/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 238 Headlines 3D SYSTEMS: Motion for Reconsideration Currently Pending AAMI: Class Action Mulled Over Wye River Bushfire Insurance AIU ONLINE: Hodge's Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to Nov. 30 ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Sale of Soliris ALLSTATE CORP: Jan. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ALLY FINANCIAL: Bucks County Securities Suit Moved to E.D. Mich. AMARIN CORP: To Defend Against Class Action Appeal AMBAC FINANCIAL: Dec. 21 Status Conference Set in "Pirinea" Suit AMERICAN CAPITAL: Court Issued Memorandum Implementing Rulings AMERICAN FARMLAND: Faces Shareholders' Class Action in Baltimore AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Penalties Over Employment Structures AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in Brockton Retirement System Now Final AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in ERISA Litigation Underway BF LABS: Court Allows Alexander to Amend Motion to Certify Class APIGEE CORPORATION: Demurrer and Motion to Strike Underway BLUETOWER MOBILE: Hamilton Sues to Recover Overtime Under FLSA BMW: March 31 Hearing Set for Defective Sunroof Class Action BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 40,000 Mesh Claims Filed as of Oct. 31 BP PLC: Feb. 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CALIBER HOME: Class Certification Sought in "Grove" Suit CASINO RAMA: Faces Class Action Over Massive Privacy Breach CBS RADIO: Misclassified Ad Sales Staff, Monroe Alleges CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Wants Gender Bias Class Action Dismissed CHARLOTTE PALM: "Autry" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Final Payments Under Reed and Sikora Cases CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Faces "Masters" Class Suit CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Intends to Defend "Guglielmo" Case in N.Y. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Intends to Defend "Brown" Case CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Wage & Hour Suit Underway CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Dec. 5 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Rodriguez" CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Suit Alleging Rigging of Bids CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Hearing Not Yet Set on Motion to Dismiss CHRISTOPHER J CHRISTIE: "Slaughter" Suit in N.J. Dismissed COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Jailor Seeks Conditional Certification COMCAST CORP: Illegally Withdrew Customers' Funds, Danow Alleges COMERCIAL MEXICANA: "Lopez" Suit Seek OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Sought in "Cooke" Suit DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: January 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Suit in Early Stages DOLLAR THRIFTY: "McKinnon" Plaintiffs May File 5th Amended Suit DS HEALTHCARE: Response to Amended Complaint Due Dec. 19 DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Jenkins" Demands Show of Sponsorship Contracts DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set EAGLE MARINE: O'Neal Wins Conditional Certification EVERYDAY HEALTH: "Ebbs" Sues Over Merger with Project Echo FACEBOOK INC: Faces Investors Class Suit Over Stock Crash FACEBOOK INC: Halts Racially-Targeted Housing, Employment Ads FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge RAM Owners File RICO Class Action FIREEYE INC: Brings Class Cert. Challenge to Calif. Supreme Court FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba Seeks to Proceed as Class Action GERON CORPORATION: California District Court Stays Lawsuits GOLDMAN SACHS: SunEdison Securities Litig. Pending in Calif. Court GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Intervenors' Claims Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Currencies-Related Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Indirect Forex Buyers' Suit Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Commodities-Related Litigation Claims Dismissed GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Underway GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Miner Renews Motion for Class Certification GS ELECTECH: January 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set HONEY HOLDING: Judge Dismisses Chinese Honey Class Action HUMANA INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in Kentucky IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Investors Sue Diller Over Stock Plan INDIVIOR: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Suboxone Prices INVENTURE FOODS: Initial Case Management Conference on Dec. 12 ITEL NETWORKS: "Brown" Suit Seeks Recover Overtime Pay, Damages JOHN HANCOCK: "Larson" Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. KROENKE SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation LAWRY'S THE PRIME RIB: Faces Wage Class Action in Chicago LENTUO INTERNATIONAL: March 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Jie for Violating Securities Act LOUISIANA: Denied Tax Credits for Solar Power, Suit Says MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Wins Final Approval of $23.5MM Accord MARION BASS: February 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MIRVAC: Waverley Park Estate Residents Mull Class Action MISSOURI STATE HIGH: Class Cert. Sought in Student-Athlete Case MISTRAS GROUP: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Feb. 2 MOBILOIL FEDERAL CREDIT: Faces Overdraft Fees Class Suit MONEY MAX: "Common Fund" Ruling Game Changer, Jones Day Says MUDTECH SERVICES: "Gallow" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: Pfeuti Suit Dismissed Following Settlement NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Transfer Rules NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Finds Standing in Data Breach Case NBTY INC: Sweat Files Third Motion for Class Certification NEW BOSTON PIE: "Brayak" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay NORTHERN TRUST: January 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set NORTHSTAR FINANCE: "Boothe" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal PATTERN ENERGY: Jan. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set PREMIER NUTRITION: "Ravinsky" Alleges Product Mislabelling PREMIER NUTRITION: "Lux" Alleges Product Mislabeling in Juice PRUDENTIAL BANCORP: Entered into MOU to Settle Merger Litigation ROBINSON NURSING: Judge Rules Out Conflict of Interest SAMARCO MINERACAO: Jan. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settles Truck Drivers' Class Action for $28MM SCRANTON, PA: Sewer Authority Faces Class Action Over Sale SP AUSNET: Judge Wants Hearing on Bushfire Class Action Costs SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Court Oks Certification in "Jackson" Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Truck Frames Class Action for $3.4 Bil. TRANSWORLD SYSTEM: Class Certification Sought in "Young" Suit TRINET GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Welgus" Suit Underway TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump's Lawyers File Motion to Delay Trial TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Class Action Lawyers Want Trial to Proceed U.S. SECURITY: Meal Break Subclass Decertification Sought UNITED STATES: Nat'l Guard Vets Want Bonus Payback Issue Resolved UNITED STATES: Ordered to Implement Immigration Bond System UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses IRS Data Breach Class Action UNITED STATES: Texas Patriots Tea Party Class Action Pending VIRGIN AMERICA: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Bernstein" Suit VOLKSWAGEN AG: Audi Defeat Device Software Adds to Woes WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Mislabeled Egyptian Cotton Bed Sheets WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration in Customers' Class Action ZIMMER INC: Judge OKs Canadian Durom Cup Class Action Settlement * Feb. 15 Deadline Set for Comments on Proposed Class Action Rule * FTC to Study Class Action Settlement Notice Programs * Queensland's Introduction of Class Action Regime Praised ********* 3D SYSTEMS: Motion for Reconsideration Currently Pending -------------------------------------------------------- 3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Defendants' motion for reconsideration of a court Order is currently pending. The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions and that the former officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on January 14, 2016, which was denied by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2016 (the "Order"). Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order on August 4, 2016, which is currently pending. AAMI: Class Action Mulled Over Wye River Bushfire Insurance ----------------------------------------------------------- Alex Sinnott, writing for Geelong Advertiser, reports that outraged Wye River residents have voiced their frustration with AAMI for the first time following 10 months of alleged inertia and indifference from the leading insurer. The group, who all took out complete replacement cover, met in Geelong on Nov. 13 to outline how AAMI had failed to show interest and compassion following the loss of their properties in the Black Christmas bushfires. In several instances, the AAMI customers allege the insurer kept in place full monthly premiums covering house and contents despite the fact all their Wye River possessions had been incinerated. Corangamite MP Sarah Henderson was scheduled to meet Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to relay the group's anger with AAMI and has warned others not to do business with the household name insurer. Alex Aldis and Meaghan Montgomery paid for an independent quote on their razed property which equated the loss at $658,000. However, AAMI's quote came back at around $498,000. "There could be potentially a class action here because there's a lot of people who have been disadvantaged by this misleading and deceptive policy," Ms. Montgomery said. "At a very high level, there's been no commitment from AAMI, no timelines, there's been no face-to-face contact. They've never even been to our property. We're still paying an insurance premium and they've said we have to continue to pay it." Geelong photographer Mark Strachan has been a long-time AAMI customer and upgraded to the complete replacement cover a few years ago. When his Wye River house burnt down, AAMI requested a cash settlement, which was rejected by Mr. Strachan who wanted it rebuilt by the insurer, which was an option available under the policy. AAMI offered to rebuild the home but at a cost Mr. Strachan claimed was $200,000 lower than it should be. Ms. Henderson raised the issue in Federal Parliament and claimed AAMI had used companies which had no local knowledge and carried none of the risk of rebuilding, meaning they were free to underquote. "The response has been so poor that I would be suggesting to anyone who has complete replacement cover with AAMI to get out of that policy," the Liberal MP said. A spokesman for AAMI said the insurer was "committed to resolving these claims as a priority". "The majority of AAMI customers at Wye River had purchased the optional 'Complete Replacement Cover' for their home policy," the AAMI spokesman said. "This provides full insurance cover, meaning customers cannot be underinsured. However, claims under these policies can take slightly longer to settle as there is more work required to ensure the customer's settlement is the correct amount." AIU ONLINE: Hodge's Class Cert. Bid Hearing Continued to Nov. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A docket entry was made in the case captioned Mary A Hodge Plaintiff, v. AIU Online, LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:16- cv-10383, (N.D. Ill.). The minute entry before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan states that the Court's previous order is amended to reflect Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and continued to November 30, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the November 16 Notice of Docket Entry is available at no charge at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ei8tKXUw ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Sale of Soliris ----------------------------------------------------------------- VICTORIANO FRUTOS JUAREZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LEONARD BELL, DAVID L. HALLAL, and VIKAS SINHA, Case No. 1:16-cv-08946 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2016), accuses the Defendants of failing to disclose that Alexion employed improper sales practices with respect to Soliris. The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired Alexion securities between February 10, 2014, and November 9, 2016, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Alexion is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Alexion, a biopharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes therapeutic products. Among the Company's products is Soliris (eculizumab), a monoclonal antibody for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), a genetic blood disorder, and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a genetic disease. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ALLSTATE CORP: Jan. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 15 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of The Allstate Corporation securities (ALL) from October 30, 2014 through August 3, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Allstate investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Allstate class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-993.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the reason for the sudden spike in its auto claims frequency, which defendants claimed was due to external events beyond the Allstate's control, was actually the result of Allstate's growth in its auto policy business through higher risk drivers. On August 3, 2015, Allstate reported disappointing second quarter 2015 financial results, including a third consecutive quarter of increased auto claims frequency, a 57% decline in operating income, and operating earnings per share that were $0.34 below analysts' consensus estimate. On that same day, Allstate's CEO stated that the lower quarterly profit was "driven by a deterioration in auto insurance margins" and explained that "[a]uto insurance margins decreased as higher claim frequency and severity more than offset average auto insurance price increases." On this news, shares of Allstate fell $7.04 per share to close at $62.34 per share on August 4, 2015. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 9, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-993.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. ALLY FINANCIAL: Bucks County Securities Suit Moved to E.D. Mich. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ally Financial Inc., Michael A. Carpenter, Christopher A. Halmy, David J. Debrunner, Robert T. Blakely, Mayree C. Clark, Stephen A. Feinberg, Kim S. Fennebresque, Gerald Greenwald, Franklin W. Hobbs, Brian P. Macdonald, Marjorie Magner, Henry S. Miller, Mathew Pendo, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Llc, Sandler O'neill & Partners, L.P., Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Evercore Group L.L.C., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Scotia Capital (USA) INC., Credit Agricole Securities (USA) INC., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, Guggenheim Securities, LLC, Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC, Global Hunter Securities, LLC, Height Securities, LLC, JMP Securities LLC, Loop Capital Markets LLC, Blaylock Beal Van, LLC, Castleoak Securities, L.P., Mischler Financial Group, Inc., The Williams Capital Group, L.P., C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Lebenthal & Co., LLC, MFR Securities, Inc., Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc., Drexel Hamilton, LLC, Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc., Telsey Advisory Group LLC, Toussaint Capital Partners, LLC, Academy Securities Inc., Freeman & Co. Securities LLC, and WM Smith & Co., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00797 (Mich. Cir., October 21, 2016), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on November 18, 2016. Plaintiff seeks to recover investment losses it claims to have suffered that were allegedly the result of risks that were not fully disclosed in the Registration Statement and the Prospectus Supplement filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Ally's April 11, 2014 Initial Public Offering. Ally Financial is represented by: Daryl A. Libow, Esq. Elizabeth A. Cassady, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1700 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Tel.: (202) 956-7500 Fax: (202) 956-6330 Email: libowd@sullcrom.com cassadye@sullcrom.com - and - Marc De Leeuw, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Tel.: (212) 558-4000 Fax: (212) 558-3588 Email: deleeuwm@sullcrom.com - and - Thomas M. Schehr, Esq. James P. Feeney, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 Tel: (313) 568-6659 Email: tschehr@dykema.com - and - James P. Feeney, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 39577 Woodward Ave., Suite 300 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48304 Tel: (248) 203-0841 Email: jfeeney@dykema.com AMARIN CORP: To Defend Against Class Action Appeal -------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the company plans a vigorous defense to a class action appeal. The Company said, "The market price of our American Depositary Shares, or ADSs, declined significantly after the October 2013 decision by the FDA Advisory Committee to recommend against approval of Vascepa in the ANCHOR indication. We and certain of our current and former executive officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit that generally alleged that we and certain of our current and former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements or material omissions concerning the ANCHOR sNDA and related FDA regulatory approval process in an effort to lead investors to believe that Vascepa would receive approval from the FDA in the ANCHOR indication. The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs." "We engaged in a vigorous defense of this lawsuit. On June 29, 2015, the court granted our first motion to dismiss the class action litigation without prejudice. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and plaintiffs were given 30 days to refile an amended complaint. "On July 29, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and we again moved to dismiss. On April 26, 2016, the court granted a second motion to dismiss, again without prejudice, with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. "On May 24, 2016, plaintiffs notified the court they would not file another amended complaint and on September 21, 2016, filed a brief in support of their appeal of the most recent dismissal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. We plan a vigorous defense to this appeal." Amarin Corporation plc is a biopharmaceutical company with expertise in lipid science focused on the commercialization and development of therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health. AMBAC FINANCIAL: Dec. 21 Status Conference Set in "Pirinea" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ambac Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Ambac is not yet required to respond to the complaint, 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 November 23, 2016, Ori Wilbush, the lead plaintiff in the case, filed a first amended complaint against Diana N. Adams, Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Cathy Matanle, Jeffrey S. Stein, Nader Tavakoli, David Trick with Jury demand. Judge Richard M. Berman held a status Conference on Oct. 27 and another one is scheduled for Dec. 21 at 9:00 am. The 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. On October 11, 2016, the court appointed Wilbush as lead plaintiff and granted Wilbush's Motion for appointment of Levi & Korsinsky as lead counsel. Ambac said it is not yet required to respond to the complaint. Ambac believes the lawsuit is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against it. AMERICAN CAPITAL: Court Issued Memorandum Implementing Rulings -------------------------------------------------------------- American Capital, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has issued a memorandum and order implementing its rulings in a consolidated putative shareholder class action. On or about August 18, 2016, four shareholders of American Capital filed a consolidated putative shareholder class action allegedly on behalf of holders of the common stock of American Capital against the members of American Capital's Board of Directors in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland due to the directors' actions in approving the proposed merger between Ares Capital and American Capital. This action is a consolidation of putative shareholder complaints filed against the directors of American Capital on June 24, 2016, July 12, 2016, July 21, 2016 and July 27, 2016. The action alleges that the directors failed to adequately discharge their fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of American Capital by hastily commencing a sales process due to the Board's manipulation by a major shareholder, Elliott Management Corp. (together with its affiliates, "Elliott Management"). The complaint also alleges that the directors then failed to obtain for the shareholders the highest value available in the marketplace for their shares. The complaint further alleges that the proposed merger was the product of a flawed sales process due to Elliott Management's continued manipulation of the directors, the use of deal protection devices in the proposed merger with Ares Capital that precluded other bidders from making a higher offer to American Capital, and the directors' conflicts of interest due to special benefits, including the full vesting of American Capital stock options and incentive awards, or golden parachutes the directors are due to receive upon consummation of the proposed merger. Additionally, the complaint alleges that Ares Capital's Registration Statement on Form N-14, which was filed with the SEC on July 20, 2016 and includes a joint proxy statement to American Capital's shareholders, is materially false and misleading because it omits material information concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the proposed merger. The complaint seeks to enjoin the proposed merger between Ares Capital and American Capital. In the event that the proposed merger between Ares Capital and American Capital is completed, the complaint seeks to recover compensatory damages for all losses resulting from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. On or about August 26, 2016, the American Capital directors named as defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint and moved for a protective order staying all discovery, pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss. On or about September 13, 2016, plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for limited expedited discovery and an opposition to the American Capital directors' motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery. On or about September 21, 2016, the American Capital directors filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for limited expedited discovery and a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. On or about September 23, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the pending motions after which it announced a summary of its rulings denying the American Capital directors' motion to dismiss and motion to stay discovery and granting plaintiffs' motion for limited expedited discovery. On October 6, 2016, the Court issued a memorandum and order implementing its rulings. American Capital believes that these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. American Capital, Ltd. is a publicly traded global asset manager and private equity firm. AMERICAN FARMLAND: Faces Shareholders' Class Action in Baltimore ---------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on behalf of all common stockholders of American Farmland Company ("American Farmland" or the "Company") opposing the proposed acquisition of American Farmland by Farmland Partners Inc. The complaint seeks relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated shareholders of American Farmland and asserts that the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value and/or protect the interests of American Farmland shareholders. If you currently own common stock of American Farmland and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentinvestigations.html. You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Penalties Over Employment Structures ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Christodoulou, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that Amnesty International and Wesley Mission have been dragged into the wages scandal around charity fundraising after a court found a marketing company used by the charities paid its collectors well below the minimum wage. Marketing company Australian Sales and Promotions Pty Ltd and its sole director Paul Ainsworth, were forced to pay $124,000 in penalties on Nov. 11 after the Federal Circuit Court found the company used complicated employment structures to avoid paying employees the minimum wage. The company was found to have breached sham contracting laws by hiring staff as independent contractors, allowing them to sidestep standard minimum wages and workplace conditions. The firm had been previously penalised $23,000 for similar conduct in 2013 when it underpaid five sales workers more than $9000 and mis-classifying them as contractors. On Nov. 11 Judge Robert Cameron found Ainsworth deliberately contravened the Fair Work Act, "to enjoy the financial benefit of paying (the charity collector) as an independent contractor while also enjoying the power and authority of an employer in the control it exercised over him in the course of his work". The court heard the case of a 26-year-old British backpacker Thomas Beckitt who was found to be underpaid $7853 while in Australia on a 417 working holiday visa in 2013. He was working on a commission basis, earning a daily rate as low as $50 while raising money for charities including, Wesley Mission and Amnesty International, over four months in shopping centres around Sydney. Mr. Ainsworth and ASAP, through their lawyers, did not respond to questions from Fairfax. Wesley Mission said it only used ASAP for nine months between 2013-14 and has not used it since. "We are greatly saddened and disappointed that it has been found that ASAP has treated one of its workers unfairly . . . we were unaware that this was taking place," a spokesman said. "Businesses not only have a legal but a moral obligation to their workers," the charity said in a statement. Amnesty International said it was made aware that fundraisers engaged by ASAP were being underpaid in December 2014 and terminated its contract three days later. "Amnesty International is strongly opposed to any form of unlawful behaviour in the sector, including in the engagement and employment of fundraisers. We are actively working with the sector to ensure that all those engaged in fundraising are being treated fairly," a spokeswoman said. The Fair Work Ombudsman is investigating charities and charity collectors as part of a national inquiry into the not-for-profit sector. Ombudsman Natalie James warned that simply calling a worker a 'contractor' was no defence against underpayment of genuine employees. "Where there is evidence of sham contracting occurring, the Fair Work Ombudsman and the courts will look behind the often carefully crafted legal documents and structures to determine the true state of affairs for affected workers," she said. It comes as another marketing firm, Appco, faces an estimated $80- million class action following similar claims that it underpaid its workforce by employing them as independent contractors and not as employees. The class action is being taken by former employees, some of who claim they saw collectors getting paid as little as $2.50 an hour to solicit charity donations on the street. Appco has said it would vigorously defend its business structure and the independent contractor model, but said if it lost the case "the community needed to consider the serious consequences for fundraising by Australia's charities." AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in Brockton Retirement System Now Final ----------------------------------------------------------------- Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the judgment approving the settlement in the case by the City of Brockton Retirement System has now become final. On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint (City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including October 26, 2011. The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on November 21, 2014. The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of $62 million. Approximately $60 million of the settlement was paid by the Company's insurers and approximately $2 million was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance policy). On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on August 24, 2016, the court entered an order and judgment granting final approval of the settlement. There has been an appeal of the court's separate order relating to plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, dated August 25, 2016. However, no appeal was filed from the court's August 24, 2016 order and judgment approving the settlement and thus that judgment has now become final. AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement in ERISA Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has held a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the case, In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV- 10083), and ordered the parties to submit additional documentation in support of the settlement by November 4, 2016. Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries. On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products, Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014 and between December 14, 2011 and the present. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief. On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The parties reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of claims against the Company and the individual defendants and payment of approximately $6 million. Approximately $5 million of the settlement was paid by the Company's insurer and approximately $1 million was paid by the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance policy). On June 7, 2016, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on October 11, 2016, the court held a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement and ordered the parties to submit additional documentation in support of the settlement by November 4, 2016. If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to reasonably estimate. BF LABS: Court Allows Alexander to Amend Motion to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kathryn H. Vratil sustained in part the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, motion for leave to amend filed in the lawsuit styled KYLE ALEXANDER and DYLAN SYMINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. BF LABS INC., d/b/a BUTTERFLY LABS, SONNY C. VLEISIDES and JEFF OWNBY, Case No. 14-2159-KHV (D. Kan.). The Plaintiffs may file an amended motion to certify a class. Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington bring this putative class action on behalf of all persons, who prepaid BF Labs for bitcoin mining machines between September 3, 2012, and July 17, 2014. They assert claims against BF Labs, Sonny C. Vleisides and Jeff Ownby under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. They also bring unjust enrichment claims under Kansas common law. In addition, against BF Labs, the Plaintiffs assert a common law claim of conversion. On September 22, 2016, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of settlement. On September 30, 2016, based on the memorandum and order, which denied approval of the settlement, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, motion for leave to amend. According to Judge Vratil's memorandum and order, the Court overruled the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification based on the reasoning set out in the memorandum and order denying approval of the settlement. The Court agrees that the term "moot" was inartful. The Court need not address the merits of Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider, however, because the Court sustains the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file an amended motion for class certification. In their amended motion, the Plaintiffs must address (among other things) the obvious disconnect between the class, which the amended complaint seeks to certify and the class, which the Plaintiffs' motion to certify seeks to establish, Judge Vratil said. A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/ywt86W from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington are represented by: Aristotle N. Rodopoulos, Esq. Noah K. Wood, Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC 1100 Main, Suite #1800 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 256-3582 Facsimile: (816) 337-4243 E-mail: ari@woodlaw.com noah@woodlaw.com Defendants BF Labs Inc., Sonny Chris Vleisides and Jeff Ownby are represented by: Mark A. Olthoff, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112-1895 Telephone: (816) 753-1000 Facsimile: (816) 753-1536 E-mail: molthoff@polsinelli.com Defendant BF Labs Inc. is represented by: Michael S. Foster, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 900 W. 48th Place, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64112-1895 Telephone: (816) 753-1000 Facsimile: (816) 753-1536 E-mail: mfoster@polsinelli.com Receiver Eric L. Johnson is represented by: Bryant T. Lamer, Esq. Kersten L. Holzhueter, Esq. SPENCER FANE LLP 1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 474-8100 Facsimile: (816) 474-3216 E-mail: blamer@spencerfane.com kholzhueter@spencerfane.com - and - Lucinda Housley Luetkemeyer, Esq. GRAVES GARRETT LLC 1100 Main St., Suite 2700 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 285-3880 E-mail: lluetkemeyer@gravesgarrett.com Movant Netsolus.com, Inc., is represented by: Ashley Scott Waddell, Esq. WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC 2600 Grand, Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 399-5510 Facsimile: (816) 221-2508 E-mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com APIGEE CORPORATION: Demurrer and Motion to Strike Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Apigee Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2016, that the fiscal year ended July 31, 2016, that defendants' demurrer and motion to strike a consolidated complaint remains pending. The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2016, four purported shareholder class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, our directors, certain of our executive officers, the underwriters of our IPO and other defendants. The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of ours seeking to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of our stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with our April 2015 IPO." "On May 26, 2016, the court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action. On July 13, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against Apigee, members of Apigee's board of directors, and certain executive officers. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and generally alleges that the Registration Statement made materially false and misleading statements and omitted material facts required to be disclosed. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, rescission or rescissory damages, and equitable relief. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. To that end, defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike the consolidated complaint on September 12, 2016." The Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate a range of loss related to these lawsuits, if any. If these lawsuits result in a material loss to the Company, this may have an impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows. BLUETOWER MOBILE: Hamilton Sues to Recover Overtime Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIC HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLUETOWER MOBILE, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-03393 (S.D. Tex., November 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Bluetower Mobile LLC is a for profit corporation doing business in the state of Texas. Bluetower is engaged in the business of servicing and installing equipment on telecommunications towers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly E. Cook, Esq. Brad T. Wyly, Esq. Michael J. Bins, Esq. WYLY & COOK, PLLC 4101 Washington Ave. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 236-8330 Facsimile: (713) 863-8502 E-mail: kcook@wylycooklaw.com bwyly@wylycooklaw.com mbins@wylycooklaw.com BMW: March 31 Hearing Set for Defective Sunroof Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Phillip Thompson, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that a California judge has set a schedule for hearings on a class-action lawsuit against BMW that accuses the car maker of manufacturing defective sunroofs. U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney of the Northern District of California set the date for the hearing between BMW and plaintiffs Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson at March 31, 2017. Both sides have until that date to produce and file motions and "expert witnesses," according to court documents. Judge Chesney's ruling is the latest in a case originally brought in 2013. Ms. Sharma and Mr. Anderson alleged their vehicles suffered water damage after the drainage tubes installed to pull water away from the sunroofs did not work properly. BMW has repeatedly argued for dismissal of the case, citing, among other things, the suit does not reach the threshold of a class action. "First, the purported class is not ascertainable because it includes many persons who have no claims against BMW North America," BMW attorneys argued in 2013. "Those putative class members whose cars have never manifested the alleged defect, those whose sunroofs leaked for reasons other than the alleged defect and those whose cars are covered under warranty -- and thus eligible for repair at no cost to them -- cannot claim they suffered any cognizable injury and therefore lack standing." BMW attorneys also claimed, "The class includes many vehicles purchased more than ten years ago, meaning that the transactions at issue are well outside the statutes of limitation of, for example, plaintiffs' CLRA (three year), UCL (four year) and breach of express warranty (four year). At a minimum, persons whose claims are outside the statutes of limitation should be excluded from any proposed class." A judge ruled against BMW in January 2014, saying the plaintiffs made allegations "sufficient" to represent a class action at the pleading stage of their case against the automaker over an alleged sunroof defect. