilliams@shb.com -- a Houston partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon who represents Johnson & Johnson in the talc cases. In August, Judge Johnson held a hearing that lasted seven days to determine whether the scientific experts in the case met the evidentiary standards set forth in the New Jersey Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Kemp ex rel. Wright v. State. In determining whether other experts would rely on their scientific research, Judge Johnson found gaps in the methodologies of both Drs. Colditz and Cramer, noting that neither could back up their explanation of how talcum powder caused cancer in the ovaries. Dr. Colditz has "all the earmarks of a made-for-litigation presentation," Judge Johnson wrote. And Dr. Cramer, he wrote, uses a methodology based on numbers, rather than science. "Instead of a plausible explanation of a hypothesis setting forth the biological mechanism of the causal link between talc-based powder and ovarian cancer, what the court received was a made-for- litigation methodology," he wrote. "Though both plaintiffs' experts are eminently qualified, their areas of scientific inquiry, reasoning, and methodology are slanted away from objective science and towards advocacy," he concluded. The testimony of one defense expert, by contrast, was like "turning on the lights in a dark room," he wrote. Mr. Meadows noted that a judge in Missouri, where this year's verdicts took place in the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court in St. Louis, had allowed both experts into trial. Both also are set to testify in a Sept. 26 trial, also in St. Louis, he said. KOCH FOODS: Fixed Chicken Prices for 8 Yrs, Chicago Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a food distributor claims in an antitrust class action in Chicago, that Koch Foods, Tyson, Perdue and others have conspired for eight years to reduce chicken production, pushing up the price of broiler chickens by nearly 50 percent. Maplevale Farms, a New York food distributor, also sued Pilgrim's Pride, Sanderson Farms and others, on Sept. 2 in Chicago Federal Court. Maplevale claims that since 2008 the wholesale price of broiler chickens has risen by nearly 50 percent while feed prices have dropped more than 20 percent -- and not because of a free market. "(B)eginning at least as early as January 2008 defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of Broilers," Maplevale says in the 113-page lawsuit. "The principal (but not exclusive) method by which defendants implemented and executed their conspiracy was by coordinating their output and limiting production with the intent and expected result of increasing prices of broilers in the United States." Broilers account for 98 percent of all chicken meat sold in the United States, and the defendant companies control 90 percent of the market, Maplevale says. "Historically, the broiler industry was marked by boom and bust cycles where, in response to rising prices, producers increased production, which caused an oversupply and resulting decrease in pricing. However, that market pattern changed markedly in 2008," according to the complaint. Unlike prior production cuts, Maplevale says, in 2008 "defendants cut their ability to ramp up production for 18 months or more by destroying broiler breeder hens in their broiler breeder flocks responsible for supplying the eggs defendants raise into broilers. This destruction of the broiler breeder flock was unparalleled and the consequences continue to reverberate in the broiler industry to present day." Poultry breeders faced a similar antitrust complaint in the 1970s, when major producers set production levels and prices for broilers in a weekly conference call. Modern technology makes price-fixing possible without phone calls. "Producers now electronically transfer vast amounts of production data to Agri Stats which, while supposedly anonymous, in fact provide defendants with sufficient detail to determine with reasonable accuracy producer-level data on production, cost, and general efficiencies. This permits the defendants to share, on a weekly and/or monthly basis, their confidential production and pricing information, including forward-looking production information, which is easily forecasted on broiler breeder flock data that is reported and shared," the complaint states. France fined 21 chicken companies a total of $17 million for price fixing, showing that "a price-fixing conspiracy is plausible even in the modern, industrialized reality of broiler production," Maplevale says. It seeks class certification and treble damages for the inflated prices class members have paid since 2008. It is represented by Steven Hart -- shart@hmelegal.com -- with Hart, McLaughlin & Eldridge in Chicago. Tyson spokesman Worth Sparkman and Perdue spokeswoman Andrea Staub declined to comment. Koch Foods did not respond to a request for comment. The defendants are: Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of Alabama, LLC; JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC; Koch Meats Co., Inc.; Tyson Foods, Inc.; Tyson Chicken, Inc.; Tyson Breeders, Inc.; Tyson Poultry, Inc.; Pilgrim's Pride Corporation; Perdue Farms, Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division); Wayne Farms, LLC; Mountaire Farms, Inc.; Mountaire Farms, LLC; Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc.; Peco Foods, Inc.; Foster Farms, LLC; House of Raeford Farms, Inc.; Simmons Foods, Inc.; Fieldale Farms Corporation; George's, Inc.; George's Farms, Inc.; O.K. Foods, Inc.; O.K. Farms, Inc.; and O.K. Industries, Inc. LIONS GATE: "Teamsters" Sues Against Shady Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------ Teamsters Local 710 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., Orion Arm Acquisition, Inc., John C. Malone, Chris Albrecht, Gregory Maffei, Irving Azoff, Andrew T. Heller, Susan Lyne, Jeff Sagansky, Dan Sanchez, Charles Tanabe, Robert S. Wiesenthal, Robert R. Bennett, Leslie Malone, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, The Evan D. Malone Trust A, Hilltop Investments, Llc And Deborah J. Bennett, Defendants, Case No. Case No. 12705 (Del. Ch., August 30, 2016), seeks consummation of a proposed merger of Starz and Lions Gate, rescinding of merger if already in effect, costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorney and expert fees for breach of fiduciary duties. Starz and Lions Gate had entered into a merger agreement with Starz continuing as the surviving corporation and becoming an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Lions Gate. Said agreement omitted the sales process, the conflicts of interests in the process, data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness of the deal which has resulted in an allegedly unfair price for Starz stockholders. Plaintiff owns Starz shares. Defendant is represented by: R. Bruce McNew, Esq. Samuel L. Moultrie, Esq. WILKS, LUKOFF & BRACEGIRDLE, LLC 4250 Lancaster Pike, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19805 Telephone: (302) 255-0850 - and - Randall J. Baron David T. Wissbroecker Edward M. Gergosian ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 LOUISIANA CHILDREN'S: "Tillman" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Myreal Tillman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Louisiana Children's Medical Center, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-14291 (E.D. La., August 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, damages for retaliatory discharge under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Louisiana Children's Medical Center is a Louisiana non-profit corporation engaged in business in Orleans Parish, Louisiana operating hospitals in the Greater New Orleans Area, including the New Orleans East Hospital where Plaintiff working as a PBX operator, transmitting pages, code blues over a hospital's intercom system. Tillman claims to have worked through meal and rest breaks and was allegedly terminated due to insubordination. Defendant is represented by: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON AND JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Tel: (504) 599-5953 Fax: (888) 988-6499 Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Malvern Suit Moved to E.D. of Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- MALVERN INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHIATRIC AND ALCOHOLIC STUDIES, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., N/K/A MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., and MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC. N/K/A MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., Case No. 160800738, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04772-JCJ to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. J. Curtis Joyner. Magellan Health is an American for-profit managed health care company, focused on behavioral healthcare. The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Senoff, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735 1130 E-mail: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com - and - Gregory B. Heller, Esq. YOUNG RICCHIUTI CALDWELL & HELLER LLC 1600 MARKET ST., SUITE 3800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 546 1004 Facsimile: (267) 546 1039 E-mail: gheller@yrchlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: MICHAEL H. BERNSTEIN, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 225 Liberty St 28th Fl New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 422 0202 E-mail: michael.bernstein@sdma.com MANNKIND CORPORATION: To Defend Against Suit in Tel Aviv -------------------------------------------------------- MannKind 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 will vigorously defend against the claims advanced in a class action in Tel Aviv court. The Company said, "Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline of the price of our common stock, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of our officers and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock. These complaints have now been consolidated into a single action. The amended complaint includes claims asserted under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and has been pled as a putative shareholder class action. In general, the complaint alleges that we and certain of our officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and other relief. We will vigorously defend against the claims advanced." "Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline of the price of our common stock, two motions were submitted to the District Court at Tel Aviv (Economic Department) for the certification of a class action against us and certain of our officers and directors. In general, the complaints allege that we and certain of our officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S. securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. We will vigorously defend against the claims advanced." MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Arpaio Faces Criminal Prosecution -------------------------------------------------------------- Amy B. Wang, writing for Washington Post, reports that a darling of the far right and a longtime adversary of civil rights groups and immigration activists, "America's toughest sheriff," will soon face Justice Department lawyers in Washington in a years-long legal saga over whether he intentionally defied federal orders to stop racially profiling Latinos. A special section of the Justice Department -- dedicated to investigating corruption in publicly elected offices -- will decide whether Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio should face criminal contempt-of-court charges, according to a ruling filed on Aug. 26 in U.S. District Court. The decision followed several other blows for the Arizona sheriff in the protracted case. In May, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow ruled that Arpaio and his aides -- Chief Deputy Jerry Sheridan, Capt. Steve Bailey and his former attorney, Michele Iafrate -- had intentionally ignored federal orders to stop racially profiling Latinos at traffic stops and in "saturation patrols" of predominantly Latino neighborhoods. On Aug. 19, Judge Snow referred the sheriff and three of his associates to be prosecuted for criminal contempt of court. The decision was almost without precedent, so unusual that even the Justice Department initially seemed unsure of what, exactly, would happen next. "It's atypical. It's not every day that we get referred to for a referral order from a judge on a sheriff," Justice Departm ent spokesman Cosme Lopez told The Washington Post. "Once the U.S. attorney reviews everything with our team, the process will commence. What process is that and how long does it take? We don't know." Sheriff Arpaio vowed to challenge the referral and will refuse to accept a plea agreement or resign as sheriff, his defense attorney told The Post. It is unclear what lasting consequences the threat of criminal prosecution will have for the Republican sheriff, who is unlikely to be jailed and is up for reelection in November. Sheriff Arpaio's ongoing legal battles did not hurt him in the primary election in Arizona, where he easily beat out his three Republican challengers, according to early results. Legal experts said Judge Snow's referral was a symbolic one: Even if Sheriff Arpaio is prosecuted, contempt of court is a misdemeanor that carries a maximum of six months in jail, and it is not likely that Sheriff Arpaio would spend much time behind (his own) bars. "He's really taking a stance that 'Sheriff Joe' is not above the law," Cara Rabe-Hemp, a criminal justice professor at Illinois State University familiar with the case, told The Post. "That anyone can be held accountable for their behavior -- even if you're a very popular sheriff." The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office declined to comment, referring all inquiries about the case to Sheriff Arpaio's criminal defense attorney, Mel McDonald. "Very simply, he's not going to resign and he's not going to accept a plea agreement to something he didn't do," Mr. McDonald told The Post, referring to the charge that Arpaio willfully ignored court orders to stop racially profiling Latinos. "We provided the court page after page after page of all the efforts that had been made to carry out the judge's order." Mr. McDonald said on Aug. 28 that the latest development in the case was disappointing from a logistics standpoint. Mr. McDonald had looked forward to working with the U.S. attorney in Arizona because he has had a long relationship with the office; he served as U.S. attorney there from 1981 to 1985. The filing cited unspecified conflicts of interest as the reason for recusing prosecutors in Arizona and shifting the case to Washington. "My hope is to reach out to the Department of Justice once they assign somebody [to the case] and open a dialogue with them," McDonald told The Post. "The problem, I think, is not going to be to find somebody. The problem is going to be for somebody to get up to snuff on the case. I mean, the record is staggering." 'America's toughest sheriff' Sheriff Arpaio, who bills himself as "America's toughest sheriff," has long been a polarizing figure, known for his hard-line stance on illegal immigration and his media-loving exploits, such as forcing his inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outdoors in "Tent City Jail." Love him or hate him, over the past 23 years, nothing has seemed to tarnish Sheriff Arpaio's popularity in Maricopa County, where he has been handily reelected sheriff. Sheriff Arpaio reemerged in the national spotlight last year as an early supporter of now-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The two have some history: Sheriff Arpaio was one of the first public figures to jump on Mr. Trump's obstinate mission to "seek the truth" about President Obama's birth certificate. "You are the only one with the 'guts' to do this," Mr. Trump scrawled on a printed article about the birther movement to Arpaio in 2012. "Keep up the good fight." More recently, Sheriff Arpaio has campaigned alongside Mr. Trump in Arizona -- to the chagrin of even some members of their party. Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) asked the local GOP to renounce sponsorship of a joint campaign event in the state. In July, the sheriff was invited to speak on the final night of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. There, he amplified his -- and Mr. Trump's -- tough talk on immigration. "We have terrorists coming over our border, infiltrating our communities and causing massive destruction and mayhem. We have criminals penetrating our weak border security system and committing serious crime," Sheriff Arpaio told cheering convention-goers. "I am supporting Donald Trump because he is a leader. He produces results and is the only candidate for president ready to get tough in order to protect Americans." Mr. Trump, in turn, has said little publicly about Sheriff Arpaio, although in January he put out a statement saying he has "great respect" for the sheriff. It is unclear what effect, if any, the possible contempt-of-court charges will have on Sheriff Arpaio's relationship to the Trump campaign, which seemed to waver slightly on its promise that 11 million illegal immigrants would be booted from the country should Trump be elected. Mr. Trump planned to speak in Phoenix on Aug. 31, his fourth campaign visit to Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio also planned to speak at the event before Mr. Trump's appearance, several Arizona media outlets reported. A long legal saga The Aug. 26 court filing was just the latest and most significant step in a years-long legal saga that started when, in 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups joined a class- action lawsuit that alleged a pattern and practice of racial profiling and unlawful traffic stops by the agency. The lawsuit triggered findings and actions over several years against the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. First, a preliminary injunction was issued, ordering the deputies to stop detaining people based solely on their perceived immigration status. In 2013, a judge found evidence that Sheriff Arpaio's deputies were conducting traffic stops using unlawful racial bias, so the judge issued a supplemental injunction that appointed a court- ordered monitor to oversee the sheriff's office. In May, Judge Snow found Sheriff Arpaio and his three associates in civil contempt of court -- among other findings that included "multiple misstatements of fact while under oath" and allegations that Sheriff Arpaio was having a Seattle-based informant investigate Judge Snow during the trial, KJZZ reported. In July, another supplemental injunction stripped Sheriff Arpaio's authority over certain internal affairs cases. Judge Snow's Aug. 19 referral for a criminal contempt charge essentially found that Sheriff Arpaio and his agency not only continued to violate the judge's orders, but did so willfully. The decision was seen as a hard-won victory for those who have protested Sheriff Arpaio's law-enforcement tactics for years. There remains documented evidence of racial bias in arrests and searches conducted by some MCSO deputies, according to a recent study by the Arizona State University Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety. The annual report analyzed a year's worth of MCSO traffic-stop data, from July 2014 through June 2015, and concluded that more than 10 percent of deputies are still showing racial bias in their stops. On Aug. 24, Sheriff Arpaio's campaign manager questioned the timing of the federal judge's decision, made 10 days before the Republican primary election. "I am not impugning his motives or questioning [Judge Snow's] integrity," campaign manager Chad Willems told the Associated Press. "It just seems whenever a major decision comes out, the timing is curious." Now it appears that the decision of whether to file criminal contempt charges against Sheriff Arpaio will rest with Justice Department. "The saga of this case, it's incredible," Andre Segura, a senior lawyer with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, told The Post. "There are so many layers." 