/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/161212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, December 12, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 247 Headlines 30 OPERATING: "Atakhanov" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: JUXTAPID Case Parties in Mediation AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Steinberg Claims Without Merit AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: "Flanigon" Class Action Dismissed AIU ONLINE: Bid to Certify Class in "Hodge" Suit Due on May 12 AKORN INC: UFCW Local Files Suit Over Clobetasol Price-Fixing AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: "Davis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ALLERGAN PLC: Indirect Buyers' Suit over Asacol(R) Still Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Seeks to Dismissal Direct Buyers' Suit Over Asacol ALLERGAN PLC: Opposed Class Certification Bid in Botox(R) Action ALLERGAN PLC: Mylan Asks Third Circuit for Rehearing En Banc ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Omnibus Bids to Dismiss Loestrin(R) 24 Claims ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Labs' Answer to Amended Namenda Suit Filed ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Cir. Vacated Dismissal of Zymar Litigation ALLERGAN PLC: District Court Stays Discovery in Celexa Action AMERICAN BREAD: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania AMPARTS SOURCING: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ANDERSON PERFORATING: Phillips et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA APOLLO GLOBAL: Trilogy and Danner Actions Stayed APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss CEC Stockholder Suit Underway APOLLO GLOBAL: No Argument Date Yet on Bid to Dismiss Silva Case APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Arrow Merger Underway APOLLO GLOBAL: Nov. 2017 Merits Trial Set in Hudson Bay Action APOLLO GLOBAL: Mississippi Pension Fund Suit in Early Stages APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Threatened to Dismiss Shareholder Suit APOLLO GLOBAL: Defendant in Rackspace Shareholder Action ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Siegel" Suit Securities Suit AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal of Dismissal Order Pending BCB BANCORP: Plaintiff's Bid for $1-Mil. in Fees Remains Pending BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Faces "West" Suit in S.D. of New York BLU PRODUCTS: Phones Contain Spyware, Class Suit Claims BOTANAS II LLC: "Diaz-Ortiz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay BRAND PLUMBING: McFeeters Seeks to Certify Class of Plumbers BULLDOG OILFIELD: Faces "Yorba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CANDELA CORP: Body-Shaping System Doesn't Work, Suit Says CARBYLAN THERAPEUTICS: Voluntary Class Action Dismissal Approved CARDINAL INNOVATIONS: Kirkpatrick Seeks to Certify FLSA Class CARTER'S RETAIL: Wins Final Nod of $472,500 Deal in "Dudum" Suit CHANG LUNG: Faces "Jian" Suit in Eastern District of New York CIM GROUP: Faces "Savickaite" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Electrical Workers Pension Fund's Suit Stayed CUBESMART: Faces "Coleman" Class Suit in South. District Florida DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces "Wells" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pa. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Wins Prelim. OK of "Palmer" Class Settlement EBS SECURITY: "Lockley" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Suit Over Constact Contact Deal Underway EPIC SYSTEMS: "Schultz" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA ESA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Delaughter" Class Suit in M.D. Florida FCA US LLC: Automotive Diesel Emissions Hit in "Chavez" Suit FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Babcock" Sues Over Share Price Drop FIREEYE INC: Defending Against Stockholder Suit California Court FIREEYE INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending TARGA RESOURCES: TRC/TRP Merger Action Still Pending FITBIT INC: Trial in Sleep Tracking Suit Set for May 2017 FITBIT INC: Hearing Held on Issue of Arbitrability FITBIT INC: San Mateo Action Transferred to San Francisco FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Overstates CnF Value, FourWorld Report Says FOREVER 21: Faces "Huang" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of TCPA GENCO SHIPPING: Dismissal of Merger Suit Under Appeal GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Wagner" Suit Over Product Misbranding GEO CORRECTIONS: Faces "Weldon" Suit in California Super. Ct. GOPRO INC: Jan. 2017 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Camia Suit GOPRO INC: Bid to Dismiss San Mateo Court Suit Underway GRUMA CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims GC SERVICES: Ocampo's Bid for Class Certification Due on March 3 GULF COAST: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fulgencio" Suit Claims HOUSTON, TX: Cops Illegally Detain Arrestees, Class Suit Says IMPERVA INC: Defendants' Operative Answer to Amended Suit Filed INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Plaintiff Drops Merger Class Action INVENSENSE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Appeals Court Decision Pending ITC HOLDINGS: Class Suits Over Fortis Merger Pending JANI-KING INT'L: Faces "Mujo" Suit Under Conn. Minimum Wage Act JO-ANN STORES: Faces "West" Suit in New York for Discrimination JONES WOLF: Faces "Winters" Suit in District of New Jersey LODGEWORKS PARTNERS: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D of New York KELLOGG COMPANY: "George" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri LAS VEGAS SANDS: Summary Judgment Motion in "Fosbre" Pending LEE COUNTY, AL: Sheriff's Office Sued Over FLSA Violation LEIDOS HOLDINGS: "Fernandez" Class Action Appeal Underway LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Action Remanded to District Court MARKET STREET: Faces "Gregori" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MARS PETCARE: Sued Over Price-Fixing of Prescription Pet Food MAXIMUS INC: Norton Seeks Certification of Supervisors Class MDL 1869: Class Cert. Ruling in Fuel Surcharge Suit Pending MISSISSIPPI LIMESTONE: Miss. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Transfer of Case to D. Mass. Recommended NEW RELEASE: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania OCEAN SHORE: Settlement Reached in Merger Class Suit OHIO: Palladeno Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class PALM RESTAURANT: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. of New York PERSONNEL STAFFING: Hunt et al. Allege Racial Discrimination PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Rikos" Suit Moved from W.D. Ark. to S.D. Ohio QS SAN LUIS: Final OK of Accord in "Orduna" Suit Under Submission RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Faces "Wells" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania RCH LAWN: Vail Lux, et al. Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA REALOGY GROUP: Paries in "Strader" Suit in Discovery RENT RECOVER: Certification of Class Sought in "Anderson" Suit REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: To Settle Class Suit for $6.4 Million ROTOBRUSH INT'L: Transferred "Seramur" Class Suit to N.D. Indiana SHIPSTON ALUMINUM: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Zellars" Suit Says SKYE WIRELESS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break SOS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Gutierrez-Bejar" Lawsuit Under FLSA SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Pension Trust's Suit Removed to S.D. Tex. STEALTH SECURITY: Class Certification Sought in G.M. Sign Suit STONEMOR PARTNERS: "Klein" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations SUNCOAST CREDIT: Kruzell Moves to Certify Bankruptcy Filers Class TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Norfolk Suit Underway TUBEMOGUL INC: Shareholders Challenge Adobe Systems Merger TYSON FOODS: "Lalondb" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations UNITED STATES: "Malik" Sues Homeland Security Dept. in Ariz. Ct. UNIVERSAL CITY: "Fierro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages WINN-DIXIE STORES: Chaves Moves to Certify Class of Managers ZIMMER BIOMET: "Shah" Suit Alleges Violations of Securities Act ZYNGA INC: "Lee" Case Settlement Subject to Final Documentation * Edelson PC Files Suit Against Class Action Objector Law Firms ********* 30 OPERATING: "Atakhanov" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Ergash Atakhanov and Gayrat Unusov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 30 Operating, LLC, Henry Operating Corp., 33 St Operating LLC, 24 St Operating Lic LLC, Dan 57TH ST., LLC, Lic. Lot, LLC, 54 Operating LLC, MTP 59 St LLC, Lic. Operating 49 LLC, Lic. Operating LLC, 73 Operating LLC, MTP 57, LLC, MTP 3300 Broadway Corp, MTP Operating Corp., 59TH Street Parking Associates LLC, Madison Street Operating Corp. and ABC Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09305, (S.D. N.Y., December 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Defendants operate parking lots in New York City where Plaintiffs worked as parking lot attendants. They claim to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11235 Tel: (718) 808-2224 Email: naydenskiylaw@gmai1.com AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: JUXTAPID Case Parties in Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------ Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the class action lawsuit related to the marketing of JUXTAPID have pursued mediation. In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's financial performance in violation of the federal securities laws. On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On April 1, 2015, the Court entered an order permitting and setting a schedule for co-lead plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 60 days, and for defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs. Accordingly, co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2015. The amended complaint filed against the Company and certain of its former executive officers alleges that defendants made certain misstatements and omissions during the first three quarters of 2014 related to the Company's revenue projections for JUXTAPID for 2014, as well as data underlying those projections, in violation of the federal securities laws. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on July 31, 2015. On August 21, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second amended complaint, which alleges that the defendants made certain misstatements and omissions from April 2013 through October 2014 related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and the Company's financial projections, as well as data underlying those projections. On September 4, 2015, the Company moved to strike the second amended complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure to seek leave of court to file a second amended pleading, and briefing is complete with respect to the motion to strike. Oral argument on the motion to strike was held on March 9, 2016. On March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend. The Company opposed this motion to amend, and following a hearing on April 29, 2016, the Court took defendants' motion to strike and plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend under advisement. On May 13, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion wherein the parties stipulated that co-lead plaintiffs could file a third amended pleading within 30 days of the motion, which the Court granted on May 18, 2016, thereby mooting defendants' pending motion to strike the second amended pleading and co-lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended pleading. The Court also entered a briefing schedule for defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs. A third amended complaint was filed on June 27, 2016. On July 22, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion to stay the briefing schedule while they pursued mediation, which the Court granted on August 10, 2016. Aegerion said, "As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, the Company cannot determine if a loss is probable as a result of the class action lawsuit and whether the outcome will have a material adverse effect on its business and, as a result, the Company has not recorded any amounts for a loss contingency." Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for patients with debilitating rare diseases. AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Says Steinberg Claims Without Merit ------------------------------------------------------------- Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the claims in the case, Steinberg v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are without merit. On August 16, 2016, a complaint captioned Steinberg v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11668, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company, QLT, MergerCo and each member of the Company's board of directors (the "Federal Merger Action"). The Federal Merger Action was brought by Chaile Steinberg, who purports to be a stockholder of the Company, on her own behalf, and seeks certification as a class action on behalf of all Company's stockholders. The Steinberg complaint alleges, among other things, that the August 8, 2016 Form S-4 Registration Statement filed in connection with the proposed transaction with QLT is materially misleading. The Steinberg complaint asserts claims arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction, to rescind it or to award rescissory damages should it be consummated and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Federal Merger Action are without merit and the Company has not recorded any amount for a loss contingency in respect of such matter. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for patients with debilitating rare diseases. AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: "Flanigon" Class Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case, Flanigon v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., has been dismissed. On October 3, 2016, a complaint captioned Flanigon v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. 