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 40,000 Mesh Claims Filed as of Oct. 31 --------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that as of October 31, 2016, over 40,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against the Company. The Company said, "The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of four putative class actions, and fewer than 20 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts." "On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. "As of October 31, 2016, we have entered into master settlement agreements with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 19,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the 19,000 cases and claims, 6,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. "All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing. In addition, we continue to engage in discussions with various plaintiffs' counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and, as of October 31, 2016, have made substantial progress in discussions with plaintiffs' counsel representing approximately 3,000 additional cases and claims. "We have established a product liability accrual for known and estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as with respect to the actions that have resulted in verdicts against us and the costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required in the future as additional information becomes available. "While we continue to engage in discussions with plaintiffs' counsel regarding potential resolution of pending cases and claims and intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against us that do not settle, the final resolution of the cases and claims is uncertain and could have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and unfavorable judgments for us. We do not believe that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh products." BP PLC: Feb. 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Court-Ordered Legal Notice This Notice may affect your legal rights. Please read it carefully. Important Legal Notice authorized by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas about a Securities Class Action Settlement If you purchased or acquired American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of BP p.l.c. ("BP") during the period from April 26, 2010 through and including May 28, 2010, you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement. You may be entitled to a CASH payment. In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 10-md-2185 (S.D. Tex.) THIS NOTICE ONLY PROVIDES LIMITED INFORMATION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. PLEASE VISIT www.bpsecuritieslitigation.com FOR MORE INFORMATION. There is a proposed Settlement of claims against BP, BP America, Inc., and certain of their former officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The proposed Settlement would resolve a lawsuit in which Plaintiffs allege that Defendants misled investors by issuing false and misleading public statements between April 26, 2010 through and including May 28, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and seeks money damages for violations of the federal securities laws. Defendants deny any wrongdoing. The parties disagree on how much money, if any, could have been won if the case went to trial. If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve the case against Defendants and will pay money to eligible Settlement Class Members. Who's Included? You are included if you acquired shares of BP ADSs during the Class Period. You may have held these shares through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary. What Can You Get? The Settlement establishes a $175,000,000 ($175 million) Settlement Fund that, after payment of certain Court- approved expenses, such as attorneys' fees and administration costs, is intended for distribution to Settlement Class Members in exchange for the settlement of this case and the release by Settlement Class Members of the claims described above and other related claims against Defendants. The Settlement is explained in detail in the Full Notice, and in the Stipulation of Settlement, available at the website below. The Proof of Claim is also located at the website listed below. Your share of the Settlement Fund will depend on a number of factors, including the number of valid Proofs of Claim that Settlement Class Members submit, the number of shares of BP ADSs that you purchased or sold during the Class Period and the dates of such purchases and sales. The exact amount, if any, of your payment will be determined according to a Court-approved Plan of Allocation (a proposed version of which is available at the website listed below). If every eligible Settlement Class Member sends in a valid Proof of Claim, the average recovery per share will be approximately $0.97 per share for purchases made from April 26, 2010 through and including May 3, 2010 and $0.11 per share for purchases made from May 4, 2010 through and including May 28, 2010, before deduction of Court- approved expenses. You may contact the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel (see below) with any further questions. How to Get Money? To qualify for payment, you must submit a valid Proof of Claim to In re BP p.l.c. Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., PO Box 173016, Milwaukee, WI 53217. PROOFS OF CLAIM ARE DUE BY April 1, 2017. Your Other Rights. If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself by January 17, 2017, or you will not be able to sue the Defendants for any claims relating to this case. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get money from this Settlement. If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the Settlement by January 17, 2017. The Full Notice, located at the website listed below, explains how to exclude yourself from, or object to, the Settlement. The Court will hold a hearing in this case on February 13, 2017 at 1:00 p.m. to consider whether to approve the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and a request by Lead Counsel for up to 11.57% in attorneys' fees ($20,250,000), plus expenses not to exceed $5 million, for litigating the case and negotiating the Settlement. Other plaintiffs' counsel may seek certain expenses not to exceed $3.12 million. You may attend the hearing and ask to be heard by the Court, but you do not have to. If you do not take any action, you will be legally bound by the Settlement and any orders or Judgments entered in the Action, and will fully, finally, and forever give up any rights to prosecute certain claims against the Defendants. For more information or a Claim Form: 866-778-9624 or www.bpsecuritieslitigation.com; www.cohenmilstein.com; www.bermandevalerio.com Do not contact the Court, Defendants or their counsel in this Action with questions. CALIBER HOME: Class Certification Sought in "Grove" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the case captioned DEANN K. GROVE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-CV-01460-PGB-TBS, (M.D. Fl.), filed a motion for class certification and for leave to supplement after discovery. The Plaintiff filed the Motion and Memorandum for Class Certification after meeting and conferring with Defendant in accordance with the Local Rules. Defendant opposes the motion. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of: "All individual in the United States, who, during the applicable limitations period, (i) paid a convenience fee for paying online or over the phone (ii) which was collected or retained in whole or in part by Defendant, (iii) in order to make a payment on any residential mortgage debt, (iv) where the convenience fee was not expressly authorized in the agreement creating such debt, (v) and where Defendant's records indicate that the debt had not been current for 30 or more consecutive days at the time Defendant began servicing it. All employees of the Court and Plaintiff's counsel are excluded from this class." The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a Florida Class: "All individuals in the State of Florida, who, during the applicable limitations period (i) paid a convenience fee for paying online or over the phone, (ii) which was collected or retained in whole or in part by Defendant, (iii) in order to make a payment on any residential mortgage debt, and (iv) which was identified only as a Western Union Speed Pay fee. All employees of the Court and Plaintiff's counsel are excluded from this class." According to the Plaintiff, the case satisfies the prerequisites for class certification laid out in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Defendant Caliber Home Loans, LLC, collected thousands of "convenience" fees when customers attempted to pay over the phone or through its website. These fees were neither expressly authorized under the mortgage agreements Caliber used nor specifically permitted by law. The case concerns whether the collection each and every one of those fees violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f(1). This provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits debt collectors like Caliber from collecting "any amount (including any interest fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law." In addition, says the motion, Caliber hid the nature of this fee from all consumers in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). The Plaintiff says the uniform wrongful conduct caused identical injuries to her and all members of the putative classes. Because of the unlawful fees charged by Caliber, all its customers who paid by phone or over the internet paid more on their consumer debts than they lawfully owed. These injuries can be calculated as simply the total convenience fees paid during the period of time defined by the applicable statute of limitations. The Plaintiff says membership in the proposed classes, as well as the amount of damages suffered by each class member, can be easily defined using Defendant's own records. The proposed classes are ascertainable and satisfies each of the prerequisites to certification under Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), and the motion should be granted in its entirety. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff asks the Court to (1) reserve ruling on class certification; (2) allow discovery to take place on the relevant issues; (3) grant Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental motion or brief at the conclusion of such discovery; and (4) grant class certification after full briefing of the issues. A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=08tKxRSG The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Frank Davis John E. Norris Kristan B. Rivers DAVIS & NORRIS LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-930-9900 E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com krivers@davisnorris.com - and - RICHARD SHUSTER, Esq. 1413 South Patrick Drive, Suite 7 Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Telephone: 321-622-5040 Fax Number: 321-259-3255 E-mail: richshuster@gmail.com CASINO RAMA: Faces Class Action Over Massive Privacy Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that class- action lawyers wasted little time on Nov. 11 in jumping on word of a cyberattack on an Ontario casino in which sensitive information was stolen. The lawyers announced plans for a proposed lawsuit that would seek $50 million in damages from Casino Rama north of Toronto, and began asking possible victims to sign on. "The class action will be commenced on behalf of employees, customers and vendors of the Casino Rama Resort whose confidential information was compromised by the privacy breach," the lawyers said. "The proposed representative plaintiffs in the lawsuit are customers who gave the resort their confidential information, including financial information." The statement of claim would be filed in Superior Court on Nov. 7 given the Remembrance Day holiday on Nov. 11, said lawyer Ted Charney, one of the lawyers involved. On Nov. 10, Casino Rama Resort in Rama, Ont., warned its customers, vendors as well as current and former staff to keep an eye on their bank accounts, credit cards and other financial information. The casino said it had "recently" discovered becoming the victim of a cyberattack that resulted in the large-scale data theft. Stolen data appeared to include internal financial and security- incident reports, emails, payroll data, client information, social insurance numbers, and dates of birth, according to the casino. "The hacker claims that the employee information dates from 2004 to 2016, and that some of the other categories of information taken date back to 2007," the casino said in a statement on its website. "We can confirm that certain employee and customer information was stolen." The statement also warned that the hacker could publish the stolen data. "This is a massive privacy breach," Mr. Charney said in announcing the proposed lawsuit. "We still do not know the whole story but it looks like Casino Rama rolled the dice with employee, customer and vendor data rather than invest in state-of-the-art security measures." No allegations have been tested in court and it was still much too early for any statement of defence. "We continue to work with the proper authorities on the ongoing investigation and are limited in in how much detail we can provide," casino spokeswoman Jenna Hunter said in an email on Nov. 11. "We deeply regret the this situation and recognize the seriousness of the issue." Any trial, should the action be certified, is likely years away. The resort, which has 2,500 slot machines and more than 110 gaming tables and is operated by Penn National Gaming Inc., said the games themselves weren't hacked. "Game performance and setup are independent of other Casino Rama Resort networks," it said. Located on Rama First Nation, the casino opened 20 years ago and is Ontario's only First Nations commercial gaming house. It bills itself as the "premier entertainment destination" in the province and has featured big name live acts such as The Tragically Hip and Jerry Seinfeld, and shows such as "Dancing with the Stars." The two law firms involved in the proposed action are Charney Lawyers and Sutts, Strosberg. CBS RADIO: Misclassified Ad Sales Staff, Monroe Alleges ------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Nina Monroe wants to represent a class claiming in Sacramento, Calif., that CBS Radio misclassified members of its advertising sales team as overtime-exempt, and that it failed to provide meal and rest periods. The case is captioned, NINA MONROE, an individual, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. CBS RAD10, INC.;and Does l-100,inclusive, Defendants., (Cal. Super., Sacramento County). She is represented by: Lawrence J. Salisbury, Esq. SALISBURY LEGAL CORP 656 56 Ave., Suite R San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 241 -21 60 Email: lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com - and - Mark A. Redmond, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. REDMOND 731I Greenhaven Dr., Suite 268 Sacramento, CA 9583 I Telephone: (916) 444-8240 Facsimile: (916) 444-8242 Email: mr@markredmondlaw.com CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Wants Gender Bias Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Gabe Friedman, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that attorneys for Chadbourne & Parke, and six of its partners, on Nov. 14 filed a motion in federal court in Manhattan seeking to dismiss a proposed class-action lawsuit that accuses the firm and its management of discriminating against women partners. The suit was originally filed in August by a partner in the Washington, D.C. office, who was joined by a former partner. It accuses Chadbourne of systematically discriminating against its women partners by denying them equal pay and bonuses commensurate with what male partners earn. In a 25-page motion for summary judgment, the firm claims that as a matter of law, the two plaintiffs cannot sue the firm. "As a threshold legal matter, the Court does not have authority to adjudicate the merits of these utterly baseless claims for a simple reason," wrote Kathleen McKenna -- kmckenna@proskauer.com - - an attorney at Proskauer Rose who is representing the firm on the 25-page motion. "The entire premise of Plaintiffs' complaint -- that they were or are employees who fall under employment discrimination laws -- is wrong." Ms. McKenna wrote that the plaintiffs in the suit -- Kerrie Campbell, a present-day litigation partner in Washington, D.C. and Jaroslawa Johnson, a former partner who managed the Kiev office but departed in 2014 -- are or were equity partners. Therefore, as owners, and not employees, they cannot bring suit against the firm under employment discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Washington D.C. Human Rights Act, Ms. McKenna wrote. She also asked the court to dismiss the class claims, writing that Campbell and Jaroslawa make claims that are too different from one another to meet the class commonality requirements outlined by the Supreme Court in its 2011 decision, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes. In addition, Ms. McKenna filed an affadavit from firm managing partner Andrew Giaccia claiming that there are only 23 women partners who could join the suit. This, she wrote, would make the potential class size too small to meet requirements. The plaintiff's attorney David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- of Sanford Heisler, said via email he disagreed and would respond in court. "Chadbourne's latest filings are simply another attempt to silence two women who had the courage to speak out against the culture of entrenched sexism and chauvinism at the firm," Mr. Sanford said in a statement. "We are confident we will defeat Chadbourne's motions and ultimately will vindicate the rights of female attorneys at the firm." Chadbourne has tapped Ms. McKenna and Evandro Gigante -- egigante@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer, to represent it. The proposed class-action named as defendants, the firm, Giaccia and four onetime members of the management committee -- Lawrence Rosenberg, Paul Weber, Howard Seife and Marc Alpert, who left the firm this summer to join Loews Corp as general counsel. In addition, it also named partner Abbe Lowell, head of the firm's litigation department. Chadbourne filed a counterclaim of breach of fiduciary duty against Campbell for engaging in an alleged smear campaign against the firm's reputation in the press. CHARLOTTE PALM: "Autry" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Charie Autry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Charlotte Palm Corp., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00797 (W.D. N.C., November 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, and statutory penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Charlotte Palm is a domestic business corporation registered in the State of North Carolina since 1996, with its principal place of business located at 6705-B Phillips Place Court, Charlotte, NC 28210, where Plaintiff worked as a server and a bartender from June 2003 to July 31, 2016. Aurty claims she was paid for less time than what was recorded on her time cards, including but not limited to weeks during which she worked overtime and off-the- clock work. Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. PHIL GIBBONS LAW, P.C. 15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Suite 280 Charlotte, NC28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-Mail: phil@philgibbonslaw.com - and - L. Michelle Gessner, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC 409 East Boulevard Charlotte, NC 28203 Telephone (704) 234-7442 E-Mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Final Payments Under Reed and Sikora Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that final payments under the settlement agreement in the Reed and Sikora cases were made in September 2016 following the end of the claims period. On April 11, 2013, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820). A similar lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed in Placer County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al; Case No. SCV27073). By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer the Reed and Sikora cases to Los Angeles County. Both cases were subsequently coordinated together in Los Angeles County by order of the Judicial Council. On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion to enforce judgment and to preclude the prosecution of certain claims under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. On March 11, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion in Case No. SCV0032820. The parties participated in voluntary mediation on June 25, 2015 and have executed a memorandum of understanding with respect to the terms of settlement, which is subject to court approval and is intended to be a full and final resolution of the actions. On January 29, 2016, the court granted the parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement for Case Nos. SCV0032820 and SCV27073. On June 10, 2016, the court entered the order and judgment granting final approval of the class action settlement. Final payments under the settlement agreement were made in September 2016 following the end of the claims period. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Still Faces "Masters" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the case, Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al. On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278). By stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014- 00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court. On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior Court. On June 27, 2016, the Company gave notice to the court that Case Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 may be related. The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the Plaintiff and other purported class members. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. Based on the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Intends to Defend "Guglielmo" Case in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the case, Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al. On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions (Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 2:15-CV-03117). On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt- in plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. On July 21, 2016, the court issued an order confirming the agreement of the parties to dismiss all class claims with prejudice and to allow the case to proceed as a collective action at a limited number of the Company's restaurants in the State of New York. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments. "We intend to vigorously defend this action. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Intends to Defend "Brown" Case -------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the case, Brown v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al. On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court alleging that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage statements as set forth in the California Labor Code. On January 26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments (Brown v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. CIV1504091). On April 18, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to compel individual arbitration of plaintiff's wage statement claim and stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual arbitration. On June 28, 2016, the Company gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and BC603620 may be related. On September 6, 2016, the parties engaged in settlement discussion and are negotiating the terms of a final settlement agreement. The final settlement agreement will be subject to Court approval and is intended to be a full and final resolution of Case No. CIV150491. "Based on the current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement," the Company said. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Wage & Hour Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company intends to vigorously defend the case, Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BC603620). On March 23, 2016, the parties issued their joint status conference statement at which time the Company gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related. On April 29, 2016, the Company filed its response to the complaint. "We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Dec. 5 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Rodriguez" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties are waiting for a ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss in the case, Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. The Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the request as well as as an amended complaint. The trial Court has rescheduled oral argument concerning the defendant's motion to dismiss to December 5, 2016 at 4:30 p.m. Judge Joseph F. Bianco is presiding over the case. On April 24, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that the Company violated the New York deceptive business practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuities on split payment checks (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02006-JFB-AKT). The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary payments. On September 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. On October 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to limit the scope of the complaint to the State of New York only. The parties are waiting for a ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss. "We intend to vigorously defend against this action. Based upon the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential future payments," the Company said. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Suit Alleging Rigging of Bids ---------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending lawsuits alleging various violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and state antitrust laws. In 2016, putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and in Oklahoma state courts, and an individual lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court of Kansas, in each case against the Company and other defendants. The lawsuits generally allege that, since 2007 and continuing through April 2013, the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells. The lawsuits seek damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from adopting practices or plans which would restrain competition in a similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Hearing Not Yet Set on Motion to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing date for the motion has not been set on the Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the Company's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes) and 6.125% Senior Notes due 2021 (2021 Notes). In April 2016, a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of the Company's 6.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the 2020 Notes) and 6.125% Senior Notes due 2021 (2021 Notes) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to the Company's December 2015 debt exchange, whereby the Company privately exchanged newly issued 8.00% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2022 (Second Lien Notes) for certain outstanding senior unsecured notes and contingent convertible notes. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by benefiting themselves and a minority of noteholders who are qualified institutional buyers (QIBs). According to the lawsuit, as a result of the Company's private debt exchange in which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons under Regulation S) were eligible to participate, the Company unjustly enriched itself at the expense of class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the 2020 Notes and the 2022 Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages and attorney's fees, in addition to declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens created for the benefit of the Second Lien Notes are null and void and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a default under the indentures for the 2020 Notes and the 2021 Notes. In June 2016, the lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, and in October 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. A hearing date for the motion has not been set. CHRISTOPHER J CHRISTIE: "Slaughter" Suit in N.J. Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- United States District Judge Brian R. Martinotti granted two motions to dismiss the case captioned CHARLES S. SLAUGHTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-8327-BRM-LHG, (D.N.J.). The motions to dismiss were filed by Defendants (i) Christopher J. Christie, Gary M. Lanigan, Vincent Prieto, Stephen Sweeney, David Thomas, and Sherry Yates; and (ii) Rutgers University. Two motions for class certification and pro bono counsel by Plaintiffs, forty pro se individuals who are current or former prisoners at the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC) in Avenel, New Jersey, are dismissed as moot. All claims in the Complaint are dismissed without prejudice, rules the Court. Judge Martinotti ordered the Clerk to serve the Order and the accompanying Opinion upon the parties, and to close the case. A copy of the November 16 Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4nlHHsWn COLUMBIA COUNTY, AR: Jailor Seeks Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the case MICHELLE RASBERRY, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF vs. COLUMBIA COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Case No. 1:16-cv-1074-SOH (E.D. Ark.) asks the Court to conditionally certify a Rule 23 Class with the following definition: All of Defendant's salaried jailors (or similar positions) who Worked in the State of Arkansas at the Columbia County Jail at any time after August 04, 2013. The Plaintiff is a current salaried jailor for Columbia County, Arkansas. She seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). She also brought this action to recover the same relief under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The motion says Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure affords Plaintiff the right to have an opt-out class established for the claims arising under the AMWA, and that Class certification under Rule 23 is an appropriate mechanism for litigating claims under the AMWA. A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jR7VCNAD MICHELLE RASBERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Stacy Gibson, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC ONE FINANCIAL CENTER 650 SOUTH SHACKLEFORD, SUITE 411 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72211 TELEPHONE: (501) 221-0088 FACSIMILE: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com stacy@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com COMCAST CORP: Illegally Withdrew Customers' Funds, Danow Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KEVEN DANOW, AS THE TRUSTEE OF THE MORRIS HITZIG REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COMCAST CORP. and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-06052-PD (E.D. Pa., November 17, 2016), is brought over alleged violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all former Comcast customers, whose bank accounts have been illegally accessed and funds withdrawn subsequent to the termination of the service contract between the parties, and where the former customer owed Comcast no unpaid legitimate charges. Comcast Corp. is incorporated in Pennsylvania and has its corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Comcast Communications, LLC, is wholly-owned by Comcast Corp., and is also headquartered in Philadelphia. The Defendants operate as media and technology companies providing cable television, telephone and internet services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 588-5516 Facsimile: (484) 450-2582 E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com COMERCIAL MEXICANA: "Lopez" Suit Seek OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Odilia Baten Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Comercial Mexicana Corp. (D/B/A El Cerrito Restaurante), Norberto Martinez, Alberto Martinez And Isabel Martinez, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09009, (S.D. N.Y. November 18, 2016), seeks minimum wages, overtime pay and spread-of-hours pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the Fair Play Act. El Cerrito Restaurante is a bar/restaurant owned by Norberto Martinez, Alberto Martinez and Isabel Martinez located at 1182 Elder Avenue, Bronx, New York 10472 where Lopez worked as a waitress. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 DAMCO DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Sought in "Cooke" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the case captioned ROBERT COOKE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAMCO DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-08094-MWF(RAOx) (C.D. Ca.), asks the Court to certify one class and three subclasses in this matter: * Plaintiff Class: All individuals who were formerly or currently jointly employed by a temporary employment service agency and Damco Distribution Company who worked at Damco's South Gate, California distribution center as a warehouse laborer at any time since February 25, 2010. * Security Screening Subclass: All individuals who were formerly or currently jointly employed by a temporary employment service agency and Damco Distribution Company who worked at Damco's South Gate, California distribution center as a warehouse laborer at any time since February 25, 2010 and had to pass through security screenings while off-the-clock. * Meal Period Subclass: All individuals who were formerly or currently jointly employed by a temporary employment service agency and Damco Distribution Company who worked at Damco's South Gate, California distribution center as a warehouse laborer at any time since February 25, 2010 who were subject to Damco's 30 minute station-to-station policy. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint him as the named representative of the class, appoint his counsel as counsel for the class, and require the Defendant to identify all members of the class. A hearing on the Motion is set for January 23, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the motion dated is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NSsbPioL Plaintiff ROBERT COOKE on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated is represented by: Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC 555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, California, 90013 Telephone: (213) 533-4160 Facsimile: (213) 533-4167 E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com awotton@hamnerlaw.com - and - Christopher A. Olsen, SBN 236928 OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC 1010 Second Ave., Ste. 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 550-9352 Facsimile: (619) 923-2747 E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com DIPLOMAT PHARMACY: January 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Goldberg Law PC, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Diplomat Pharmacy, Inc. ("Diplomat" or the "Company") (DPLO). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Diplomat shares between October 9, 2014 and November 2, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the January 9, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class Period, we encourage you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at info@goldberglawpc.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Diplomat issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose: that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting and thus could not adequately calculate DIR fees; that Diplomat's hepatitis C segment was not performing as previously disclosed to investors; that the Company overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and that as a result of the above, Diplomat's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On November 2, 2016, Diplomat announced third quarter 2016 results that fell below investors' expectations. The Company also lowered full year 2016 guidance. When this news was announced, shares of Diplomat fell in value, causing investors harm. Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Suit in Early Stages -------------------------------------------------- Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, against the Company remains in its early stages. In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaints. On June 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a ruling in a lawsuit against another provider that may impact this action. In that case, the Court ruled that a lawsuit against several facilities formerly operated by Golden Living could proceed as a class action. The lawsuit against the Company remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. DOLLAR THRIFTY: "McKinnon" Plaintiffs May File 5th Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order in the lawsuit captioned SANDRA McKINNON, ET AL. v. DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., ET AL., Case No. 12-cv-04457-YGR (N.D. Cal.): -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion to allow Roger Tien and Jaime Gavilan Cabello to intervene permissively in the litigation and the Plaintiffs' motion to file a fifth amended complaint; -- denying with prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and -- denying as moot the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of the Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Donald Lichtenstein. The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Defendants Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Dollar Rent-a-Car, Inc., and DTG Operations, Inc. The gravamen of the case concerns the Defendants' alleged practice of selling collision or liability damage waiver policies in connection with vehicle rentals to the Plaintiffs without providing adequate notice (through signage, oral statements, and otherwise) that the coverage might be duplicative of other policies (e.g., through auto insurance or credit card protection plans) already held by the Plaintiffs. The Court sets a case management conference for December 12, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. By December 5, 2016, the parties will file a case management statement consistent with the requirements of the Local Rules and the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/dJCF4D from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs Sandra McKinnon and Kristen Tool, and Intervenor Plaintiffs Melinda Basker and Chanh Tran are represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor, PMB #131 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 860-2503 Facsimile: (888) 331-9633 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com Plaintiffs Sandra McKinnon and Kristen Tool are represented by: Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. S. Scott Garrett, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com sgarrett@whatleykallas.com Plaintiff Sandra McKinnon is represented by: Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street, Seventh Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 573-5118 Facsimile: (617) 573-5090 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com Defendants Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., and Dollar Rent a Car, Inc., are represented by: Daniel Justin Weiss, Esq. Jill Marie Hutchison, Esq. John F. Ward, Esq. Ross B. Bricker, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 E-mail: dweiss@jenner.com jhutchison@jenner.com jward@jenner.com rbricker@jenner.com - and - Kenneth E. Keller, Esq. Tracy M. Clements, Esq. KELLER SLOAN ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP 555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 249-8330 Facsimile: (415) 249-8333 E-mail: kkeller@ksrh.com tclements@ksrh.com Defendant DTG Operations, Inc., is represented by: Daniel Justin Weiss, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 E-mail: dweiss@jenner.com Defendant DTG Operations, Inc., is represented by: Jill Marie Hutchison, Esq. John F. Ward, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 E-mail: jhutchison@jenner.com jward@jenner.com - and - Kenneth E. Keller, Esq. Tracy M. Clements, Esq. KELLER SLOAN ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP 555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 249-8330 Facsimile: (415) 249-8333 E-mail: kkeller@ksrh.com tclements@ksrh.com DS HEALTHCARE: Response to Amended Complaint Due Dec. 19 -------------------------------------------------------- DS Healthcare Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs had until November 2, 2016 to file an amended complaint, which DS Healthcare must respond to no later than December 19, 2016. On March 29, 2016, DS Healthcare, Mr. Daniel Khesin, and certain former members of the Board of Directors were sued in a class action styled, Prasant Shah v. DS Healthcare Group, Inc., et. al., Case No. 16-60661, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A later-filed class action has been consolidated. The class action arises from the Company's March 23, 2016 and March 28, 2016 8-K filings, which stated, in pertinent part, that the audit committee had concluded that the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company for the two fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 (the "June and September 2015 Quarters"), should no longer be relied upon because of certain errors in such financial statements, and that Daniel Khesin had been terminated for cause and removed a Chairman and a member of the Board of Directors. Plaintiffs had until November 2, 2016 to file an Amended Complaint, which DS Healthcare must respond to no later than December 19, 2016. The Company also received the first of three related shareholder derivative demands on March 29, 2016. A mediation concerning the class action and the derivative demands was scheduled for October 17, 2016, in Miami, Florida. DUKE UNIVERSITY: "Jenkins" Demands Show of Sponsorship Contracts ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the purported class action case "MARTIN JENKINS, NIGEL HAYES, AND ALEC JAMES, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:16-01283 (M.D.N.C., November 1, 2016)," Plaintiff moved to compel Duke University to comply with a properly served subpoena requesting the production of documents or, in the alternative, to transfer this Motion. The subpoenaed documents that Duke has refused to produce are media, sponsorship, and similar contracts that many other parties and non-parties (including other universities similar to Duke) have already produced in the underlying multi-district litigation. The case alleges that the National Collegiate Athletics Association and its five most prominent member conferences have violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to eliminate competition and artificially fix the compensation that D-I Football Bowl Subdivision and D-I men's basketball athletes may receive for their athletic services. The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Thomas Cottingham III, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 100 North Tryon Street 29th Floor Charlotte, NC 28202-1078 Phone: (704) 350-7700 Fax: (704) 350-7800 - and - David G. Feher, Esq. Jennifer M. Stewart, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-4193 Phone: (212) 294-6700 Fax: (212) 294-4700 E-mail: dfeher@winston.com jstewart@winston.com DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ The following statement is being issued by Faruqi & Faruqi regarding the In re Dynavax Technologies Corporation Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS Case No. 3:13-CV-02796-CRB TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION ("DVAX") FROM APRIL 26, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 10, 2013 ("CLASS"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that a hearing will be held on February 3, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer, at the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 6-17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Action for the principal amount of $4,500,000 for the Class should be approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with prejudice should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement Fund, less Litigation Expenses, and award to the Class Representatives not to exceed $10,000, and expenses not to exceed $150,000 should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED DVAX COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 26, 2012 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 10, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. You may obtain copies of a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action ("Settlement Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form by writing to In re Dynavax Technologies Corp. Sec. Litig., c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10196, Dublin, OH 43017-3196, visiting the website www.DynavaxSecuritiesLitigation.com, e- mailing the Claims Administrator at questions@DynavaxSecuritiesLitigation.com, or calling the Claims Administrator toll free at 1-855-907-3230. Inquiries other than requests for the above-referenced documents may also be made to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel: Richard W. Gonnello FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form postmarked no later than January 21, 2017, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. NOTE THAT NO CLAIMS LESS THAN $10.00 WILL BE PROCESSED OR PAID. If you purchased or otherwise acquired DVAX common stock and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than January 9, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Settlement Notice referred to above. All Class Members who do not timely and validly request exclusions from a Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. Any objection to the Settlement must be mailed to the Clerk of the Court at the address below and postmarked no later than January 9, 2017: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36060 San Francisco, CA 94102 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above. DATED: October 14, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EAGLE MARINE: O'Neal Wins Conditional Certification --------------------------------------------------- Judge Kristi K. DuBose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted conditional certification in the case IVAN O'NEAL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons Plaintiff, v. EAGLE MARINE CONTRACTING, LLC d/b/a EM CONTRACTING and d/b/a EM CONTRACTING LLC, RAPHAEL G. BURCHFIELD, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-cv-00401-KD-B, (S.D. Ala.). "[[]t is well settled that the plaintiff's burden at this initial stage 'is not heavy'," wrote Judge DuBose in her order dated November 16, 2016, a copy of which is available for free at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aNYSpJPY Here, she said, the parties have stipulated that Plaintiff has met this initial burden. Specifically, the joint motion states: The parties stipulate that Plaintiff O'Neal can meet the lenient standard required for conditional certification. In addition, the parties believe that conditional certification and sending of notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs will promote and facilitate early resolution of this case by settlement. If the case does not settle, Defendant reserves the right to seek to have the collective action decertified at the conclusion of discovery. Further, wrote Judge DuBose, as outlined in the joint motion: Defendant agrees to provide Plaintiffs counsel a list of all current and former employees in the putative class with last known addresses. That list will be provided by November 15, 2016. Plaintiffs['] counsel will send notice to the putative class by December 1, 2016. Putative class members shall have until January 31, 2017 to opt-in to the case by returning a Consent Form to Plaintiffs counsel, which Plaintiffs['] counsel shall file with the Court . . . After January 31, 2017, the parties agree to engage in good faith settlement negotiations. The parties will present a motion to approve settlement to the Court by February 28, 2017. If the case does not settle by that date, the parties will file a supplemental Rule 26 Report with agreed-upon deadlines. Mr. O'Neal filed this collective action complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, against Defendants alleging that Plaintiffs were underpaid for overtime hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. EVERYDAY HEALTH: "Ebbs" Sues Over Merger with Project Echo ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul Ebbs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Everyday Health, Inc., Doug McCormick, Ben Wolin, Habi B. Kairouz, David Golden, Sharon Wienbar, Myrtle Potter, Dan Evan and Laizer Kornwasser, Case No. 1:16-cv-08982 (S.D. N.Y., November 18, 2016), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a merger, or rescinding it, if merger is realized. The suit further seeks an award of rescissory damages, disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses and such other and further equitable relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Everyday Health was acquired by funds managed by Ziff Davis, LLC through its wholly-owned Delaware company, Project Echo Acquisition Corp. that will merge with and into Everyday Health which is to be the surviving wholly-owned subsidiary of Ziff. Everyday Health shareholders will receive $10.50 per share in cash for each share of common stock that they own. Defendants allegedly issued incomplete and misleading disclosures in the Recommendation Statement filed with the SEC, failing to disclose and/or materially misrepresent information concerning the sales process, financial projections prepared by the Board and the financial analyses supporting the merger consideration. Additionally, Defendants agreed to lock up the transaction with deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer for the Company, thus depriving better alternatives to the merger and any other matching/competing proposals. Defendant Everyday Health is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal executive offices at 345 Hudson Street, New York, NY, 10014. The Company develops and operates digital marketing and communications platforms for healthcare marketers mainly in the United States, enabling consumers and healthcare professionals to manage their daily health and wellness needs through websites, mobile applications, and social media. Plaintiff owns shares of Everyday Health common stock. Doug Mccormick, Ben Wolin, Habi B. Kairouz, David Golden, Sharon Wienbar, Myrtle Potter, Dan Evan and Laizer Kornwasser are members of the Everyday Health Board of Directors. Plaintiff is represented by: Shane T. Rowley, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel: (212) 363-7500 FACEBOOK INC: Faces Investors Class Suit Over Stock Crash --------------------------------------------------------- Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that misrepresentations about Facebook's video advertising revenues cost shareholders $4 billion in one day while enriching its executives, four investors say in a federal class action in Las Vegas. Plaintiffs Aurangzeb Nagy, Robert Vannah, George Kleanthis and Zanetta Kleanthis say in their lawsuit filed on November 22, in Nevada that they are among those who held common shares in Facebook from April 1, 2015, through Nov. 16. The investors say Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the social media giant's other officers concealed a defect in their advertising metrics used to measure revenue from videos. As a result, "shareholders purchased or held Facebook stock believing that the company had the ability to sustain growth in paid advertising and could successfully execute its paid advertising plan and related metrics," according to the complaint. The investors say that on April 17, 2015, Facebook started analyzing data from its advertising metrics and discovered it had miscalculated several that measured the performance of ad content. Soon after learning of the miscalculations and before notifying the public, the investors say Zuckerberg and the other Facebook executives "began to sell of Facebook stock in unprecedented quantities." It wasn't until Sept. 23 of this year -- nearly 18 months after discovering the miscalculations -- that Facebook publicly acknowledged the error in its paid video-advertising metric, which caused inflated revenue projections for video advertising, the investors say. Facebook downplayed the effect of its error and did not disclose other known errors or alert investors of their potential impact on Facebook's revenue, according to the complaint. Facebook reported more advertising metrics errors in October, and on Nov. 3 announced it expected a significant decrease in ad revenue for the next year and would take on more debt, according to the lawsuit. On Nov. 3, Facebook shares trading under the FB symbol closed at $120, down from $127.17 a day earlier, according to NASDAQ. The investors say the $7 drop represents a $4 billion decline in value. Facebook shares closed at $120.84 on November 23. The investors say the market did not realize the problem's full extent until Nov. 16, when Facebook's stock price closed at $116.24. After the decline, Facebook initiated its first shares buy-back program, according to the lawsuit. Named as defendants are Zuckerberg, Facebook, CFO David Wehner, COO Sharon Sandburg, Chief Product Officer Christopher Cox, Chief Technology Officer Michael Todd Schroepfer, Chief Accounting Officer Jas Athwal, vice president and general counsel Colin Stretch, director Jan Koum, and vice president David Fischer. Facebook did not immediately respond to an email request for comment on November 23, morning. Las Vegas attorney Robert Eglet of the Eglet Prince law firm filed the complaint and was not immediately available for comment by telephone on November 23, morning. The case is captioned, AURANGZEB NAGY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, ROBERT VANNAH, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; GEORGE KLEANTHIS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, ZANETTA KLEANTHIS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. FACEBOOK, INC., a foreign corporation; MARK ZUCKERBERG, an individual, DAVID WEHNER, an individual, SHARON SANDBURG, an individual, CHRISTOPHER COX, an individual, MICHAEL TODD SCHROEPFER, an individual, JAS ATHWAL, an individual, COLIN STRETCH, an individual, JAN KOUM, an individual, DAVID FISCHER, an individual, and DOES 1 though 20, inclusive, Defendants (D. Nev.). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: ROBERT T. EGLET, ESQ. ROBERT M. ADAMS, ESQ. ERICA D. ENTSMINGER, ESQ. EGLET PRINCE 400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 450-5400 Facsimile: (702) 450-5451 FACEBOOK INC: Halts Racially-Targeted Housing, Employment Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- Brianna Cox, writing for Atlanta Black Star, reports that as of November 11, Facebook will stop allowing those purchasing housing, employment, and/or credit ads that are exclusionary by the social network refers to as "ethnic affinity." Previously, Facebook let advertisers exclude certain "ethnic affinities," which include groups like Black people, Latino people, and Asian people. This was not a new practice for them or those who sell ads, however, Facebook came under fire for the practice after a recently-released ProPublica report that detailed and illustrated just precisely how this could be used to exclude people in a way that may violate federal anti-discrimination laws, rather than just to try and reach people for specific interests. In the report, Propublica writes and demonstrates with screenshot images that they were able to buy a Facebook ad for a housing event that would not be shown to Hispanic, Black, and Asian American users of the social media platform. ProPublica was able to quickly and easily place the ad, despite a Facebook policy, which allegedly bans use of its ad targeting tools to discriminate and exclude Facebook users. The subsequent public outcry from civil right groups, lawyers, and policymakers were laced with concern that this feature on Facebook could be used to violate federal laws prohibiting discriminatory advertisements for things like job opportunities and housing. Under the law, the federal Fair Housing Act, both the entity marketing the ad as well as the publisher of a discriminatory housing ad can be punished. To make matters worse for Facebook, a group of users filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook about this very issue. Facebook told Atlanta Black Star that it has no way of knowing users' races or ethnicities, and that their special categorization of people by "ethnic affinity" is determined solely by what posts and pages people "like" and engage with. "Discriminatory advertising has no place on Facebook," said Erin Egan, Facebook's vice president for United States public policy and chief privacy officer, on Nov. 13 in a blog post. FIAT CHRYSLER: Dodge RAM Owners File RICO Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Owners of 2500 and 3500 Dodge RAM trucks filed a class-action lawsuit against Fiat Chrysler and engine manufacturer Cummins Inc., stating that the two entities conspired to knowingly deceive consumers and regulators of illegally high levels of diesel emissions in their vehicles, according to leading automotive litigation law firm Hagens Berman. The lawsuit accuses the two of committing fraudulent concealment, false advertising, and violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and consumer-protection laws by intentionally misleading the public, concealing emissions levels, illegally selling noncompliant polluting vehicles, knowingly profiting from the dirty diesels and using fraudulently gained emissions credits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to use on further production of high-polluting vehicles. According to the complaint, the affected Cummins diesel engines serve to conceal true emissions output, and in doing so cause the catalytic converter to wear out more quickly, resulting in the vehicle burning fuel at a higher rate, and often requiring customers to replace the converter after the warranty has expired at a cost of approximately $3,000-$5,000. Affected Vehicles include the following models that are equipped with Cummins diesel engines: 2007-2010 Dodge RAM 2500 (2WD, 4WD), 2011-2012 Dodge RAM 2500 (non-SCR systems, 2WD, 4WD), 2007-2010 Dodge RAM 3500 (2WD, 4WD) and 2011-2012 Dodge RAM 3500 (non-SCR systems, 2WD, 4WD). If you own an affected vehicle, find out more about your consumer rights to potential compensation. "The sheer level of fraud and concealment between Chrysler and Cummins is unconscionable, and we believe we have uncovered a deeply entrenched scheme," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "Chrysler and Cummins spent years lying through their teeth and making empty promises to deliver the cleanest trucks on the market -- lip service to deceptively dominate what they saw as a profitable market." "The two companies touted value to consumers in their marketing," Mr. Berman added. "Was it valuable to consumers to force them to pay $3,000 to $5,000 for needless repairs of worn-out parts? Did it give consumers value to publicly lie to sell hundreds of thousands of noncompliant, polluting vehicles?" The lawsuit, filed Nov. 14, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeks reimbursement for a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased the affected trucks, as well as putative damages for the defendants' unlawful behavior, according to the suit. About the Defect In 2001, the EPA announced stringent emissions standards for heavy-duty highway diesel engines, slated to take effect in 2010. The lawsuit states Chrysler and Cummins "saw a golden business opportunity." In order to produce a diesel engine that had desirable power and fuel economy, yet emissions levels low enough to meet government standards, Chrysler and Cummins developed the 6.7-liter diesel engine with sophisticated NOx adsorber technology. The primary emission control after-treatment technologies include a diesel particulate filter (DPF) and a NOx adsorber catalyst system to capture and reduce NOx into less harmful substances, such as nitrogen and oxygen. Testing shows that the catalysts are not durable and do not meet emission standards. Furthermore, injection of fuel to regenerate the DPF occurs with excessive frequency. NOx emissions during these regeneration events are nearly 10 times the emission standards, according to the lawsuit. The legal limit of NOx emissions for stop-and-go driving is 200 mg/mile. When tested, Dodge RAM 2500s emitted 702 mg/mile on average, and 2,826 mg/mile at maximum emissions. The California (and other "Section 177" states that have adopted the California standard) NOx limit for highway conditions is 400 mg/mile. Testing for the 2500 shows an average of 756 and max of 2,252 mg/mile. All the while, during these periods of excessive emissions, the vehicle's on-board diagnostic (OBD) system does not capture fault codes nor provide any indication of excessive emissions to the operator. Deceptive Marketing The lawsuit highlights the marketing of the Adsorber Engine, and the Dodge RAM 2500 and 3500 as the "'strongest, cleanest, quietest'" diesel engine in its class, as well as "squeaky clean," "super clean," "a model of cleanliness," "so clean it warrants a class of its own," and "durability so impressive, it approaches the inexhaustible." "The very environmental laws and regulations Chrysler and Cummins worked so hard to circumvent exist for reasons that are crucial to public health," Mr. Berman said. "In 2012, the World Health Organization declared diesel vehicle particulate emissions to be carcinogenic, and about as dangerous as asbestos." The lawsuit states that the successful marketing of the defective polluting vehicles is "due to the tight collaboration among the RICO Defendants -- what Cummins called the 'most formidable partnership in the working world.'" The complaint states the defendants' action amount to a scheme to increase revenue and profits and to increase the emissions credits they earned thereby allowing them to sell dirty vehicles as well, all for an additional profit. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit on behalf of owners of Dodge RAM 2500 and 3500 trucks. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. FIREEYE INC: Brings Class Cert. Challenge to Calif. Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that FireEye, Inc., and the director and officer defendants have appealed a class certification ruling in the securities litigation to the California Supreme Court. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March 2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On July 11, 2016, the court certified a class of purchasers of FireEye stock in the March 2014 offering. On September 8, 2016, the California Court of Appeal denied FireEye's and the director and officer defendants' petition for a writ of mandate appealing the Superior Court's denial of their motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 16, 2016, FireEye and the director and officer defendants appealed to the California Supreme Court. GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of approximately $172 million. FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba Seeks to Proceed as Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in SCOTT DOLEMBA, on behalf of plaintiff and the classes defined below, Plaintiff, vs. FORA FINANCIAL, LLC, and FORA FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, both doing business as "FORA FINANCIAL", Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-10651, (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action may proceed as a class action against defendants. The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA) and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 (ICFA). The classes plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as: Count I, TCPA: (a) all persons (b) who, on who, on or after February 6, 2016, (c) received calls from defendants on their cell phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice. Count II, ICFA: (a) all persons with phone numbers in the Illinois area codes (b) who, on who, on or after February 6, 2016, (c) received calls from defendants on their cell phones, (d) placed using an automated dialer or a prerecorded or artificial voice. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as counsel for the class. The Plaintiff says he is filing this class motion with the complaint to avoid any "other defenses" as described by the Seventh Circuit in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015). The Chapman court overruled the mootness issue expressed in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011). Despite the recent ruling by the Supreme Court in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Company, 136 S.Ct. 663, 672 (2016), holding that an unaccepted offer of judgment does not moot a class action, a question remains as to "whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount." Defense counsel are encouraging the making of such tenders. Some courts are accepting the argument. Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 15 C 11038, 2016 WL 4593825 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 6, 2016). Consequently, the plaintiff submits that the interests of the class are best protected filing of a class motion. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. Julie Clark, Esq. Heather Kolbus, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C. 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FMQ5wjQL GERON CORPORATION: California District Court Stays Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the California District Court has signed an order temporarily staying the class action lawsuits to enable the parties to seek to resolve the class action lawsuits. The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees." "On March 28, 2014, a second purported class action securities lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on June 6, 2014, a third securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the purported class action securities lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. "On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both of the purported class action securities lawsuits filed in the California District Court, or the Class Action Lawsuits, and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits, which was filed on September 19, 2014. "On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with the Class Action Lawsuits. "We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by us. "On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the consolidated amended complaint in the Class Action Lawsuits. On September 9, 2016, the California District Court signed an order temporarily staying the Class Action Lawsuits to enable the parties to seek to resolve the Class Action Lawsuits. "It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations will be made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously." Geron is a biopharmaceutical company that currently supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen Biotech, Inc., or Janssen. Telomerase is an enzyme that enables cancer cells, including malignant progenitor cells, to maintain telomere length, which provides them with the capacity for limitless, uncontrolled proliferation. GOLDMAN SACHS: SunEdison Securities Litig. Pending in Calif. Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a case related to the TerraForm Global and SunEdison Securities Litigation is currently pending in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters, placement agents and initial purchasers named as defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in October 2015 relating to the $675 million July 2015 initial public offering of the common stock of TerraForm Global, Inc. (TerraForm Global), the August 2015 public offering of $650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred stock, the June 2015 private placement of $335 million of TerraForm Global Class D units, and the August 2015 Rule 144A offering of $810 million principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes. SunEdison is TerraForm Global's controlling shareholder and sponsor. On October 4, 2016, the cases then pending in federal court were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. An additional case is currently pending in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County. The defendants also include TerraForm Global, SunEdison and certain of their directors and officers. Defendants have moved to dismiss certain of the actions. The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the offerings, assert claims under federal securities laws and, in certain actions, state laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as rescission or rescissory damages. TerraForm Global sold 154,800 Class D units, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $155 million, to the individual plaintiffs. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $139 million and sold 2,340,000 shares of TerraForm Global common stock in the initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $35 million. GS&Co., as initial purchaser, sold approximately $49 million principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes in the Rule 144A offering. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Intervenors' Claims Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of standing and mootness is pending. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm. On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class certification recommended that the motion be denied in all respects. On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of that recommendation and granted the plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female individuals, one of whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the magistrate judge's decision. On June 6, 2016, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision on intervention. On September 28, 2015, and by a supplemental motion filed July 11, 2016 (after the second intervenor ceased to be an employee), the defendants moved to dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of standing and mootness. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Currencies-Related Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 3, 2015 and most recently amended on July 15, 2016 on behalf of certain ERISA employee benefit plans. The claims brought against GS&Co. and Group Inc. generally allege that the defendants violated ERISA in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets, which caused losses to ERISA plans for which the defendants provided foreign exchange services or otherwise authorized the execution of foreign exchange services. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as restitution and disgorgement in an unspecified amount. By an order dated September 20, 2016, plaintiffs' claims against GS&Co., Group Inc. and other defendants who have settled in another action relating to an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign currency exchange markets were dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed on October 20, 2016. GOLDMAN SACHS: Indirect Forex Buyers' Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------- Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 26, 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The complaint generally alleges that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and seeks injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. GOLDMAN SACHS: Commodities-Related Litigation Claims Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the district court has dismissed claims in Commodities-Related Litigation based on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro, a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on September 24, 2014, and the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on August 9, 2016. The remaining plaintiffs filed amended complaints on April 9, 2015, and on October 5, 2016, the district court dismissed their claims based on the Second Circuit's decision. GSI is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on July 27, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss. GOLDMAN SACHS: Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend a consolidated interest rate swap antitrust litigation Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in putative antitrust class actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed beginning in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint filed on September 9, 2016 generally alleges a conspiracy among the defendants since at least January 1, 2007 to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and GSFM are among the defendants named in antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in April 2016 by two operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated with the class action described above for pretrial proceedings. The consolidated amended complaint filed on September 9, 2016 generally asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude trading of interest rate swaps on the plaintiffs' respective swap execution facilities and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. GOVERNMENT PAYMENT: Miner Renews Motion for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case titled MICHAEL J. MINER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT PAYMENT SERVICE, INC., d/b/a GOV PAY NET, Defendant, Case No.: 1:14-cv- 07474, (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves to certify the action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. According to the Plaintiff, this is a renewal of his previously filed placeholder motion for class certification. The Court initially entered and continued Plaintiff's motion generally, but then struck it without prejudice considering the Seventh Circuit's decision in Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015), which overruled the reasoning in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2011), which had required placeholder motions for class certification. Since the Court entered its order striking Plaintiff's motion, the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez has revived the potential need for such in this circuit. 136 S. Ct. 663, 672, 193 L. Ed. 2d 571 (2016) ("We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."). While the Plaintiff disagrees that another placeholder motion for class certification is necessary in this case, he is renewing his motion out of an abundance of caution. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, of which Plaintiff is a member: All residents of the State of Illinois who paid a bail deposit with a credit or debit card and who were charged a fee by GovPayNet for purported bail bond services during the period September 25, 2009, through the date of final judgment. Excluded from the Class are Defendant and any of its officers, directors or employees, Class counsel, the presiding judge, named plaintiffs in any substantially similar actions and members of their immediate families. The Plaintiff reserves his right to amend the above class definition based on discovery and the proofs at trial. The Plaintiff asks the Court to find that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, and certify the Class. He also asks the Court to designate him as representative of the Class and his counsel as Class counsel. A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=phuheiWn Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael J. Miner are: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 757-1888 E-mail: wms@sweetnamllc.com - and - Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 100 North La Salle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com - and - Joseph L. Planera LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH L. PLANERA AND ASSOCIATES 222 Vollmer Road, Suite 2A Chicago Heights, Illinois 60411 Telephone: (708) 755-5000 E-mail: jplanera@sbcglobal.net GS ELECTECH: January 25 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION In Re: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION In Re: WIRE HARNESS CASES THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS Master File No. 12-md-02311 Honorable Marianne O. Battani 2:12-cv-00101-MOB-MKM NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS OF DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS ACTION WITH G.S. ELECTECH AND TOKAI RIKA DEFENDANTS AND HEARING ON SETTLEMENT APPROVAL TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED WIRE HARNESS PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES DIRECTLY FROM A DEFENDANT DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2000 THROUGH MAY 5, 2014. PLEASE READ THIS ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY LITIGATION NOW PENDING IN THIS COURT. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE, AND WHY WAS IT SENT TO ME? This Notice is given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of proposed settlements with Defendants G.S. Electech, Inc., G.S. Wiring Systems Inc., and G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc. ("G.S. Electech"), and Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. and TRAM, Inc. ("Tokai Rika") (collectively, the "Settling Defendants"). Under the terms of the proposed settlements, the Settling Defendants will pay a total of $3.9 million and provide cooperation to assist Plaintiffs in the prosecution of the claims against the remaining Defendants. You were previously notified of the existence of this class action, the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims, and a settlement with Lear Corporation ("Lear") in the amount of $4.75 million. That settlement was approved by the Court in an Order dated January 7, 2015. When added to the Lear settlement, the proposed G.S. Electech and Tokai Rika settlements, in the amounts of $3.1 million and $800,000, respectively, bring the total settlements in this case to $8.65 million, plus accruing interest (the "Wire Harness Settlement Fund"). This litigation is part of coordinated legal proceedings involving a number of parts used in motor vehicles. The litigation, and the proposed settlements, relate solely to Wire Harness Products purchased directly from a Defendant. These proceedings do not relate to, and have no effect upon, cases involving any other product or purchaser. Wire harnesses are electrical distribution systems used to direct and control electronic components, wiring, and circuit boards in motor vehicles. "Wire Harness Products," for purposes of each of the proposed settlements, means wire harnesses and the following related products: automotive electrical wiring, lead wire assemblies, cable bond, automotive wiring connectors, automotive wiring terminals, high voltage wiring, electronic control units, fuse boxes, relay boxes, junction blocks, power distributors, and speed sensor wire assemblies used in motor vehicles. If you purchased Wire Harness Products in the United States directly from any of the Defendants identified below during the period from January 1, 2000 through May 5, 2014 (the "Class Period"), you are a member of the G.S. Electech Settlement Class and the Tokai Rika Settlement Class and have the rights and options summarized here: -- You may remain in the G.S. Electech Settlement Class and/or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class and be eligible to share in the proceeds of those Settlement Funds under a claims procedure that will be instituted in the future; -- You may exclude yourself from the G.S. Electech Settlement Class and/or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, in which case you will not be bound by any settlement from which you exclude yourself and will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of that Settlement Fund; -- If you do not exclude yourself from a Settlement Class, you may object in writing to that proposed settlement or to the request to use a portion of that Settlement Fund to pay litigation expenses, and you may appear at the hearing where the Court will determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved as fair, adequate and reasonable, and whether a portion of the Settlement Fund may be used to pay litigation expenses; and -- You may enter an appearance in the litigation through your own counsel at your own expense. You do not need to take any action at this time if you wish to remain in both of the Settlement Classes. You should retain all of your records of Wire Harness Products purchases for use in the claims procedure that will be instituted at a later date. WHO IS IN THE SETTLEMENT CLASSES? On October 21, 2016, the Court certified Direct Purchaser G.S. Electech and Tokai Rika Settlement Classes for purposes of disseminating notice of the proposed settlements. Both the G.S. Electech Settlement Class and the Tokai Rika Settlement Class are defined as follows: All individuals and entities that purchased Wire Harness Products in the United States directly from one or more Defendants or their co-conspirators from January 1, 2000 through May 5, 2014. For purposes of each of the Settlement Class definitions set forth above, the following entities are Defendants: Chiyoda Manufacturing Corporation; Denso Corporation; Denso International America, Inc.; Fujikura Ltd.; Fujikura Automotive America LLC; Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.; American Furukawa, Inc.; Furukawa Wiring Systems America, Inc. f/k/a Furukawa Lear Corporation and Lear Furukawa Corporation; G.S. Electech, Inc.; G.S. Wiring Systems Inc.; G.S.W. Manufacturing, Inc.; Lear Corporation; Leoni Wiring Systems, Inc.; Leonische Holding Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric US Holdings, Inc.; Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc.; Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.; Sumitomo Wiring Systems, Ltd.; Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc.; K&S Wiring Systems, Inc.; Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.), Inc.; Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.; TRAM, Inc.; Yazaki Corporation; and Yazaki North America, Inc. Plaintiffs Paesano Connecting Systems, Inc.; Craft-Co Enterprises, Inc.; Findlay Industries, Inc.; Cesar-Scott, Inc.; Martinez Manufacturing, Inc.; South Star Corporation; and ACAP, L.L.C., f/k/a Aguirre, Collins & Aikman Plastics, LLC have been appointed by the Court to serve as "Class Representatives" for the G.S. Electech and the Tokai Rika Settlement Classes. The Court has appointed the law firms of Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC; Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP; and Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. to serve as "Settlement Class Counsel" for the G.S. Electech and the Tokai Rika Settlement Classes. WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT? Beginning in 2011, class action lawsuits were filed against Defendants by Plaintiffs, who are direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants entered into a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition for Wire Harness Products by agreeing to rig bids for, and to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain the prices of, Wire Harness Products, in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of the conspiracy, they and other direct purchasers of Wire Harness Products have been injured by paying more for those products than they would have paid in the absence of the alleged illegal conduct, and they seek recovery of treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an award of attorneys' fees. Each of the Settling Defendants denies Plaintiffs' allegations and has agreed to settle this matter in order to avoid the expense and burden of further litigation. The Court has not issued any findings or rulings with respect to the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or Defendants' defenses. This is a settlement with the Settling Defendants only. Plaintiffs are continuing to prosecute the case against the remaining non- settling Defendants. WHAT RELIEF DO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS PROVIDE? Plaintiffs, on behalf of the G.S. Electech Settlement Class, have entered into a settlement with G.S. Electech dated April 26, 2016, under which G.S. Electech has paid the amount of $3.1 million into an escrow account. G.S. Electech has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiffs in the prosecution of the lawsuit against the remaining Defendants. Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, have entered into a settlement with Tokai Rika dated July 5, 2016, under which Tokai Rika has paid the amount of $800,000 into an escrow account. Tokai Rika has also agreed to cooperate with Plaintiffs in the prosecution of the lawsuit against the remaining Defendants. The nature and extent of the cooperation agreed to by each of the Settling Defendants is described in detail in their respective Settlement Agreements. Copies of the Settlement Agreements are on file with the Clerk of Court and available online at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com. Settlement Class Counsel agreed to the proposed settlements to ensure a fair and reasonable resolution to this matter and to provide benefits to the members of the Settlement Classes while recognizing the existence of complex, contested issues of law and fact; the risks inherent in such complex litigation; the likelihood that, in the absence of settlement, future proceedings would take several years and be extremely costly; and the magnitude of the benefits resulting from the settlements in light of the possible range of recovery that could be obtained through further litigation, including the risk of no recovery. Settlement Class Counsel believe that it is in the best interests of the Settlement Classes to enter into the proposed settlements and resolve this litigation as to the Settling Defendants. This Notice is only a summary of the terms of the proposed settlements. The Settlement Agreements contain other important provisions, including releases of certain claims against the Settling Defendants, and you can refer to the Settlement Agreements, which are on file with the Clerk of Court and available online at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com, for the complete terms of the settlements. The proposed settlements must receive Final Approval by the Court in order to become effective. If you are a member of the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, and the proposed settlement that relates to that Settlement Class is approved and becomes effective, you will be bound by its terms, including the release provisions. If you wish to object to approval of a settlement, you may do so but only in accordance with the procedures set forth below. If you do not object to a settlement, you do not need to take any action at this time to indicate your support for, or lack of objection to, that settlement. HOW DO I REMAIN IN A SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO? If you are a member of either or both of the G.S. Electech or Tokai Rika Settlement Classes as defined above, you will automatically remain in that Settlement Class unless you elect to be excluded. If you wish to remain in a Settlement Class, you do not need to take any action at this time and your interests will be represented by the Class Representatives and by Settlement Class Counsel. You will have no responsibility to individually pay attorneys' fees or expenses. Any such fees and expenses will be paid solely from amounts obtained from the Defendants, whether by settlement or judgment, and must be approved by the Court after notice to you and a hearing. If you choose, you may also have your own attorney enter an appearance on your behalf and at your expense. If you remain in the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, and a final judgment order dismissing that Defendant from the litigation becomes final and unappealable, you will be bound by that judgment. As a member of the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, you will be eligible to share in the proceeds of the applicable Settlement Fund pursuant to a claims procedure that will begin at a later date. Settlement Class Counsel are not presently asking the Court to distribute any Wire Harness Settlement Fund proceeds. If you remain a member of either of the Settlement Classes, you will receive additional notice at a later date, and you will have an opportunity to object to and be heard in connection with the proposed plan of distribution at that time. Do not dispose of any document that reflects your purchases of Wire Harness Products in the United States directly from any Defendant during the period from January 1, 2000 to May 5, 2014. You may need those documents to complete a claim form in the future, which would be subject to inquiry and verification, if the settlements are approved or if damages are otherwise recovered from either of the Settling Defendants or another Defendant. Settlement Class Counsel also are not seeking payment of attorneys' fees at this time. In connection with seeking final approval of the settlements, Plaintiffs will seek permission from the Court to use up to twenty percent (20%) of each Settlement Amount to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, including, but not limited to, costs for economic experts, depositions, costs related to document reproduction and review, and other costs incurred in prosecuting the case. At a later date, Settlement Class Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, as well as payment of incentive awards to the Class Representatives. When Settlement Class Counsel seek payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and incentive awards from the Wire Harness Settlement Fund, you will receive notice and be given an opportunity to object and be heard by the Court at that time. WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO REMAIN IN EITHER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASSES? If you wish to exclude yourself from the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, you must send a request for exclusion, in writing, via certified mail, return receipt requested, postmarked no later than January 4, 2017, to Settlement Class Counsel, and to counsel for the Settling Defendants, at the addresses set forth below and to the following address: Wire Harness Products Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation P.O. Box 5110 Portland, OR 97208-5110 Your request for exclusion must identify the Settlement Class or Classes from which you are seeking exclusion and must include the full name and address of the purchaser (including any predecessor or successor entities and any trade names). You are also requested to identify the Defendant(s) from which you purchased Wire Harness Products during the Class Period, the Wire Harness Products purchased, and the dollar amount of those purchases. If you validly exclude yourself from the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any decision concerning that Settlement Class, and you may pursue individually any claims you may have against that Defendant, but you will not be eligible to share in the settlement proceeds attributable to that Defendant. WHEN WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENTS, AND HOW CAN I TELL THE COURT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS? The Court will hold a hearing on January 25, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., at the Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, Courtroom 272, to determine whether the proposed G.S. Electech and Tokai Rika settlements should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider at the hearing whether to approve Plaintiffs' request to utilize a portion of the settlements to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses. The hearing may be continued without further notice. If you do not exclude yourself from the G.S. Electech Settlement Class or the Tokai Rika Settlement Class, and you wish to object to that settlement or to Plaintiffs' request to utilize a portion of that Settlement Amount to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, you must do so in writing. Your objection must include the caption of this litigation, must be signed, and be filed no later than January 4, 2017, with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226, and mailed to the following counsel, postmarked no later than January 4, 2017: Steven A. Kanner FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Gregory P. Hansel PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 Joseph C. Kohn KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 Eugene A. Spector SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Co-Lead Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class Donald M. Barnes PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 1900 K Street, NW, Suite 1110 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 778-3000 Counsel for the G.S. Electech Defendants W. Todd Miller BAKER & MILLER PLLC 2401 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202) 663-7820 Counsel for the Tokai Rika Co. Defendants If you do not object to the proposed settlements or to Plaintiffs' request to utilize a portion of the settlement proceeds to pay Plaintiffs' litigation expenses, you do not need to appear at the hearing or take any other action at this time. WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I WANT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR IF MY ADDRESS CHANGES? If this Notice reached you at an address other than the one on the mailing label, or if your address changes, please send your correct address to the above-referenced P.O. Box. The Settlement Agreements, Complaint, and other public documents filed in this litigation are available for review during normal business hours at the offices of the Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, Theodore Levin United States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Boulevard, Detroit, MI 48226. Copies of the Settlement Agreements and certain other documents relevant to this litigation are available at www.autopartsantitrustlitigation.com. Questions concerning the proposed settlements, this Notice, or the litigation may be directed to any of the Settlement Class Counsel identified above. Please do not contact the Clerk of the Court or the Judge. Dated: October 21, 2016 BY ORDER OF: The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division HONEY HOLDING: Judge Dismisses Chinese Honey Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Honey Holding I, Ltd., d/b/a Honey Solutions ("Honey Solutions"), an industrial honey importer and processor, on Nov. 14 disclosed that the Honorable Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the U.S. District Court in Chicago has dismissed the remaining aspects of the putative Class Action Lawsuit, which had alleged that many of the U.S. honey industry's largest importers were involved in a global conspiracy to transship Chinese honey and evade millions of dollars of anti-dumping duties (Case No. 13-CV-02905 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division). The Lawsuit had alleged claims against numerous honey importers like Honey Solutions, whose honey supply chain has been verified by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's C-TPAT program ("Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism") and also certified members of True Source Honey, LLC ("True Source"), including Bees Brothers, LLC., Ecotrade International, Inc., Odem International, Inc., and Sunland Trading, Inc. True Source is a voluntary system that seeks to maintain honey origin traceability. Other named Defendants in the Lawsuit included National Honey, Inc., Jun Yang and Urbain Tran. Judge Gottschall's Order of final dismissal was entered after the Court conducted a fairness hearing to approve the settlements with each of the remaining Defendants in the putative Class Action Lawsuit for a total amount of $796,312.00, which some have described as comparable to a "cost of defense" amount paid to close a nuisance lawsuit. Each of the Defendants have vigorously contested the claims throughout the litigation, and Defendants have now been released as part of their settlement agreements. In April 2015, the honey supply chain for Honey Solutions was certified by the C-TPAT program as maintaining security management practices to mitigate against contraband honey. Earlier this year, Honey Solutions was awarded C-TPAT Level 2 certification. Additionally, Honey Holding has been a proponent of third-party laboratory testing on 100% of its foreign honey imports for origin confirmation utilizing mellisopalynology (pollen analysis). This third-party origin certification, combined with standard documentation, including certificates of origin and U.S. Customs forms, insures the customers an undeniable validation of the country of origin for the honey they purchase from Honey Solutions. About Honey Holding I, Ltd. Located in Baytown, Texas, Honey Holding -- http://www.honeysolutions.com-- is one of the largest processors of industrial honey in the United States, supplying most of America's premier bakers and food processors. HUMANA INC: Scott+Scott Files Class Action in Kentucky ------------------------------------------------------ Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott") on Nov. 14 disclosed that it has filed an action in the United States District Court - Western District of Kentucky against Humana, Inc. and Humana Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. (collectively, "Humana" or "Defendants"). Defendants are health insurance companies along with pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs"). The PBMs are retained by the health insurance companies, on behalf of the plan or third-party payors, to provide the pharmacy benefits to plan members, which includes, inter alia, establishing a formulary of drugs that will be covered, a network of pharmacies that will serve as participating pharmacies for plan participants to obtain their prescriptions, copayment amounts, coinsurance amounts, and deductibles. Specifically, the action relates to Defendants engaging in a scheme to defraud plan members by artificially inflating the copayment of medically necessary prescription drugs well above the cost of the drug. Plan participants, including Plaintiff and the Class, pay inflated copayments to participating pharmacies in exchange for receiving their prescription drugs. Unbeknownst to the plan participants, Defendants artificially inflate the purported costs of the prescription drugs in the form of increased copayments and then "claw back," or recoup, from the pharmacies a large portion of the copayments. Class members are consumers who pay artificially inflated copayments for medically necessary, covered prescriptions that cost plan participants more than if they did not have insurance. If you would like addition information, please contact Michael Burnett of Scott+Scott (Scottlaw@scott-scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537). About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Investors Sue Diller Over Stock Plan --------------------------------------------------------- Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that media mogul Barry Diller is trying to retain control over IAC/InterActiveCorp for him and his family in perpetuity by issuing a new class of stock without public shareholder approval, three shareholders in a class action filed on November 22. The so-called "entrenchment scheme" was motivated, according to the shareholders, to protect Diller and his family against dilution of their voting shares in strategic acquisitions. In fact, the shareholders say "Diller threatened to harm IAC by blocking acquisitions that would dilute his voting and managerial power." They add, "Diller would approve value-enhancing acquisitions only if the board issued Class C stock that cemented his control." A proxy issued in support of the proposed reclassification states that the IAC board will amend the company's certificate of incorporation to create non-voting Class C stock. Currently there are two classes of IAC stock: common stock, which has one vote per share, and Class B stock, which has ten votes per share. In the reclassification, each IAC common stock and Class B stock will get a dividend of one share of non-voting Class C stock. According to the proxy statement released in support of the Class C stock issuance, reclassification will "provide IAC with a mechanism to issue common equity securities in the future for acquisitions and equity awards without diluting the voting power of the IAC common stock and the Class B common stock." If IAC undertook multiple acquisitions without issuing the Class C stock, Diller's voting power would ultimately transfer to the public stockholders, according to the shareholders. But with the proposed reclassification, "all benefits flow to the Diller parties, while all detriments fall on the shoulders of the public stockholders" because no "independent body was empowered to protect the public stockholders," the shareholders say in their complaint, which was filed in Delaware's Court of Chancery. Though a "special committee" was formed to review the transaction, the shareholders say it was "comprised of a majority of directors with financial relationships and/or longstanding friendships with Diller." And with Diller threatening to block any potential acquisition through his voting power, the shareholders say the special committee gave in to his demands. Now 74 years old, Diller is "improperly using his control to perpetuate himself in power for the remainder of his life, and then pass control to family members who have never run IAC," according to the complaint. Alexander von Furstenberg, Diller's 46-year-old stepson, is the "heir apparent" despite "little to no operating experience, the shareholders say. "If Diller was determined to transfer control to family members, then he should pay for that privilege," the shareholders say in their complaint. They add that if Diller's scheme succeeds, "the board will have ceded all of its power to the Diller family, retaining no ability to regain influence, even if this new corporate structure proves calamitous." But they also say they're not surprised that "the board and Diller have refused to provide any vote on this proposal to IAC's public stockholders." Shareholders Charles Miller, Jessie Lew Mahoney and Janet Ann Denton are represented by Joel Friedlander of Friedlander & Gorris in Wilmington, Delaware, and by Mark Lebovitch of Bernstein Litowitz in New York City. Their claims include breach of fiduciary duty against both Diller and the directors. They seek class certification, a declaration that Diller breached his duties as controlling stockholder, an order barring the issuance of Class C stock and damages. IAC is a media and Internet company that encompasses more than 150 brands and products. The case is captioned, CHARLES MILLER, JESSIE LEW MAHONEY, and JANET ANN DENTON, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated stockholders of IAC/InterActiveCorp., Plaintiffs, v. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, BARRY DILLER, EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR., MICHAEL EISNER, BONNIE HAMMER, BRYAN LOURD, ALAN SPOON, VICTOR KAUFMAN, CHELSEA CLINTON, ALEXANDER VON FURSTENBERG, JOSEPH LEVIN, DAVID ROSENBLATT, and RICHARD F. ZANNINO, Defendants, (Del. Ch.). Counsel for Plaintiffs: Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey Gorris, Esq. Christopher M. Foulds, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS P.A. 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 573-3500 Of counsel: Mark Lebovitch, Esq. John Vielandi, Esq. David MacIsaac, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Tel: (212) 554-1400 - and - Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. THE PASKOWITZ LAW FIRM P.C. 208 East 51st Street, Suite 380 New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 685-0969 - and - Steven J. Purcell, Esq. Douglas E. Julie, Esq. PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP 65 Broadway, Suite 828 New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 725-1000 INDIVIOR: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Suboxone Prices ---------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Lang, writing for Capital News Service, reports that since Suboxone film strips were removed from the Medicaid Preferred Drug List in July, the amount of the drug recovered in Maryland correctional facilities as contraband has decreased by 41 percent, according to Maryland's Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. Suboxone -- a drug used to treat opiate addiction -- has a high risk of addiction and dependence, and can even lead to death when paired with other drugs or alcohol, according to the Food and Drug Administration. The medication is easily smuggled into state prisons and jails when it is in the form of a strip, designed to be placed under a user's tongue, said Gary McLhinney, director of professional standards at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Corrections. "It is an epidemic, the amount of Suboxone that comes in," Terry Kokolis, director of corrections for Anne Arundel County, Md., said at the Nov. 16 meeting of the legislature's Joint Committee on Behavioral Health and Opioid Use disorders. "Strips come in, they're sold, they're bartered, they're cut into four pieces and the inmate population is always looking for Suboxone. It's the preferred drug." In May, the Maryland Medicaid Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee made recommendations for the Medicaid Preferred Drug List. The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene removed Suboxone from the preferred list and instead made comparable Zubsolv tablets preferred on July 1, making Maryland the first state to do so. The tablets are more difficult to smuggle into prison than the film strips, which can easily be concealed. If a drug is on the Medicaid Preferred Drug List, a person covered by Medicaid can obtain that drug for a small co-pay. If a drug is denoted as nonpreferred, a person must get prior authorization for the medication through a doctor or prescriber in order for it to be covered or partially covered by Medicaid, according to the Maryland Medicaid Pharmacy Program. On Sept. 23, 35 states -- including Maryland -- and Washington filed a class-action lawsuit against Indivior, the company that produces Suboxone. The states allege Indivior impeded the sale of generic versions of Suboxone in tablet form until it forced other generic alternatives out of the market, driving up the price of the film strips, according to a Sept. 27 news release from Indivior. The release is the only comment the company has on the lawsuit or on the Medicaid restrictions at this time, a representative from Indivior said. Between July 1 -- when the film strips were removed from the Medicaid Preferred Drug List -- and Oct. 31, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections has recovered 940 pieces of Suboxone film strips, compared to 1,603 recovered from July 1 to Oct. 31, 2015. "We've also had our teams monitor inmate calls, and they're overhearing some frustration about not being able to obtain the strips behind the walls as easily as it was prior to July 1," Mr. McLhinney said. The disparity between the asking price of contraband Suboxone strips also sharply increased since July 1. The street price for a film strip is only $5, while the price behind bars can be up to $500, Mr. McLhinney said. Typically, the film strips are cut into four pieces and sold separately within prisons to increase an inmate's profit margin, Mr. Kokolis said. "We've done numerous cases where Suboxone has been smuggled in the jail behind stamps or in envelopes or where the paper was colored with Suboxone and then the inmate would get the paper and eat it," said Dan Alioto, commander of the vice/narcotics division at the St. Mary's County Sheriff's Office. Though the amount of the drug recovered in St. Mary's County has declined slightly since July, Suboxone strips are still being abused and traded for other drugs within jails and prisons, he told the University of Maryland's Capital News Service. "I think it has slowed down, but it's still an old trick, so it takes a little while for the next thing to emerge," he said. Local jails have become the "biggest detox facilities in the state of Maryland," Mr. Kokolis said. However, 85 percent of the prison and jail population who reported using drugs prior to being sentenced also reported using heroin within 24 hours of imprisonment, while they were incarcerated, he said. "All of the good that we try to do is very easily compromised by the easy intake of Suboxone," he said. Maryland officials also are working to collect more data on heroin and opioid use statewide, said Glenn Fueston, executive director of the Governor's Office on Crime Control and Prevention. "We need to make sure that we're getting more access to that data as a whole so we can make better decisions and better understand the current threat that we have," he said. "Understanding the threat is a very important part of this problem." INVENTURE FOODS: Initial Case Management Conference on Dec. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- Inventure Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 24, 2016, that an initial case management conference has been set for December 12, 2016, in the case by Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund. On April 4, 2016, a complaint captioned Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund ("Westmoreland") v. Inventure Foods Inc. ("Inventure" or "the Company") et al., Case No. CV2016-002718, was filed in the Superior Court in Maricopa County, Arizona. Additional defendants are the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Capital Foods, LLC, and the underwriters of the secondary securities offering that closed September 14, 2014 (the "September 2014 Offering"). The class action complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act and focuses on the Company's frozen food facility in Jefferson, Georgia. Westmoreland seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On May 6, 2016, the Company removed the purported class action from Superior Court in Maricopa County to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona ("District Court"). On May 26, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the purported class action to the Maricopa County Superior Court. On July 13, 2016, Inventure, along with the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and Capital Foods, LLC, filed a response in opposition to the motion to remand. The September 2014 Offering underwriters joined in our opposition brief. The plaintiff filed its reply in support of the motion to remand on June 23, 2016. On July 5, 2016, the District Court ordered a stay of proceedings until the Court had an opportunity to rule on the motion to remand. On August 11, 2016, the District Court granted Westmoreland's motion to remand the case to the Maricopa County Superior Court. On October 11, 2016, all of the defendants, including Inventure and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, filed a motion for complex case designation with the Maricopa County Superior Court. Westmoreland responded to this motion on October 26, 2016. The Maricopa County Superior Court granted the motion. On October 17, 2016, Westmoreland filed an amended complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court. Like the original complaint, the amended complaint focuses on the Company's frozen food facility in Jefferson, Georgia and alleges claims for purported Securities Act violations against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of the September 2014 Offering. Westmoreland also continues to seek certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court. The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer had until November 14, 2016 to respond to the amended complaint. An initial case management conference has been set for December 12, 2016. ITEL NETWORKS: "Brown" Suit Seeks Recover Overtime Pay, Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Reginald Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Itel Networks, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00797 (N.D. Ga., November 18, 2016), seeks overtime, damages including mandatory treble and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest and all other relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendant is a Georgia corporation into internet and phone cable installations in commercial buildings were Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a cable technician. Plaintiff is represented by: V. Severin Roberts, Esq. BARRETT & FARAHANY 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 214-0120 Fax: (404) 214-0125 JOHN HANCOCK: "Larson" Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A) removed the purported class action lawsuit entitled BARBARA LARSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), Case No. RG-16813803, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv- 06678 to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that John Hancock calculated certain deductions or charges in a manner inconsistent with policy terms. The Plaintiff's policy and those in the putative class provide for an "Insurance Charge" (sometimes referred to as a "Cost of Insurance Charge") that is calculated, in part, by using the "Applied Monthly Rates," the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff explains that the policies state that John Hancock will determine the Applied Monthly Rates, that the Applied Monthly Rates will not exceed the maximum rates disclosed in the policies, and that the Applied Monthly Rates "will be based on our expectations of future mortality experience." The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com smg@girardgibbs.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com wilders@stuevesiegel.com The Defendant is represented by: Alan B. Vickery, Esq. John F. LaSalle, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 E-mail: avickery@bsfllp.com jlasalle@bsfllp.com - and - Motty Shulman, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 E-mail: mshulman@bsfllp.com - and - Sean P. Rodriguez, Esq. 