'The racial profiling, the distrust' Developments in this years-long case have quickly spread through a network of people who had been watching for every court filing and judge's ruling "like a hawk," said Arizona state Sen. Martin Quezada (D). In downtown Phoenix, it is not uncommon to see protesters outside Sheriff Arpaio's office. Throughout the racial-profiling case, an oversize balloon of Sheriff Arpaio in prison garb and handcuffs would periodically appear upon the steps of the U.S. district courthouse there, a few blocks away. "I think this really signals a kind of a step toward justice after many, many years of fighting Arpaio in court and dealing with his targeting of my community and many people in Maricopa County through his racial profiling," Sen. Quezada told The Post. "The wheels of justice turn very, very slowly at times, but they do turn and we achieved a great milestone." Sen. Quezada, whose legislative district is made up of nearly 70 percent Latino residents, said racial profiling by the Maricopa County sheriff's deputies has created distrust between the community and law enforcement. "We know that if you have brown skin, if you're going to listen to Spanish music, if you are going to be driving an older vehicle or in any way look like what the sheriff's department perceives is anyone who doesn't belong in this country, [then] you're going to get pulled over regardless of what your immigration status is," Sen. Quezada said. "The corruption and the illegal activities of the sheriff's department have really tarnished some other good law-enforcement agencies that aren't out there to harass and intimidate people." Any celebration by activist groups over the likelihood that Sheriff Arpaio may face a criminal trial was quickly tempered by the realization that their fight was not over, said Carlos Garcia, director of the human-rights group Puente Movement, one of several groups that have protested Sheriff Arpaio's practices for years. "For us it's very important to remember the victims of Sheriff Arpaio, the people caught in his raids, who suffered abuse in his jails," Mr. Garcia told The Post. On Aug. 22, three days after Judge Snow's referral, members of Puente and other activists sought to do just that at yet another downtown Phoenix rally. They brought the giant Sheriff Arpaio balloon out once more -- this time to the U.S. attorney's office - - to make it known that their goal was to see the sheriff prosecuted. The crowd included those who previously had been illegally detained by MCSO deputies, Mr. Garcia told The Post. Afterward, three of those women, including two undocumented immigrants, met with staff members of Leonardo's office to share their experiences. The staff told Mr. Garcia, who was there, that they were taking the matter seriously. Sheriff Arpaio appeared to sail through Arizona's primary election on Aug. 23, garnering 66 percent of the votes as of Aug. 24, according to early results. Of his three Republican challengers in the sheriff's race, the next closest was Dan Saban, with about 26 percent of the votes as of Aug. 24. On primary day, Sheriff Arpaio told the AP that his strong connection with voters would help him overcome negative attention from the case. John Nance, a Republican, voted for Sheriff Arpaio and told the AP his opponents wouldn't be an improvement. "I've liked him all these years, pink underwear and all," Nance told the AP. "I just think why not ride that horse until it dies." Sheriff Arpaio now faces what could be his toughest race yet in the November general election. In July, the Arizona Republic reported a new independent poll that showed Democratic candidate Paul Penzone leading Sheriff Arpaio in the race by three points. Even if Sheriff Arpaio loses his bid for sheriff, Mr. Garcia and other activists said that would only be a superficial solution to the problem. "I think it's one thing to remove Arpaio by any means, whether it's going to be through prosecution, he resigned, gets voted out," Garcia told The Post. "But it's important that the culture that he's created goes with him. The abuse, the racial profiling, the distrust in the immigrant communities -- all that needs to be mended." This post, originally published on Aug. 29, has been updated. MARK DRISCOLL: Judge Dismisses Civil Racketeering Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Jardine Malado, writing for The Christian Times, reports that U.S. District Judge James L. Robart dismissed the civil racketeering lawsuit against pastor Mark Driscoll and former executive elder Sutton Turner because the plaintiffs did not serve them with the suit. Messrs. Driscoll and Turner were accused in February of soliciting donations and using the money for other purposes. They motioned for the dismissal of the case in June when the complainants failed to serve them within 90 days. The plaintiffs, Brian Jacobsen, Connie Jacobsen, Ryan Kildea and Arica Kildea, admitted that they did not have the money to continue with the case. "I am grateful to God for the dismissal of these false and malicious allegations," Mr. Driscoll told The Christian Post. "I remain steadfast and committed to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am forever humbled and thankful for the prayers and tremendous support of family, friends, and fellow pastors," he added. However, the case may still be refiled and brought back to court because it was dismissed without prejudice by Judge Robart. "The plaintiffs will be considering our options for moving forward with this lawsuit," Brian said in an email to Religion News Service. "We are ready to refile, if someone stepped up and offered to fund it. We will also be considering class action and contingent fee possibilities," Brian continued. The plaintiffs tried to raise $70,000 through a crowdfunding campaign but the donations only amounted to $34,660 as of writing time. Judge Robart did not grant the defendants' requests for sanctions and attorney's fees of $4,240. The plaintiffs had not "acted in bad faith, recklessly, or with an improper purpose," the judge declared in his decision. Mr. Driscoll resigned as a pastor of Mars Hill in October 2014. The church's 15 campuses closed down after two months. He is now a senior pastor of Trinity Church in Scottsdale, Arizona. Mr. Turner blogged that he is committed to seek reconciliation and added that he will not file a counter-suit against the plaintiffs. MASTERCARD INC: Faces $18.6BB Lawsuit in UK Over Excessive Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Lawless and Ken Sweet, writing for The Associated Press, report that MasterCard is being sued for GBP14 billion($18.6 billion) on behalf of British consumers for allegedly charging excessive fees on millions of transactions over a 16-year period. The suit, which is the latest in a string of legal cases around the world over card companies' fees, could bring a payout to 46 million British MasterCard users, the law firm filing it says. The firm, Quinn Emanuel, says the claim is the largest in British legal history. The suit alleges that MasterCard charged stores unlawfully high fees on credit and debit card transactions between 1992 and 2008, which were passed on to consumers in the form of inflated prices for goods and services. "The filing of this claim is the first step towards consumers obtaining compensation for what MasterCard did," said Walter Merricks, a former U.K. financial services ombudsman who filed the suit through Quinn Emanuel on Sept. 8 at the Competition Appeal Tribunal. Mr. Merricks callied it "a watershed moment for consumer redress in this country." MasterCard and its larger competitor Visa have been embroiled in legal battles with merchants over their fees for decades. A $6 billion class-action lawsuit in the U.S., which involves merchants suing Visa and MasterCard, is currently being appealed in U.S. courts. There's also a legal battle between Visa and retail giant Wal-Mart, which involves what are known as "chip and sign" transactions. Merchants have long argued that the fees that Visa, MasterCard and to a lesser degree American Express and Discover, charge to process transactions are too high. Because Visa and MasterCard have a near duopoly on credit card transaction processing in most of the world, merchants say the fees represent anticompetitive behavior. The British lawsuit follows a 2014 ruling by the European Union's highest court backing the EU's move to scrap some fees that MasterCard allows banks to charge to merchants. Under Britain's new Consumer Rights Act, all U.K. consumers who paid the charges and currently live in Britain will automatically become part of the group of claimants -- and eligible for compensation -- unless they explicitly opt out. MasterCard Inc., based in Purchase, New York, said in a statement that "we continue to firmly disagree with the basis of this claim and we intend to oppose it vigorously." The tribunal will rule late this year whether the case can proceed, the law firm said. If so, it is expected to go to court in 2018. MDL 2196: UFP Technologies Received $432,000 Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- UFP 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 June 30, 2016, that the Company was a participant in a class action lawsuit against a number of polyurethane foam suppliers ("Defendants") that recently reached settlement. The suit was filed to recover damages and obtain injunctive relief for Defendants' alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws with respect to the fixing of prices of polyurethane foam sold from January 1, 1999 through August, 2010. The Company received a settlement amount of approximately $432,000 during the three-month period ended June 30, 2016. The Company received an additional settlement amount of approximately $1.7 million in July, 2016, which will be recorded in the three-month period ending September 30, 2016, and which is the final payment the Company will receive for this settlement. The settlement amount for the current quarter is recorded as "Material overcharge settlement" in the operating income section of the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. MDL 2619: Twinlab Providing Indemnity to Defendants --------------------------------------------------- Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is not a party to the case, In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation, MDL No. 2619, Case No. 1:15-cv-5070, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which joined in a multidistrict litigation a number of purported class actions arising from allegations raised by a state attorney general claiming that DNA barcoding testing conducted on behalf the attorney general indicated that certain herbal supplement products did not contain the herbal ingredients stated on the label. The Company does, however, pursuant to contractual obligations provide indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the claims in this litigation. The defendants in this litigation believe that the claims alleged by the plaintiffs are meritless and are defending this matter vigorously. MEDIVATION: Directors Selling Company Too Cheaply, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reported that Medivation shareholders say in a federal class action in San Francisco that its directors are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to Pfizer, for $81.50 a share, or $14 billion. MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Padalka, writing for Financial Advisor IQ, reports that a new class action lawsuit alleges that Merrill Lynch violated state and federal laws governing overtime pay. According to the suit, filed by former client associates Dana Brandes, Stacy Niemiec, Dawn Bradford and Nicole Curtis on behalf of all current and former such employees at the brokerage who wish to join the class action, Merrill Lynch encouraged and occasionally required them to work over 40 hours a week without additional compensation. Additionally, the suit alleges that the company failed to properly record client associates' hours. The amount of overtime put in by the four plaintiffs ranged from three hours for Ms. Brandes to 20 or more hours for Ms. Niemiec, according to the suit. The plaintiffs are seeking payment for all unpaid hours, damages and attorneys' fees, with the claims exceeding $5 million exclusive of interest and costs, according to the suit. Ms. Niemiec and Ms. Bradford are suing the firm on a nationwide level, while Ms. Brandes and Ms. Curtis also bring the suit on behalf of client associates in New York and Illinois respectively. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Atmel Unit Still Faces Airbag Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Microchip Technology Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's Atmel subsidiary continues to defend the case, In re: Continental Airbag Products Liability Litigation. On May 11, 2016, an Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Complaint") was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division) against Atmel, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and Daimler AG and an affiliate. The Complaint which includes claims arising under federal law and Florida, California, New Jersey, Michigan and Louisiana state law- alleges that class members unknowingly purchased or leased vehicles containing defective airbag control units (incorporating allegedly defective application specific integrated circuits manufactured by our Atmel subsidiary between 2006 and 2010), and thereby suffered financial harm, including a loss in the value of their purchased or leased vehicles. The plaintiffs are seeking, individually and on behalf of a putative class, unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages, statutory penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other relief. "Our Atmel subsidiary intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously," the Company said. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of LFR Suit Under Appeal -------------------------------------------------------- Microchip Technology Incorporated 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 plaintiffs have taken an appeal from the dismissal judgment in the Southern District of New York Action by LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees. The Company said, "On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, individually and on behalf of a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against our Atmel subsidiary, our French subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent. The case purports to relate to Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility in Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency, and later liquidation, more than three years later. The District Court dismissed the case on August 21, 2015, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on June 27, 2016. On July 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the District Court's June 27, 2016 denial of their motion for relief from the dismissal judgment." MORGAN TSVANGIRAI: Traders Mull Class Action Over Riots ------------------------------------------------------- Nqobile Bhebhe, writing for The Africa Report, says Zimbabwe's former prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai could face an unlikely class action lawsuit from informal traders in Harare, who claim their businesses were looted and destroyed by protesters following protests fronted by the National Electoral Reform Agenda. Thousands of protesters brought Zimbabwe's capital to a standstill and engaged in running battles with riot police officers on Aug. 26, in one of the biggest demonstrations against President Robert Mugabe in years. The chaotic scenes came after 18 opposition groups and parties called their supporters to march for reform of the country's electoral system before going to the polls in 2018. Most shops closed early, while a popular informal traders market was razed to the ground. Home affairs minister, Ignatius Chombo claimed that opposition leaders are "foreign agents" using protests to cause chaos in order to justify international intervention in Zimbabwe. A lawyer aligned to the ruling Zanu PF, Terrence Hussein contends that affected business owners have a "strong case" for compensation. However, he said; "most insurers are likely to refuse to pay claims and at law, they are justified to do so. The victims can, however, sue the organizers and inciters of the violence and claim damages". "However, suing could be expensive for most people, so the quicker way would be through a law gazetted by parliament to provide for the compensation of victims," he said. The ruling party accuses the opposition MDC-T of orchestrating the violence, but they in turn blame police heavy-handedness for the riots. The state controlled Herald on Aug. 29 quoted the National Chairman of Grassroots Vendors' Association, Alexio Mudzengerere, saying the looters were spotted wearing MDC-T regalia. "We want our goods back. Our stalls are our mainstay and we have no alternative ways of earning a living," he said. "Why should the protesters burn our goods? We saw the people who burnt our goods and we have videos. They were wearing MDC-T T-shirts. "Some of our members made a follow up of the goods and saw the looters carrying them into Harvest House (MDC-T headquarters). Demonstrations should not be allowed. They do not benefit us at all. They are now used as a way to loot shops." Footage showed youths smashing windows at several retail outlets forcing frightened employees to scurry for cover inside the premises. The police unsuccessfully tried to block an opposition march, which was cleared by the courts, but this did not stop the cops from descending on the MDC-T youths, firing teargas and spraying them with water from cannons. Boycott Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko's chain store, Choppies was not spared. Mr. Mphoko has angered some Zimbabweans after reports revealed his long stay at a plush hotel at taxpayers' expense. Two months ago protestors staged a demonstration inside the hotel lobby demanding that he vacates the hotel. He has since checked out. Independent media outlets have been awash with reports that Mr. Mphoko has gobbled hundreds of thousands in scarce dollars through his hotel stay, while refusing to move into a government issued house. Meanwhile, plans are underway to boycott all business ventures owned by Zanu PF members including President Robert Mugabe's Alpha and Omega company dairy products, Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa's Zuva Petroleum and Mr. Mphoko's Choppies Supermarkets. "We are planning something. This is no longer a secret now because this is a bare knuckle fight," MDC-T secretary general, Douglas Mwonzora, told privately run NewsDay. "We want to embark on a massive consumer boycott, boycotting products, shops, businesses of people who are corruptly benefiting from the Zanu PF regime and those people who are involved in human rights abuses." MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Bid for More Time to Seek Rehearing Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that New GM's request to the Second Circuit for an extension of time to seek rehearing by the panel that issued the Threshold Issues Appeal Decision and by all of the active judges of the Second Circuit remains pending before the court. In its annual report on Form 10-K filed February 3, 2016, New GM disclosed that, since the beginning of 2014, New GM had recalled approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition switches or to fix ignition lock cylinders, or the Ignition Switch Recall, and had recalled an additional 33.8 million vehicles to address certain electrical and other safety concerns, including approximately 12.1 million vehicles to rework or replace ignition keys. New GM does not consider any of these 12.1 million vehicles to be a part of the Ignition Switch Recall. Many of the vehicles affected by the foregoing recalls were manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009, or the Closing Date, the date on which the sale of substantially all of the assets of Old GM pursuant to the MSPA was completed. In its quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed July 21, 2016, New GM also disclosed that, as of July 15, 2016, 100 putative class actions were pending against New GM in various federal and state trial courts in the United States seeking compensatory and other damages for economic losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles covered by those recalls. Certain of these 100 cases, or the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall, certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions, concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other recalls (such actions are described interchangeably as Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions or Other Economic Loss Actions). In addition, New GM disclosed that, as of July 15, 2016, 285 actions were pending against New GM in various federal and state courts in the United States seeking compensatory and other damages for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New GM. Certain of these 285 cases, or the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions, concern the Ignition Switch Recall, certain other cases, or the Other Personal Injury Actions, concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall, and yet others concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more other recalls (such actions are described herein interchangeably as Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions or Other Personal Injury Actions). Since June 2014, 307 Recall-Related Actions have been transferred to the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, or the MDL Court, and have been consolidated into a single case, case number 14-MD-2543 (JMF), or the MDL Proceeding. Since September 17, 2015, New GM has reached various agreements with certain personal injury claimants regarding possible settlement of their claims. Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin the subject Recall- Related Actions. In that respect, beginning on April 21, 2014, New GM filed a series of motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to enjoin the Subject Recall-Related Actions and to enforce the Sale Order and Injunction entered on July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order (under which all product liability and property damage claims arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing Date were to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims), or the Motions to Enforce. Beginning on May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series of scheduling orders which identified a number of "threshold issues" to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court, including (i) whether plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in connection with the 363 Transaction, (ii) if such due process rights were violated, what is the appropriate remedy, (iii) whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Subject Recall- Related Actions are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust, and (iv) whether any such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot. The GUC Trust appeared as a party in interest with respect to New GM's Motions to Enforce and filed briefs in opposition thereto, asserting that none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Subject Recall-Related Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC Trust. On April 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision, or the Threshold Issues Decision, on the threshold issues holding (among other things) that the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions may seek authorization to file late claims in the bankruptcy cases of Old GM, but that any such claims as against the GUC Trust are "equitably moot" (that is, fashioning relief for the plaintiffs against the GUC Trust would be "impractical, imprudent and therefore inequitable"), and thus the assets of the GUC Trust cannot be used to satisfy such claims, or the Equitable Mootness Finding. On June 1, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment, or the Threshold Issues Judgment, which clarifies the terms of the Threshold Issues Decision and distills the Bankruptcy Court's holdings into a binding order. The Threshold Issues Judgment provides, in pertinent part, that: (i) The plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions suffered a due process violation with respect to the Sale Order, whereas the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions did not suffer a due process violation with respect to the Sale Order; (ii) As a result of the due process violation, the provisions of the Sale Order which purport to shield New GM from any liability associated with its independent post-Sale actions can be modified, and the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions may proceed against New GM with respect to its independent post- Sale actions; (iii) Any claims asserted in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions that relate to actions of Old GM are enjoined from being pursued against New GM on successor liability grounds; (iv) Given the Equitable Mootness Finding, the assets of the GUC Trust cannot be utilized to satisfy any claims that may be filed by plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions and Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions after the date of entry of the Threshold Issues Judgment; and (v) Pursuant to section 502(j) of the Bankruptcy Code, assets of the GUC Trust may be used to satisfy previously allowed or disallowed claims that are reconsidered for cause. Hence, any person who holds a previously allowed or disallowed claim may seek to have that claim reconsidered by the Bankruptcy Court, and in the event that any such claimant prevails in an application for reconsideration, the resulting additional allowed claims could dilute the recoveries of holders of GUC Trust Units. The Equitable Mootness Finding became binding on plaintiffs in the Other Economic Loss Actions and Other Personal Injury Actions pursuant to a decision and order of the Bankruptcy Court dated September 3, 2015. In addition, following entry of the Threshold Issues Judgment, certain plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the MDL Proceeding on June 12, 2015, July 19, 2015 and December 17, 2015. Certain plaintiffs in the Recall-Related Actions appealed the Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment, and New GM and the GUC Trust each filed cross-appeals with respect to the Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment. On September 22, 2015, the Second Circuit entered an order granting a direct appeal of the Threshold Issues Decision and Threshold Issues Judgment to the Second Circuit. Pursuant to later scheduling orders entered by the Second Circuit, briefing commenced on November 16, 2015 and concluded on February 22, 2016. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeals and cross appeals on March 15, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the Second Circuit reached a decision in the appeal, or the Threshold Issues Appeal Decision. In the Threshold Issues Appeal Decision, the Second Circuit held, in pertinent part, that plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions involved in pre-closing accidents, or the Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs, and plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions who acquired their vehicles pre-closing were entitled to, but did not receive, direct-mail notice of the Sale because Old GM "knew or reasonably should have known about the ignition switch defect prior to bankruptcy." The Second Circuit also noted that it could not say with fair assurance that the outcome of the Sale would have been the same had Old GM given plaintiffs adequate notice of the ignition switch defect and the Sale, and these plaintiffs voiced their objections to those provisions of the Sale Order barring their claims against New GM. Accordingly, the Second Circuit ruled that enforcing the Sale Order against the Pre-Closing Accident Plaintiffs and the Ignition Switch Plaintiffs would violate their procedural due process rights in these circumstances, and therefore, they cannot be bound by the terms of the Sale Order. As a result, the court held that those plaintiffs are not enjoined from pursuing claims against New GM. The Second Circuit further held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue its Equitable Mootness Finding because no plaintiff has asserted a claim against the GUC Trust. Therefore, the Second Circuit held, the Bankruptcy Court's Equitable Mootness Finding was purely advisory. The Second Circuit did not, however, express any opinion as to the merits of whether claims against the GUC Trust would be equitably moot if brought against the GUC Trust. In addition, the Second Circuit held that the Sale Order cannot enjoin independent claims relating to New GM's post-Sale conduct. It also held that claims by plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions who bought used GM vehicles post-Sale are not bound by the Sale Order and, therefore, are not enjoined from pursuing claims against New GM for their losses, because those claimants lacked a pre-Sale connection to Old GM at the time Old GM filed its bankruptcy petition. The Second Circuit remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for it to conduct further proceedings as to claims by plaintiffs in Other Personal Injury Actions and Other Economic Loss Actions. On July 20, 2016, New GM asked the Second Circuit for an extension of time to seek rehearing by the panel that issued the Threshold Issues Appeal Decision and by all of the active judges of the Second Circuit. The GUC Trust did not oppose that request, which remains pending before the court. Rehearing is not frequently granted. If rehearing is granted, then the Threshold Issues Appeal Decision would be vacated and the Second Circuit would issue a new decision. That new decision may reach the same conclusions as the Threshold Issues Appeal Decision, different conclusions as the Threshold Issues Appeal Decision, or a mix of both. If rehearing is not granted, New GM has said that it will pursue a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States. NIANTIC INC: Fla. Condo Assoc. Sues Over Pokemon Go Pokestop ------------------------------------------------------------ Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that a South Florida condominium association has sued the companies behind Pokemon Go, claiming that crowds of people playing the "augmented reality" game at night have forced the property owners to hire off-duty police officers to handle security. The owners' association of The Villas of Positano, a 62-unit oceanfront condominium complex in Hollywood, Florida, claims that the property's designation as a Pokestop within the game has led to "out of control crowds" behaving "like zombies, walking around bumping into things" on site. The complaint, filed on Sept. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is part of a wave of litigation by lawyers at Pomerantz against San Francisco-based developer Niantic and two of the game's financial backers. According to the suit, players have been drawn to the Villas to capture rare Pokemon creatures programmed to spawn within the game late at night or during the early morning hours. "Pokemon Go players stayed for hours each night, leaving garbage in their wake," wrote Pomerantz's Jennifer Pafiti in the 19-page complaint. "Moreover, as the Villas and nearby boardwalk lack public bathroom facilities, many Pokemon Go players used the Villas' landscaping as a toilet during their nightly incursions." According to the complaint, the developer of The Villas has made multiple requests to Niantic for the property to be removed as a Pokestop but has only received form responses. The Pomerantz lawyers wrote that the company has hired off-duty police officers to patrol the premises from 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. Like two earlier suits filed by the firm on behalf of a New Jersey homeowner and a Michigan couple, the complaint filed on Sept. 2 asks to certify a class action on behalf of all U.S. real estate owners whose property lies on or near the GPS coordinates of a Pokestop or Pokemon gym. Plaintiffs lawyers point out in the suits that the in-game sites, where players get items to help capture and feed Pokemon or fight virtual "battles" with other players, have popped up in spots such as cemeteries and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. The suit, which names Niantic, The Pokemon Co. and Nintendo Co. Ltd., brings nuisance claims and seeks damages for unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, The Pokemon Co., and Nintendo Co. hold a financial stake in the game. The suit claims that all the defendants have profited from creating "a more immersive gaming experience" by encouraging players to venture onto private property. A Cooley team led by partner Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- has signed on to defend Niantic and a team from Greenberg Traurig has made an appearance on behalf of The Pokemon Co. Mr. Rhodes and the company declined to comment. Pomerantz's Pafiti didn't immediately respond to an email message. OCWEN LOAN: "Delgado" Suit Sent to Trial on Existence of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARGARITA DELGADO, WILLIAM SHEPPARD, NAIHUAI XU, GERALDINE MAHOOD, KEVIN CHOWNING, LYA CHOWNING, PAUL EMMERT, CAROLYN TOTH, BRIAN RAFACZ, JENNIFER HENDRICKS, CYNTHIA BENIWAL, KIMBERLY KAYES, BRETT BALLARD, DEREK WILLIS, KATELYN WILLIS, LAURIE CHEAMITRU, DALE ZIMMER, MICHAEL BENHAMU, MEGHAN FOX, DAN WILKINSON, KENT COLLIER, BARBARA LIGHTCAP, WILLIAM LIGHTCAP, THERESA MCCULLOUGH, BEN ELLIOTT, JASON ABT, MELANIE BORTHWICK, NATHAN MAY, CAMI PELOZA, and TERRY OLIVER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated., Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, CROSS COUNTRY HOME SERVICES, INC., SANDRA FINN, AND "JOHN DOES 1-10," Defendants, No. 13-CV-4427 (NGG) (ST) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis issued an order: -- denying the defendants' motions to strike the plaintiffs' notices of supplemental authority; -- denying without prejudice the motion filed by Cross Country Home Services, Inc. and Cross Country's President Sandra Finn (together "Cross Country") to stay and compel arbitration; and -- denying without prejudice the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs brought a putative class action against the defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Cross Country, and John Does 1-10, claiming that the defendants engaged in a deceptive check solicitation scheme that led the plaintiffs and other consumers unknowingly to enroll in, and pay monthly fees for, Cross Country's membership and home warranty plans. The plaintiffs brought the following causes of action: violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); unjust enrichment under the laws of New York, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington; breach of fiduciary duty under the laws of Alabama, Arizona, California, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington; and violations of multiple state consumer protection and unfair trade practices statutes The defendants moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Cross Country filed a motion to stay and compel arbitration directed at 13 plaintiffs, as well as motions to strike notices of supplemental authority which the plaintiffs submitted in opposition to the arbitration motion. As an initial matter, Judge Garaufis denied Cross Country's motions to strike the two notices of supplemental authority that the plaintiffs have filed subsequent to completion of the briefing on the arbitration motion. The judge noted that while the court's individual rules require parties to file motion papers in accordance with a court-approved briefing schedule, there is no such requirement for notices of supplemental authority. The judge stated that while it would be ideal for parties to discover and submit all relevant case law before a motion is fully briefed, "[i]t is fairly standard practice for parties to occasionally send letters or to otherwise file supplemental authority after briefing is complete." Cross Country moved to compel arbitration only as to those plaintiffs who enrolled through the check solicitation in either the Referral Assistant 24 membership plan or the Systems MD Gold Home Warranty Plan, namely: Carolyn Toth and Brian Rafacz of Arizona; Cynthia Beniwal and Kimberly Kayes of Georgia; Derek and Katelyn Willis of Indiana; Michael Benhamu of New Jersey; Theresa McCullough of Pennsylvania; Ben Elliott of Tennessee; Matthew and Cami Peloza and Terry Oliver of Washington; Dan Wilkinson of New Mexico; and Brett Ballard of Idaho. Cross Country sought to enforce the provisions of the particular home service agreements, which Cross Country maintained provide for the mandatory arbitration of all disputes. In their opposition to the motion the plaintiffs framed their argument as one alleging fraud in the factum, otherwise known as fraud in the execution of the contract, arguing that they cannot be compelled to arbitrate their dispute because no contract exists between them and Cross Country at all. Judge Garaufis found that the plaintiffs have provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their allegations of fraud in the factum and that issues of fact remain that prevent the court from determining the existence of a contract as a matter of law. Accordingly, the judge denied without prejudice Cross Country's motion to stay and compel arbitration, and ordered for the case to proceed to trial on the issue of whether the parties formed binding contracts. Judge Garaufis stated that should the trier of fact determine that the contracts are not void, Cross Country may renew its motion to stay and compel arbitration. The defendants also moved jointly to dismiss several of the newly added claims in the Third Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6). However, Judge Garaufis found that a motion to dismiss is premature given the ongoing arbitration dispute and pending trial regarding contract formation. A full-text copy of Judge Garaufis' September 2, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/CBOC80 from Leagle.com. Margarita Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by J. Christopher Jensen -- jcj@cll.com -- Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.. Margarita Delgado, Plaintiff, represented by Steven L. Wittels -- slw@wittelslaw.com -- Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels, James Burkett McInturff, III -- jbm@wittelslaw.com -- Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels & Tiasha Palikovic -- tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com -- Wittels Law, P.C.. William Sheppard, Naihuai Xu, Geraldine Mahood, Plaintiffs, represented by J. Christopher Jensen, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., Steven L. Wittels, Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels & James Burkett McInturff, III, Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels. Barbara Lightcap, Michael Benhamu, Cami Peloza, Carolyn Toth, Brett Ballard, William Lightcap, Brian Rafacz, Terry Oliver, Nathan May, Kevin Chowning, Melanie Borthwick, Lya Chowning, Kent Collier, Ben Elliott, Dan Wilkinson, Theresa McCullough, Laurie Cheamitru, Jennifer Hendricks, Paul Emmert, Katelyn Willis, Derek Willis, Dale Zimmer, Jason Abt, Kimberly Kayes, Cynthia Beniwal, Plaintiffs, represented by J. Christopher Jensen, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. & Steven L. Wittels, Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels. Meghan Fox, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin F. Johns -- benjohns@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP & Steven L. Wittels, Law Offices of Steven L. Wittels. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Caroline Kathryn Eisner -- ceisner@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP, Matthew P. Previn -- mprevin@buckleysandler.com -- Buckley Sandler LLP & Timothy Coley -- tcoley@buckleysandler.com -- BuckleySandler LLP, pro hac vice. Cross Country Home Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce E. Alexander -- alexander@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Jason Wayne McElroy -- mcelroy@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Michael S. Trabon -- trabon@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice, Mitchel H. Kider -- kider@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC & Timothy P. Ofak, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice. Sandra Finn, Defendant, represented by Bruce E. Alexander, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, Jason Wayne McElroy, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC & Michael S. Trabon, Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice. OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Racketeering Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Ben Lane, writing for Housing Wire, reports that it'd be pretty safe to say that the last few years have been rough for Ocwen Financial. Ocwen's troubles began in earnest late in 2014 when the New York Department of Financial Services forced William Erbey to resign from his position as chairman of the board of directors of Ocwen, and four associated companies, over allegations into Ocwen's servicing practices and its relationships with its affiliated companies. But more importantly for the company, which is built on mortgage servicing, the NYDFS settlement prohibited Ocwen from acquiring any new mortgage servicing rights without approval from the NYDFS. Mr. Erbey's forced departure and Ocwen's subsequent troubles with the California Department of Business Oversight, which eventually led to the company being prohibited from acquiring new mortgage servicing rights in California without CDBO approval, sent Ocwen's stock into a tailspin. Ocwen's stock, which once closed trading at nearly $60 per share (in October 2013), fell throughout 2014, 2015 and into 2016, all the way to $1.52 per share in July of this year. But for the first time in a long time, Ocwen is on a bit of a winning streak. In July, when Ocwen posted its second quarter earnings (another quarterly loss, by the way), company executives stated that they believed the nonbank could return to profitability as it puts "legacy" issues behind it. One of the issues facing Ocwen was a threat that New Residential Investment could pull subservicing rights from Ocwen based upon Ocwen's servicer rankings from Standard & Poor's. But that threat disappeared after S&P upgraded Ocwen's servicer rankings, citing a number of internal operational improvements undertaken at the nonbank. Ocwen also disclosed during its second quarter earnings that it is it trying to buy its way out from under the servicing restrictions placed upon it by its settlement with the CDBO, going so far as to set aside $15 million in the second quarter to pay for a potential settlement. But it's not all sunshine and roses for Ocwen either. In fact, sometimes it feels like it's two steps forward, two steps back for the beleaguered nonbank. Recently, Ocwen agreed to pay $900,000 to the state of Washington after an investigation conducted by the state found that Ocwen used unlicensed companies in India and the Philippines to service mortgage loans. And more good/bad news came out for Ocwen, when a federal judge dismissed a racketeering lawsuit against the nonbank. According to Reuters and Westlaw News, Ocwen stood accused of "overcharging thousands of homeowners for property inspections as well as taking kickbacks" from a scheme that allegedly involved Ocwen and Altisource Portfolio Solutions, a company that is closely affiliated with Ocwen. The Reuters report provides scant details, but a review of the court filing shows that a pair of homeowners sought class action status and sued Ocwen and Altisource for allegedly overcharging for property inspection and broker price opinions, with Altisource allegedly providing "kickbacks" to Ocwen in exchange for using its services and passing those increased costs onto the borrowers. The plaintiffs in the case claimed that Ocwen, Erbey and Altisource engaged in an "abusive, predatory and illegal home mortgage loan servicing business," and in some cases, performed multiple property inspections and BPOs to "run up unnecessary fees." The good news for Ocwen is that the lawsuit was dismissed, as in the eyes of the judge, the plaintiffs' claims didn't hold water. Specifically, the judge said the plaintiffs' case "failed to allege facts that are sufficient to make out a viable claim for relief." But Ocwen didn't get off scot-free. In fact, the judge called the charges levied against Ocwen and Altisource "extremely troubling," as the plaintiffs allegations are "bolstered" by other consent orders and settlements Ocwen has previously entered into, like in New York, for example. PAUL MICHAEL: Faces "Schacher" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Paul Michael Marketing Service, Inc. The case is captioned Caryn Schacher, mother and parent on behalf of minor-plaintiff SAMMY SCHACHER and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff. v. Paul Michael Marketing Service, Inc. d/b/a PAUL MICHAEL ASSOCIATES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 04926 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 2, 2016). Paul Michael is a collection agency offering financial and insurance services, and business administration services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J Sasson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C. 2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 339 0856 Facsimile: (347) 244 7178 E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com The Defendant appears pro se. PHOTOMEDEX INC: Class Action vs. Radiancy Pending in D.C. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit is proceeding against Radiancy. On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached. On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business Law Sec.349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him by the Court. The Court denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to amend the complaint. Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit. On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs' attorneys refiled their putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against only the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. The claims of the suit are virtually identical to the claims originally considered, and dismissed without prejudice, by the same Court. A companion suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, raising the same claims on behalf of plaintiffs from New York and West Virginia against Radiancy and its President, Dr. Dolev Rafaeli. That New York case was removed to the D.C. Court and the cases were consolidated into one action. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against Dr. Rafaeli and Radiancy; on August 1, 2016, the D.C. Court granted the dismissal of the case against Dr. Rafaeli, with prejudice, and decided to allow the action against Radiancy to proceed. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against this suit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. PHOTOMEDEX INC: Discovery Underway in California Action ------------------------------------------------------- Photomedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that discovery has now commenced in a class action against Radiancy in California. On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of the class, which consists of customers in the State of California who purchased the no!no! hair devices. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in the discovery phase. On October 30, 2015, Radiancy filed to remove this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; as a result of that filing, all discovery in this case has now been stayed. That removal was granted, and the Company has now filed to remove this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the district with jurisdiction over Jan Mouzon v. Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states, including California, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! hair products and alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states... The Company's Motion to Remove the Cantley case had been stayed pending resolution of the Mouzon litigation; now that the Court in Mouzon has issued its opinion regarding the Company's Motion to Dismiss, the California Court has granted the Company's Motion to Remove the Cantley case to the Federal Court for the District of Columbia. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. PJT PARTNERS: Lead Plaintiff Must File Amended Suit by Sept. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Barrett v. PJT Partners Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16- cv-02841 (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Valerie E Caproni on Aug. 15 entered an order adjourning the initial pre-trial conference and case management plan. The Court directed Gregory G. Barrett, the Lead Plaintiff, to file an amended complaint by September 23, 2016. Defendants shall file an answer or a motion to dismiss by October 24, 2016. If Defendants move to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff shall file its opposition brief by November 23, 2016, and Defendants shall file a reply brief by December 9, 2016. The Initial Pretrial Conference previously scheduled for August 19, 2016 is adjourned pending further Court Order. The parties' deadline to submit a joint Case Management Plan shall also be adjourned pending further Court Order. On Aug. 3, 2016, Judge Caproni entered an order granting Barrett's Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff and to Appoint Counsel. Through his Complaint, Barrett seeks to certify a class consisting of "all persons other than [D]efendants who purchased or otherwise acquired [PJT Partners Inc.] securities between November 12, 2015 and March 28, 2016" and suffered damages as a result of Defendants' alleged misconduct. In short, Barrett alleges that he and other investors suffered losses when PJT's stock price plummeted following the arrest of Defendant Andrew W.W. Caspersen, a former managing partner of PJT's affiliate, in connection with a $95 million criminal scheme to defraud investors. PJT Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on April 15, 2016, Barrett filed in the Southern District of New York a putative class action for violation of the federal securities laws against defendants PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew W. W. Caspersen in an action styled Gregory G. Barrett v. PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew W. W. Caspersen, No. 1:16-cv-02841-VEC (S.D.N.Y.). Generally, the complaint alleges that PJT Partners Inc. made misstatements about its business, operational and compliance policies and its compliance and fraud-prevention controls. These alleged misstatements allegedly caused members of the putative class, investors who purchased PJT Partners common stock during the class period, November 12, 2015 to March 28, 2016, to pay an inflated price for PJT Partners common stock. The complaint alleges claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against PJT Partners Inc. and Caspersen, and under 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Caspersen. On June 14, 2016, plaintiff Gregory G. Barrett filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. No opposition to the motion was filed. "We believe that this shareholder action is without merit and will defend it vigorously." PRECISE PAYROLL: Faces "Goebel" Suit in E.D. of New York -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Precise Payroll, LLC. The case is captioned GOEBEL INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY-SITUATED PERSONS, the Plaintiff, v. PRECISE PAYROLL, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04775-ER (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Eduardo C. Robreno. Precision Payroll provides personalized payroll services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ann M. Caldwell, Esq. CALDWELL LAW OFFICE LLC 108 W. Willow Grove Avenue, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19118 Telephone: (215) 248 2030 Facsimile: (215) 248 2031 E-mail: acaldwell@classactlaw.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Court Dismisses "Hallihan" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel dismissed with prejudice the case captioned SUZANNE HALLIHAN and MICHAEL HALLIHAN, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:15- CV-01068-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.). On July 30, 2015, Suzanne and Michael Hallihan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a three-count class action complaint against Progressive in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and/or omission, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in relation to Progressive's sale of policies containing minimum Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage. The Hallihans asserted that Progressive's minimum UIM coverage is "wholly illusory" since the coverage limits are equal to the bodily injury liability coverage required in Illinois. Progressive moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the complaint fails as a matter of law because Progressive's minimum UIM coverage is not illusory, Progressive properly denied Suzanne Hallihan's UIM claim, and Progressive did not engage in any deceptive or unfair practice. Progressive also argued that the Hallihans have failed to allege facts stating a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation and/or omission, for unjust enrichment, or for a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Reviewing the policy language at hand, Judge Rosenstengel concluded that Progressive's minimum UIM coverage is not illusory. The judge found that while there may be situations where a claimant is unable to recover under his or her minimum UIM policy, that does not mean he or she is never able to recover under it. Because Progressive's minimum UIM coverage is not worthless or illusory, Judge Rosenstengel held that the Hallihans have failed to state a claim for a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, for fraudulent misrepresentation and/or omission, or for unjust enrichment, and can prove no set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief. A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's September 6, 2016 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/piaJTj from Leagle.com. Suzanne Hallihan, Michael Hallihan, Plaintiffs, represented by James J. Rosemergy, Carey & Danis, L.L.C., Andrew G. Mundwiller, Cagle Law Firm, LLC. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Nelson -- michael.nelson@sutherland.com -- Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, Kymberly Kochis -- kymberly.kochis@sutherland.com -- Sutherland Asbill & Brennan & Emily E. Cantwell -- ecantwell@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage LLP. PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Expert Calls on Gov't to Help Seaweed Farmers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yohanes Seo, writing for Tempo.co, reports that some 13,000 seaweed farmers in East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) seek the government's help in their class action lawsuit against the PTTEP Australasia at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney, an international law expert at Nusa Cendana University (Undana) Kupang DW Tadeus said. Tadeus said the government can revoke operational permit and freeze the assets of the Thailand-based oil company in Indonesia. The government can also cancel the 1997 agreement between Indonesia and Australia. "It can be cancelled since it has not been ratified by the two countries' parliaments," Tadeus said on Monday, August 29, 2016. A class action has been filed following the explosion of Montara oil rig in the Timor waters on August 21, 2009. Local fishermen and seaweed farmers have suffered due to Timor waters pollution. Advocacy support has been provided to fishermen and seaweed farmers by Yayasan Peduli Timor Barat (YPTB) led by Ferdi Tanoni. The case was registered on August 3, 2016, at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney and the first trial was held on August 22, 2016. According to Tadeus, the case is an important lesson for Indonesia, because Timor waters are home to a lot of oil companies. "Marine areas must also be preserved, because similar cases to that of Montara could also happen in the future," Tadeus said. The oil spill has destroyed people's seaweed farming in East Nusa Tenggara coastal area, such as in the south of Timor Island, Rote Ndao, Alor, Sabu Raijua, Sumba and part of Flores and Lembata. Fish production has declined sharply which has led around 70 percent fishermen in Oesapa to leave Kupang and seek new waters in Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Sumatra. The Indonesian government, however, has yet to make any response. RACKSPACE HOSTING: Law Firm Probes Breach of Fiduciary Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Aug. 29 disclosed that it is investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors of Rackspace Hosting, Inc. ("Rackspace" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the Company to affiliates of private equity firm Apollo Global Management LLC ("Apollo"). On August 26, 2016, the two parties announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Apollo will acquire Rackspace in a merger in a deal worth $4.3 billion. As a result of the merger, Rackspace shareholders are only anticipated to receive $32.00 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Rackspace. Andrews & Springer's investigation so far has revealed that the consideration Rackspace are expected to receive is inadequate. While the Company claims that shareholders will receive a premium for their shares, the merger price is only 6% above Rackspace's August 25, 2016 closing price of $30.19 per share. In addition, the consideration is less than the $38.00 per share price target given by Cowen Company in August 2016, several weeks before the merger was announced. The $32.00 per share consideration is also 2.62% below Rackspace's 52-week high of $32.84. Our investigation has also revealed that the process leading up to the announcement of the merger appears to have significant conflicts of interest thus making the process and consideration unfair. If you own shares of Rackspace and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases- investigations/rackspace-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. RALPHS GROCERY: Sued by Laface for Not Giving Seats to Cashiers --------------------------------------------------------------- JILL LAFACE, individually, and as a representative of all others similarly situated v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, THE KROGER CO., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC632679 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 1, 2016), alleges that the Defendants failed to provide the Plaintiff and other checkers and cashiers with seats as required by the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7-200, Section 14. Defendant Ralphs Grocery Company is a California grocery store chain operating throughout the state of California and in the County of Los Angeles. The Kroger Co. is a corporation doing business in the state of California, as an owner of grocery stores. Ralphs is a subsidiary of Kroger. The Plaintiff does not know the names of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre E. Jardini, Esq. K.L. Myles, Esq. KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5000 Facsimile: (818) 547-5329 E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com klm@kpclegal.com - and - Michael V. Jehdian, Esq. LAW O'FFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 247-9111 E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com RELIABLE REXALL: Faces "Oliveira" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against RELIABLE REXALL SUNSET PHARMACY. The case is titled OLIVEIRA, MEGAN INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. RELIABLE REXALL SUNSET PHARMACY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, RELIABLE REXALL DRUGS A CALIFORNIA COMPANY OF FORM UNKNOWN, HUDSON DEVELOPMENT INC A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, CHING, SAMUEL C. H AN INDIVIDUAL, and DOES 1-500, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 554023 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 2, 2016). Reliable Rexall sells dermatological solutions, ointments, creams, lotions, suppositories, and progesterone. RESOURCE AMERICA: Faces "Gansman" Actions in Pennsylvania Courts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Resource America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that on June 15, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gansman v. Resource America, Inc., et al., Case No. 160601492, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County by a purported stockholder of Resource America. The lawsuit challenged aspects of Resource America's proposed merger (the "merger") with a wholly owned subsidiary of C-III Capital Partners LLC ("C-III") pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "merger agreement"), dated as of May 22, 2016, by and among Resource America, C-III and Regent Acquisition Inc. ("Merger Sub"), and sought, among other items, to enjoin the merger. On July 11, 2016, the plaintiff filed a stipulation with the Court seeking an order discontinuing the action without prejudice which was granted on August 9, 2016. On July 14, 2016, the same plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit, Gansman v. Resource America, Inc., et al., Case No., 16- 3820, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and named Resource America, its board of directors, C-III and Merger Sub as defendants (the "second lawsuit"). The second lawsuit seeks recissory damages and to enjoin the merger and alleges, among other things, that the Proxy Statement omits certain information alleged by the plaintiff to be material, including certain financial forecasts prepared by Resource America's management, and certain analyses prepared by Resource America's financial advisor. RHONDA J. SAUNDERS: Calvary Suit Moved to S.D.W.Va. --------------------------------------------------- Calvary SPV I, LLC, as assignee of Capital One Bank, N.A., the Plaintiff, v. Rhonda J. Saunders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Defendant, Case No. 16-C-518, was removed from the Raleigh County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (Beckley). The Southern District assigned Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-08527 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lewis Shuman, Jr., Esq. Nicholas P. Mooney, II, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE P. O. Box 273 Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Telephone: (304) 340 3800 Facsimile: (304) 340 3801 E-mail: dshuman@spilmanlaw.com nmooney@spilmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher B. Frost, Esq. Jed Robert Nolan, Esq. Ralph C. Young, Esq. Steven R. Broadwater, Esq. HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD P. O. Box 959 Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959 Telephone: (304) 574 2727 Facsimile: (304) 574 3709 E-mail: cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com jnolan@hamiltonburgess.com ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com RICHMOND AMERICAN: Homeowners Mull Class Action Over Blasting ------------------------------------------------------------- As Diana Battista goes through her Southern Highlands home she points out the damage to News 3. Inside her home, cracked travertine tiles were seen and on the outside is cracked cement and separation of stucco. Dozens of homeowners said blasts from explosions are damaging their homes. "All the sudden we have cracks show up and we have this blasting going on," said Ms. Battista. Developers are blasting to make way for Highland Hills Development Project. Homeowners got a letter saying geological conditions prohibit them from using normal construction methods and blast levels are being monitored to prevent damage. Homeowners said they are looking into a Class Action Lawsuit. Attorney Matthew Callister of Callister and Associates said residents were told the damage they were suffering is not the result of the blasting, but of natural settling. But Mr. Callister said settling occurs the first two years the home is built these homes are 13-years-old. Mr. Callister, an attorney for 30 years, said as many as 40 homeowners could be a part of a possible Class Action Lawsuit against Richmond American Homes and other site contractors. "None of these problems occurred until we started blasting about a month ago, now we have 30 . . . 50 neighbors reporting almost identical problems to the interior and exterior to their homes," said Mr. Callister. RJ REYNOLDS: Settles Class Action Over Camel Cash-C Notes --------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., on Aug. 30 disclosed that the settlement offer in the class action lawsuit Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., United States District Court for the Central District of California, commenced on August 1, 2016. Participation in the settlement offer is open to members of the Class, which is defined as "[a]ll persons in California who, as adult smokers, were assigned registration numbers by RJR, collected C-Notes, and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006." To participate in the settlement offer, please visit www.saterialesettlement.com Pursuant to the Settlement, R.J. Reynolds has commenced a Camel Cash Settlement Offer and will allow Class members to redeem Camel Cash C-Notes for specified non-tobacco merchandise, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement. Class members who no longer have their C-Notes may redeem up to 1,125 C-Notes if they attest to the possession of C-Notes as of October 1, 2006. Class members who still possess C-Notes that were in their possession as of October 1, 2006, may redeem up to 3,000 C-Notes. All Class members must satisfy additional requirements of the offer. Class members who wish to participate in the Camel Cash Settlement Offer may do so by visiting www.saterialesettlement.com The Camel Cash Settlement Offer commenced on August 1, 2016, and will run through January 31, 2017. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information, please go to www.bespc.com or www.camelcashsettlement.com ROSARIO'S INC: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------- Orlando C. Sandoval, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Rosario's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03021 (D. Md., August 30, 2016), seeks all unpaid wages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Rosario's, Inc. is a restaurant in Baltimore, Maryland where Sandoval worked as a line cook. Defendant is represented by: Judd G. Millman, Esq. Bruce M. Luchansky, Esq. Samuel C. Pinsky, Esq. LUCHANSKY LAW 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 522-1020 Facsimile: (410) 522-1021 Email: judd@luchanskylaw.com lucky@luchanskylaw.com sam@luchanskylaw.com SAHOTACORP: Sued Over Regent Hotel Maintenance Issues ----------------------------------------------------- Travis Lupick, writing for The Georgia Straight, reports that a lawsuit filed on August 29 describes deplorable conditions at one of the Downtown Eastside's shabby hotels. The legal action, an application for a class-action lawsuit that could involve many or even all of the building's tenants, concerns the Regent Hotel, which stands near the southwest corner of Main and East Hastings streets. It targets four members of the Sahota family, well known for owning and operating several low-income hotels throughout the Downtown Eastside. The four family members are Kirin Sahota, Gurdyal Sahota, Pal Sahota, and Parkash Sahota. A long list of grievances is detailed in the applicant's notice of claim. They include a lack of heat, lack of hot water, leaking roof, crumbling fa‡ade, rat infestation, broken elevator, and impassable fire escape, among other problems. "There are serious health and safety issues resulting from the Sahotas' failure to maintain the Regent," the notice of claim reads. "The Sahotas have consistently ignored serious infractions of the Standards of Maintenance Bylaw and have consistently ignored the few orders sporadically made by the City of Vancouver." None of the allegations have been proven in court. The defendants have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the applicants' notice of claim. Also named in the lawsuit are Sahotacorp, Triville Enterprises Ltd., and Yang-myung Hotel Management Ltd., the last two of which are described as entities involved in day-to-day operations at the Regent, as well as the City of Vancouver, which is accused of failing to enforce work orders related to maintenance at the Regent. "The City of Vancouver is fully aware of all of the health and safety issues at the Regent and has been aware of those issues from their inception," it reads. "While the City of Vancouver has issued work orders in relation to some of these issues, the City of Vancouver has chosen not to meaningfully enforce the work orders and chooses to ignore the majority of the health and safety issues. The applicant named is Jerald Jack Gates, a tenant who has lived on the second floor of the Regent since September 2014. He is represented by Jason Gratl, a lawyer who over the years has been involved in several high-profile cases related to social-justice issues playing out in the Downtown Eastside. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in "Corban" Case Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal in the case, Corban v. Sarepta, et al., remains pending. The Company said, " On January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014, purported class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current or former officers. The complaints were consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et al., No. 14-cv-10201) ("Corban") by order of the court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Sarepta and certain of its current or former officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen and sought damages in an unspecified amount." "On March 31, 2015, the Court granted Sarepta's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. On August 12, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' April 30, 2015 motion for leave seeking to file a further amended complaint, and on September 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the case. "The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on September 29, 2015. On January 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's order denying leave to amend and dismissing the case, during the pendency of which the plaintiffs' appeal was stayed. "On April 21, 2016, the Court denied that motion. A briefing schedule for the plaintiffs' appeal will be set by the First Circuit. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time." SONY CORP: Settlement with PlayStation 3 Buyers Has Tentative OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. on September 8 tentatively approved an unlimited settlement fund for early-model Sony PlayStation 3 buyers whose ability to run the Linux operating system was undone by a software update. The class action litigation stems from claims that Sony lied about the PS3 being able to run a separate Linux operating system in addition to its built-in gaming operating system. While earlier models had that functionality, the "Other OS" feature was wiped out by a software update on April 1, 2010, according to the lawsuits. In a Sept. 8 ruling, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers tentatively certified two classes of purchasers that bought "fat" -- as opposed to later-model slim version -- PS3 systems between Nov. 1, 2006, and April 1, 2010. Class attorney James Pizzirusso said Sony agreed to an uncapped settlement fund, which places no limit on how many PS3 buyers can submit claims for recovery. "Conceivably if every class member submitted a claim, Sony could pay out tens of millions of dollars," Pizzirusso said. "The fund is uncapped, and there's no way to know ultimately today how many people will submit claims." Pizzirusso is with Hausfield LLP in Washington. Ten million PS3 units have been sold in the United States, ranging in price from $400 to $600, according to court filings. Sony introduced the PlayStation 4 in 2013. The consolidated class action stretches back to April 2010 when multiple lawsuits were filed claiming Sony lied about the PS3's "Other OS" functionality. In 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the PS3 class action with prejudice, but the Ninth Circuit partly reversed the dismissal in April 2014. A settlement deal was reached last June after six years of litigation and nearly 10 months of negotiations, according to a motion for settlement approval filed on June 17. The deal sets a $2.25 million cap for attorneys' fees and provides $3,500 incentive awards for five named plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Anthony Ventura. Under terms of the deal, Sony will pay $55 to each class member that used a separate operating system on the PS3 before the feature was eliminated and $9 to each class member who bought a PS3 during the four-year class period but did not use the "Other OS" feature. Class members must file claims within 45 days of the notice date in order to recover funds, according to the tentative approval order. Sony will use its PlayStation network database to email class members about the settlement. Advertisements about the deal will be posted on technology and gaming websites such as CNET and IGN.com. The notification plan should reach an estimated 77 percent of class members, according to the settlement approval motion. Potential class members must be notified within 45 days of the Sept. 8 ruling, and class members will have 45 days following the initial notice to object to the settlement. A motion for final approval of the settlement is due on Dec. 20, and a final approval hearing is set for Jan 24, 2017, in Oakland. Sony's attorney, Luanne Sacks of Sacks Rickets & Case in San Francisco, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment on September 9, afternoon. The case is captioned, In re SONY PS3 "OTHER OS" LITIGATION, Case No. 4:10-CV-01811-YGR (N.D. Cal.) SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: $7MM Settlement Granted Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court in Nevada has entered an order granting final approval of the $7 million settlement in the stockholder litigation, John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv- 00433-LDG-CWH). The Company said, "This putative consolidated class action raises substantially identical claims and allegations against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and control person liability, as a violation of Section 20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from our March 12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press release, our stock price declined." "The complaints further allege that during the putative class period certain defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about FUSILEV sales, which inflated the trading price of our stock. The lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the Court deems appropriate. "On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. "On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint. On March 26, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2015, the Court ordered a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of mediation between the parties. "On October 27, 2015, we reached a $7 million settlement in principle with the lead plaintiff (which involved our insurance carrier, as the reimbursing party in full). On June 13, 2016, the Court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement." ST CLOUD STATE: Sept. 21 Pretrial Conference Set in Title IX Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Unze, writing for SC Times, reports that St. Cloud State University will reinstate temporarily its women's Nordic ski team as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by women's tennis players who alleged Title IX violations. U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim previously granted a preliminary injunction that put on hold the university's plan to eliminate the women's tennis program. The university didn't oppose a request in federal court that added the ski team to that injunction while the tennis players' lawsuit is pending. The ski team members approached the attorneys representing the tennis players, and it's possible that they could be added as plaintiffs to the tennis team's lawsuit or file a separate lawsuit. The tennis team's lawsuit was filed as a class action, meaning that other female athletes could join the lawsuit against the university. That requires the plaintiffs to bring a formal motion for class certification so other female athletes can join the lawsuit. The plaintiffs intend to do that, and the judge then has to decide the scope of the potential class members. Five tennis players sued the university and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system, now called Minnesota State, alleging Title IX violations and saying that the university for years has offered more athletic opportunities for men than for women. The suit was filed two months after the university announced that it was cutting six of its athletics programs -- from 23 to 17 -- effective at the end of last academic year. The budget-cutting move also saw reductions in rosters for seven sports, while rosters of six sports would increase. The attorney representing the tennis players, Donald Chance Mark Jr., said there have been no settlement discussions. He also said that no other athletes from other eliminated teams have approached him about joining the lawsuit. Mr. Mark is seeking to make the temporary injunction permanent. The case is scheduled for a pretrial conference Sept. 21. The lawsuit accuses the university of having at least 116 more athletic opportunities for men than for women during each of the last 12 years, based on data that St. Cloud State reported to the U.S. Department of Education. It says that St. Cloud State had 124 more athletic opportunities for men than for women last academic year, even though undergraduate enrollment was almost identical for men and women. The gap between male and female athletic opportunities has swelled to as high as 179 during the last 12 years, the lawsuit alleges. It accuses St. Cloud State during that period of effectively denying 1,759 women athletic opportunities because of their gender. St. Cloud State has said that the athletic department reorganization, along with "roster management," will bring it into Title IX compliance. ST JUDE MEDICAL: Blames Muddy Waters for Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that heart-device maker St. Jude Medical claims a financial firm intentionally and "despicably" spread false information about the cyber security of its pacemakers to profit when its share price plummeted on patients' fears. In a federal lawsuit filed on September 7, in Minnesota, St. Jude Medical accuses Muddy Waters Capital of intentionally spreading false information concerning St. Judge's implantable cardiac devices to manipulate St. Jude's share price for its own financial gain. Not to be confused with the children's research hospital of the same name, St. Jude Medical makes cardiovascular devices for various heart diseases and neurostimulator devices for the management of chronic pain and movement disorders. It reported net sales of $1.45 billion for the first quarter of 2016, court records show. On Aug. 25 of this year, short-sale firm Muddy Waters Capital released a 33-page report claiming that hundreds of thousands of St. Jude's home-monitored cardiac devices have "severe security vulnerabilities." St. Jude says researchers at defendant MedSec Holdings, a cybersecurity firm, purportedly found a security flaw in St. Jude's heart implants which connect wirelessly to at-home monitoring systems. Theoretically, this supposed flaw could leave patients with a St. Jude pacemaker or defibrillator vulnerable to a hacker's cyberattack. But instead of bringing its findings to St. Jude or the Food and Drug Administration, MedSec took its findings "directly to Muddy Waters for the purpose of monetizing their claimed work with a hoped-for payday in the stock market," the Twin Cities-based St. Jude says. "Defendants' wrongful conduct conclusively demonstrates a total disregard for the patients whose lives depend on cardiac rhythm management devices and their conduct is indefensible," St. Jude's complaint states. Muddy Waters allegedly shorted St. Jude's stock price the same day -- meaning that it stood to profit if St. Jude's stock price fell -- while it publicized MedSec's findings. Muddy Waters research director Carson Block appeared on Bloomberg TV and told viewers that St. Jude's devices' "communication protocol has been compromised," making them "low hanging fruit for attackers to exploit," according to the lawsuit. He said that a cyberattack could potentially drain the devices' battery and endanger patients' lives. By way of its remote transmitters, Block allegedly said St. Jude "literally distributed" the "keys to the castle," meaning access to patients' device controls, and said that the information was "readily available on Ebay" to anyone interested in making such an attack. St. Jude's share price fell approximately 5 percent on this wave of negative publicity, from $81.88 per share to $77.82 per share on Aug. 25. It has since regained some of this lost value, with stocks trading at $79.35 on September 8. "Defendants specifically intended to drive down the price of St. Jude's stock, which they had previously sold short," St. Jude says. "This insidious scheme to try to frighten and confuse patients and doctors by publicly disseminating false and unsubstantiated information in order to gain a financial windfall and thereby cause investors to panic and drive the St. Jude stock price down must be stopped and defendants must be held accountable so that such activity will not be incentivized and repeated in the future." St. Jude categorically denies MedSec's findings publicized in Muddy Water's report and the FDA supported the company's position, recommending that patients not unplug their remote monitoring based on security concerns. Muddy Waters posted a video purporting to show a St. Jude device "crash" under a cyber attack, but University of Michigan researchers debunked it 24 hours later, according to the complaint. St. Jude claims Muddy Waters and MedSec were only concerned with making themselves richer, which is why they used "market-bombshell scare tactics" rather than taking their concerns to legitimate parties, "with the very unfortunate (and despicable) concomitant result of fueling significant concern and fear in patients and their families." Indeed, the St. Jude was immediately hit with a patient class action a day after Muddy Water's report made the news. Muddy Waters defended itself an emailed statement. "It is not unusual for a company like this to try to silence its critics and we are always prepared to vigorously defend our right to criticize a company that puts its profits before its patients," spokesman Zach Kouwe said. In addition to Muddy Waters Capital, the lawsuit also names as defendants Muddy Waters Consulting LLC, MedSec Holdings Ltd., MedSec LLC and three individuals who are principals in these firms, including Block and University of Chicago physician Dr. Hemal Nayak, who is on MedSec's board. St. Jude seeks the disgorgement of Muddy Water's short-sale profits and punitive damages for defamation, violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and conspiracy. It is represented by Michael Ciresi with Ciresi Conlin in Minneapolis and Daniel Ring -- james.rix@mayerbrownjsm.com -- with Mayer Brown in Chicago. Mr. Ciresi may be reached at: Michael Ciresi, Esq. Ciresi Conlin LLP 225 South 6th St #4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 STANDARD INNOVATIONS: Faces Privacy Suit in Chicago --------------------------------------------------- Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that maybe some things should stay low-tech. Hauling her smartphone-paired vibrator to Chicago, federal court, an Illinois woman says the makers of We-Vibe are keeping tabs on users' most intimate data. On shelves from Ottawa-based Standard Innovation since 2014, We-Vibes can be connected to users' smartphones with help from the We-Connect app. "Touch the screen to control the vibrations and build intensity," the vibrator's instructions say. "Tease and please with custom vibes you create. "Turn on your lover when you connect and play together from anywhere in the world. "Build excitement with secure in-app voice, chat and video." Going only by her initials in the 18-page class action, N.P. says she bought herself a $130 We-Vibe from an Illinois retailer this past May. She used it several times then but never realized "that We-Connect monitors and records, in real time, how they use the device," according to the Sept. 2 complaint. Standard Innovation likewise failed to mention, the complaint continues, "that it transmits the collected private usage information to its servers in Canada." N.P. says customers' most "intimate details" are at stake, "including the date and time of each use, the vibration intensity level selected by the user, the vibration mode or pattern selected by the user, and incredibly, the email address of We-Vibe customers." As seen in screenshots from the complaint, vibration settings include standards sensations like pulse and wave, and some more exotic, like echo, peak and "cha cha cha." Such data "is undoubtedly valuable to the company," N.P. continues, but she says Standard Innovation's "conduct demonstrates a wholesale disregard for consumer privacy rights and violated numerous state and federal laws." Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the five-count complaint asserts violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and Illinois Eavesdropping Statute; intrusion upon seclusion; unjust enrichment; and consumer fraud. The class seeks an injunction and punitive damages. It is represented by Benjamin Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- with Edelson PC in Chicago. Standard Innovation has not returned a request for comment. STATE FARM: Two Suits Over Labor Costs Certified as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lynn LaRowe, writing for Texarkana Gazette, reports that a federal judge in Texarkana has granted class action certification in two lawsuits accusing major insurance companies of unlawfully depreciating labor costs in claims for property damage in Arkansas. The suits accuse State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. and American Modern Home Insurance Co. of improperly depreciating the value of labor costs when paying claims for damage to homes, fences and other insured real property in multiple years. Both cases were filed in Miller County Circuit Court in 2014 and later moved to the Texarkana Division of the Western District of Arkansas federal court at the request of the defendants. Texarkana lawyer John Goodson of Keil & Goodson declined to comment on behalf of the plaintiffs. The suits allege the insurance companies violated Arkansas law when they used software that depreciated not only the cost of the materials, but labor, as well. The complaints in both cases argue that labor "is not susceptible to aging or wear. Its value does not diminish over time. Consequently, and practically, depreciation simply cannot be applied to labor costs." U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey issued orders on Aug. 28 certifying the cases as class actions. Any Arkansan who settled a property damage claim with State Farm or American Modern in the 10 years before the suits were filed in 2014 may be eligible to join the suit. Lawyers for the plaintiffs hope to recover the amount they allege policyholders should have been paid for labor costs minus the amount they were actually paid, plus a 12 percent penalty, as permitted by Arkansas law. Lawyers for the defendants have argued that the individual claims of would-be class members are so different that class certification isn't appropriate. Judge Hickey's orders address those arguments and reject them. In both cases, Judge Hickey has appointed the following law firms as class counsel: Keil & Goodson of Texarkana; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check of California and Pennsylvania; Mattingly & Roselius of Oklahoma; Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry of Batesville, Ark.; Taylor Law Partners of Fayetteville, Ark.; Stephen Engstrom Law Office of Little Rock; Crowley Norman of Houston; and James Pratt Jr. of Camden, Ark. STERICYCLE INC: Class Cert. Bid in W.D. Pa. Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Motion requesting that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of the Company's small quantity customers who received rate increases remains pending. The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief." "The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act which arose out of the qui tam (or "whistle blower") action captioned United States of America ex rel. Jennifer D. Perez v. Stericycle, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-2390 which was settled in the fourth quarter of 2015 as previously disclosed. "Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in several jurisdictions. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. "On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action"). On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL Action, generally denying the allegations therein. "Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on March 8, 2016, and we filed an answer to that pleading on March 25, 2016, generally denying the allegations therein and asserting a variety of affirmative defenses. "In addition, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed a Motion for Class Certification in the MDL Action on January 29, 2016. The Motion requests that the court certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of certain of our small quantity customers who received rate increases. "We intend to strongly contest the Motion and will be filing a response to that motion in the coming weeks. "We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits." STERICYCLE INC: Amended Complaint Filed in N.D. Ill. Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, 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 plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit in Illinois have filed an amended complaint that purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July 28, 2016, inclusive. The Company said, "On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the Company, our directors and certain of our current and former officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering." "The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016. "On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July 28, 2016, inclusive. "We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit." STERICYCLE INC: Bid to Amended "Kader" Complaint Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, 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 plaintiffs' opposed motion for leave to further amend the complaint in the "Kader" class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "A purported class action complaint was filed on December 3, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318) ("Kader"), asserting that the Company and certain of its current or former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2015, alleged that the defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the sufficiency of the Company's data for submission of an NDA for eteplirsen and the likelihood of the FDA accepting the NDA based on that data. The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and fees." "On April 5, 2016, the Court granted Sarepta's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to further amend the complaint, which Sarepta opposed on April 22, 2016. That motion remains pending. An estimate of the possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time." TH HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Philip Gonzales, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that a nurse has filed a class-action lawsuit against a hospital over allegations of unpaid overtime. Dovie Williams filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 22 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas against TH Healthcare LTD, doing business as Park Plaza Hospital, alleging that the emergency care provider violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid one-and-one-half times her regular rate for all hours worked over 40 in a single workweek. The plaintiff holds TH Healthcare LTD responsible because the defendant allegedly denied her full compensation for her hours worked over 40 and failed to take into account all remunerations when calculating the regular hourly and overtime rates. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an award for all unpaid wages, an equal amount as liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses and such other relief to which she may be entitled. She is represented by Todd Slobin -- tslobin@eeoc.net - - and Ricardo J. Prieto -- rprieto@eeoc.net -- of Shellist | Lazarz | Slobin LLP in Houston. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number 4:16-cv-02198 TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: "Frisco" Suit Remains Pending in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending the case, Dennis Frisco v. Organics Management, LLC d/b/a Reserveage, Reserve Life Organics, LLC d/b/a Reserveage, Wal-Staf Services, Inc., and Wal-Staf Temporary Services, Inc., Case No: 01-2014-CA-000308 Div. J, in the Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit in and for Alachua County, Florida. The plaintiff in this matter was hired by a subsidiary of the Company, Organics Management, LLC, on a temporary basis through a third-party temporary staffing service to assist the Company with the hiring of sales people during a limited period of particularly high sales growth. As that period of unusual growth waned and services for hiring sales people were no longer necessary for the needs of the business, Organics Management ended plaintiff's temporary staffing engagement. Plaintiff alleges that Organics Management (or one of its affiliates) in fact intended to hire him on a full-time basis and that their failure to do so was based on age and gender discrimination. The Company believes that plaintiff's claims are without merit and is defending this case vigorously. TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Provides Indemnity to "Mathews" Defendant --------------------------------------------------------------- Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is providing indemnity to the defendant in the case, Amy Mathews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Arkansas LLC, Case No. CV-2015-0294, in the Circuit Court of Independence County, Arkansas, Civil Division. This purported class action alleges a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the same allegations of the state attorney general that serve as the basis for the claims in the Herbal Supplements multidistrict litigation referenced above, and seeks certification of a class of Arkansas residents purportedly impacted by the allegations. The Company is not a party to this litigation but provides indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the claims in this litigation. UBER: 9th Cir. Sends Background Check Claims Into Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals court on Sept. 7 handed Uber Technologies Inc. a major victory, ruling that drivers suing the company may be bound by arbitration agreements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that an arbitrator, not a federal judge, must decide whether the agreements used by Uber in 2013 and 2014 are enforceable. The decision reverses a 2015 ruling that voided the company's arbitration agreements and allowed a driver class action to proceed against the company in court over claims that it violated background check laws. "The district court should have ordered the parties to arbitrate their dispute over arbitrability . . . and we remand with instructions that it do so," Circuit Judge Richard Clifton wrote for the panel. Judge Clifton went on to offer strong signals that the court believes the agreements are valid, ruling that they were not "procedurally unconscionable," as the lower court had held. The ruling in favor of the agreements is a coup for its legal team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and could finally stem the tide of lawsuits that have dogged the company for the past several years. "Arbitration is a fair, speedy and less costly alternative to class-action litigation. We've always believed our optional arbitration agreements should have applied in this case, and we're pleased with the court's decision," Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous Jr. said in a statement. It also gives Uber new leverage in renegotiating an $84 million settlement with California and Massachusetts drivers. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California rejected the proposed settlement in August. In the background checks case, Judge Chen ruled that Uber's 2013 arbitration agreement was unenforceable. The judge objected in particular to Uber's procedures for opting out of arbitration, which he found so burdensome as to be "illusory." Drivers were required either to opt out in person at Uber's office in San Francisco or by overnight delivery service to its legal department. But the panel disagreed with that conclusion--noting that some drivers did opt out. "Thus, the promise was not illusory," Judge Clifton wrote. That the language providing for the opt-out was buried in the driver agreement "does not change this analysis," he added. The panel, which was rounded out by Circuit Judges Richard Tallman and Sandra Ikuta, also had stern words for Judge Chen's decision to go against Ninth Circuit case law in invalidating the 2014 agreement. Even though that agreement contained a less burdensome opt-out clause than the previous version, Judge Chen still found the agreement was procedurally unconscionable -- explicitly contravening previous Ninth Circuit decisions, including one known as Kilgore v. Key Bank. "The district court does not have the authority to ignore circuit court precedent, and neither do we," Judge Clifton wrote in the decision. Shannon Liss-Riordan, the plaintiffs lawyer suing Uber in the separate California and Massachusetts class actions, lamented the decision. "This decision is not good for the class," ms. Liss-Riordan said in a prepared statement. "The Ninth Circuit endorsed Uber's attempt to use its arbitration agreement to avoid a systemic challenge to its classification of drivers as employees through a global class action." The plaintiffs were represented in the background check case by Laura Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho. She did not immediately respond to a request for comment. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Allergan Shareholder Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the Allergan Shareholder Class Action. On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, an alleged shareholder of Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan shareholders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company, Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants contending that various purchases of Allergan securities by AGMS were made while in possession of material, non-public information concerning a potential tender offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and, on November 9, 2015, the Court denied that motion. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Salix Shareholder Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of the Salix Shareholder Class Actions remains pending. Following the announcement of the execution of the Salix Merger Agreement with Salix, between February 25, 2015 and March 12, 2015, six purported stockholder class actions were filed challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims against some or all of the board of directors of Salix (the "Salix Board"), the Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub. On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.10721-CB. On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The operative complaint alleges generally that the members of the Salix Board breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Salix through an allegedly inadequate sales process and for allegedly inadequate consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protections. The complaint also alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Salix in connection with the Salix Acquisition contained inaccurate or materially misleading information about, among other things, the Salix Acquisition and the sales process leading up to the Salix Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, money damages and unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed as of February 19, 2016. In an oral ruling given on May 19, 2016, the Court dismissed the consolidated action against all defendants. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court appealing the decision to dismiss the consolidated action against all defendants. The Plaintiffs' opening appellate brief was filed on August 2, 2016. Defendants' response appellate brief was due on September 1, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this appeal. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Synergetics Case Settlement Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has granted final approval of the settlement reached in the Synergetics Shareholder Class Actions in Missouri. On September 1, 2015, Valeant entered into a merger agreement, whereby it would acquire all shares of Synergetics USA, Inc. ("Synergetics"). The merger was announced on September 2, 2015. Following the announcement of the merger, four putative stockholder class actions were filed challenging the merger. Three of these actions were filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri and name as defendants all members of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Synergetics, Valeant and Blue Subsidiary Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant). Those actions are captioned as follows: Murphy, et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00778 (filed September 15, 2015 and amended September 23, 2015 (the "Murphy Action")); Glorioso, et al., v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00803 (filed September 23, 2015 (the "Glorioso Action")); and Scarantino, et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511- CC00810 (filed September 28, 2015 (the "Scarantino Action")) (collectively, the "Missouri Actions"). The fourth action, captioned Nilsen, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, et al., C.A. No. 11552-VCL (the "Delaware Action," and together with the Missouri Actions, the "Actions") was filed on September 28, 2015, in the Delaware Court of Chancery and named as defendants all members of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp. The Actions generally allege that the members of the Synergetics Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Synergetics stockholders by, among other things, conducting a flawed process in considering the transaction, agreeing to an inadequate offer price, providing incomplete and misleading information to Synergetics stockholders, and accepting unreasonable deal protection measures in the merger agreement that allegedly dissuaded other potential bidders from making competing offers. The Actions also allege that Valeant and Blue Subsidiary Corp. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Missouri Actions sought, among other things, an order enjoining consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger or awarding damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and expenses. The Delaware Action sought, among other things, an order awarding damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and expenses. On October 2, 2015, Synergetics, each member of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Actions, which sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of the Actions on the basis of the additional disclosures made in a supplement to the Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on October 2, 2015, in exchange for the release of, among other things, certain claims relating to the Actions, the merger and disclosures made in connection therewith. On October 8, 2015 the Delaware Court of Chancery unilaterally dismissed the Delaware Action. In October 2015, the Missouri Actions were consolidated into the Murphy Action. In January 2016, the parties engaged in confirmatory discovery, including additional documents produced by Defendants and conducting two depositions. Thereafter, the parties negotiated and reached agreement on a stipulation of settlement and ancillary settlement documents, which were filed with the Court on April 25, 2016. A hearing with the Court was held on April 29, 2016. At that hearing, the Court signed the scheduling order, which governs settlement proceedings, and set a final settlement hearing for July 29, 2016. On May 26, 2016, notice of the proposed settlement was mailed to Synergetics record holders that are members of the class. The parties have reached an agreement in principle respecting payment by the Company of a nominal amount in respect of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The Court held the final settlement hearing on July 29, 2016, at which it granted final approval of the settlement and awarded the negotiated attorneys' fees. Pursuant to the settlement, the Court dismissed the Missouri Actions with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and all members of the settlement class. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in a securities class action lawsuit against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., filed motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint on Sept. 13, 2016: -- Deborah Jorn, -- Howard B. Schiller, -- Ronald H. Farmer, Colleen Goggins, Robert Ingram, Ari S. Kellen, Anders Lonner, Theo Melas-Kyriazi, J Michael Pearson, Robert N. Power, Norma Provencio, Robert L Rosiello, Katherine B Stevenson, Jeffrey W. Ubben, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., -- Tanya Carro, -- PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, and -- Barclays Capital Inc., Bmo Capital Markets Corp., Cibc World Markets Corp., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Dbs Bank Ltd., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., DNB Markets, Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co, Hsbc Securities (USA) Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Mitsubishi UFJ Securities (USA), Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., TD Securities (USA) LLC. Responses to the motions to dismiss are due Nov. 14, 2016. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that from October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15- cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during various time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company's relationship with Philidor. On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658, and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint naming additional defendants and asserting additional claims based on allegations of false and misleading statements and/or omissions similar to those in the initial complaints. Specifically, the consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the Company's securities in the United States in the Company's debt and stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. The Company's response to the consolidated complaint was due September 13, 2016. The Company believes the actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Stay Ontario Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the motion seeking to stay the Kowalyshyn action is scheduled to be heard on September 15, 2016. In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082- 00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O'Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O'Brien, Catucci and Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau- Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior Court by consent order. Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose material information about the Company's business and prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company's policies and accounting practices, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies and, in particular, the Company's relationship with Philidor. The Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien actions also assert common law claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of liability contemplated by the Code. The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to those outlined. The Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do not intend to pursue the actions. The Company expects that certain of these actions will be consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in any jurisdiction. In particular, on June 10, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision on carriage motions (motions held to determine who will have carriage of the class action) heard on April 8, 2016, provisionally staying the O'Brien action, in favor of the Kowalyshyn action. On June 30, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Catucci and O'Brien actions filed a motion seeking to stay the Kowalyshyn action in favor of the Catucci action on the basis of forum non conveniens (namely on the basis that the Quebec Superior Court is the more appropriate forum to hear this matter). That motion is scheduled to be heard on September 15, 2016. In the Catucci action, a schedule has been set for the week of April 24, 2017 for the hearing of motions for leave under the Quebec Securities Act and for authorization as a class proceeding. In the Kowalyshyn action, a schedule has been set for the hearing of the motions for leave under the Ontario Securities Act and certification as a class proceeding commencing April 12, 2017. The Company believes that it has viable defenses to each of the actions, and in each case intends to defend itself vigorously. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: RICO Class Actions Pending in New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against RICO Class Actions in New Jersey. On May 27, 2016 and June 24, 2016, two virtually identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and Philidor, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class of certain third party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Valeant branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015 (Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-03087, and Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-3885). The complaints allege, among other things, that the Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured's consent to renew the prescription. The complaints further allege that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Solodyn(R) Antitrust Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company remains a defendant in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions. Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed against Medicis, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("VPII") and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees. By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (''JPML'') centralized the suits in the District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14- md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper. After the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Class Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 2 and various state laws but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws. VPII was dismissed from the case, but the litigation continues against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the remaining claims. The actions are currently in discovery. On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to dismiss the class action complaints was pending, two additional non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain retail pharmacy and grocery chains ("Individual Plaintiffs") making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that sought by Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs. Those suits have been centralized with the class action suits in the District of Massachusetts. Following the Court's August 14, 2015 decision on the motion to dismiss, the Individual Plaintiffs each filed amended complaints on October 1, 2015, and Medicis answered on December 7, 2015. A third non-class action was filed by another retail pharmacy against Medicis on January 26, 2016, and Medicis answered on March 28, 2016. On July 20, 2016, each group of Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed amended complaint. The proposed amended complaints seek to reassert alleged sham litigation claims against Medicis; the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Plaintiffs also seek to amend their respective purported class definitions. The Company is evaluating these motions and intends to vigorously defend all of these actions. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Contact Lens Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Contact Lens Antitrust Class Actions are in discovery. Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L, three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees. By order dated June 8, 2015, the JPML centralized the suits in the Middle District of Florida, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, before U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. After the Class Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class action complaint on December 16, 2015, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. On June 16, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws. The actions are currently in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Certify Afexa Class Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a hearing to certify the class in the Afexa Class Action was held on April 4-8, 2016 and a decision is pending. On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of action. In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed certain amendments, while it struck others. The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and a decision is pending. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Racketeering Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Ross Marowits, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Valeant Pharmaceuticals is being sued by New York health benefit funds providers that allege the embattled Canadian drug manufacturer overcharged for medications in contravention of racketeering and consumer-protection legislation. New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City and the Detectives' Endowment Association of New York filed a class-action lawsuit on Aug. 29 against Valeant and former Philidor Rx Services founders Andrew and Matthew Davenport, along with several affiliated companies. The health benefit funds providers, which reimburse employees and retirees for prescription drugs, allege they "unnecessarily paid for or incurred excessive costs" for Valeant medications. Valeant faces three counts, including alleged violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the New York Deceptive Practices Act. All defendants have been accused of conspiring to violate RICO through activities such as mail fraud, wire fraud and use of interstate facilities in aid of racketeering. The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages over US$5 million on behalf of themselves and other similar third- party payers between Jan. 2, 2013 and Oct. 30, 2015. "Valeant is aware of these recent claims, and as previously indicated intends to defend itself against such claims," the company said. "Valeant cannot comment further on ongoing litigation." The lawsuit against the Quebec-based drugmaker and others was filed 10 days after U.S. mutual fund T. Rowe Price, a former large Valeant shareholder and Alleghany Corp. filed a fraud suit over actions it claims cost investors billions of dollars. Valeant has said that claim is similar to one filed in October by a teachers' retirement fund. In the Aug. 29 57-page filing, the plaintiffs allege Valeant charged exorbitant prices for Valeant-branded drugs, routed prescriptions through Philidor, resubmitted rejected claims through other pharmacies to make it seem they hadn't been previously rejected, substituted Valeant-branded drugs for generic equivalents, and offered incentives to discourage patients from complaining. None of the allegations has been proven. Valeant is also reportedly under a criminal fraud investigation by the U.S. Attorney's office in New York over its activities with mail-order pharmacy Philidor. It faces other investigations in several states along with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which is looking at whether Salix -- acquired by Valeant last year -- allegedly misled investors about inventory levels. VANCOUVER ENGLISH: Students Mull Class Action Over Sudden Closure ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Meuse, writing for CBC News, reports that the sudden closure of a Vancouver language school has left 600 students out of class, and almost 100 school staff out of a job. Teachers at Vancouver English Centre (VEC), an English as a second language (ESL) school in downtown Vancouver, have been on strike for the last four weeks, seeking their first collective contract. Union representatives say they showed up to the school at 9:00 a.m. on Aug. 26 for a private mediation session, but instead found a group of confused students and staff gathered outside. A note had been posted saying the school was closed, and was unlikely to reopen. Hector Diaz, a VEC student visiting from Mexico, says the school has yet to refund his money despite repeated requests throughout the strike. Now that the school is closed, he has no idea what to do. "I came here to study but now I don't have any money to take another course, because they have my money," Mr. Diaz said. "I travelled miles away from my country, and this is a bad situation that I am [in]." Before the strike, the school had about 600 students enrolled -- all of whom have been left with no explanation for the sudden closure, no contact information, and no refund. Ken Gardner, president and owner of VEC, was contacted by the CBC for comment, but did not respond by deadline. A copy of the closure notice was posted on the school's Twitter page. Teachers were prepared to compromise Kim Fissel is the interim president of ETEA Local 9, the union representing VEC's teachers. She said after four weeks of job action, the union had come prepared on Aug. 26 to make some concessions. "We had decided, in order to try and allow the school to stay open, allow these students to get what they paid for and allow more than 45 teachers to keep their jobs, we would counter [our own initial offer]," Ms. Fissel said. "I've got teachers asking me what happens next, because they've got years invested in the school," she said. "In one case we have one teacher who's been there 18 years." "This didn't have to happen." The strike came after 15 months of failed contract negotiations and mediation. Teachers had been asking for wages comparable to other schools the union represents, as well as pay for time spent preparing for class. Lack of accreditation leaves students with few options VEC was a founding member of Languages Canada, a non-profit organization that oversees ESL schools across the country. But Languages Canada says VEC lost its membership several months ago after it stopped paying dues. VEC never became a member of the Private Career Training Institutions Agency (PCTIA), a provincial government regulatory body founded in 2004 to set education standards for ESL schools. Since VEC is not under the jurisdiction of either Languages Canada or PCTIA, Ms. Fissel says students can't appeal to those bodies for help to get their money back. "The students unfortunately will have to go after [VEC] legally, and as I understand, individually," she said. "They might be able to get a class action together, but they don't really have a lot of options." ESL schools do not fall under the definition of "career training" provided by the provincial Private Career Training Institutions Act, so registration with PCTIA is not required to operate an ESL school in B.C. "This particular result really shows why [accreditation by] PCTIA should not be voluntary," Ms. Fissel said. "This is going to do all kinds of damage to the reputation of people involved in this." None of this is particularly comforting for Mr. Diaz. Like many VEC students, he's in a foreign country on a short-term visa. He's only here until December, he's not familiar with the local legal system, and he says the Mexican consulate has so far been unable to help. He's also down more than $5,000 in tuition fees paid to VEC. "I don't have any money to spend on any lawyer," Mr. Diaz said. "I don't know what to do. I don't know if I can apply for any legal service. I'm totally lost." VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Securities Litigation Remains Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company remains a defendant in a federal securities class action in New York. On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and, on June 9, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint, which was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds formerly subadvised by F- Squared Investments Inc. ("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. A motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf of the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015. On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowing Plaintiff's claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit. The remaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint was filed on August 5, 2016. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument Set for Oct. 7 in Appeal Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that oral argument on the defendants' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal in the case, Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. et al, is scheduled for October 7, 2016. On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "District Court") by an individual who alleges he is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSector Funds. The complaint alleges claims against the Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff and on July 27, 2015, the District Court appointed movants as lead plaintiff. On October 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint which, among other things, added a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus Opportunities Trust. On October 19, 2015, the District Court entered an order transferring the action to the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). On January 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Company and affiliated defendants on February 1, 2016. On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed four causes of action entirely and a fifth cause of action with respect to a portion of the Class Period. The Court also dismissed all claims against ten defendants named in the Complaint. The Court held that Plaintiff's may pursue certain securities claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Answer to the Second Amended Complaint was filed on August 5, 2016. The defendants intend to file a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the July 1, 2016 order to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on or before August 26, 2016. Oral argument on the motion is scheduled for October 7, 2016. The Company believes that the suit has no basis in law or fact and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Engineer Pleads Guilty in Emissions Cheating Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Schneider, Tom Krisher, Eric Tucker and Michael Biesecker, writing for The Associated Press, report that a Volkswagen engineer has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy in the company's emissions cheating scandal, advancing a criminal investigation by agreeing to testify against others. James Robert Liang, 62, of Newbury Park, California, entered the plea on Sept. 9 in U.S. District Court in Detroit to one count of conspiracy to defraud the government through wire fraud. Mr. Liang is the first person to enter a plea in the case, and his cooperation is a major breakthrough in the Justice Department's probe into the scandal. Government documents say others were involved and point to multiple emails in German that likely came from VW employees in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen has admitted to installing software on about 500,000 2- liter diesel engines in VW and Audi models in the U.S. that turned pollution controls on during government tests and turned them off while on the road. The Environmental Protection Agency found that the cars emitted up to 40 times the legal limit for nitrogen oxide, which can cause human respiratory problems. Mr. Liang, who began work for VW in 1983 in Germany, and also worked in the U.S., was indicted in June on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and another count of violating the Clean Air Act. According to a plea agreement unsealed on Set. 9, Mr. Liang admitted that he and others planned software known as a defeat device, that could cheat U.S. emissions tests after recognizing that a diesel engine they were designing could not meet customer expectations and stricter emissions standards. Using the defeat device enabled VW to obtain a certificate from the Environmental Protection Agency needed to sell the cars in the U.S. Mr. Liang pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge before Judge Sean Cox. He will be sentenced on Jan. 11. The judge said that guidelines call for Liang to serve five years in prison. He also could be fined up to $250,000. Volkswagen wouldn't comment on the plea but said on Sept. 9 that it continues to cooperate in the investigation. Mr. Laing, who wore a dark suit and tie, mostly responded "yes" or "no" to the judge's questions at the Sept. 9 hearing, but also read a brief statement in which he admitted to the fraud. He had a German-speaking interpreter with him in court but did not use her and gave all responses in English. The judge noted that he is not a U.S. citizen and could be subject to immigration action. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Chutkow told the judge that two or more of Mr. Laing's colleagues also had knowledge of the conspiracy. According to the indictment, Mr. Liang and his co-conspirators were tasked with designing new diesel engines for the U.S. market that complied with stricter emissions standards for nitrogen oxide emissions that went into effect in 2007. Within VW, it was referred to as the US '07 project. Prosecutors say Mr. Liang and the other engineers realized that could not design a diesel vehicle that both met the stricter U.S. emission standards and performed well enough to satisfy customers. So they began work on defeat device software that would cheat on the tests, the indictment says. Within VW, the cheating software was referred to as "cycle beating," or "emissions tight" mode, among other terms, according to the indictment. In one 2007 meeting with government officials in Ann Arbor, Michigan, Mr. Liang participated as his co-conspirators misrepresented that VW's diesel vehicles complied with U.S. emissions standards, according to the plea agreement. "Liang knew that VW was cheating by implementing the defeat device and that he and his co-conspirators were considering deceiving EPA in this meeting," the plea agreement states. The indictment says that in May 2008 Mr. Liang transferred from Volkswagen headquarters in Germany to the U.S. to help oversee the launch of the new "clean diesel" models. Investigators uncovered internal company emails that show Mr. Liang and other VW engineers exchanged ideas about how to "effectively calibrate the defeat device" so that the cars would recognize when they were undergoing U.S. emissions testing. The software was designed to recognize when the cars were being tested on a treadmill-like device called a dynamometer. In 2013, Mr. Liang and others exchanged messages in German about software that recognized when the engine was revving but the steering wheel was not moving, an indication that the car was undergoing a dynamometer test. The software then calibrated the engine to run cleaner than it would in real world driving, according to the indictment. "If this goes through without problems, the function is probably truly watertight! ;-)" one of the VW employees messaged Mr. Liang in German. The scheme began to unravel in 2014 when a nonprofit group discovered that the cars polluted too much in real-world driving conditions. But prosecutors say that Mr. Liang and his VW colleagues still conspired to hide the existence of the defeat devices. As a first step, VW offered a new "optimized" software update that was supposed to address the high emissions. "We 'only just need a plausible explanation' as to why the emissions are still high!!!" a VW employee wrote to Mr. Liang and others in German after the software patch provided by VW failed to fix the problem. "We must be sure to prevent the authority from testing the Gen 1!" a VW employee emailed in June 2015, referring to the first generation of VW models using the "clean diesel" engines. The emails said that if Gen 1 is tested by the California Air Resources Board "then we'll have nothing more to laugh about!!!!!" As the VW engineers struggled to explain to U.S. regulators why their cars kept failing the tests, a VW employee wrote Mr. Liang and others in July 2015: "the key word 'creativity' would be helpful here." VOLKSWAGEN AG: Nears Settlement Agreement with Vehicle Dealers -------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that in March, six Volkswagen retailers came together with the mission of negotiating an out-of-court settlement with the factory to compensate their fellow dealers for losses from the diesel emissions scandal, and averting what they feared would be messy litigation against their business partner. But when such a deal finally came together, it was disclosed by someone else: Steve Berman, a class-action attorney representing a VW dealer who had defied the six-member committee and sued VW in April. It's still unclear what roles the VW dealer committee and Mr. Berman's firm played in the run-up to the dealer agreement. For now, both parties appear pleased that a deal -- any deal -- is at hand. In a hearing, Mr. Berman said the deal would "heal the wounds between the dealers and Volkswagen." Mr. Berman, who was unavailable for comment, represents Ed Napleton, an Illinois-based dealer who sued VW in April seeking class-action status, alleging that the automaker had defrauded its retailers by cheating on emissions tests. The case was later transferred to a federal court in San Francisco, where U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer is overseeing the complex web of consumer and government litigation against VW. To VW dealer Steve Kalafer, who has been critical of the six- member Dealer Investment Committee's call to forgo litigation in favor of voluntary settlement talks, Mr. Napleton ended up as the "hero" of the day. "If it wasn't for Napleton . . . this would have been another manufacturer telling their dealers, "I'll make it up to you someday,'" Mr. Kalafer said. Jason Kuhn, the Florida VW dealer who led the Investment Committee, said the full group met with VW executives twice in person and held many more conference calls over the last three months, totaling "hundreds" of hours of work on a settlement. After months of discussions, Mr. Kuhn said, "we felt that the deal contained enough important parts that dealers would be happy." Alan Brown, chairman of VW's dealer council and another member of the Investment Committee, praised the deal, saying the committee acted as the "voice of the dealer" in the talks and aimed to ensure that "we were made whole with damages" and that "VW took the American market seriously." Aaron Jacoby, a dealer lawyer and partner at Arent Fox in Los Angeles who counts many VW dealers among his clients, says Mr. Napleton's suit was likely key in bringing the deal about. "Rather than looking to the dealer committee that was established for the purpose to try to resolve this, it appears VW made a deal with class-action counsel," he said, "which is typical to how class-action claims are resolved but different than what dealers were expecting." VOLKSWAGEN AG: 40% of Vehicle Owners Seek Emissions Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that about 210,000 owners of Volkswagens with 2-liter diesel engines that cheat on emissions tests have registered to settle with the company under the terms of a June court agreement. The figure was revealed in a federal court motion by class action attorneys seeking final approval of the settlement involving 475,000 owners. It says only 235 have asked to stay out of the settlement and pursue legal action on their own. Another 110 objections to the settlement were filed. U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer has given the $15 billion settlement preliminary approval, with a final decision expected Oct. 18. Terms call for the German carmaker to spend up to $10 billion buying back or repairing Volkswagen and Audi 2-liter vehicles and paying owners another $5,100 to $10,000 each. The motion was filed by Elizabeth Cabraser, the lead attorney in the class-action settlement. It says the number of owners who signed up for settlements, about 44 percent, was "a noteworthy level of participation in a program whose claims deadline does not occur until September 2018." The Federal Trade Commission, which sued Volkswagen along with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department, came out in support of the settlement on Aug. 26. The agency, which had contended that VW deceived buyers through false advertising, says the settlement is fair because it gives owners the value of their cars before the scandal became public last Sept. 18. Owners also are compensated for other expenses, the agency says. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Proposed Settlements Boon for Some Dealers --------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that Volkswagen dealers are finally in line for some financial relief after watching their volumes, profits and franchise values pummeled by the automaker's diesel emissions scandal. But will it be enough to cover what they've lost, and may still stand to lose? The answer will become clearer over the next several weeks, as lawyers for dealers and VW finalize how to divvy up a compensation fund -- worth more than $1.2 billion, according to Reuters -- among VW's roughly 650 U.S. retailers, following a preliminary agreement. The agreement also calls on VW to buy back used diesels that have clogged dealership lots for more than 11 months. Individual dealer payouts will be based in part on dealership and market size, according to Hagens Berman, a law firm representing dealers in the VW litigation in a U.S. District Court in San Francisco, but the reported $1.2 billion package amounts to an average of about $1.8 million per dealer. Such a payout would be a boon for VW dealers struggling to turn a profit amid a stop-sale on diesel models that accounted for 20 percent of sales -- and a large chunk of new-car profits -- before the scandal erupted in September. Jason Kuhn, a VW dealer in Florida and leader of the six-member Dealer Investment Committee formed in March to pursue settlement talks with the factory, cheered the deal, saying he was "very, very confident that the dealer body as a whole will feel that this proposal is very generous and that VW has fully compensated the dealers." Yet buy-sell advisers, and even some VW retailers, question whether the fund will be enough to fully address the scandal's impact. Alan Haig, president of buy-sell advisory firm Haig Partners in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., says an average payout of $1.8 million would be enough to make up for lost profits or diminished franchise value, but not both. With many VW stores struggling before the scandal, Haig has assigned VW dealerships a flat dollar value since last year, rather than the traditional multiple of earnings. By his method, VW stores are worth between $0 and $1.5 million today, compared with $250,000 to $2.5 million before the scandal. The impact of lost business and profit comes on top of that decline. Haig says while diesels accounted for a fifth of VW's sales, they made up a larger share of dealers' new-car profits. As a result, he said, an average payout of $1.8 million, is "not sufficient to pay for the loss in profits and the loss in franchise value." Buy-sell adviser Erin Kerrigan said the proposed dealer settlements are a key step in moving past the scandal, but echoed Haig's analysis. She estimates VW dealers on average were making an annual profit of about $600,000 before the scandal, meaning an average $1.8 million payout represents three times normal earnings. "On an average basis it seems fair, but it very much depends on how [the funds] are allocated and distributed, and that's just for the earnings," said Ms. Kerrigan, managing director of Kerrigan Advisors in Irvine, Calif. "In terms of the value of the business, if someone was planning to sell their dealership in the middle of this scandal, it's not enough," she said. Steve Kalafer, a VW dealer and owner of the 17-franchise Flemington Car & Truck Country in Flemington, N.J., says more is riding on the settlement than just a payout. An underappreciated risk of the whole VW fiasco, Mr. Kalafer says, is the potential exposure to civil and even criminal fraud liability stemming from dealers who have borrowed money from lenders to bankroll business plans underpinned by VW's projections, which involved the sale of illegally modified diesel vehicles. "The likelihood is unknown, but the bottom line is that dealers made warranties and representations based on projections [by VW] that were fraudulently computed," Mr. Kalafer said, adding: "I'm hopeful that this settlement from VW will put that potential liability behind them." The risk of such dealer liability is a "legitimate concern," says Anthony Sabino, a federal class-action expert and law professor at St. John's University in New York. A criminal fraud case against a dealer would be "an uphill battle for even the best prosecutor" but civil fraud charges would be easier to pursue, he said. Dealers could avoid such liability if the court-approved settlement contained an injunction shielding dealers from claims, he said. Ultimately, Mr. Sabino says, the size of the compensation fund is key. "What really is going to make it work, unequivocally, is money," he said. "People will be more accepting of a broad-based settlement that provides injunctive relief if there's enough money on the table." VOLKSWAGEN AG: Solicitor Taps Hausfeld to Help in Ireland Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Sean O'Driscoll, writing for The Times, reports that a lawyer who was instrumental in winning a record $15 billion US settlement in the Volkswagen emissions scandal is now being hired by a Co Mayo solicitor to support cases against the German carmaker in Ireland. Michael Hausfeld, an American class-action lawyer, was a major figure in the case against Volkswagen, which was settled earlier this year. He is now sharing all publicly-available American documents that Volkswagen has disclosed with an Irish solicitor working on cases here. WSFS FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement of Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------- WSFS 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 a court has approved a stipulation of settlement of the lawsuits relating to the October 2015 merger with Alliance Bancorp, Inc. Four purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints relating to the October 2015 merger with Alliance were filed during the quarter ended June 30, 2015. These actions were consolidated under the caption In re: Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania Derivative and Class Action Litigation, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Consol. Action Lead Case No. 2015-3606 (Civil Div.) (the Alliance Action). The complaint named as defendants Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania, its directors and certain of its officers, and the Company (the Defendants. On July 7, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation of settlement of this matter which included the payment of $335,000 in legal fees for counsel to the Plaintiffs. These legal fees are to be paid by the Company's insurers and will not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated statement of operations or statement of condition. XBIOTECH INC: Filed Demurrer in California Action ------------------------------------------------- Xbiotech Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has responded with a demurrer in a class action lawsuit in California. The Company said, "On December 1, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Yogina Rezko v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Queena Han and WR Hambrecht & Co., LLC was filed against us, certain of our officers and directors and the underwriter for our initial public offering in the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County. On December 2, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Linh Tran v. XBiotech Inc., John Simard and Queena Han was filed against us and certain of our officers and directors in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The lawsuits are based on substantially similar factual allegations and purport to be class actions brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from April 15, 2015 through November 23, 2015. The complaint filed in California state court alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the complaint filed in federal court alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), in each case by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's Phase III clinical trial conducted in Europe to assess Xilonix(TM) as a treatment for colorectal cancer. The California complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, and the federal complaint purports to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Both complaints seek, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief." "In February 24, 2016, following a proceeding to select a lead plaintiff in the federal case, the court issued an order appointing Mr. Kresimir Corak as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the federal case on April 8, 2016. We filed a motion to dismiss brief with the court on May 23, 2016, while plaintiffs filed a response brief on July 7, 2016. In the California case, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 7, 2016. We responded with a demurrer in August 2016. No trial or other dates have been set in either case." YIRENDAI LTD: "Seong" Sues Over Drop in Yirendai Securities ----------------------------------------------------------- Seong Roh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Yirendai Ltd., Yihan Fang and Yu Cong, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06506 (C.D. Cal., August 30, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yirendai Ltd. is a Cayman Islands corporation with its principal executive offices located in Beijing, China. It is a peer-to-peer lending company headquartered in China that purportedly connects investors and individual borrowers. Yirendai's American Depositary Shares (ADS) are actively traded on the NYSE. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose material adverse facts about the increasing amount of fraud related to customer applications for its loan products and the implementation of new anti-fraud regulations by the Chinese government. Its ADS price fell $6.92, or 22%, to close at $24.52 per share on August 24, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. Soeng purchased Yirendai securities suffered losses as a result of mandatory corrective disclosures. Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 1-800-977-7401 Fax: 1-800-536-0065 Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com brian@goldberglawpc.com YIRENDAI LTD: Faces Class Action, Oct. 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Yirendai Ltd. ("Yirendai" or the "Company") (NYSE: YRD) and certain of its officers. The class action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Yirendai securities between May 11, 2016 and August 24, 2016, 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"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Yirendai was experiencing increasing fraud related to customer applications for its loan products; (2) the implementation of new anti-fraud regulations by the Chinese government could have a negative impact on Yirendai's performance; (3) consequently, Yirendai's statements about its business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 24, 2016, Bloomberg reported that China imposed limits on peer-to-peer lending in order to control risks in the loosely- regulated shadow-banking sector. These new regulations bar lenders from taking public deposits or selling wealth-management products, and force lenders to engage qualified banks as custodians and improve information disclosure. The new regulations also cap individual borrowing at 1 million yuan ($150,000). Following this news, Yirendai stock dropped over 22%, to close at $24.52 per share on August 24, 2016. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/yrdor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in Yirendai you have until October 25, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Deadlines Held in Abeyance ----------------------------------------------------------- Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that a court has held in abeyance all other deadlines, including the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial in a consolidated class action lawsuit. A putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and the same former officers making substantially similar allegations (collectively, the New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April 26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiff alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures and seeks unspecified damages. The court has certified a class of investors that includes those that purchased Symbol common stock between March 12, 2004 and August 1, 2005. The parties have substantially completed fact and expert discovery. However, there are certain discovery motions pending that could, if granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held in abeyance all other deadlines, including the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial. The Company said, "One of the insurers in our insurance group has denied insurance coverage and is not agreeing to reimburse defense costs incurred by the Company in connection with this matter. The Company is pursuing the actions it deems necessary and reasonable to obtain reimbursement of its defense costs from the insurer." * CFTC, FIA Object to CFPB Arbitration Proposal ----------------------------------------------- Gary DeWaal, Esq. -- gary.dewaal@kattenlaw.com -- of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Futures Industry Association filed comment letters with the US Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) objecting, in part, to a proposed rule by the CFPB that would prohibit arbitration agreements that barred consumers from filing or participating in class action litigations regarding covered consumer financial products or services. Language in the preamble to the proposed rule would subject the rule's requirements to "any product or service that is subject to both the Bureau's and [CFTC's arbitration rules]." Both the CFTC and FIA pointed out that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over the regulated activities of CFTC registrants, and any CFPB rule may not also regulate such activities. * Maurice Blackburn Lawyer Targets Queensland Poker Machines ------------------------------------------------------------ Sherele Moody, writing for Chinchilla News, reports that class action legal expert Jacob Varghese is taking on the gaming industry with an Australia-first case to determine whether poker machines breach Australian consumer law. The Maurice Blackburn lawyer, working with the Alliance for Gambling Reform, hopes the legal action will force the gaming industry to rethink the way it operates. Mr. Varghese believes poker machine designers have produced "misleading and deceptive" products that encourage addictive behavior by tricking people into thinking they are winning when they are actually losing money. "This is a landmark legal action that will focus on the behavior of gaming machine manufacturers and designers," he said. "We're running this case pro bono because we're alarmed at the enormous harm that is done by poker machines in the community, and we hope this action can play a key role in improving the way the industry operates for consumers." While the outcome of the class action could be years away, the end result may one day influence how much money is returned to Queensland gamblers. Queensland poker machines are required by law to return 85-92% of their turnover to gamblers. This means gaming venues retain 8-15% of each dollar gambled. However, Monash University gambling researcher Dr. Charles Livingstone explained this does not mean that if a player spends $100 they will get $85-92 back at the end of their gaming session. This is because the actual "return to player" ratio is achieved over the machine's three to four-year lifespan. "Remember that every time a gambler pushes the button on a 90% return to player machine they lose an average of 10%," Dr Livingstone said. "So, on average, if you start with 100 credits you will have 90 credits after the first spin, 81 after the second, 72.9 after the third, and so on, until the money is all gone." Dr. Livingstone said Queensland hotels paid a flat tax of 35% on their poker machine revenue while community-run clubs paid an "effective average" tax of 27%. "Clubs do not pay corporations tax and in Queensland they are taxed at a lower rate than hotels," he said. This means that a club with an annual turnover of $20m a year from poker machines will keep $14,585,732. "So, in other words, they keep 73 cents from every dollar someone loses on pokies in their venue," Dr. Livingstone said. * Securities Class Actions Rise to 119 in First Half of 2016 ------------------------------------------------------------ Kristin Danley-Greiner, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Attorney Tom Gorman, Esq. -- gorman.tom@dorsey.com -- of Dorsey & Whitney, says he's seen a "record number" of cases involving public companies and individuals involved in regulatory actions. These actions revolve around such claims as insider trading, market manipulation, financial fraud, accounting and auditing issues, corporate governance matters and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act issues. Mr. Gorman also defends securities class action and derivative suits. A new report from Cornerstone Research says in the first half of 2016, there were 119 new securities class actions filed, compared to 87 filed during the same period in 2015. From 1997 to 2015, there were only 94 actions filed. Gorman said the increase could be attributed to a "substantial uptick" in the number of challenges to mergers and acquisitions. For the current fiscal year, Mr. Gorman believes there will be an even higher amount of cases filed than in the previous fiscal year. "I believe it's 750 cases or something close to that," he said. "It was a record number of cases." Mr. Gorman believes this is because of what he calls the "broken window" in government policy. "That's where virtually every action, no matter how small or insignificant, is brought up," he said. "There has been the questioning of how effective it really is to be bringing in large numbers of cases like this. These cases don't usually generate a large number of dollars, but it does bring about a large number of cases and attention to the issues." Mr. Gorman said he doesn't feel this approach is effective in securities regulation or in situations where a senior executive with a company has been "fudging numbers" on financial statements or even someone with inside information being restrained from trading. "We saw four-dozen small strict liability cases brought in, which are totally different than others, and I think that rationale is questionable at best," he said. ********* 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 * * *