12794, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Merger Action"). The Delaware Merger Action was brought by Timothy Flanigon, who purports to be a stockholder of the Company, on his own behalf, and also sought certification as a class action on behalf of all Company stockholders. The Delaware Merger Action alleged, among other things, that the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction by agreeing to an inadequate exchange ratio and engaging in a flawed sales process. The Delaware Merger Action further alleged that QLT and MergerCo aided and abetted the alleged breaches. In addition, the Delaware Merger Action alleged that the September 28, 2016 Amendment No. 2 to Form S-4 Registration Statement filed in connection with the proposed transaction is materially misleading. The Flanigon complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed transaction, to rescind it or to award rescissory damages should it be consummated and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Also on October 3, 2016, plaintiff in the Delaware Merger Action filed motions seeking expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction. On October 21, 2016, the Delaware Merger Action was dismissed without prejudice. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the development and commercialization of innovative therapies for patients with debilitating rare diseases. AIU ONLINE: Bid to Certify Class in "Hodge" Suit Due on May 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2016, in the case entitled Mary A Hodge v. AIU Online, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10383 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan. The minute entry states that: -- Status hearing was held and continued to May 9, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.; -- All fact discovery is to be completed by May 5, 2017; -- All expert discovery will be noticed in time to be completed by July 14, 2017; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken without prejudice. Plaintiff has preserved her right; -- Plaintiff is given leave to file her class motion by May 12, 2017; and -- Response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed by June 2, 2017, and reply by June 16, 2017. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KrT7kGr9 AKORN INC: UFCW Local Files Suit Over Clobetasol Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC., FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., MORTON GROVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PERRIGO NEW YORK INC., SANDOZ, INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., and WOCKHARDT USA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09392 (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2016), was brought for claims under federal and state antitrust laws to recover damages and obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the substantial injuries the Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained against Defendants' alleged conspiracy to raise the prices of clobetasol propionate topical gel, cream, ointment, solution, and emollient products, as well as to allocate markets and customers for clobetasol in the United States. Defendant Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. is a New York-based pharmaceutical company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Domenico Minerva, Esq. Karin E. Garvey, Esq. Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. Rudi Julius, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Fax: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com dminerva@labaton.com kgarvey@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com rjulius@labaton.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Paul Costa, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 567-6565 Fax: (215) 568-5872 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com pcosta@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: "Davis" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Warren Davis, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Al-Flex Exterminators, Inc. and Alexander E. Napoles, Defendants, Case No.1:16-cv-24994 (S.D. Fla., December 1, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages for economic losses caused by non-payment of overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs of this action and any such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate a pest control company located in Miami-Dade County, with its principal address at 4035 SW 98 Street, Miami, Florida, where Plaintiff worked. He claims to have been denied overtime pay. Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Moriarty, Esq. LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 913-1300 Email: RMoniarty@LevineBlit.com ALLERGAN PLC: Indirect Buyers' Suit over Asacol(R) Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that indirect purchaser plaintiffs' antitrust class action related to Asacol(R) remains pending. On June 22, 2015, two class action complaints were filed in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court. On September 21, 2015, three additional complaints were filed on behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers, each raising similar allegations to the complaints filed in June 2015. Defendants have moved to dismiss the indirect purchasers' complaint. A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2016. On July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion in part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on purported reverse payments and dismissed several of indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on state laws. On August 15, 2016,the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed an answer to the second amended complaint on October 4, 2016. ALLERGAN PLC: Seeks to Dismissal Direct Buyers' Suit Over Asacol ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' consolidated complaint related to Asacol(R) remains pending. A complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of Asacol(R) in federal court in New York on April 26, 2016. The direct purchaser complaint makes similar allegations to the complaints filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs. On May 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to transfer the direct purchaser action to the federal court in Massachusetts where it could be consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases. Two additional direct purchaser putative class action complaints were filed in federal court in New York on June 29, 2016. On September 7, 2016, direct purchaser plaintiffs agreed to transfer the cases filed in New York to the federal court in Massachusetts where they were consolidated. On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' consolidated complaint. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Opposed Class Certification Bid in Botox(R) Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Botox(R) class action litigation. On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 29, 2015. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 20, 2015, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment or adjudication. The Company filed a response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 11, 2016. The court held oral argument on plaintiff's motion on March 4, 2016 and took the matter under submission. On May 31, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment or adjudication. On June 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of the motion. On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: Mylan Asks Third Circuit for Rehearing En Banc ------------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. has petitioned the Third Circuit for a rehearing en banc in the Doryx(R) Litigation. In July 2012, Mylan filed a complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed by purported indirect purchasers. In addition, four retailers filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities. In each of the class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court. Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan's summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan appealed the district court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 28, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its decision and affirmed the ruling of the district court. On October 12, 2016 Mylan petitioned the Third Circuit for a rehearing en banc. The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar suits will be filed. ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Omnibus Bids to Dismiss Loestrin(R) 24 Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants in the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation have filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs. On April 5, 2013, two putative class were filed in the federal district court against Warner Chilcott and certain affiliates alleging that Warner Chilcott's 2009 patent lawsuit settlements with Watson Laboratories and Lupin related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets, "Loestrin(R) 24") were unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that Watson and Lupin improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors. After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral argument was held on December 7, 2015. On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the district court. On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Labs' Answer to Amended Namenda Suit Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Forest Laboratories, Inc. has filed an answer to the amended complaint in the Namenda(R) litigation. On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda(R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November 2014 on the state's preliminary injunction motion. On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting the state's injunction motion and issued an injunction on December 15, 2014. On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction. On June 5, 2015, Forest filed a petition with the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc which was denied. Forest and the New York Attorney General reached a settlement on November 24, 2015. On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. Since that time, additional complaints have been filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws. On December 22, 2015, Forest and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the pending complaints of the putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. On September 13, 2016, the court issued a decision denying the Company's motion to dismiss. On September 27, 2016 the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Cir. Vacated Dismissal of Zymar Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has vacated the District Court's granting of Allergan's motion to dismiss the Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Litigation. On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed Allergan's motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an answer to Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015. On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)). On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 19, 2015, the court granted Allergan's motion to dismiss. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit oral argument was held on June 13, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's granting of Allergan's motion to dismiss and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ALLERGAN PLC: District Court Stays Discovery in Celexa Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the district court judge has entered an Order staying discovery in a Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) class action until the First Circuit renders a decision on plaintiffs' 23(f) petition. Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in the federal district court Massachusetts (the "Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under the state consumer protection statutes and state common laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes. However, only the Missouri state class was certified. Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for $7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35 million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement. Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging that our promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been deceptive. On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20, 2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the motion. A motion for class certification was filed in February, 2016, and denied on June 2, 2016. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition with the First Circuit requesting leave to appeal the denial of class certification. The district court judge entered an Order dated August 8, 2016, staying discovery in the case until the First Circuit renders a decision on plaintiffs' 23(f) petition. On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December 12, 2014 ruling. On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014. On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint. Forest moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 9, 2016, the court denied Forest's motion. Forest and certain of its affiliates were also named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court. These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to resolve each matter for payments that are not material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. AMERICAN BREAD: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Bread Company, LLC. The case is captioned JESSICA SLIVAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN BREAD COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 06294-MSG (E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Mitchell S. Goldberg. American Bread provides bakery products. The Company offers donuts, sandwiches, crust bread, crumb cakes, salads, and soups. American Bread serves customers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com AMPARTS SOURCING: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- PERLA MARTINEZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMPARTS SOURCING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01222 (W.D. Tex., December 2, 2016), alleges that Defendant has failed and refused to pay its bookkeepers at time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours within a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Amparts Sourcing, Inc. is a motor vehicle supplies and new part company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 13590 Ranch Road 12 Wimberley, TX 78676 Phone: (512) 782-0567 Fax: (512) 782-0605 Web site: http://www.morelandlaw.com E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com ANDERSON PERFORATING: Phillips et al. Seek Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL PHILLIPS, COREY ALTENBERG, SLONE BALLIEW, JEFF BALLIEW, DIRK BOYTE, JIMMY BROOKS, JASON DAVIS, BROCK JONES, JOHN LUCAS, KELBY VAUGHN, ROY BALLIEW, PATRICK DYAL, CHRIS EDGAR, JOSH FOEGELLE, ZACHARY NIEMEIER, TROY PRINCE, JAMES STEPHENSON, STEVEN SUTTON, and TIMOTHY WILSON, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. ANDERSON PERFORATING SERVICES, LLC; ANDERSON PERFORATING GP, LLC; and RONNIE ANDERSON, DONNIE ANDERSON and JUSTIN ANDERSON, Case No. No. 5:16-cv-1230 (W.D. Tex., December 5, 2016), seeks recovery of monetary damages for overtime hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Anderson Perforating Services, LLC provides products and services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a viable business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AK 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com APOLLO GLOBAL: Trilogy and Danner Actions Stayed ------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' renewed injunction request, staying the actions, Trilogy Portfolio Company, L.L.C., et al. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7091 (S.D.N.Y.), and Danner v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.), through Plan confirmation. On September 3, 2014, institutional investors allegedly holding approximately $137 million in CEOC unsecured senior notes sued CEOC and Caesars Entertainment for breach of contract and the implied covenant of good faith, Trust Indenture Act ("TIA") violations, and a declaratory judgment challenging the August 2014 private financing transaction in which a portion of outstanding senior unsecured notes were purchased by Caesars Entertainment, and a majority of the noteholders agreed to amend the indenture to terminate Caesars Entertainment's guarantee of the notes and modify certain restrictions on CEOC's ability to sell assets. Caesars Entertainment and CEOC filed a motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the New York Court granted the motion with respect to a TIA claim by Trilogy but otherwise denied the motion. On January 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking relief against Caesars Entertainment only, and Caesars Entertainment answered on February 12, 2015. On October 2, 2014, a related putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the holders of these notes captioned Danner v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.), against Caesars Entertainment alleging claims similar to those in the Trilogy Action. On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and Caesars Entertainment answered the amended complaint on February 25, 2015. In March 2015, each of Trilogy and Danner served subpoenas for documents on Apollo. Apollo produced responsive, non-privileged documents in response to those subpoenas. In July 2015, Trilogy and Danner served subpoenas for depositions on Apollo and those depositions were completed on September 22, 2015. On October 23, 2015, Trilogy and Danner filed motions for partial summary judgment, related to TIA and breach of contract claims. On December 29, 2015, the New York Court denied the motions for partial summary judgment. On March 23, 2016, the judge presiding over the Trilogy and Danner Actions announced that she was retiring from the bench effective April 28, 2016. A new judge was assigned to preside over the Trilogy and Danner Actions. On April 6, 2016, the parties agreed to a renewed summary judgment schedule for the Trilogy, Danner, BOKF, UMB SDNY and Wilmington Trust Actions. The moving parties submitted their briefs to the New York Court on May 10, 2016. Opposition briefs were filed on May 31, 2016. Reply briefs were filed on June 14, 2016. On June 15, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction pursuant to Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, enjoining the plaintiffs in the Trilogy and Danner Actions from prosecuting actions against Caesars Entertainment until August 29, 2016. On October 17, 2016, after several motions and appeals relating to extending the stay past August 29, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' renewed injunction request, staying the Trilogy and Danner Actions through Plan confirmation. Pursuant to the Plan, the Apollo Released Parties will be released from all claims relating to the Trilogy and Danner Actions. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss CEC Stockholder Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, the parties' motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint remains pending. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action, which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14, 2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014. Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in limited discovery. On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that CEC's former directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders by conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. It further alleges that two members of the board who also served as the senior managers of CEC had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 22, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action moved to dismiss the complaint. Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the consolidated action, and therefore no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time, Apollo believes that such action is without merit. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: No Argument Date Yet on Bid to Dismiss Silva Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has not set a date for argument on Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case by Rachel Silva and Don Hudson. On June 12, 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("California Court") by Rachel Silva ("Silva") and Don Hudson ("Hudson"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene Annuity and Life Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company ("Aviva"); Athene USA Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation; Athene Holding; Athene Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and AGM. The original complaint in this action alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs alleged that commencing in 2007 and continuing thereafter, Aviva and its then management engaged in a scheme to, among other things, falsely represent the financial strength of and hide the true financial condition of Aviva by, among other things, allegedly ceding risky liabilities to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries and affiliates, misvaluing assets, and failing to make required disclosures to purchasers of policies, and that after Athene Holding purchased all of the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective October 2, 2013 the scheme was "unwound and rewound" so as to continue, and that as a result thereof some of the purchasers of annuity products issued by Aviva were charged an excessive price and were damaged as a result thereof. All defendants (except Aviva plc) (a) moved to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ("Iowa Court") and (b) moved to dismiss this action. Aviva plc separately moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction over it. The California Court granted the motion to transfer to the Iowa Court and denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss. Plaintiff Hudson moved for leave to amend the complaint, which motion was granted by the Iowa Court. The amended complaint removed Silva as a named plaintiff and removed Aviva plc as a defendant, but otherwise substantively makes the same or similar allegations. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and that motion has been fully briefed. The Court has not set a date for argument on this motion yet. If the action is not dismissed, Athene Asset Management and AGM (and the other defendants) will deny the material allegations of the amended complaint and will vigorously defend themselves against these claims. Although neither Athene Asset Management nor AGM can predict the ultimate outcome of this action, each believes that it is without merit, and because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Arrow Merger Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully briefed, and oral argument was scheduled for December 8, 2016. After the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan of Merger among Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc., Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), two putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger, captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532, and Wiener v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. A putative class and derivative lawsuit was later filed in the same Court, captioned Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16- 002610. Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants AGM, AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), ARI, Merger Sub and Athene Holding and alleges, among other things, that the members of the AMTG Board breached their fiduciary duties to AMTG's stockholders and that the other defendants aided and abetted such fiduciary breaches. The operative complaint further alleges, among other things, that the proposed merger involves inadequate consideration, was the result of an inadequate and conflicted sales process, and includes unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. It also alleges that the transactions with Athene Holding are unfair and that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on April 6, 2016 contains materially misleading disclosures and omits certain material information. The operative complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the proposed class, declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the merger, unspecified damages, and an award of other unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs. On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel, which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016. Defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully briefed, and oral argument was scheduled for December 8, 2016. Apollo believes that the claims asserted in the complaints are without merit. For this reason, and because the claims are in their early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: Nov. 2017 Merits Trial Set in Hudson Bay Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court in the Hudson Bay Action and the Verition Action has scheduled a trial on the merits to take place in November 2017. Following the March 14, 2016 announcement that The Fresh Market, Inc. ("TFM") had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "TFM Merger Agreement"), six putative shareholder class actions were filed in four courts (one in the Superior Court of Guilford County, North Carolina; two in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware; one in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina; and two in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware). Additionally, one individual action demanding inspection of books and records was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware and two petitions for appraisal of stock were also filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware. The first purported class action, captioned Dolores Balint v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 16-CVS-4144, was filed on March 23, 2016 in the North Carolina Superior Court (the "Balint Action"). The complaint named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors and certain affiliates of AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Inc. ("Pomegranate Holdings") and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc. ("Pomegranate Merger Sub"). The Balint action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 13, 2016. The second purported class action, captioned Ross DeAmbrogio v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00239-LPS, was filed April 7, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and named as defendants TFM and its officers and directors (the "DeAmbrogio Action"). The Plaintiff in the DeAmbrogio Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses on June 29, 2016. The third purported class action, captioned John Solak v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00249-SLR, was filed April 8, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors, AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (the "Solak Action"). The Plaintiff in the Solak Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal and anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses on June 28, 2016. The fourth purported class action, captioned Ronald Jantz v. Ray Berry, et. al., Case No. 1:16-cv-0307-CCE-JEP, was filed April 11, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina and named as defendants TFM and its officers and directors (the "Jantz Action"). The Plaintiff in the Jantz Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal on July 8, 2016. The fifth purported class action, captioned Bruce S. Sherman, et. al. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No. 12205-VCG, was filed April 14, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and named as defendants TFM, its officers and directors, AGM, Pomegranate Holdings, Pomegranate Merger Sub and Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (the "Sherman Action"). The Sherman Action alleges, among other things, that the TFM officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the TFM shareholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the TFM Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate price and by filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Sherman Action further alleges that TFM, AGM, Apollo Management VIII, L.P., Pomegranate Holdings and Pomegranate Merger Sub, aided and abetted in those alleged breaches. The sixth action, an individual action captioned Elizabeth Morrison v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12243-VCG, was filed April 22, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and named only TFM as a defendant (the "Morrison Action"). The Morrison Action sought only the right to inspect certain books and records of TFM pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware Corporate Code. The Plaintiff in the Morrison Action filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal on August 10, 2016 and the case was administratively closed by the Court thereafter. The seventh action, a Petition for Appraisal of Stock captioned Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd. and Brigade Leveraged Capital Structures Fund, Ltd. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12372- VCG, was filed May 23, 2016 and names only TFM as the respondent (the "Hudson Bay Action"). The Hudson Bay Action was filed on behalf of holders of 1,660,000 shares of common stock of TFM and seeks a determination of the fair value of the shares of the common stock of TFM under Section 262 of the Delaware Corporate Code. The eighth action, a second Petition for Appraisal of Stock captioned Verition Multi-Strategy Master Ltd. and Verition Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. The Fresh Market, Inc. was filed August 22, 2016 and names only TFM as the respondent (the "Verition Action"). The Verition Action was filed on behalf of holders of 1,198,318 shares of common stock of TFM and seeks a determination of the fair value of the shares of the common stock of TFM under Section 262 of the Delaware Corporate Code. The Verition Action has been consolidated with the Hudson Bay Action and the two will proceed together under the caption, In re Appraisal of The Fresh Market, Inc., Case No. 12372-VCG. The ninth action, another purported shareholder class action, captioned Elizabeth Morrison v. Ray Berry, et. al., Case No. 12808-VCG, was filed October 6, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware and named as defendants TFM's officers and directors (the "Morrison Fiduciary Duty Action"). This action was filed by the same plaintiff who filed the Morrison Action. Like the Sherman Action, the Morrison Fiduciary Duty Action alleges, among other things, that the TFM officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the TFM shareholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the TFM Merger Agreement, including by engaging in a sale process that improperly favored AGM and/or Apollo Management VIII, L.P., by agreeing to an inadequate price and by filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Morrison Fiduciary Duty Action further alleges that former TFM director, Brett Berry, aided and abetted in those alleged breaches. The Court has not yet set a schedule for resolving either the Sherman Action or the Morrison Fiduciary Duty Action on the merits. The Court in the Hudson Bay Action and the Verition Action has scheduled a trial on the merits to take place in November 2017. Because each of the pending actions is in the early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made. Apollo believes that each of these actions is without merit. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: Mississippi Pension Fund Suit in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------------ Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case, Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), is in the early stages. On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("SFM"), several SFM directors (including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), AP Sprouts Holdings, LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the "AP Entities"), which are controlled by entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and two underwriters of a March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common stock. The AP Entities sold SFM common stock in the March 2015 secondary offering. The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and captioned Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a materially misleading registration statement for the secondary offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM's 2014 annual report regarding SFM's business prospects, and failed to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation. The two causes of action against the AP Entities are for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, compensatory damages for alleged losses sustained from a decline in SFM's stock price. On March 24, 2016, defendants removed the case to United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiff's April 18, 2016 remand motion was fully briefed as of May 27, 2016. Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: Court Threatened to Dismiss Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct.), the parties asked the court to extend the deadline by which the Plaintiffs must file an amended consolidated complaint or designate an operative complaint until November 8, 2016, and the Court responded with an order explaining that the case would be dismissed on December 9, 2016, unless the parties submit a stipulated judgment or stipulated dismissal before that date, or the court otherwise extends the deadline for good cause. Between February 25 and March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed five putative class actions in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, on behalf of purported stockholders of Apollo Education Group, Inc. The actions were captioned as follows: Casey v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-051605 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Feb. 25, 2016); Miglio v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-003718 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Feb. 26, 2016); Wagner v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 9, 2016); Ladouceur v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-002148 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2016); Simkhovich v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et al., CV2016-002339 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Mar. 23, 2016). The defendants include, among others, Apollo Education Group, Inc. ("AEG"), members of AEG's board of directors, AGM, Fund VIII, AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., which is a subsidiary of funds affiliated with Apollo Management VIII, L.P., and AGM, and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., which is a wholly owned subsidiary of AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The complaints allege that AEG's directors breached their fiduciary duties to AEG's stockholders by entering into a merger agreement that provides for AEG to be acquired by AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc. Plaintiffs claim that AEG's directors engaged in a flawed sales process, agreed to a price that does not adequately compensate AEG's