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 Facsimile: (510) 874-1460 E-mail: srodriguez@bsfllp.com KROENKE SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Macradee Aegerter, writing for Fox31, reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Kroenke Sports and Entertainment and the Pepsi Center on behalf of a deaf woman who said they are not in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Pepsi Center is home to the Nuggets, Avalanche and Mammoth, and plays host to a wide variety of shows and concerts. For most the atmosphere inside the downtown Denver arena is electric in both sight and sound. But imagine watching a game or concert in silence. You can see what's in front of you but can't hear what's announced, or played overhead. For Kirstin Kurlander, that is life. "I have zero hearing," Ms. Kurlander said. The attorney lost her hearing at age 22 but not her zest for the experiences of life. "I don't hear the announcements that are happening, I don't hear the entertainment portion. I don't hear the score, talking about the players. So you're missing a lot of information," she said. And its information she said she and others who are also deaf or hard of hearing shouldn't have to miss. "The law is really clear that they need to make it accessible to deaf and hard of hearing patients," she said. Under the American's with Disabilities act, Ms. Kurlander said the Pepsi Center is required to provide captioning but is failing to do so. "We should have the same rights and be able to go and enjoy the experience in the same way," she said. Amy Robertson, an attorney with the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, said in 2013, the Pepsi Center installed one of the world's largest JumboTrons but captioning on the big screen is not there. "Daktronics, which is the company that supplied the JumboTron, advertises that its very, very simple to provide captioning on their technology," Ms. Robertson said. She points to examples from around the county like the University of Oregon football stadium and Citi Field in New York, and she said even Coors Field captions what is being broadcast in the venue. "We've been talking to them for over a year to try to find a solution and we just don't seem to be able to come up with an agreed approach," Ms. Robertson said of negotiations with Kroenke Sports and Entertainment and the Pepsi Center. Ms. Robertson said when negotiations failed to produce results, she, on behalf of Ms. Kurlander, filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Colorado. They say what they are asking for is simple. "I don't think we are asking for a lot. We just want to have equal access," Ms. Kurlander said. Kroenke Sports and Entertainment did not return calls seeking comment. LAWRY'S THE PRIME RIB: Faces Wage Class Action in Chicago --------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a server at the Chicago version of a popular chain of upscale steakhouses has brought a class action lawsuit against her employer, saying the company owes money under federal and state law to her and others who wait tables at the restaurant for compelling them to study for written tests about the restaurant, its menu and their duties while off the clock, without pay. On Nov. 11, plaintiff Robin Rapai, of Villa Park, filed the complaint in Chicago federal court against Lawry's The Prime Rib, alleging the company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for refusing to pay her for the time she spent at home studying to pass a written test she claimed the restaurant would use to determine which servers received the most hours or more choice assignments. Ms. Rapai is represented in the action by attorneys James X. Bormes and Catherine P. Sons, of Chicago. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Rapai said the restaurant ownership and management have since 2013 required its servers to take a written test every two weeks about the restaurant and its various food and drink options. However, she said the restaurant did not allow its wait staff to study for the written test while at work. Rather, the restaurant would provide the servers with the written materials they needed to learn, requiring them to take the materials home to study. On average, the lawsuit alleged servers would each dedicate two to three hours per testing period to study the materials in preparation for the test. The restaurant then would "purportedly assign work schedules based in part on how . . . servers perform on the test," the lawsuit said. "While the amount of uncompensated time each employee studied the written materials was frequently about two to three hours every two weeks, the savings for Defendants (Lawry's) is significant." The lawsuit said this action has cost the servers unpaid wages, in violation of laws requiring overtime and minimum wage pay. "The net effect of Defendants' policies and practices, instituted and approved by company managers, is that Defendants willfully failed to pay minimum wage and overtime compensation to Plaintiff and others similarly situated, and willfully failed to keep accurate time records to save payroll costs," the lawsuit said. "Defendants thus enjoyed ill-gained profits at the expense of their hourly employees." The lawsuit did not indicate precisely how many employees might be included as additional plaintiffs under the putative class action lawsuit. But the complaint asked the court to create a class including anyone who worked for Lawry's in Illinois since Nov. 11, 2013, and who were required to study for the job duties test at home, off the clock. The plaintiffs said they expected the total number of employees to exceed 40, allowing the lawsuit to proceed as a collective action. The complaint asked the court to award Ms. Rapai and the class "all unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages they earned, plus statutory penalties," and attorney fees. The lawsuit arises in the wake of recent decisions in Chicago federal court and elsewhere addressing the question of how much additional compensation, if any, restaurant owners owe table servers for duties that may go beyond the core duties of their jobs. For instance, recently the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found a chain of Chicago area pancake houses don't need to pay servers extra for requiring them to chop food, make coffee, dust decorations and fixtures in the restaurant, and perform other duties they said were in addition to their core job responsibilities. The judges in that case said the additional duties were "related" closely enough to their jobs to allow the restaurants to sidestep additional scrutiny under the law. Those additional duties, however, were performed at the restaurant, while on the clock, whereas in this case, plaintiffs alleged the restaurant required them to work at home, off the clock. In addition to its Chicago site, Lawry's operates three other restaurants under The Prime Rib brand, including in Las Vegas, Dallas and Beverly Hills, Calif. LENTUO INTERNATIONAL: March 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on Nov. 14 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Central District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of American Depositary Shares of Lentuo International Inc.: SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES OF LENTUO INTERNATIONAL INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 15, 2014 THROUGH MARCH 9, 2015, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that a hearing will be held on March 6, 2017 at 10 a.m. in Courtroom 1600 before the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald, United States District Judge of the Central District of California, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $1,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of up to $250,000.00, or twenty-five percent (25%) of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation expenses of no more than $50,000, and an award to the Lead Plaintiffs not to exceed $9,000, should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice. If you purchased Lentuo International Inc.'s American Depositary Shares during the class period from May 15, 2014 through March 9, 2015, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at: Lentuo International Inc. Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel.); 610-565-7985 (Fax); info@strategicclaims.net), or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than January 9, 2017 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than February 4, 2017, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than February 14, 2017 by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Central District of California, Western Division 312 North Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Laurence M. Rosen., Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 Class Counsel Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-5809 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 Counsel for Defendants If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Class Counsel: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel.: 213-785-2610 Fax: 213-226-4684 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 25, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued by Jie for Violating Securities Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRENDAN TAN WEI JIE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS INCORPORATED, JOHN L. HIGGINS, and MATTHEW KORENBERG, Case No. 3:16-cv-02832-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal., November 17, 2016), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased the securities of Ligand between November 9, 2015, and November 14, 2016, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ligand is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing and acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical companies discover and develop medicines worldwide. The Company is incorporated in Delaware and its principal executive offices are located in San Diego, California. John L. Higgins has been the Chief Executive Officer at Ligand since January 16, 2007, and has served as the President of Ligand from January 16, 2007, until February 2, 2015. Matthew Korenberg has been the Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance at Ligand since August 06, 2015, and has been its Principal Accounting Officer since September 20, 2016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com LOUISIANA: Denied Tax Credits for Solar Power, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Louisiana illegally denied residents tax credits for installing solar power systems at their homes, dozens of citizens claim in a class action in East Baton Rouge Parish Court. The case is Corby Acosta, Sr., et al., individually and on behalf of the class, v. State of Louisiana, through the Louisiana Department of Revenue and Kimberly L. Robinson, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Revenue., No. 652825, 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Gaar, Jr., Esq. Jason M. Welborn, Esq. Lucas S. Colligan, Esq. Jacob H. Hargett, Esq. 617 S. Buchanan Street Post Office Drawer Lafayette, LA 70502 Tel: 337-233-3815 MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Wins Final Approval of $23.5MM Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge in San Francisco, November 21, gave final approval to a $23.5 million shareholder class action against Magnachip Semiconductor, for false and misleading statements that inflated the price of its stock during a secondary offering. The case is captioned, RICHARD HAYES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No.14-cv- 01160-JST (N.D. Cal.). Under the settlement agreement, MagnaChip has agreed to pay $23,500,000 into a Qualified Settlement Fund on the date on which the settlement is finally approved. Assuming the Settling Defendants are 50% liable for Plaintiffs' total alleged damages of $330 million dollars, the Settlement Amount represents 15% of Plaintiffs' likely recovery at trial if they were to prevail. The following amounts will be subtracted from the Settlement Amount: (1) the costs of settlement and notice administration; (2) Class Counsel's attorney's fees; (3) attorney's expenses; (4) a payment to Lead Plaintiff Keith Thomas of $1,500.00; (5) other unspecified fees and expenses authorized by the Court; and (6) taxes and tax expenses. After subtracting these amounts, any remaining funds will be distributed to the class, which Thomas defines as follows: "All Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MagnaChip Securities between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015, including purchasers of MagnaChip common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with MagnaChip's February 6, 2013 follow-on public stock offering. Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, MagnaChip's officers and directors during the Settlement Class Period, and all such excluded Persons' immediate families, legal representatives, heirs, parents, wholly-owned subsidiaries, successors, and assigns. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those Persons who file valid and timely requests for exclusion in accordance with the Court's Order Preliminarily Approving Partial Settlement and Providing for Notice." MARION BASS: February 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, as Claims Administrator, on behalf of Motley Rice LLC William Tennison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARION BASS SECURITIES CORPORATION, et al. Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MADISON COUNTY, ILLINOIS Cause No. 01-L-000457 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL OF THOSE PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO EVER PURCHASED, OWNED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY OF THE REVENUE BONDS ISSUED BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1, 1996 AND DECEMBER 11, 1998 BY STATE OR MUNICIPAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES FOR THE CITIES OF: LAWRENCE, INDIANA; PRINCETON, WISCONSIN; MANITOWOC, WISCONSIN; GILLETT, WISCONSIN; WAUTOMA, WISCONSIN; RIVERVIEW, MICHIGAN; BANGOR, MICHIGAN; AND REDFORD, MICHIGAN, WITH THE MALACHI CORP., INC., AS OBLIGOR ("THE BONDS"). PLEASE READ THIS COURT-AUTHORIZED NOTICE CAREFULLY. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION. The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a proposed Settlement of this class action "Litigation" between Plaintiff William Tennison, individually and on behalf of the above "Settlement Class," and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. relating to the Bonds. A "Final Hearing" will be held in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois (the "Court") to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement. Your legal rights may be affected by this Notice and the proceedings in the Litigation, whether or not you act. Under the proposed Settlement, Wells Fargo will pay or distribute a "WF Contribution" consisting of (1) a $6,500,000 cash payment, and (2) $800,000 in "Previously Collected Funds" that Wells Fargo received, in its capacity as indenture trustee, for the Bondholders, net of its expenses and fees. The WF Contribution and the $525,000 paid in prior settlements by other defendants ("Additional Defendants' Contribution") will together comprise the "Gross Settlement Fund." At the Final Hearing, Class Counsel will request the Court to approve payment of (a) a "Fee and Expense Award" to Class Counsel not to exceed 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation expenses up to $785,000, which includes consulting fees of $40,000 to a potential Settlement Class member for more than 15 years of services during the Litigation, (b) "Incentive Awards" not to exceed $5,000 to each of three present and former class representatives, and (c) all "Settlement Costs" incurred since the Court's preliminary approval of the Settlement. If the Court grants final approval, and after payment of the Fee and Expense Award, Incentive Awards, and all Settlement Costs, the remaining "Net Settlement Fund" will be distributed to eligible Class Members. First, Wells Fargo will distribute the Previously Collected Funds to Bondholders as of the date of final approval, pursuant to a prior federal court order in a separate "Receivership Action" involving the Bonds. Second, the "Settlement Administrator" will distribute the WF Contribution and the Additional Defendants' Contribution pursuant to a "Distribution Plan" proposed by Class Counsel and attached to the Settlement Agreement, subject to Court approval. The Court will conduct a Final Hearing on February 21, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. to determine, among other things: (1) whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed Settlement should be finally approved; and (3) whether the Litigation and the claims of the Settlement Class against Wells Fargo should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Settlement. If you want to be excluded from the Settlement, you must sign and mail a written "Opt Out Request" requesting your exclusion and provide (1) your name, mail and email addresses, and telephone number, and (2) the date(s), amounts, and types of Bonds you purchased and the date(s), if any, that you sold any Bonds. Your exclusion request must be postmarked no later than January 31, 2017. If you submit an Opt Out Request, you will not receive any Settlement funds. If you do not opt out, you can mail a signed, written "Objection" to the Settlement terms, which must be postmarked no later than January 31, 2017. The Objection must include (1) your name, mail and email addresses, and telephone number, (2) the date(s), amounts, and types of Bonds you purchased and the date(s), if any, that you sold any Bonds, and (3) the basis or reason for your Objection, including any legal support or evidence (including witnesses) that the Court should consider. If you want to share in the potential Distribution to Class Members, you must fill out, sign, and return the written Proof of Claim Form available at http://www.kellermanmunicipalbondsettlement.comto the Settlement Administrator, postmarked no later than April 21, 2017. If you do not timely submit a Proof of Claim Form, you will not share in the Distribution to Class Members, but will still be bound by the Settlement terms, including the release of all claims against Wells Fargo. Note: You cannot submit an Opt Out Request, a Proof of Claim Form, or an Objection by telephone, facsimile or email. Opt Out Requests must be mailed to Class Counsel and Wells Fargo's counsel. Objections must be mailed to the Court, Class Counsel, and Wells Fargo's counsel. Proof of Claim Forms must be mailed to the Settlement Administrator. Contact information for each is listed below. COURT: Clerk of the Circuit Court Third Judicial Circuit 155 N. Main Str., Room 230 Edwardsville, IL 62025 WELLS FARGO'S COUNSEL: David Wells Michael J. Morris Catherine A. Schroeder Thompson Coburn, LLP One US Bank Plaza St. Louis, MO 63101 CLASS COUNSEL: Fred Thompson, III William S. Norton Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 J. William Lucco Christopher P. Threlkeld Lucco, Brown, Threlkeld & Dawson, LLP 224 St. Louis Avenue, P.O. Box 539 Edwardsville, IL 62025 You are not required to attend the Final Hearing, but can do so in person or through a lawyer you hire at your expense. If you or your lawyer wish to speak, you must, no later than February 10, 2017, mail a written notice of intent to appear to the Court, Class Counsel, and counsel for Wells Fargo. The notice must include your name, address, and telephone number, and the number of Bonds you purchased, owned, or otherwise acquired. If you want more information regarding anything in this Notice, you may consult http://www.kellermanmunicipalbondsettlement.com, contact the Settlement Administrator at (866) 742-4955 or info@rg2claims.com, or contact Class Counsel listed above. DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR CLERK REGARDING THIS NOTICE, AS THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. DATED: November 22, 2016 Pursuant to Order of the Court MIRVAC: Waverley Park Estate Residents Mull Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Christine McGinn, writing for Monash Leader, reports that angry Waverley Park estate residents are set to take developer Mirvac to court over controversial overhead powerlines. The Waverley Park Residents Action Group is calling for owners of the 1143 properties making up the estate to join a class action after it was revealed Mirvac did not have to put the powerlines underground. Planning Minister Richard Wynne, in a letter to residents on November 9, says the 2002 planning permit had been amended to allow the powerlines to stay above ground -- in line with the 2015 independent panel's report recommendations. MIRVAC SLAMMED OVER POWERLINE PROMISE "Unfortunately, we have no grounds to force Mirvac to put the powerlines underground," he states in the letter. "Mirvac now has 90 days to submit an open space delivery plan and one year to complete the public works. Now that the consultation process has concluded and Mirvac had responded, the permit has been changed . . ." Mr. Wynne hoped Mirvac's $30 million community benefits package went "some way to meeting the needs of the local community". Part of the package includes payments to residents starting at $6500. But some homeowners are already bowing out of legal action -- just pleased the battle will end. Hong Foo, who bought into the estate in 2007, said the package was a great outcome and the community could finally "move on with their lives". Emanate Legal foundation partner Barry Taylor, who is acting for the group, said originally Mirvac had "made representations to purchasers of land that overhead power lines would be replaced underground" to allow homeowners to enjoy the parklands and open space. "On the basis of these representations, purchasers were induced into signing contracts to buy in the development," Mr. Taylor said. Mirvac group executive external affairs Marie Festa said the package was fair and generous and homeowners were free take any action they wanted. "The offers made under the community benefits package represent once-off, without prejudice offers and will not be reviewed," Ms. Festa said. Residents who want to join in the legal fight can register their interest to waverleypark@emanatelegal.com.au or take up Mirvac's offer at waverleyparkcbp.com.au MISSOURI STATE HIGH: Class Cert. Sought in Student-Athlete Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the case SUZANNE VAWTER, as parent and next friend of her minor daughter, AMV; KATHLEEN HAGEN, as parent and next friend of her minor daughter, JLH; ANN and BRENT STEPP, as parents and next friends of their minor daughter, APFS; and TODD KOBAYASHI, as parent and next friend of his minor daughter, KK; individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. MISSOURI STATE HIGH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-01041-SRB, (W.D. Mo.) moves the Court for an order certifying the proceeding as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2). Plaintiffs have brought this action challenging the Missouri State High School Activities Association's (MSHSAA) policy and practice of scheduling girls' softball season in the fall as discriminatory and in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As set forth in Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint, the proposed class includes all present and future female student- athletes and potential student-athletes who participate or seek to participate in girls' softball, as well as those potential student-athletes who are or were deterred from participating in the sport of girls' softball at MSHSAA member high schools, for which MSHSAA has designated fall as the playing and practice season. A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zgZKYdCX The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Odle, Esq. Corby W. Jones, Esq. Keith A. Starr, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 Telephone: 816.474.6550 Facsimile: 816.421.5547 E-mail: wodle@shb.com cwjones@shb.com kstarr@shb.com MISTRAS GROUP: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for Feb. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen on Oct. 19, 2016, gave preliminary approval to the $6 million settlement agreement in the case, Viceral v. Mistras Group, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02198 (N.D. Cal.). A final hearing to consider approval of the settlement is set for Feb. 2, 2017, 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Mistras Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2016, that the Company is currently a defendant in a consolidated purported class and collective action, Edgar Viceral and David Kruger v Mistras Group, et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This matter results from the consolidation of two cases originally filed in California state court in April 2015. The consolidated case alleges violations of California statutes, primarily the California Labor Code, and seeks to proceed as a collective action under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is predicated on claims for allegedly missed rest and meal periods, inaccurate wage statements, and failure to pay all wages due, as well as related unfair business practices, and is requesting payment of all damages, including unpaid wages, and various fines and penalties available under California and Federal law. he parties have reached a settlement of the case, whereby the Company agreed to pay $6 million to resolve the allegations and avoid further distraction that would result if the litigation continued. The settlement is subject to court approval, and a hearing for preliminary approval was held on August 18, 2016. The Company said it recorded a pre-tax charge of $6.3 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 for the settlement and payment of payroll taxes and other costs related to the settlement. The settlement will cover claims dating back to April 2011 in some cases and involves approximately 4,900 current and former employees. Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, noted that the nationwide and California classes of employees comprise those who worked as examiners and technicians at the infrastructure testing company Mistras Group Inc. and claimed they weren't paid for training or travel time. Ms. Bayles said the judge approved the settlement in spite of his concerns about high attorneys' fees and low payouts. MOBILOIL FEDERAL CREDIT: Faces Overdraft Fees Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Mobiloil Federal Credit Union manipulates transactions to "fleece" members of millions of dollars in overdraft fees, a class action claims in Beaumont, Texas Federal Court. The case is captioned, JILLIAN L. WHITTINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MOBILOIL FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant., Case No. 16-cv-00482 (E.D Tex.) Mobiloil Federal Credit Union is a financial institution with more than 40,000 members and assets of $575 Million as of 2015. It promotes itself as "Not for Profit, Not for Charity, but for Service," and provides this purported Service "by the latest technology." The lawsuit alleges that Mobiloil Federal Credit Union has used a corruption of such "latest technology" to fleece thousands of loyal customers out of millions of dollars through illicit Overdraft Fees. The Complaint says MCU's overdraft policy and practices provides it with substantially higher service fee revenues than it would otherwise achieve, and consequently, inflicts substantial financial damages on customers such as Plaintiff. For example, in 2015 alone, Plaintiff paid $1650 in Overdraft Fees. And in the same year, MCU made more than $9 million income that, upon information and belief, is comprised substantially of these service fees. Plaintiff is represented by: W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Deola T. Ali, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Tel: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 E-Mail: craft@hughesellzey.com jarrett@hughesellzey.com deola@hughesellzey.com - and - Karen Spivey, Esq. PATE & SPIVEY, LLP First City Building 505 Orleans, Suite 500 Beaumont, Texas 77701 Tel: (409) 838-6578 Fax: (409) 838-692 E-Mail: Karen@psallp.com MONEY MAX: "Common Fund" Ruling Game Changer, Jones Day Says ------------------------------------------------------------ An upsurge in Australian class action filings is expected now that the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has permitted a common fund order in federal class action litigation. In what may prove to be one of the most significant rulings in Australian class action law, the Full Court in Money Max Int Pty Ltd (Trustee) v QBE Insurance Group Limited [2016] FCAFC 148 has, for the first time, made orders permitting a litigation funder to be paid a court-determined percentage from any fund created as a result of a successful class action settlement or judgment -- i.e., a common fund order. Prior to this decision, litigation funders were compensated from the proceeds (be it a settlement or judgment) obtained by the subset of class members who had entered into a funding agreement with them. Now, all members of the class are likely to have to, in effect, contribute to the payment of a litigation funder's fee (whether or not they entered into a funding agreement with the funder). Other ramifications of this decision are expected to include: a trend to larger class actions -- because a common fund arrangement provides strong economic incentives for funders to run "open class" rather than "closed class" class actions; and a race to the courthouse to file first among the promoters of class actions -- because funders who can obtain a common fund order will be able to cause a class action to be filed without having to first build a book of class members who will enter a funding agreement. As such, the prospect is that funders will be keen to try to capture the ground for the class action by seeking to file ahead of rival class action promoters. A related concern is whether the race to the registry will see more, poorly considered, and poorly investigated class actions being filed. That prospect seems highly likely. Background The Australian class action regime in Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("FCA Act") was introduced without any additional funding mechanism. Contingency fees were, and are, illegal. Lawyers could charge a conditional fee (also called a no-win, no-fee) where the client had to pay only if the claim were successful, but the lawyer received only his or her normal fee, in some cases with an uplift capped at 25 percent of that normal fee. However, this did not address the usual costs rule in Australian litigation where a losing party is liable for the other side's costs. The rule is modified in relation to class actions as the costs rule applies to the representative party only and not to the class members. Nonetheless, this approach to costs has been raised as a disincentive to the commencement of litigation as the plaintiff, or representative party in a class action, is liable for the costs of their opponent if they are unsuccessful. The response to the possibility of an adverse costs order pursuant to the Australian costs rule, and the lack of law firms being able to run lengthy, complex class actions on a conditional fee basis, was third-party litigation funding. However, funding was dependent on a contractual relationship being established. Litigation funders then became concerned about free-riding, where the opt-out class model adopted in Australia meant that unfunded class members could be part of a class action but not have to pay any fee to the funder. The funders addressed this through a "closed class" method of group definition. The closed class is brought only on behalf of those class members who entered into a funding agreement so that there were no unfunded class members. However, competition between funders and a respondent's desire for finality saw, in some circumstances, the continued use of the traditional opt-out class action model, now called an "open class", or the opening of a closed class as part of a settlement to allow for unfunded class members to be included. To address the existence of the so-called free riders, a practice developed of seeking "equalisation orders" whereby unfunded class members were ordered by the court to give up a proportion of their recovery equal to what funded class members had agreed to pay to the funder. In most cases, the amount given up by the unfunded class members was then distributed across all class members, but in some instances it was paid to the litigation funder. The academic literature recognised that while the opt-out class action and litigation funding both have the ability to promote access to justice, they were at odds with each other, leading to the closed class and, in some situations, multiple class actions. To try to address this problem, attention focussed on the US class action practice of employing a common fund approach to the payment of lawyer's fees and sought to adapt it to litigation funding. The idea, with some modifications, was picked up by funders and practitioners and, ultimately, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. Facts Money Max Int Pty Ltd brought a shareholder class action against the respondent, QBE Insurance Group Ltd ("QBE"), pursuant to Part IVA of the FCA Act. The applicant alleged that QBE engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and breached its continuous disclosure obligations. The class action was funded by a litigation funder, International Litigation Funding Partners Pte Ltd ("Funder"). The applicant commenced the class action on its own behalf and on behalf of an "open class" comprising all persons who acquired an interest in QBE shares in the defined period and who claimed to have suffered loss as a result of QBE's conduct. The Funder and approximately 1,290 class members entered into a litigation funding agreement which provided that: The Funder agreed to meet the class members' legal costs, any adverse costs order and any security for costs. The class members agreed to reimburse the Funder the legal costs paid and to pay the Funder a percentage commission of either 32.5 percent or 35 percent (depending upon how many QBE shares they acquired in the defined period) from any settlement or judgment monies they received. No funding agreement existed in relation to other class members. The applicant sought orders pursuant to ss 23 and 33ZF of the FCA Act to require the applicant and all class members to pay the Funder a pro rata share of the legal costs incurred and a funding commission at the (reduced) rate of 30 percent from the common fund of any settlement or judgment in their favour. The effect of the order would be to apply litigation funding terms to all class members (not just the funded class members) without class members needing to enter into a contractual relationship with the Funder. The Full Court's Proposed Orders The Full Court determined that it would make orders similar to, but not precisely the same as, those sought by the Applicant. The Full Court stated that once the Funder, the Applicant and the Applicant's solicitor gave an undertaking to each other and to the Court that they would comply with the funding terms set out in annexure A to the judgment, the Court would order that prior to any distribution to class members, the following amounts be deducted from any settlement or judgment and paid to the Funder: (i) the legal costs paid by the Funder to the lawyers; and (ii) a percentage of any settlement or judgment to be determined by the Court. However, no amount payable pursuant to the order could be greater than would be payable if the order was not made, i.e., the terms of the funding agreement applied. A number of matters are apparent: -- The operation of the common fund is at the election of the Funder -- the Funder can elect to retain the contractual arrangements with the funded class members. -- The Court will determine the amount of the Funder's commission at the conclusion of the proceedings once a settlement or judgment has occurred. -- All class members will bear the legal costs and the Funder's commission equally. -- No class member can be worse off under the orders than if the orders were not made. More Class Actions? The availability of common fund orders may make it easier for a litigation funder to satisfy themselves that the quantum of claims is sufficient to make funding a worthwhile proposition without needing to wait until they have signed up the requisite number of class members. The common fund also reduces the cost of identifying and signing up class members. As a result, class actions that may not have been commenced because the "book build" process failed to attract sufficient signatures may now go ahead. That said, the common fund does not change a class action's prospects of success in relation to the substantive claims, and the Australian costs rules mean that the class representative (usually indemnified by the funder) will be required to pay an opponent's costs if the class action is unsuccessful. Larger Class Actions? It is generally the case that an opt-out class action will be larger than an opt-in class action, at least initially. This also holds for the Australian variant on the opt-in class, the closed class. This is because the opt-out class action includes everyone who meets the class definition without them needing to do anything. At an early stage, they will be given an opportunity to exclude themselves by taking the positive step of returning a form. A closed class is typically smaller because the lawyer or funder has to sign up each class member, which takes time, money and an ability to actually identify the class member. As the common fund does not require a funder to have signed up a class member to get paid, it should encourage the use of an open class action. As a result, the funded open class action is likely to include more class members than the funded closed class action, and it is likely to be used more often, subject to the comments below about competing class actions. However, when class actions conclude, there is a need to be able to distribute any compensation achieved. For a closed class, that is relatively straightforward since class members are known. For an open class action, there will need to be a class closure process whereby the class members register, meaning they provide contact details, bank account information and claim information. The closure of the class is needed regardless of whether a common fund order is to be made. The effect of class closure is usually that those class members who do not register do not recover any compensation, but they have their claim extinguished.[2] The size of the class action crystallises at this point and usually reduces. Whether an open class after it has been closed will still be larger than a closed class will vary across class actions depending on a range of factors. However, in relation to shareholder class actions that were closed classes but then opened, the result was usually more class members participated and an increase in quantum. The number of class members can increase substantially, but the quantum increases to a far lesser degree because the closed class usually targets institutional investors with large shareholdings. The additional class members who registered were usually retail investors with small shareholdings. More or Less Competing Class Actions? The Full Court expressed the view that "by encouraging open class proceedings, a common fund approach may reduce the prospect of overlapping or competing class actions and reduce the multiplicity of actions that sometimes occurs with class actions". However, competing class actions are still possible, indeed highly likely, due to the increasing numbers of funders and plaintiffs' lawyers seeking to operate in the Australian class actions market. This is because the common fund is but one of a number of ways to finance a class action. Class actions can be structured as open or closed classes. Financing can come from a litigation funder or from a lawyer acting on a conditional fee basis and with an After- the-Event insurance policy to cover any adverse costs order. Further, the terms of the financing will vary, the most obvious being the percentage of the funder's commission or the rates charged by the lawyer, including the amount of any uplift (capped at 25 percent by legislation). The common fund adds another item to the financing menu. Some funders will not want to place their recovery in the hands of the court through the common fund and prefer to rely on the terms of their funding contracts. The Full Court acknowledged as much. Of course, a court probably has the power to review a funder's fee regardless of a common fund order being made. The common fund order makes it easier by having the funder agree upfront. Established funders with connections to institutional investors may feel they can contract with a sufficiently large number of claimants to make undertaking the risk for the potential return worthwhile. If they have to open the class, then they can seek equalisation orders. Class members, especially institutional investors, may have a preference for a particular funder because they can negotiate lower fees. The funding agreement used in Money Max gave large shareholders a 2.5 percent discount compared to small shareholders. The funder's reputation or solvency or other nonfinancial terms in the funding agreement may play a part. There is no common fund order available for lawyers, and so they may find it more lucrative to bear the risk of receiving no payment in return for being able to charge their standard hourly fees and obtain a 25 percent uplift to those fees if successful. This approach is rare in the shareholder class action space at present but was used in the Bushfire class actions, where the lawyers in the Kilmore East class action recovered $37 million. The Full Court's view above follows from a single open class action being able to include and resolve all class members' claims. Other class actions or proceedings are not needed. If multiple open class actions are commenced, then there is a clear abuse of process as class members will be suing a respondent multiple times for the same alleged harm. The court can choose between the class actions using its traditional tools of stay, joinder and consolidation. Matters become more complicated when the class members do not overlap, such as when there are two closed classes or an open and a closed class but the open class excludes the class members in the closed class. There is no abuse of process, but there are additional costs for the court, the parties and the class members compared to if there were a single open class action. The court needs to be prepared to draw on its case management powers to choose a single vehicle to resolve the claims. To date the courts have been reluctant to do so, especially when the class actions have different financing models and/or vary in terms of allegations made or claim period. The common fund does not remove the need for the courts to make some difficult decisions in relation to competing class actions. However, as it may foster a race to the courthouse, it may then force the court into making those difficult decisions. A Race to the Courthouse? The common fund order removes the need for a funder to first contract with sufficient class members to be able to launch a class action with sufficient quantum of claims to make funding a worthwhile proposition. Given the increasing numbers of new funder entrants in the Australian class actions market, the common fund presents an opportunity for those new entrants to commence class actions quickly and stake out the ground in the hope of being the funder for all class members. The courts have previously stated that the first class action to be filed does not automatically become the one that will proceed. However, it does present a funder with some advantages, such as the associated publicity which can assist in attracting class members (even though a litigation funding contract is not strictly necessary if a common fund order is made), and as a way of discouraging other competing classes who will recognise that the process will be longer and more complicated than originally envisaged. Nonetheless, there are a number of large, well- established funders operating in Australia who are unlikely to give up a lucrative class action because another class action has already been filed. The result will be more competing class actions that will need to be sorted out by the courts. However, it may also result in large-scale opt outs, where a funder has contracted with institutional investors and another procedural approach is available, such as regular litigation with all investors joined as claimants. Lower Funder's Fees? The Full Court stated that it expected "the courts will approve funding commission rates that avoid excessive or disproportionate charges to class members but which recognise the important role of litigation funding in providing access to justice, are commercially realistic and properly reflect the costs and risks taken by the funder, and which avoid hindsight bias". The way in which the courts approach the setting of the funder's commission, and the actual fees approved, will be crucial to how the common fund is employed going forward. It remains to be seen whether the fees will be reduced. MUDTECH SERVICES: "Gallow" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN GALLOW, individually and on behalf of all class members v. MUDTECH SERVICES, L.P., Case No. GD-16-022247 (Pa. Comm. Pleas, Allegheny Cty., November 17, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. MudTech Services, L.P., is a Texas limited partnership doing business throughout the United States, including in Pennsylvania and Ohio. MudTech is a global oilfield services company with significant operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: Pfeuti Suit Dismissed Following Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- United States Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando issued an order granting the Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement in the case captioned HERMANN PFEUTI and ALFRED ERZAK, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. NAPLES TRANSPORATION & TOURS, LLC, RANDALL R. SMITH and TAMIR RANKOW, Defendants, Case No: 2:16-cv-364-FtM-CM, (M.D. Fla.). The Settlement and Release Agreement between Plaintiffs and Opt-In Plaintiffs and the Naples Transportation & Tour LLC is approved by the Court as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the Fair Labor Standards Act, wrote Judge Mirando in her November 16 Order, a copy of which is available at no charge at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y7GY41tN The Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants Randall R. Smith and Tamir Rankow are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendants for alleged violations of the FLSA's provisions on minimum wages, overtime wages, and retaliation. Two Opt-In Plaintiffs, Rosie Mills and Kevin Bough, have filed consents to join this collective action. According to Judge Mirando, Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Class Members and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is denied as moot; Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective Action and Facilitate Notice to Potential Class Members and Incorporated Memorandum of Law is also denied as moot; and the action is dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk will close the file. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces Class Action Over Transfer Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- A Division I student-athlete at Northwestern University (NU) filed an antitrust lawsuit against the university and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), claiming that the NCAA's transfer regulations violate federal antitrust laws, following intimidation tactics from NU in an attempt to force the plaintiff to transfer schools, according to Hagens Berman. The plaintiff, John "Johnnie" Vassar, was a men's basketball player who joined Northwestern during the 2014-2015 academic year, and the complaint states that the transfer rules established by the NCAA and carried out by Northwestern "restrict the freedom of student athletes in violation of antitrust law." After accepting an athletic scholarship to Northwestern, Johnnie was subjected to a variety of efforts from the university to transfer and to take away his athletic scholarship, including verbal harassment, falsified records of misconduct and more. "In a competitive market free of the NCAA and its members restraint, these athletes would be allowed to transfer without restriction, particularly where, as in this case, their current coach no longer wants their services and 'runs them off,'" the complaint states. The suit filed Nov. 14, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division seeks to change the NCAA's current rules preventing Division I basketball players from transferring to other NCAA Division I schools and playing immediately without losing athletic eligibility for a year. "We see this destructive double-standard again and again -- non-student-athletes are free to transfer and are eligible for a new scholarship without waiting a year. Coaches often transfer to the tune of a hefty pay raise," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and lead attorney representing the class of athletes. "But meanwhile, student-athletes are penalized and forced to sit out a year before they can play elsewhere. The NCAA needs to level the playing field for these thousands of kids who face undue punishment under its senseless bylaws." Johnnie dreamed of playing professional basketball after graduation. He was heavily recruited by colleges out of high school and offered athletic scholarships by numerous NCAA Division I men's basketball schools. In 2014, Johnnie joined Northwestern on a full multi-year basketball grant-in-aid that guaranteed him a scholarship during the entire period of his eligibility, but in 2015, Northwestern told him he would no longer have a spot on the basketball team. The lawsuit alleges that Northwestern engaged in deceitful behavior over the course of a year in order to secure Johnnie's athletic scholarship so the school could provide it to another player, given the Northwestern-agreed and NCAA-imposed 13-scholarship limit. By 2016, he was informed that his basketball grant-in-aid would be converted to an academic scholarship in order to release him as a "counter" and by May 5, 2016, Northwestern University freed up the guaranteed multi-year athletic scholarship that it had initially provided him as the sweetener to get him to join the school's academic and basketball programs, according to the complaint. "Shady, dirty, and underhanded" Behavior The suit states that NU staff berated the nationally recruited basketball player and put Johnnie in an "internship" under which he worked as a janitor instead of permitting him to train and play with his teammates. The school also pressured him to sign a blank "Roster Deletion" form by which he would be "voluntarily withdrawing" from the team, the suit states, even though Johnnie did not want to leave Northwestern. The complaint also alleges that unknown individuals within Northwestern falsified timecards in an attempt to create misconduct as grounds for taking away Johnnie's athletic scholarship (going so far as to even misspell his name on one such timecard), and even asked about his willingness to accept a cash payment to "go away," among other things. Amid Northwestern's tactics, Johnnie reached out to multiple Division I basketball programs and received uniform responses: they would bring Johnnie onto their program if he could play right away, according to the lawsuit. Because Johnnie could not play right away due to the anticompetitive rules, the schools would not accept him. "This case is a prime example of the catch-22 that student- athletes are forced into," Mr. Berman said. "And while NCAA- member universities play fast and loose with the readily available athletic talent they recruit, there are real futures on the line, and real student-athletes are suffering because of these systemic, overbearing regulations that take away their options." The suit states that Johnnie no longer has an athletic scholarship and no longer plays Division I basketball. Instead of pursuing his dream of playing professional basketball after graduation, he is forced to train on his own in an effort to keep up his skills honed through years of competitive basketball. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Finds Standing in Data Breach Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Rajesh De, Esq. -- rde@mayerbrown.com -- Stephen Lilley, Esq. -- slilley@mayerbrown.com -- and Joshua Silverstein, Esq. -- jsilverstein@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown, in an article for International Law office, reports that on September 12 2016 -- in Galaria v Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co (15-3386/15-3387)(1) -- the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiffs in two related lawsuits properly alleged standing to pursue claims that had arisen from a 2012 attack on the defendant insurer's computer network. The court's unpublished opinion addressed two questions that are frequently litigated in data breach cases: -- whether the plaintiffs had alleged an injury-in-fact required for constitutional standing; and -- whether any such alleged injury was fairly traceable to the acts of the defendant and thus sufficient to establish the requisite causation. The court decided both questions in favour of the plaintiffs. It did so over a dissent that concluded that it was unnecessary for the panel to weigh in on the "existing circuit split regarding whether an increased risk of identity theft is an Article III injury" because the plaintiffs had alleged no facts indicating that the company was responsible for the acts of third-party criminal hackers. Background The plaintiffs' claims arose from a cyberattack on the insurer's computer network, in which criminal hackers allegedly accessed the plaintiffs' personal information. The company responded to the incident by offering "a year of free credit monitoring and identity-fraud protection of up to $1 million through a third- party vendor". The insurer also advised customers to set up fraud alerts and place security freezes on their credit reports, while noting that these steps could impede access to credit and/or cost a small fee. The plaintiffs alleged that they had taken these steps and thus had "expend[ed] time and money" as a result of the data breach. Both plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints alleging negligence and other claims. The Southern District of Ohio dismissed the claims, concluding, among other things, that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. In reaching this decision, the district court relied on Supreme Court decisions such as Clapper v Amnesty International USA,(2) holding that a plaintiff lacks standing when he or she merely alleges a risk of future harm that is not certainly impending. The district court also recognised that other courts, including the Third Circuit, have previously held that alleged "time and money expenditures" to mitigate the risk of speculative future injuries are inadequate to establish standing.(3) Decision However, the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision. The majority held that the "[p]laintiffs' allegations of a substantial risk of harm, coupled with reasonably incurred mitigation costs, [were] sufficient to establish a cognizable Article III injury at the pleading stage". It said that, because the plaintiffs' data had already been stolen, there was "no need for speculation" that they faced a substantial risk and were thus justified in taking action to mitigate it. The defendant's letter to the plaintiffs and its decision to offer free credit monitoring services were cited as indicative of the "severity of the risk". The court concluded that "[w]here a data breach targets personal information, a reasonable inference can be drawn that the hackers will use the victims' data for the fraudulent purposes alleged in Plaintiffs' complaints". The court noted that "[a]lthough [Defendant] offered to provide some [risk mitigation] services for a limited time, Plaintiffs allege that the risk is continuing, and that they have also incurred costs to obtain protections -- namely, credit freezes -- that [Defendant] recommended but did not cover". The court thus viewed the case not as one in which the plaintiffs sought to "manufacture standing" through incurring unreasonable mitigation costs, but rather as one in which the costs were "a concrete injury suffered to mitigate an imminent harm". The panel described this analysis of constitutional injury as consistent with that of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits in Lewert v PF Chang's China Bistro Inc;(4) Remijas v Neiman Marcus Group LLC;(5) and Krottner v Starbucks Corp.(6) The panel acknowledged that the "Third Circuit reached a different conclusion in Reilly v Ceridian Corp", but found it distinct because in that case the plaintiffs had not alleged "the intentional theft of their data". The panel went on to hold that the plaintiffs had adequately pled the other two elements of Article III standing: causation and redressability. The court's decision was not recommended for publication, meaning that it will not bind future Sixth Circuit panels. Judge Alice Batchelder dissented from the majority's finding that the plaintiffs had adequately pled a causal connection between the insurer's alleged conduct and their alleged injury. The dissent noted that the "plaintiffs make no factual allegations regarding how the hackers were able to breach [the company]'s system, nor do they indicate what [it] might have done to prevent that breach but failed to do". The dissent also concluded that the plaintiffs did not allege causation sufficient to satisfy the second element of Article III standing because "[i]n short, there is no allegation of fact in either complaint that makes plausible the notion that [Defendant] is at all responsible for the criminal acts that increased the plaintiffs' risk of identity theft". In other words, the alleged injury was a direct result of the criminal actions of a third party and not of the defendant insurer. Because the dissent found the causation element of standing not satisfied, it did not comment on "whether an increased risk of identity theft is an Article III injury", but concluded instead that it was not necessary for the court to "take sides in the existing circuit split" on that question. Comment As the Galaria dissent emphasises, judicial consensus remains elusive as courts analyse standing in data breach litigation. While the impact of this unpublished opinion remains to be seen, this decision confirms that litigation over Article III standing in data breach cases is likely to continue as judges evaluate how the concepts of injury-in-fact and causation apply in the wake of criminal attacks on company networks and systems. NBTY INC: Sweat Files Third Motion for Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the case JENNIFER SWEAT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NBTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-00940-MMH-PDB), ((M.D. Fla.), has filed a third motion for class certification and for leave to supplement after discovery. The Plaintiff files this Third Motion and Memorandum for class certification after meeting and conferring with Defendant in accordance with the Local Rules. Defendant opposes this motion. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of: "All persons residing in states which have enacted the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, or any act similar in substance, who, within the applicable limitations period, have purchased dietary supplements manufactured and marketed by defendant and labeled "Made in the USA," featured an American Flag, or otherwise labeled or marketed with an unqualified representation of domestic sourcing." Alternatively, if the Court does not certify the class, the Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Florida-only class: "All persons residing in Florida who, within the applicable limitations period, have purchased dietary supplements manufactured and marketed by Defendant and labeled "Made in the USA," featured an American Flag, or otherwise labeled or marketed with an unqualified representation of domestic sourcing." The Plaintiff files this motion at the outset of the litigation pursuant to Local Rule 4.04, which requires a class certification motion to be filed "within ninety (90) days following the filing of the initial complaint." Plaintiff additionally files this motion to prevent Defendant from attempting any so-called "pick- off" to moot her representative claims (i.e., attempting to terminate her standing to assert class claims by tendering to her the full amount of her individual claims). The revised complaint noted that some district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have opined that an offer of settlement can moot a putative class representative's claims in the event that the class representative has not moved for class certification as of the time the settlement offer is made. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue ruling that pre- certification offers do not moot the case or controversy in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), however, based on the views taken by some courts in the Eleventh Circuit, The Plaintiff files this motion in an abundance of caution in order to safeguard the interests of the putative class. This case is appropriate for class certification, Plaintiff tells the Court. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class or Classes, asks the Court to issue an order that (1) the Court will hold its ruling on class certification until after discovery is held on class issues; (2) allows discovery to take place on the relevant issues; (3) grants Plaintiff leave to file a supplemental motion or brief at the conclusion of such discovery; and (4) finally grants class certification after full briefing of the issues. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definitions of the Class or Classes, as appropriate, at the conclusion of discovery on the class issues. A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1hX1js4s Attorney for Plaintiff: D. Frank Davis, Esq. John E. Norris, Esq. Kristan B. Rivers, Esq. DAVIS & NORRIS LLP 2154 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: 205-930-9900 Email: fdavis@davisnorris.com jnorris@davisnorris.com krivers@davisnorris.com Attorneys for Defendant NBTY, Inc.: James F. Speyer, Esq. E. Alex Beroukhim, Esq. Arnold & Porter LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844 Phone: (213) 243-4059 Fax: (213) 243-4199 E-mail: james.speyer@aporter.com alex.beroukhim@aporter.com - and - Dana G. Bradford II, Esq. James H. Cummings, Esq. Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP 50 N. Laura Street, Suite 2600 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 598-6103 Facsimile: (904) 598-6203 E-mail: dbradford@sgrlaw.com jcummings@sgrlaw.com NEW BOSTON PIE: "Brayak" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Badr Brayak, Ahmed Gharrari, Hamid Kaci, Adil Abdeljalil, Khalid Akouhar, Mohamed Essafi, Taoufik Bouchrit, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. New Boston Pie, Inc. and Charbel Rizkallah, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00797 (D. Mass., November 18, 2016), seeks overtime, damages including mandatory treble and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest and all other relief under Massachusetts General Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. New Boston Pie, Inc. is a Domino's franchisee and operates in East Boston, Massachusetts where Plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers. Plaintiffs were paid a tipped minimum wage (of $4.00-$4.50 per hour) that was below the regular minimum wage. Plaintiffs relied heavily on ti0070 income to earn wages. Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Churchill, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617) 607-6230 Email: stephen@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com NORTHERN TRUST: January 11 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS LOUISIANA FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF CHICAGO, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, and THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHERN TRUST INVESTMENTS, N.A., and THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, Defendants. Case No. 09-7203 Hon. Jorge L. Alonso SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) CERTIFICATION OF CLASS AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All entities that are not governed by ERISA (notwithstanding any incorporation of an ERISA standard of care or other ERISA standards into any such entity's applicable contracts with Northern Trust) and that directly invested or maintained investments or assets during the period beginning September 14, 2008 through and including December 31, 2010 (the "Class Period") in any of the Core Collateral Section, Core USA Collateral Section, Global Core Collateral Section, and/or European Core Collateral Section, also referred to as Core, Core USA, Global Core, and European Core, respectively, along with any associated term loans or non cash collateral (the "Core Pools") (the "Class").1 PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. This is to notify you that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Court") has preliminarily approved a proposed Settlement of the remaining claims asserted in above-captioned class action lawsuit (the "Action").2 Pursuant to the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to pay $4,250,000 in cash into escrow in resolution of the "Direct Lending" claims (as defined below) asserted on behalf of the Class in the Action.3 The cash settlement amount, plus interest thereon, less administrative fees, costs and attorneys' fees approved by the Court, will be distributed to Class Members according to a Plan of Allocation proposed by Co-Lead Counsel or such other plan of allocation as may be approved by the Court. Defendants have expressly denied and continue to deny all assertions of wrongdoing or liability against them in the Action and have agreed to enter into the Settlement solely to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of protracted litigation of the claims asserted on behalf of the Class. "Direct Lending" as used herein and for purposes of the proposed Settlement means any investor's participation in Northern Trust's securities lending program pursuant to an agreement to lend that investor's own securities, pursuant to which that investor's collateral from securities lending was invested in any Northern Trust collateral reinvestment vehicle. The universe of Direct Lending investors who are members of the Class is limited to those who invested in any of the Core Pools. Please note: Investment in a Commingled Lending Fund is not and does not constitute "Direct Lending" and, for purposes of the Settlement, securities lending and collateral reinvestment by a Commingled Lending Fund does not constitute Direct Lending. A hearing will be held on January 11, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. before The Honorable Jorge L. Alonso, at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Courtroom 1219, Chicago, IL 60604, to determine (a) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) whether the Direct Lending claims should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, which will be filed with the Court on or before December 7, 2016 and available for review by Class Members, should be approved. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the certification of the Class and the proposed Settlement. Defendants have identified from their records the entities they believe to be members of the Class and a more detailed notice of the pendency of the class action and proposed settlement (the "Settlement Notice") was mailed directly to each such entity on November 7, 2016. The Settlement Notice sets forth the rights of Class Members and important deadlines and is available on the website maintained by the Settlement Administrator, www.NorthernTrustClassAction.com. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. Entities which received the Settlement Notice by direct mail do not need to do anything to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Settlement proceeds if the Settlement is approved by the Court. Defendants have provided the Settlement Administrator with each identified Class Member's relevant investment information for the purpose of calculating their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund under the plan of allocation that is approved by the Court. If an identified Class Member directed Defendants not to provide this information to the Settlement Administrator and Co-Lead Counsel, such entity has forfeited all right to any distribution from the Settlement proceeds. If you did not receive a copy of the Settlement Notice by direct mail and you believe that you are a member of the Class, you have the right to challenge your omission from the Class ("Status Challenge"). To be a Class Member, you must have directly invested or maintained investments or assets in one or more of the Core Pools during the Class Period. In order to be eligible to establish your status as a Class Member, you must submit your challenge to the Settlement Administrator in writing postmarked no later than December 23, 2016 at the following address: Louisiana Firefighters' Retirement System, et al. v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A. et al., c/o GCG, P.O. Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249. The challenge must set forth a detailed statement of the basis for your belief that you are a Class Member and must include documentation in support of your position. Status Challenges will be reviewed and the challenger will be advised of the conclusion reached. If the conclusion is disputed, the challenger will have the right to request a Court review of the determination. As described more fully in the Settlement Notice, Class Members have the right to request exclusion from the Class, but any such request must comply with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice and must be received no later than December 21, 2016. Any Class Member properly requesting to be excluded from the Class will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court with respect to the Direct Lending claims and will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than December 21, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice which has been posted on the websites noted above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All inquiries concerning this notice should be directed to the Settlement Administrator at Louisiana Firefighters' Retirement System, et al. v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A. et al., c/o GCG, P.O. Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249, or to the following Co- Lead Counsel: Avi Josefson Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 875 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60611 (312) 373-3880 By Order of the Court 1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in Par. 10 of the full printed Settlement Notice described herein. 2 This notice is only a summary; the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement of Class Action dated July 25, 2016 (the "Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at www.NorthernTrustClassAction.com, controls the terms of the Settlement. 3 An initial, partial settlement of this Action that resolved all "Indirect Lending" claims asserted against the Defendants in the Action was approved by the Court on August 5, 2015. NORTHSTAR FINANCE: "Boothe" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal --------------------------------------------------------- Jack Boothe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Northstar Realty Finance Corp., David T. Hamamoto, Judith A. Hannaway, Wesley D. Minami And Louis J. Paglia, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03742 (D. Md., November 18, 2016), seeks damages, costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses and such other and further equitable relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between NRF, Colony Capital Inc. and NorthStar Asset Management Group Inc. The merged company will be renamed Colony Northstar, Inc. Northstar Realty Finance Corp. common stockholders will receive 1.0996 shares of Colony Northstar's common stock for each share of NRF common stock they own. NorthStar Asset Management Group stockholders will continue to own one share of Colony Northstar common stock for each share they previously owned. Colony common stockholders will receive 1.4663 shares of Colony Northstar's common stock for each share of Colony common stock they own. Upon completion, Northstar Realty Finance stockholders will own 33.90% of the combined company. Plaintiff, a common stock owner of Northstar Realty, alleges that they will not receive a premium for their shares and end up with a diluted ownership stake in a combined company that will be dragged down by the recent financial and corporate governance problems that have plagued Colony and NSAM. Plaintiff is represented by: Yelena Trepetin, Esq. Charles J. Piven, Esq. BROWER PIVEN - A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, MD 21153 Tel: (410) 332-0030 Fax: (410) 685-1300 Email: piven@browerpiven.com trepetin@browerpiven.com - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: 212-983-9330 Fax: 212-983-9331 PATTERN ENERGY: Jan. 10 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a securities class action has been filed against Pattern Energy Group, Inc. ("Pattern" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. This class action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased Pattern between May 9, 2016 and November 4, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Pattern's operations were defective with respect to various transaction, process level, and monitoring controls; (2) as an outcome, Pattern lacked sufficient internal financial controls; and (3) consequently, Pattern's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. To discuss this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/pegior 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 Pattern, you have until January 10, 2017 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. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of its clients. 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. PREMIER NUTRITION: "Ravinsky" Alleges Product Mislabelling ---------------------------------------------------------- Annette Ravinsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Premier Nutrition Corporation f/k/a Joint Juice, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06704 (N.D. Cal., November 18, 2016), seeks actual, punitive and statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as may be just and proper resulting from breach of express warranty and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Defendant markets, sells, and distributes Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements that improve joint comfort. Defendant asserts that the ingredient glucosamine hydrochloride will provide these significant health benefits. Plaintiff alleges that glucosamine, alone or in combination with other ingredients including chondroitin sulfate, is not effective in providing the represented joint health benefits. Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 338-1100 Fax: (619) 338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 347-3517 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Edmund S. Aronowitz GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 214-0000 Fax: (312) 214-0001 Email: alevitt@gelaw.com earonowitz@gelaw.com - and - Joseph J. Siprut SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 236-0000 Fax: (312) 948-9212 Email: jsiprut@siprut.com PREMIER NUTRITION: "Lux" Alleges Product Mislabeling in Juice ------------------------------------------------------------- Donna Lux, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Premier Nutrition Corporation f/k/a Joint Juice, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-06703 (N.D. Cal., November 18, 2016), seeks actual, punitive and statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief as may be just and proper resulting from breach of express warranty and for violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws. Defendant markets, sells, and distributes Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements that improve joint comfort. Defendant asserts that the ingredient glucosamine hydrochloride will provide these significant health benefits. Plaintiff alleges that glucosamine, alone or in combination with other ingredients including chondroitin sulfate, is not effective in providing the represented joint health benefits. Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 338-1100 Fax: (619) 338-1101 Email: tblood@bholaw.com lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 347-3517 Fax: (619) 756-6991 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Edmund S. Aronowitz GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 214-0000 Fax: (312) 214-0001 Email: alevitt@gelaw.com earonowitz@gelaw.com - and - Joseph J. Siprut SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 236-0000 Fax: (312) 948-9212 Email: jsiprut@siprut.com PRUDENTIAL BANCORP: Entered into MOU to Settle Merger Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 7, 2016, that Prudential and the Director Defendants have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the Merger Litigation. Prudential Bancorp, Inc. ("Prudential" or the "Company") and Polonia Bancorp, Inc. ("Polonia") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 2, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), providing for the merger of Polonia with and into Prudential, with Prudential as the surviving corporation (the "Proposed Merger"). Prudential (SEC File No. 333-212641) filed a definitive proxy statement/prospectus, dated as of September 13, 2016 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Merger. A putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit, Parshall v. Eugene Andruczyk et al., was initially filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (the "Circuit Court"), Case No. 423219-v, on July 21, 2016 (the "Parshall Lawsuit"). The Parshall Lawsuit names as defendants the directors of Polonia ("Director Defendants"), Polonia and Prudential. As also disclosed in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, a second putative class action lawsuit, captioned Baron v. Eugene Andruczyk et al., No. V424400, was filed in the Circuit Court on August 29, 2016 (the "Baron Lawsuit" and together with the Parshall Lawsuit, the "Merger Litigation"). The Baron Lawsuit names as defendants the Director Defendants and Polonia. The Merger Litigation alleged generally that the members of the Polonia board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Polonia shareholders by approving the Proposed Merger for inadequate consideration, entering into the Merger Agreement allegedly containing preclusive deal protection terms and that the disclosure regarding the Proposed Merger contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus was materially deficient. The Parshall Lawsuit also alleges claims against Prudential for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in these actions seek rescission, or rescissory damages in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, attorneys' fees and costs, and other and further relief. Prudential, Polonia, and the Director Defendants vigorously deny the claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the Merger Litigation. On October 6, 2016, solely to avoid the costs of protracted litigation and any potential delay of the Proposed Merger, Polonia, Prudential and the Director Defendants (Polonia, Prudential and the Director Defendants, collectively the "Defendants") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the respective plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of the Merger Litigation. Pursuant to the MOU, (i) Prudential and Polonia have agreed to file with the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of Polonia the supplemental disclosures provided below in this Current Report on Form 8-K, (ii) Polonia has agreed to waive the prohibition in the nondisclosure agreements entered into by Polonia with potential interested parties with respect to a party subject thereto being prohibited from asking Polonia to waive the standstill provisions that require such party to refrain from pursuing various actions that relate to acquisition of control of Polonia without the prior written consent of the Polonia board of directors during the specified time period, (ii) Prudential has agreed to waive the enforcement of the provision in the Merger Agreement prohibiting Polonia from waiving the foregoing restriction contained in the nondisclosure agreements, and (iv) the parties have agreed to provide each other with customary mutual releases concerning the claims related to the Merger Agreement and the Proposed Merger, including the initiation and the prosecution of any litigation, subject to approval of the Circuit Court. If the Circuit Court approves the settlement contemplated in the MOU, both the Parshall Lawsuit and the Baron Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the Proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith will be released and barred. Under the terms of the MOU, counsel for the Plaintiffs have reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Defendants have reserved the right to contest the amount of any fee and expense petition that Plaintiffs may pursue. The amount of any fees and expense awarded, if any, will ultimately be determined and approved by the court, and will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid by Prudential. Polonia or its successor or insurer will pay any fees and expenses potentially awarded by the court. In the MOU, the parties also have agreed to negotiate in good faith to prepare a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the court and other documentation as may be required to effectuate the settlement. Pursuant to the MOU, Plaintiffs' counsel is permitted to conduct reasonable confirmatory discovery as Plaintiffs' counsel believes in good faith is reasonably appropriate and necessary and as agreed to by the parties to confirm the fairness and reasonableness of the terms of the Settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU will become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such stipulation or the Circuit Court does not approve the settlement. The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting of shareholders of Polonia scheduled for October 25, 2016 in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement. Prudential and the other Defendants deny all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures previously included in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus and the provisions of the nondisclosure agreements and the Merger Agreement are appropriate under the law. Nevertheless, Prudential and the other Defendants have agreed to settle the putative class action lawsuits in order to avoid the costs, disruptions and distraction of further litigation. Prudential and the other Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuits, and expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens and entered into the MOU solely to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K, the MOU or any stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein or any of the waivers agreed to by Polonia and Prudential. ROBINSON NURSING: Judge Rules Out Conflict of Interest ------------------------------------------------------ Emily Mongan, writing for McKnight's, reports that an Arkansas Supreme Court justice who received campaign funds from a nursing home owner said she has no plans to hand off hearing an appeal in a wrongful death lawsuit against him. The lawsuit was brought against Michael Morton, owner of Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in North Little Rock, AK, by the family of a resident who died at the facility in 2014. Mr. Morton then requested an appeal of a court's decision that the lawsuit be given class-action status. The resident's family filed a motion to recuse Justice Rhonda Wood from hearing the appeal, saying a $40,000 campaign contribution Mr. Morton gave her in 2013 created a conflict of interest. In her decision, Justice Wood wrote that the total amount of Mr. Morton's contribution was "insufficient to warrant disqualification," and that the time that has passed between her campaign and the appeal's expected spring 2017 hearing date was a "sufficient cooling-off period." "All judges have a duty to recuse when the situation warrants but we also have an equal duty to sit when the facts do not justify doing otherwise," Justice Wood wrote. "Injustice occurs when one makes the wrong decision either way, which is why I certainly did not make this decision lightly." Mr. Morton's campaign contributions landed another official, former circuit court judge Michael Maggio, in hot water in 2015. Judge Maggio reduced negligence damages against another facility owned by Morton from $5.2 million to $1 million. He admitted it was in exchange for a $24,000 campaign donation; the scheme landed him a 10-year prison sentence. SAMARCO MINERACAO: Jan. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Nov. 14 announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Samarco Mineracao S.A. ("Samarco" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-08800, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Samarco's 10-year notes respectively due 2022, 2023, and 2024 (collectively, the "Notes") between October 31, 2012 and November 30, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Samarco's Notes during the Class Period, you have until January 13, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Samarco is a privately held Brazilian mining company, controlled in equal parts by the Brazilian mining company Vale S.A. ("Vale") and the Australian mining company BHP Billiton Limited ("BHP"). The Company's main product is iron ore pellets, made from minerals with low ore content and sold to steel makers worldwide. Between 2012 and 2014, Samarco conducted at least three debt offerings. In 2012, the Company offered an aggregate principal amount of $1 billion of 4.125% notes due 2022 (the "2022 Notes"). In 2013, the Company offered an aggregate principal amount of $700 million of 5.75% notes due 2023 (the "2023 Notes"). In 2014, the Company offered an aggregate principal amount of $500 million of 5.375% notes due 2024 (the "2024 Notes"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's Fundao tailings dam had longstanding systemic and structural defects; (ii) despite representing to investors that Samarco had mitigated the risk of a catastrophic accident as much as possible through "a combination of risk management, careful evaluation, experience and knowledge," Samarco had in fact ignored repeated, reliable warnings regarding the condition of the Fundao tailings dam; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Samarco's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On November 5, 2015, Samarco's Fundao tailings dam burst, causing the downstream Santarem water dam to overflow, flooding 60 million cubic meters of land, decimating the indigenous village of Bento Rodrigues, and contaminating the Rio Doce River and the water supply for 200 towns with arsenic, lead, chromium and various other heavy metals. Subsequent investigations revealed that Samarco had for years disregarded safety concerns raised with respect to the Fundao dam, refusing to implement an emergency management plan, disregarding warnings of design deficiencies and the consequences of expanding the dam, and ignoring recommendations to install pressure sensors and monitor the dam even after cracks appeared in it. Brazilian prosecutors have accused Samarco of deliberate misconduct, charged 21 of its executives with qualified homicide in connection with the dam's failure, and are seeking billions of dollars in compensatory and environmental recovery fees from the Company. Samarco has not resumed its mining operations since the collapse. The offering memoranda issued in connection with Samarco's offerings of the Notes and the annual management reports issued by Samarco during the Class Period misrepresented material facts concerning the Company's programs and procedures to mitigate environmental, health and safety concerns associated with its tailings dams. When the truth about the Company's operations was revealed by the collapse of the Fundao dam and investigation into its causes, the value of Samarco's Notes significantly declined, harming investors. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Sanderson Farms, Inc. (the "Registrant"); Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer; and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the Registrant's SEC filings and press releases, and other public statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of the Registrant's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal antitrust laws. A separate putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Registrant related to those alleged violations, as reported in the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on September 6, 2016. The complaint also alleges that the material misstatements were made in order to, among other things, "artificially inflate and maintain the market price of Sanderson Farms securities." The complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The lawsuit is in its earliest stage and the defendants intend to defend it vigorously. SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: Settles Truck Drivers' Class Action for $28MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- S. Laney Griffo, writing for Northern California Record, reports that Schneider National Carriers Inc. has signed a $28 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought against it by a group of truck drivers. The case was originally filed in November 2008 by Morris Bickley. Similar cases also were filed by Michael D. Pratton, Raymond Grewe, Dennis Vanhorn and Douglass Pumroy who were all California- based employees of Schneider National Carriers. In January 2012, Schneider filed a motion for summary judgment. "Shortly after [they filed for summary judgment], they entered into settlement agreements," Paul Taylor, an attorney with Truckers Justice Center, told the Northern California Record. On Sept. 7, 2012, the court granted a class certification. According to the order on motion for class certification, the plaintiffs claimed Schneider didn't "pay minimum wages for all hours worked under California law, pay for all miles actually driven under California law, quantum merit for failure to pay for all hours worked and miles driven, provide meal periods and rest breaks, failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements and failure to pay accrued vacation at rate required by California law." Approximately 7,700 current or former California-based drivers of Schneider are affected by this lawsuit. Despite settling, Schneider did not believe it was in the wrong. "Defendant denies any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the claims being released herein. Defendant contends, among other things, that it has complied at all times with all applicable California laws and asserts that the members of the class were properly compensated for all time worked, and otherwise treated at all times in compliance with California law," the settlement agreement stated. Schneider settled, however, "in the interest of avoiding costs and disruption of ongoing litigation," which was stated in the settlement agreement. The terms of the agreement said slightly little more than $20 million will be split among the members of the class, which includes California-based intermodal drivers, dedicated drivers or regional drivers who work for Schneider from Nov. 25, 2004, to the present. The remaining settlement money will be split between regional subclass groups who had a residence in California, worked in Schneider's van/truckload division, worked in Schneider's western regional services group and was assigned to the French Camp or Fontana operating centers. On Oct. 13, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White issued his approval of the settlement. Although thousands of truck drivers qualify for the settlement, Mr. Taylor does not believe the settlement is significant to the industry. "There is nothing of precedential value because it was settled and there was no court decision made," Mr. Taylor said. Mr. Taylor also said many cases similar to this one have been heard in the courts and there will continue to be similar cases litigated in the future. "The only reason this one got attention is because it was against such a big company," Mr. Taylor said. According to the Journal of Commerce, Schneider is the largest privately owned truaffectsompany. Schneider currently has more than 11,000 company drivers and an annual revenue of about $4 billion. Mr. Taylor predicted the next wave of trucking industry wage disputes will be over whether or not drivers are independent contractors and how that effects their wages and benefits. SCRANTON, PA: Sewer Authority Faces Class Action Over Sale ---------------------------------------------------------- Jim Lockwood, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports that six Scranton and Dunmore residents filed a class-action lawsuit against the Scranton Sewer Authority claiming its condemnation easements for old sewer lines under their homes do not pay them enough for their devalued properties. Filed recently in Lackawanna County Court, the lawsuit stems from the authority's pending $195 million sale of the sewer system of Scranton and Dunmore to Pennsylvania American Water Co. In preparing for a sale's transfer of assets, the sewer authority undertook an inventory of its easements earlier this year and discovered inexplicable gaps in easements for older sewer lines running under 600 private properties. The authority sent letters a few months ago to homeowners offering $100 per easement to expedite the process, or the authority would pursue condemnations. Those processes have been underway since then. Authority officials explained that easements must be in place for potential emergency-repair access to properties. The lawsuit claims the authority failed to get the easements when sewer lines were installed many years ago. When the plaintiffs later bought their homes, they never knew that old sewer lines ran under their properties because the authority never obtained proper easements, the lawsuit says. Forcing the homeowners to provide easements now for $100 amounts to unjust compensation, the lawsuit says. The plaintiffs -- Robert and Ann Marie Hadley of Jefferson Avenue in Dunmore, Anthony and Megan Moses and Sean Boylan, all of Fisk Street in Scranton, and Jill Kowalski of Sixth Avenue in Scranton -- seek unspecified damages. The sewer lines without easements diminish property values and deny the owners "the benefit of their bargains" they sought in buying the properties, the lawsuit says. The plaintiffs also seek certification as a class action on behalf of others in the same situation, and for a court to determine fair compensation for the easements. After the authority agreed on March 30 to sell the sewer system, it rushed to get generic, retroactive easements to ensure the sale would proceed, the lawsuit says. By offering $100 per easement or threatening condemnation, the authority "is simply trying to retroactively legitimize this unlawful taking without just compensation," the lawsuit continues. The broad easements sought do not specify boundaries of rights of way, and do not give any assurances that properties would be restored to original conditions after potential underground repair work. Efforts to contact a sewer authority solicitor were unsuccessful. The state Public Utility Commission conditionally approved the sewer sale Oct. 6. The water company and sewer authority hope to complete the transaction by the end of the year. Sewer deal amended As required by the state Public Utility Commission's conditional approval of the sale of Scranton's sewer system to Pennsylvania American Water Co., the firm and Scranton Sewer Authority removed an aspect of the deal that PUC opposed because it could have made the $195 million purchase price open-ended. An Amended Purchase Agreement filed recently with PUC deletes a financial mechanism called a "variance adjustment" that PUC found could have raised the total price a decade from now. That was because the company initially agreed to cap the growth of rates for Scranton and Dunmore customers at 1.9 percent per year over 10 years, or pay an increased sale price -- the variance adjustment -- if revenues exceeded the cap. The amended agreement removes the variance adjustment, continues the rate cap and says the firm "shall have reasonable discretion" to address rate increases, subject to future PUC approvals. SP AUSNET: Judge Wants Hearing on Bushfire Class Action Costs ------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian reports that judges overseeing the record -- setting Black Saturday bushfire class actions have called for sworn evidence from an independent auditor scrutinising law firm Maurice Blackburn's handling of the settlements, worth more than $790 million. The move to hear testimony from costs law specialist John White came on Nov. 14 as Maurice Blackburn warned it might take legal action against the Australian Taxation Office challenging an unfavourable tax assessment that would further reduce the pool of money available to the bushfire's victims. More than two years since the firm announced it had negotiated a $494m settlement -- the largest in Australia's class-action history -- for victims of the Kilmore East-Kinglake blaze, the vast bulk of the payments are yet to be made. Members of the Murrindindi-Marysville class action, which settled shortly afterwards for $300m, are similarly waiting to receive their share of the settlement. Victorian Supreme Court judge Jack Forrest, who is overseeing Maurice Blackburn's administration of the Kilmore East settlement scheme, on Nov. 14 said a specific hearing on the firm's costs was warranted once Mr. White provided an updated report examining the costs up until October. He asked for Mr. White to attend court to answer questions on whether the costs incurred in administering the scheme had been reasonable. "I think that will help us," Justice Forrest told Maurice Blackburn's class actions head Andrew Watson, following agreement from fellow judge John Dixon, who is overseeing the Murrin-dindi- Marysville case. "There might be some questions that arise; I'm not sure whether there will be." A number of bushfire victims involved in the class action have questioned the firm's handling of the settlement scheme amid concerns about the escalating costs bill and delays in processing compensation claims. A new affidavit by Mr. Watson says more than $34m has been charged so far to administer the two bushfire settlements, on top of fees for running the class actions. The firm is now seeking to be paid a further $9.5m for administration costs and disbursements, including $3.2m for costs incurred in May and June -- more than double the amount approved by Justice Forrest for the same period previously. The firm's partners have reaped record dividends from the class action windfalls, totalling more than $16m in one year. Mr. Watson said he now expected bushfire victims who lodged successful personal injuries claims to receive their settlement money by the end of the year. Victims who suffered economic loss and property damage won't receive their shares until early next year. He said the ATO had advised the firm during the past fortnight that interest earned on the settlements was liable to tax and none of the settlement scheme's costs were deductible -- meaning a further $20m could be lost to victims. "It is a double whammy," he said. "I'm obliged to now get legal advice about the position with a view as to whether or not we challenge the assessment." Outside court, Kinglake survivor Vicki Ruhr welcomed the court's move to hear further evidence about Maurice Blackburn's handling of the settlement sums. "It's absolutely essential," she said. "There needs to be some sort of extra oversight." SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Court Oks Certification in "Jackson" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez granted the Plaintiff's motion for notice to potential plaintiffs and conditional certification filed in the lawsuit titled DEDRA JACKSON v. SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN, INC., and CENTENE COMPANY OF TEXAS LP, Case No. 3:15-CV-3125-L (N.D. Tex.). On September 25, 2015, Dedra Jackson brought the collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation against her former employers, Superior Healthplan, Inc. and Centene Company of Texas. In her memorandum opinion and order, Judge Ramirez directs the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with a list of the names, last known mailing addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all current and former Field Service Coordinators (who were categorized, known, or identified specifically as Level 2, Level II, LPN, LVN, or LCSW Field Service Coordinators) who worked for Defendants in the state of Texas from April 2013 to the present and were paid primarily on a salaried basis in a computer readable format within 14 days from the date of the order. The notice and consent form provided to potential class members should conform to the Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form, Judge Ramirez notes. Potential plaintiffs should be given notice of the lawsuit and their right to opt-in via first class mail or e-mail, and they may submit their consent forms no later than 60 days after the initial mailing. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/I07YmJ from Leagle.com. Plaintiff Dedra Jackson is represented by: Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 North Central Expy., Suite 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 706-0834 Facsimile: (469) 339-0204 E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz - and - J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 North Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com forester@l-b-law.com Defendants Superior Healthplan Inc. and Centene Company of Texas LP are represented by: Kimberly Rives Miers, Esq. Saba Harim Alvi, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2001 Ross Avenue Suite 1500, Lock Box 116 Dallas, TX 75201-2931 Telephone: (214) 880-8180 E-mail: kmiers@littler.com SAlvi@littler.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles Truck Frames Class Action for $3.4 Bil. ------------------------------------------------------------- David Bailey, writing for Reuters, reports that Toyota Motor Corp. has agreed to a settlement of up to $3.4 billion for a federal class action brought by U.S. owners of pickup trucks and SUVs whose frames could rust through, plaintiffs lawyers have said in court papers. The proposed settlement covers about 1.5 million Tacoma compact pickups, Tundra full-size pickups and Sequoia SUVs alleged to have received inadequate rust protection that could lead to corrosion serious enough to jeopardize their structural integrity, according to court papers. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in court papers supporting the settlement estimated the value of frame replacements at about $3.375 billion based on a cost of about $15,000 per vehicle and the inspections at about $90 million at $60 per vehicle. Toyota admitted no liability or wrongdoing in the proposed settlement filed on Nov. 9 before U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin in Los Angeles. "We want our customers to have a great ownership experience, so we are pleased to resolve this litigation in a way that benefits them and demonstrates that we stand behind the quality and reliability of our vehicles," Toyota said in a statement. Under the settlement terms, Toyota will inspect the vehicles for 12 years from the day they were first sold or leased to determine whether frames need to be replaced at company expense and reimburse owners who previously paid for frame replacement. The settlement reached on Oct. 31 covers Tacoma trucks from the model years 2005 through 2010, Sequoias from 2005 through 2008 and Tundras from the 2007 and 2008 model years. Toyota also agreed to pay $9.75 million in attorneys' fees, $150,000 in costs and expenses, and $2,500 each to the named eight class representatives as well as the cost of advertising the settlement. In a separate report, Anthony Wood, writing for WNCT, said court filings show that the settlement reached on October 31st covers nearly one and a half million vehicles. TRANSWORLD SYSTEM: Class Certification Sought in "Young" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the case captioned JESSICA YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TRANSWORLD SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10551, (N.D. Ill.), moves, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for class certification, and requests that the Court allow her to represent a class of all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt via its form affidavit by filing the same in a collection lawsuit and from whom Defendant sought to collect interest that Defendant claimed to have accrued after charge-off of the debt at issue, from one year before the date of this Complaint to the present. The action seeks a finding that Defendant's form affidavit violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; that Defendant's practice of seeking to collect interest alleged to have accrued on debts after charge-off violates the FDCPA; and asks that the Court award damages as authorized by Section 1692k(a)(2) of the FDCPA. Plaintiff further requests that briefing on the Motion be stayed pending discovery as to class issues, such as net worth and numerosity. Plaintiff is filing this motion now in conformance with the Seventh Circuit's decision in Damasco v. Clearwire Corporation, 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), in order to avoid a "buy-off" settlement offer, or Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, to Ms. Young only, which could potentially wipe out the Class' claims. When class discovery is completed, Plaintiff will file a Memorandum in Support of her motion. A copy of the November 16 Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tuEQ7LJ5 Jessica Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated is represented by: Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq. 100 N. Main, Suite 11 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: 877-314-3223 Fax: 888-632-6937 E-mail: nathan@mainstreet-law.com TRINET GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Welgus" Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing was held November 3, 2016, on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint by Howard Welgus. On or about August 7, 2015, Howard Welgus, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit arising under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case has not been certified as a class action, although it purports to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive. The name of the case is Welgus v. TriNet Group, Inc. et al. No stockholder other than Mr. Welgus submitted a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff to represent the putative class, and, on December 3, 2015, the Court appointed Mr. Welgus as lead plaintiff. On February 1, 2016, Mr. Welgus filed a consolidated complaint. The defendants named in that complaint were the Company and certain of its officers and directors, as well as General Atlantic, LLC, a significant shareholder, and formerly majority shareholder, of the Company. Shortly before the scheduled date for the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, Mr. Welgus sought leave to further amend the consolidated complaint. The amended complaint was deemed filed by Mr. Welgus on April 1, 2016. The amended complaint expanded the class period to March 27, 2014 through February 29, 2016, and added as defendants the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and additional directors of the Company. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company and other defendants caused damage to purchasers of the Company's stock by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose facts generally pertaining to alleged trends affecting health insurance and workers compensation claims. On June 20, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. On August 19, 2016, Mr. Welgus filed an opposition to the motion, which is now fully briefed and set for a hearing before the Court on November 3, 2016. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against this action and intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against the allegations of Mr. Welgus. TriNet is a provider of comprehensive HR solutions for small to midsize businesses under a co-employment model. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trump's Lawyers File Motion to Delay Trial ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Donald Trump's attorneys filed a motion to delay until after the presidential inauguration a class- action fraud lawsuit involving the president-elect and his now- defunct Trump University. In the motion filed on Nov. 12 in San Diego federal court, Mr. Trump's lawyer Daniel Petrocelli argues that the extra months would give both sides time to possibly reach a settlement. Mr. Petrocelli lays out a detailed plan that would postpone the trial until sometime soon after the Jan. 20 inauguration to allow the president-elect to focus his time and energy on the transition to the White House, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported. The lawsuit alleging Trump University failed on its promise to teach success in real estate was scheduled to begin Nov. 28. The motion also requests that Mr. Trump be excused from having to testify live or in person. Instead, his lawyers argue he should be allowed to be questioned by both sides in a videotaped deposition for trial purposes either shortly before Jan. 20 -- when his transition duties would be nearly complete -- or at a later time. That video would then be played at trial. Mr. Petrocelli asks that the specific date and location of the recording would be kept secret, until trial, the newspaper said. In addition, the video testimony would be used not only in this case, but in a similar Trump University lawsuit also in San Diego that is not as close to trial -- ensuring Trump won't have to testify twice. "The videotaped testimony will ensure no additional delay of trial based on future scheduling unpredictability," Mr. Petrocelli wrote. If U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denies the motion, Mr. Petrocelli requests an immediate stay on the proceedings so he can appeal to a higher court. Judge Curiel was informed on Nov. 10 during a hearing in the case that Trump would be seeking a continuance. The judge didn't signal how he would rule on the request for a trial delay, but he encouraged efforts to settle. He has been reluctant to postpone the 6-1/2-year-old case any longer. The lawsuit filed in 2010 on behalf of former customers says Trump University gave seminars and classes across the country under the guise of being an accredited school, which it wasn't, and pressured people to spend up to $35,000 on mentorships from Mr. Trump's "hand-picked" instructors. The claims largely mirror another class-action complaint in San Diego and a lawsuit in New York. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Class Action Lawyers Want Trial to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico, reports that lawyers pursuing a federal class-action fraud lawsuit over Donald Trump's Trump University real-estate program are urging a judge to press forward with a trial scheduled to begin later this month, even if that means forgoing any new testimony from the president-elect. Citing his pressing transition-related obligations, Mr. Trump's lawyers are asking that the trial set for Nov. 28 be delayed until sometime after the inauguration, with Mr. Trump providing in the next two months a new round of prerecorded testimony to be shown to jurors when the trial takes place. However, in a court filing on Nov. 14, plaintiffs lawyers warned U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel that that any further delays in the case risk rolling the case into Mr. Trump's presidency and ever more protracted postponements. "We do know that any delay would be a slippery slope because President-Elect Trump's life is only going to get more complicated and unpredictable as time goes by," lawyers for the former Trump University students wrote. "Plaintiffs have waited more than six- and-a-half years for their day in court, and it would be an injustice to them and undermine the independence and truth-seeking function of the judiciary to ask them to wait until Trump assumes office and the demands of the presidency turn from mere preparation to actual practice . . . . This trial, like so many Trump University student-victims' credit-card bills, is past due." Plaintiffs' lawyers are urging that the trial go on as scheduled and that both sides be required to work with the more than ten hours of deposition testimony Mr. Trump has already given on the subject. "There is no reason to believe President-Elect Trump has any additional admissible testimony to offer, let alone testimony so important that he would be prejudiced if he is not able to present it at trial," the class-action lawyers wrote. At a hearing, Judge Curiel urged both sides to pursue settlement talks. The plaintiffs' filing refers in passing to the possibility of settlement, but argues that prospect won't be brought any closer by deferring the trial date until sometime after the inauguration. "No case has ever gotten closer to resolution by postponing trial," the plaintiffs' attorneys observe. The suit set for trial is one of two class-action lawsuits over Trump University pending in front of Judge Curiel in San Diego. Both involve claims that the real-estate seminar and mentorship program defrauded students by falsely claiming that instructors were handpicked by Trump and by promoting the idea that the program was part of an accredited university. The suit set first for trial involves claims students from California, New York and Florida have leveled under strict consumer fraud laws in those states. The follow-on case is nationwide in scope and involves racketeering claims under federal law. Mr. Trump's recent motion, filed on Nov.12, proposes that he give one more round of videotaped testimony to be shown at trials in both federal suits. If a settlement is reached, it would also likely cover both cases. Trump University also faces a suit New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman brought in that state's courts, alleging that the seminar program continued to use that name there even after being warned that state law prohibits businesses from calling themselves universities unless they are properly accredited. Mr. Trump's lawyers contend that any exaggerations in the marketing of Trump University amounted to mere "puffery." They also say that any misstatements were immaterial since the vast majority of students said in evaluation questionnaires or videos that they were satisfied with the program. Judge Curiel has seemed eager to get on with the trial and he rebuffed an earlier request for delay due to a conflict with another case being handled by Mr. Trump's lawyers. However, it's unclear if the judge fully considered the possibility that Mr. Trump would be president-elect as work began to seat a jury in the case. A ruling on the pending motion is expected quickly. U.S. SECURITY: Meal Break Subclass Decertification Sought --------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case captioned MUHAMMED ABDULLAH, as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-09554-GHK (Ex), (Los Angeles Superior Court BC405465), asks the Court to decertify a meal period subclass. The Court certified this on-duty meal period class in January 2011 based on preliminary findings ascertained from a thin factual record in pre-certification discovery, the motion recalls. Merits discovery has established that the "facts" underpinning Plaintiffs' staffing model theory are either incorrect or incomplete. Moreover, U.S. Security has produced substantial evidence demonstrating that it does not have a single-guard staffing model but rather staffs guards at each site to align with the Client's security needs. The evidence also demonstrates that U.S. Security does not have a company policy requiring on-duty meal periods. Rather, U.S. Security provides dutyfree meal periods at numerous work sites, and guards can revoke their on-duty meal period agreements and receive off-duty meal periods to the extent a position is available. The fully developed record also establishes that the nature of the work dictates the need for on-duty meal periods, not U.S. Security's scheduling decisions. Determining the lawfulness of on-duty meal periods requires site, post and shift specific inquiries. Moreover, the reasonableness of Plaintiffs' primary contention -- that U.S. Security must staff as many guards as necessary to provide all guards with off-duty meal breaks -- cannot be decided by common proof, asserts the motion. Thus, U.S. Security asks the Court exercise its discretion to decertify the meal break subclass. The Court will convene a hearing on January 23, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. to consider the decertification motion. A copy of the November 16 Notice of Motion and accompanying Memorandum is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QKQ3ic0q Attorneys for Defendant U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC. are: Julie E. Patterson, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92612-4414 Telephone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 E-Mail: jepatterson@bryancave.com - and - Brian A. Sher, Esq. Mariangela M. Seale, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LLP 161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60601-3315 Telephone: (312) 602-5000 Facsimile: (312) 602-5050 E-Mail: brian.sher@bryancave.com merili.Seale@bryancave.com UNITED STATES: Nat'l Guard Vets Want Bonus Payback Issue Resolved ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBSLA.com reports that thousands of men and women, who served in the California National Guard, made a plea on Veterans Day to President Obama and President-Elect Trump to do more to help soldiers who were forced to pay back enlistment bonuses. "We would love a one-on-one, face-to-face with President Trump or President Obama," California National Guard soldier Sgt. Bryan Strother said. He called for a president's executive order to end the California National Guard's bonus controversy once and for all. Thousands of soldiers like him were forced to pay back large incentive bonuses given to them improperly a decade ago. After public outcry last month, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter suspended those efforts to recoup money. He said a new plan will start in January and all cases will be reviewed by July. But Sgt. Strother isn't satisfied. He and his attorney filed this response as part of their class action lawsuit, saying in part: "Plaintiff's appeal process took four (4) Years and is average at best. To Review all cases within six (6) Months (January to July) Would equate to the appeal process working at least eight (8) times faster, which is unrealistic." "They haven't done anything but kick the can down the road to the next administration, Sgt. Strother said. He said that next administration comes with uncertainty and unknown defense leaders. So on behalf of veterans on Veterans Day, this soldier asked for more action. "If they want to show appreciation for veterans, keep those contractual promises," Sgt. Strothers added. He said the Defense Department's plan also doesn't address the promise of student loan forgiveness and what to do about veterans' credit scores that have been impacted. UNITED STATES: Ordered to Implement Immigration Bond System ----------------------------------------------------------- Sam Stecklow, writing for Fusion, reports that in a 41-page injunction released late on Nov. 10, federal Judge Jesus G. Bernal ordered the U.S. government to implement reforms to the immigration bond system that are roughly the same as the constitutional requirements for criminal cases. Immigration judges must now consider whether or not someone awaiting deportation proceedings can afford to pay a bond. "This important ruling recognizes that no person, regardless of immigration status, should be locked up merely because he or she is poor, and will help to put an end to the government's unnecessary detention of immigrants who present no risk to the community," ACLU of Southern California staff attorney Michael Kauffman said in a statement. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of SoCal, the national ACLU, and pro bono attorneys from a powerful New York City firm on behalf of immigrants stuck in detention facilities for years simply because they can't afford to bond out. As the national ACLU's Michael Tan writes, "Imprisoning people because they're poor -- whether citizens or immigrants -- violates our fundamental commitments to due process and equal protection. Indeed, the Department of Justice has argued that locking up criminal defendants "because of their inability to pay for their release" is unconstitutional." In his ruling, Judge Bernal also granted the lawsuit class action status, including immigrants in the federal court district who have had a bond set but not been able to pay it. UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses IRS Data Breach Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Natasha Saggar Sheth, Esq. -- nsaggarsheth@nossaman.com -- of Nossaman LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that, the Internal Revenue Service successfully defeated a putative class action related to a data breach it suffered in 2015. The D.C. District Court's decision dismissing the suit demonstrates the high bar required to hold a federal agency accountable for lapses in cybersecurity. In Welborn v. IRS (Case No. 15-1352, D.D.C.), Plaintiffs Becky Welborn, Wendy Windrich and Beth DuPree, on behalf of a proposed class, sued the IRS in connection with a cyberattack on the agency's website in which over 300,000 tax-related documents were stolen. Plaintiffs alleged that the IRS violated their rights under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq., and the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 6103, by "disclosing or failing to prevent the disclosure of their personal identification information to third parties." Standing Sufficient Only Where Actual Injury and Causation Shown As an initial matter, the court determined that only two of the three named plaintiffs had standing to bring suit. Mses. Welborn and Wendrich, who had suffered actual identity theft when someone filed false tax returns and claimed fraudulent refunds in their names, had shown sufficient injury-in-fact and causal connection to the IRS data breach to establish standing to sue for monetary damages. Ms. DuPree's claims, however, were dismissed for failure to show causation. Although Ms. DuPree alleged that (1) the IRS notified her that her personal information may have been hacked; (2) no other entity had informed her of a similar data breach; and, (3) she had been the victim of at least two instances of fraudulent activity in her financial accounts following the IRS data breach, the court ruled that there was no nexus showing that the data obtained from the IRS breach was necessarily used to perpetrate the fraud on her accounts. Simply alleging that the financial fraud happened after the data breach was insufficient. Failure to State a Claim Under the Privacy Act and the Internal Revenue Code The court also dismissed Plaintiffs' claims under the Privacy Act for failure to state a claim for actual damages related to the IRS's alleged failure to safeguard plaintiffs' personal information. The court ruled that the fraudulent tax returns filed in plaintiffs' names, the lost time and money spent dealing with data theft and future credit monitoring, and the heightened risk of further identity theft did not equate to actual pecuniary or material damage related to the IRS data breach. Sovereign immunity protects the Federal Government from liability for reputational or emotional harm. Similarly, sovereign immunity barred Plaintiffs' claims under the Internal Revenue Code. Finally, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs had no standing to sue for equitable relief under the APA as there was no allegation of an ongoing threat to their personal information, and that there is no private right of action under the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA). Needless to say, Courts will set a very high bar for plaintiffs to allege standing to sue governmental agencies for data breaches. UNITED STATES: Texas Patriots Tea Party Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that nearly seven years after it applied to the IRS for nonprofit status, the Albuquerque Tea Party has finally been given a decision: Denied. The tax agency, under orders from a federal judge, is belatedly tackling the remaining tea party cases that it delayed for years, and so far the tea party isn't doing well. Only one of the three groups in the case was approved, and the other two, including Albuquerque, got notices of proposed denials. The applicants will have a chance to appeal, but the denials aren't sitting well with the groups, whose attorney said it's more evidence that the IRS continues to single out the tea party for abuse. "It is clear that we still have an IRS that is corrupt and incapable of self-correction," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented a number of tea party groups in a case against the tax agency. The one group that was approved was Unite in Action, a Michigan- based organization that first applied for tax-exempt status more than six years ago. The Albuquerque Tea Party and Tri Cities Tea Party from Washington state were notified of proposed denials. Still to come is a decision on Texas Patriots Tea Party, a group that is part of a separate class-action lawsuit out of Ohio. A judge in that case ruled that the IRS was likely violating the group's First Amendment rights by delaying its application and ordered the tax agency to process and decide on the application. He called for a president's executive order to end the California National Guard's bonus controversy once and for all. VIRGIN AMERICA: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Bernstein" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jon S. Tigar grants the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denies the Defendant's motion to strike the expert report of David Breshears in the lawsuit entitled JULIA BERNSTEIN, et al. v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., Case No. 15-cv-02277- JST (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs are flight attendants, who currently work or have previously worked for Virgin America, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege that Virgin did not pay them for hours worked before, after, and between flights; time spent in training; time on reserve; time spent taking mandatory drug tests; and time spent completing incident reports. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted as to these class and subclasses: Class: All individuals who have worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin America, Inc. at any time during the period from March 18, 2011 (four years from the filing of the original Complaint) through the date established by the Court for notice of certification of the Class (the Class Period). California Resident Subclass: All individuals who have worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin America, Inc. while residing in California at any time during the Class Period. Waiting Time Penalties Subclass: All individuals who have worked as California-based flight attendants of Virgin America, Inc. and have separated from their employment at any time since March 18, 2012. The Court also appoints the Plaintiffs as class representatives and appoints Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP and Kosinski + Thiagaraj, LLP, as class counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/eFhAzw from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs Julia Bernstein, Esther Garcia and Lisa Marie Smith are represented by: Monique Olivier, Esq. DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-0333 Facsimile: (415) 449-6556 E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com - and - Alison Kosinski, Esq. Emily Thiagaraj, Esq. KOSINSKI + THIAGARAJ, LLP 351 California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 230-2860 Facsimile: (415) 723-7099 E-mail: alison@ktlawsf.com emily@ktlawsf.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer Adkins Tomlin, Esq. Nancy Villarreal, Esq. Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2 Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-4000 Facsimile: (650) 843-4001 E-mail: jtomlin@morganlewis.com nancy.villarreal@morganlewis.com rhendricks@morganlewis.com VOLKSWAGEN AG: Audi Defeat Device Software Adds to Woes ------------------------------------------------------- Bertel Schmitt, writing for Forbes, reports that two weeks after a U.S. judge approved one of the biggest corporate settlements on record, Volkswagen is spinning its wheels, deeper in the morass than ever before. The company has confirmed what Forbes-readers knew since November 6, namely that "U.S. and European investigators are looking into fresh irregularities related to carbon dioxide emissions levels in certain Audi automatic- transmission vehicles," as the Wall Street Journal writes. Dieselgate brought Volkswagen's CEO Martin Winterkorn down. Fresh CO2gate can cost the job of Audi CEO Rupert Stadler, it might even lead to changes at the top of Germany's regulator KBA. Audi's cheating was originally unveiled by Germany's Bild am Sonntag tabloid, a paper at the forefront of defeat-device coverage. Bild reports that Volkswagen Group CEO Matthias Muller clashed with Mr. Stadler at a board meeting in Wolfsburg [German, paywall]. An angry Muller asked why he had to learn of Audi's new cheater code from the media, the paper says, reporting that Mr. Stadler used the old Winterkorn defense that his engineers kept him in the dark about the swindle software. Reportedly, Audi's device, used in "several hundred thousand" diesel and gasoline-powered cars sold by Audi throughout the world, keys on movements of the steering wheel to detect that the car is in the lab. According to the report, Audi engines were equipped with the device until as late as May 2016, eight months after Volkswagen's dieselgate scandal became public in September 2015. According to BamS, the device causes lower mileage and hence higher CO2 emissions when the car is off the "rolling road" used in official emission tests. This is bound to attract the attention of Europe's tax collectors. In most parts of the EU, CO2 emissions have an immediate effect on the car tax. In the U.S., at least two class-action lawsuits have been filed against Audi over the issue. One lawsuit says the CARB has "determined that Audi had also surreptitiously installed a gearing related defeat device in the Class Vehicles. The defeat device was used to circumvent the class vehicles' emission control systems that exist to comply with Clean Air Act emissions standards," Reuters reports. Meanwhile, there are new reports that the CO2 cheating is not limited to Audi. An investigation by Germany's regulator KBA showed that out of 54 tested cars "nearly 30 produce much more CO2 than officially stated," Spiegel, wrote on Nov. 12, stating that "the revelation is explosive for the industry." While excessive nitrous oxide emissions are routinely ignored in Europe, misstated CO2 can result in compensation payments. Deviation of more than 10% can give cause to return the car. The finance ministry can demand the underpaid tax. Even the KBA regulator is in hot water. The CO2 findings are from April of this year, but were swept under the carpet. BILD wrote of a joint cover-up of the KBA regulator and the auto industry after emails surfaced, in which the industry influenced the report. KBA-chief Ekhard Zinke signed one email "with industry- friendly regards," the paper says. WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Mislabeled Egyptian Cotton Bed Sheets ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Campbell, Shannon Pettypiece and Siddharth Philip, writing for Bloomberg, report that huddled inside Target Corp.'s headquarters in downtown Minneapolis, a team of investigators spent the summer trying to answer what should have been a simple question: What were hundreds of thousands of the retailer's sheets actually made of? What they discovered has undermined trust in a global luxury product and set off a salvo of class-action lawsuits that have created a king-sized public relations challenge for the Indian textiles industry and the US companies it supplies. Turns out that major American retailers, including Target and Wal- Mart Stores Inc., have been selling premium-priced sheets purportedly made of Egyptian cotton -- a byword for luxury in linens -- but that may in reality be woven with lower-quality cotton blends. Three suits seeking to be certified as class-actions have been filed against supplier Welspun India Ltd -- and a separate one was directed at Wal-Mart. The complaint, filed in New York by customer Dorothy Monahan, accuses the world's largest retailer of questioning the fiber content of Welspun's products as early as 2008, but not halting its sales until after Target did so in August. Wal-Mart said it will "vigorously defend" itself. The other lawsuits, all filed in the US against Welspun, allege the company fraudulently labelled its bed sheets as Egyptian cotton. Welspun declined to comment on the suits. Managing director Rajesh Mandawewala told analysts during a conference call in August that "the error is on our side so we have to take responsibility for it." Target, meanwhile, hasn't been sued. "The marketing has created this image in our heads that high- quality cotton and Egypt are synonymous," said Louis Rose, a Memphis, Tennessee-based cotton industry consultant. "Consumers should be skeptical of these marketing claims. They'll be under a lot more scrutiny now." The fake Egyptian sheet episode came to light after exhaustive work by Target investigators who analyzed sheet fibers under microscopes and tracked their journey through a global supply chain. The probe found that 750,000 of Target's "Egyptian cotton" sheets, sold for as much as $75 a pop, didn't contain any Egyptian cotton at all, but an amalgam of lower-quality fibers from cheaper sources. That July discovery touched off a scandal spanning from Minnesota to Mumbai and Cairo that threatens the future of Welspun, part of a $3 billion conglomerate headed by entrepreneur Balkrishan Goenka. It may also hobble Indian textile manufacturers in the race to supply Western consumers with high-quality sheets and towels, creating an opening for competitors from China and elsewhere to grab the business, according to industry analysts. The Welspun-made sheets Target examined were sold under the Fieldcrest brand. While it has interests in steel, energy, and infrastructure, textiles are the bread and butter for Welspun, which says it supplies one in five towels sold in America and posted revenue of about $900 million in the 2016 fiscal year. Tennis stars like Roger Federer mop their brows with Welspun towels at the Wimbledon championships -- a fact the company highlights in investor presentations. Target has cut ties and ended all of its $90 million in annual business with the company. Wal-Mart Stores and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. also stopped selling Welspun sheets that had been labeled 100% Egyptian cotton. Those are significant blows coming from some of Welspun's biggest customers, and have sent its stock down about 40% since 19 August when Target announced its decision. The sheets fiasco reflects a simple reality: There's a scarcity of Egyptian cotton. It first became a key export product in the early 19th century, when it arrived in France and became sought after for its silky feel. Production has been falling since the 1990s, however, and last year Egypt's post-revolutionary military government ended subsidies for cotton farmers to shore up the state budget. A gradual decline in output has become a precipitous plunge. The US department of agriculture estimates there will be a 53% decrease in production this year, to an all- time low of 160,000 bales. The system for certifying Egyptian cotton is administered from Cairo by the Cotton Egypt Association, an industry group that grants stamps of approval to suppliers of 100% Egyptian cotton products. To receive one, CEA executive director Khaled Schuman explained, a manufacturer pays an initial fee of $5,000 and submits records of Egyptian cotton purchases and product samples, which undergo DNA analysis to identify whether the fibers were grown in Egypt or elsewhere. The companies are charged an additional $3,000 annually for the certification, according to Schuman. But once a certification is granted, producers are mostly left alone until they need to renew their label a year later. "You can't put an employee from the association on each production line to inspect" every item being produced, said Mohamed Negm, who conducts testing of certification samples for the association to verify the fibers are Egyptian-grown. Typically, suppliers like Welspun purchase cotton in raw form from Egypt for import to Asia, where it's turned into finished products for sale in the U.S. and elsewhere, he said. The highest-quality Egyptian material costs twice as much as the standard grade sourced from India, providing a powerful incentive to cheat. "Factories have mixed the Egyptian cotton with other low quality cottons to make profit, which has ruined the reputation of Egyptian cotton," said Mr. Negm, adding that's what the DNA testing and certification aim to curtail. During the set-up of the CEA's DNA testing program, Mr. Negm said, it started analyzing random samples taken from store shelves globally; 90 percent were fake, mixed with low-quality cottons from the likes of Sudan, Burkina Faso and Pakistan. "It's very easy to play it loose during the production process if you want," said Liu Dang Dang, a foreign sales manager at Chinese manufacturer Jihua 3542 Textile Co. U.S. retailers "should have realized how obvious it is," he said, adding that the company, which supplies Egyptian cotton fabric to manufacturers in the U.S. and Europe, doesn't engage in the practice. "The price they want to pay for Egyptian cotton sheets is so low when the price of Egyptian cotton is so high." Widespread blending Blending is widespread in the industry and quietly tolerated by many retail chains, according to two executives at producers other than Welspun who asked not to be identified discussing the procedure. Sometimes that means mixing good-quality non-Egyptian cotton that maintains the same feel amid shortages of the real thing, but it also often includes using cheaper grades to save money, said the people, citing their experience with cotton processing departments and export requirements for US retailers. The CEA formally announced its DNA testing program in April, saying the "gold seal" it would give manufacturers who passed would help "rid the supply chain of falsely labeled goods." Awkwardly, the first company to receive a gold seal was Welspun, for bed linens as well as towels and bath rugs. Target has decided not to rely on CEA certifications going forward, according to a person familiar with the retailer's decisions who asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. Wal-Mart, by contrast, has said it will continue to rely on the CEA standard. Schuman said the organisation is "making good efforts to make the system tougher" to avoid future problems, for example by increasing the role of third-party auditors and monitoring suppliers' inventories more closely. After discovering problems with Welspun sheets, Target quickly decided to terminate its entire relationship with the company, citing "the trust that our guests place in us." It also opted to offer refunds to customers who'd purchased them -- even if they'd been sleeping on them for years. Wal-Mart has also offered refunds. Although Welspun knew Target was investigating its products, its executives believed that, at worst, the retailer would drop only its Egyptian cotton sheets, according to a person privy to the discussions. Target didn't warn Welspun beforehand about its 19 August announcement that it was ending all its business ties, the person said, which left the company blindsided. At the time chairman Goenka's wife Dipali, who leads Welspun's home textile business, had just returned to India from meetings in the US; she turned around immediately to do damage-control with clients, according to a person familiar with the events. In Mumbai, her husband had called an emergency meeting of department heads. He told them to ignore the company's plunging share price and to focus on their day jobs, and that Welspun would bounce back over time, the person said. Both Goenkas declined to be interviewed. Welspun, which has said the issue never affected the quality or safety of its products, hired the audit firm EY to evaluate its practices and supply chain. The company reports quarterly earnings on Nov. 15. The scandal is creating an opportunity for rival Indian supplier Trident Ltd., which has picked up a significant chunk of Welspun's business from Wal-Mart, Target and Ikea, said a person familiar with the situation, who asked not to be identified because the information is private. Ikea often uses more than one supplier for the same product, according to a spokesperson for the Swedish company, adding that Welspun continues to supply the furniture retailer while it's also worked with Trident for many years. Ikea said it doesn't buy products made from Egyptian cotton due to sustainability concerns. Chinese textile producers may also benefit, analysts said. Big U.S. retailers tend to "go for Indian companies because they are cheaper," particularly thanks to lower labor costs, said Jack Yang, an executive at Chinese manufacturer Yantai Pacific Home Fashion. Scarce Cotton Anyone trying to capitalise, though, faces the same problem: a shortage of Egyptian cotton. That, in turn, might assist U.S. manufacturers of Pima cotton, another high-quality grade that promotes itself as a rival to the Egyptian variety. Back in Cairo, the guardians of the country's sole global brand argue their efforts will be enough to rein in fakes, and they say the controversy might even have a silver lining. "If what was happening had continued, in a few years there would be zero Egyptian cotton," Schuman said. "The turbulence now is positive. It's raising awareness, and we are doing everything we can to protect the value of our product." WELLS FARGO: Seeks Arbitration in Customers' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Veiga, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Wells Fargo & Co. wants a federal court judge in Utah to order that customers suing the banking giant over improper sales practices submit their claims to binding arbitration. The San Francisco-based company's request applies to a class- action lawsuit filed initially by three Utah residents who at one time had accounts with the bank. They sued Wells Fargo in September, one week after the bank made headlines for agreeing to pay $185 million to settle allegations that its workers opened millions of accounts without customers' permission to reach aggressive sales targets. The class-action complaint, which alleges breach of contract, fraud and other claims, now includes 80 named plaintiffs. In a filing on Nov. 23 to U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups, Wells Fargo asserted that the plaintiffs agreed to submit any disputes to arbitration when they signed up for Wells Fargo checking accounts, credit cards or other services. The lender also asked the court to allow it to gather more information on 22 of the plaintiffs so that the company can determine whether they should also be included in its request to have plaintiffs' claims deal with via arbitration. Additionally, Wells Fargo asked Waddoups to dismiss the lawsuit, in case the company's bid for an arbitration order fails. The lawsuit is just one example of the extent of the fallout over Wells Fargo's sales practices scandal, which led to the abrupt retirement this month of the bank's CEO, John Stumpf. Wells Fargo also faces several other lawsuits, as well as criminal investigations by the Department of Justice and the California Attorney General's Office. ZIMMER INC: Judge OKs Canadian Durom Cup Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that while the third bellwether trial involving allegedly defective Pinnacle hips manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. (DePuy, a unit of Johnson & Johnson) continues to meander along with no immediate end in sight, a judge in Canada has approved the proposed settlement stemming from a class action defective hip lawsuit. The Canadian class action lawsuit against Zimmer Inc. (Zimmer) was initially filed in 2009 and involved allegations associated with the troubled Durom Cup hip device. As with other jurisdictions around the globe, the Durom Cup artificial hip is alleged to have failed prematurely in scores of Canadian patients due to a lack of bone adhesion. According to The Vancouver Sun, some 1,100 class participants opted into the defective hip class action lawsuit from Ontario and Quebec, with several hundred more expected to come forward from Canada's western-most province, British Columbia. It was in BC where a judge approved a settlement that had previously been given the thumbs-up in the other two provinces involved. According to the approved settlement, compensation is associated with revision surgery in order to remove, and replace a failed Zimmer Durom Cup. The proposed settlement will provide a class member having undergone what is referenced as an 'uncomplicated surgery' up to CDN. $97,500 in compensation for pain and suffering. Those having experienced a revision procedure where there were complications would be eligible to receive up to $172,500 in compensation. There is one caveat: class members would have had to have undergone surgery by the first of September of last year in order to qualify for the larger compensation amounts. Those having undergone revision surgery after that date would only be entitled to $600. The Canadian defective hip implant class action was originally launched in the same year as Zimmer recalled, and then subsequently halted sales of the troubled Durom Cup in November, 2009. According to The Vancouver Sun the device had been on the market for about five years, prior to the defective hip implant recall. There had been 14 objections filed with respect to approving the proposed settlement. However, that wasn't enough for BC Supreme Court Justice Gregory Bowden to delay, or deny the proposed class action settlement. Judge Bowden referenced the class action in his ruling as a complex litigation with a risk that if it was not approved, the plaintiffs would not be successful at a trial to determine common issues. What's more, Judge Bowden said, the expense associated with such future litigation had not been estimated but "would clearly be very substantial. "Having regard to the factors referred to in these reasons, I have concluded that the settlement agreement in this case is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class members as a whole, and should be approved." Meanwhile, in the US the third DePuy bellwether trial drags on in Dallas. Six plaintiffs are involved, one more than the five plaintiffs represented by the second bellwether trial that ended in March with a $502 million verdict for the plaintiffs. The award was subsequently reduced to about $150 million in deference to Texas laws which mandate a cap on punitive damages. In spite of earning a reduced award due to the Texas cap, Johnson & Johnson (J&J) lobbied for the third bellwether trial to be delayed until an appeal associated with the second trial was complete. The Fifth Circuit denied J&J's petition, and the third bellwether trial has been ongoing since the end of September. There is much interest, given the outcome of the first bellwether trial: a decisive win for the defendant over a single plaintiff. With the second trial (pending appeal) finding for the five plaintiffs -- and the current trial involving six plaintiffs -- all eyes are trained on the outcome of this defective hip implant bellwether trial. * Feb. 15 Deadline Set for Comments on Proposed Class Action Rule ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that members of the public, bar and bench have three months remaining to submit written comments on various proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice and Procedure, most notably an update to the rule governing class action lawsuits. The proposals were published in August by the Judiciary's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. Written comments are due by Feb. 15, 2017. The recommendations, which also include a proposal to mandate electronic filings by lawyers, among other things, could affect eight appellate rules, 12 bankruptcy rules, four civil rules and three criminal rules, as well as bankruptcy and appellate forms and a bankruptcy rules appendix, according to the U.S. Courts. "All comments on these proposed amendments will be carefully considered by the advisory committees, which are composed of experienced trial and appellate lawyers, judges and scholars," wrote Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, in an August letter introducing the proposals. According to Judge Sutton's letter, a total of eight public hearings, each covering specified amendments, have been scheduled, starting October through Feb. 24, 2017. Civil Rule 23, which governs class action lawsuits, has been amended four times since its adoption in 1934. Most recently, it was revised in 2003. The current proposed changes to the rule were discussed in nearly two dozen meetings, according to a report signed by Judge John D. Bates, chair of the Judiciary's Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. "The principal topic of the proposed amendments is the process of settling class actions, which is important because many class actions settle and the court has distinctive responsibilities in reviewing such settlements," the report said, according to the U.S. Courts. One amendment would create a standardized set of factors for judges to consider, in deciding whether to approve a class-action settlement as "fair, reasonable and adequate." Currently, these factors vary among federal appellate courts. Other changes would guide judges in assessing whether to certify a class action for settlement purposes, and permit electronic as well as paper notification of potential class action participants. "Generally, the amendments would codify the common practice of sending concurrent notice to class members for both the action itself and the potential settlement; allow notice through more modern means; and place more obligations on parties to provide the court with a record before notifications are sent out," Christopher P. Gramling, assistant general counsel to Eli Lilly and Company, wrote in a counsel's advisory for the Washington Legal Foundation. "Further, the amendments would mandate a hearing to determine if the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and codifies a balancing test of factors. "Finally, the amendments would provide additional requirements for class member objections while eliminating courts' approval for each withdrawal of an objection." The federal judiciary's rulemaking process is guided by the Rules Enabling Act. Amendments to the Federal Rules of Practice Procedure usually require two to three years of review, public hearings and multiple layers of approval. Before any amendments are adopted, they must be approved by the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Supreme Court. Congress then has a time period in which it can reject changes approved by the Judiciary. The earliest the proposed amendments can be adopted is Dec. 1, 2018, according to the U.S. Courts. * FTC to Study Class Action Settlement Notice Programs ------------------------------------------------------ Imperial Valley News reports that to study of the effectiveness of various class action settlement notice programs, the Federal Trade Commission has issued orders to eight claims administrators, requiring them to provide information on procedures they use to notify class members about settlements and the response rates for various methods of notification. The orders are part of the Commission's Class Action Fairness Project, which strives to ensure that class action settlements in consumer protection and competition matters provide appropriate benefits to consumers. Under the project, the FTC monitors class actions and files amicus briefs or intervenes in appropriate cases; coordinates with state, federal, and private groups on important class action issues; and monitors the progress of legislation and class action rule changes. Also included in the project are two proposed studies: the Notice Study, which examines consumer perception and understanding of class action notices and the options they provide to consumers, and the Deciding Factors Study, which analyzes factors that influence consumers' decisions to participate, opt out of, or object to a class action settlement. The initial comment periods for both studies required by the Paperwork Reduction Act have closed. The Commission will use these studies to guide the Class Action Fairness Project. The Commission vote to issue orders to file a special report was 3-0. The Commission is authorized to issue these orders by Section 6(b) of the FTC Act. (FTC File No P024210; the staff contacts are Robin Moore, Division of Enforcement, 202-326-2167 or Colin MacDonald, Division of Enforcement, 202-326-3192.) * Queensland's Introduction of Class Action Regime Praised ---------------------------------------------------------- Lara Bullock, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that legal bodies and law firms alike have welcomed the introduction of a class action regime and the removal of limitations periods for child sexual abuse in Queensland. The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers praised the introduction of the Limitation of Actions (Institutional Child Sexual Abuse) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016. Maurice Blackburn principal Vavaa Mawuli said the introduction of a class actions regime within the act will help to bring Queensland in line with other states, including NSW and Victoria, and provide greater access to justice for Queenslanders. "This is an important step, and one that we welcome. Through the passage of this legislation, Queenslanders are a critical step closer to greater access to justice locally," Ms. Mawuli said. "The class actions regime plays a fundamental role in helping to deliver collective legal remedies to people that may not otherwise be able to pursue their legal rights, including those wronged by large corporations or entities." ALA Queensland president Michelle James said the regime will mean more people can enforce their rights, as it's often not financially viable for people to pursue their claims individually, but under a class action it is possible. "Class actions can be the only way for people to assert their rights against big corporations or other entities, so this law will mean that justice will be much easier to access for Queenslanders," Ms. James said. "Queensland's adoption of the class action regime is a significant measure that will mean plaintiffs will no longer have to cross state borders to be able to file class actions. This can only make justice more accessible." The new law also removes limitations periods for personal injury claims relating to child sexual abuse in both institutional and non-institutional contexts. "In terms of limitations periods, the act recognizes that for many survivors of child sexual abuse it can take years or even decades to be ready to come forward to explore their legal rights," Ms. James said. "This act remedies a great injustice by providing survivors with the means to explore avenues for compensation in their own time. They will no longer be restricted by time limits that deny them their rights." ********* 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 * * *