stockholders, and agreed to certain unfair deal protection terms in connection with the merger agreement. Two of the complaints further allege (1) that AEG's directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing a materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement, and (2) that the sales process was flawed because of certain alleged conflicts with AEG's financial advisors. All the complaints allege that AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., and Socrates Merger Sub, Inc., aided and abetted the alleged breaches. The complaints that name as defendants AGM and Fund VIII, allege that those entities also aided and abetted the alleged breaches. No amount of damages is specified in any of the complaints. On April 12, 2016, the Court consolidated all the actions under the following caption: In re Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super. Ct.). The parties have informed the Court that they have entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the suit. The settlement contemplated by the memorandum will provide for the dismissal with prejudice on the merits and release of any and all claims by the proposed class against Defendants. The settlement also will recognize that the pendency of the suit was a factor in the decision by the purchasers of AEG to increase the price offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of AEG's common stock from $9.50 per share to $10.00 per share. The settlement is contingent upon the consummation of the merger agreement, Plaintiffs' taking confirmatory discovery, the execution of definitive settlement papers, certification of the proposed class, and court approval. The parties asked the court to extend the deadline by which the Plaintiffs must file an amended consolidated complaint or designate an operative complaint until November 8, 2016. The Court responded with an order explaining that the case will be dismissed on December 9, 2016, unless the parties submit a stipulated judgment or stipulated dismissal before that date, or the court otherwise extends the deadline for good cause. Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. APOLLO GLOBAL: Defendant in Rackspace Shareholder Action -------------------------------------------------------- Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that following the August 26, 2016 announcement that Rackspace Hosting, Inc. ("Rackspace") had entered into a merger agreement with certain entities organized and owned by investment funds managed by AGM (the "Apollo Merger Entities"), on October 11, 2016, a putative shareholder class action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and named as defendants Rackspace, the directors of Rackspace, AGM and the Apollo Merger Entities. The case is captioned Shawn Luger v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 12819-CB. The complaint purports to assert a claim against the directors of Rackspace for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duty of disclosure In connection with the Definitive Proxy Statement filed by Rackspace with the SEC on September 30, 2016 (the "Rackspace Proxy Statement"), and also purports to assert a claim against Rackspace, AGM and the Apollo Merger Entities for allegedly aiding and abetting this alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the directors of Rackspace. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Rackspace Proxy Statement failed to provide material information and/or omitted material information concerning the proposed acquisition of Rackspace. The complaint seeks to enjoin the consummation of the proposed acquisition of Rackspace, or to rescind it (or award rescissory damages) in the event it is consummated, and requests an award to the class of compensatory damages, an award to plaintiff of costs, attorneys' fees and expert fees, and other equitable relief. AGM and the Apollo Merger Entities believe these claims are without merit. As this case is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made at this time. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well as other institutional and individual investors. ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Siegel" Suit Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the case captioned JODI SIEGEL, Plaintiff, v. ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., CHRISTOPHER R. ANZALONE, and KENNETH A. MYSZKOWSKI, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-08954 (C.D. Cal., December 2, 2016), alleges individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, that Defendants publicly issued false and misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts regarding the development of its three clinical-stage drugs, in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. is a biopharmaceutical company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 9430 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 209-2468 Fax: (310) 209-2087 E-mail: service@ssbla.com - and - Melissa Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 687-7230 Fax: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: memert@ssbny.com AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal of Dismissal Order Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the lead plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's dismissal order and their motion to vacate and reconsider the court's judgment remain pending. The Company said, "Two class action lawsuits have been filed against us and certain of our former officers and members of our board of directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157- JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320- JLT, filed on May 31, 2013." "On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased our common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. The amended complaint generally alleged that we and certain of our present 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 concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for our TIVO-1 study in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. "The consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations. "We moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in our favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. "The lead plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They have also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's judgment, which we have opposed. "We deny any allegations of wrongdoing and intend to continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time." AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted therapeutics for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. BCB BANCORP: Plaintiff's Bid for $1-Mil. in Fees Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- BCB Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has not scheduled a hearing date for the Fee Motion in a class action lawsuit. The Company, as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and in its own corporate capacity, was a named defendant in a shareholder class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Chancery Division, General Equity (the "Action"). On September 21, 2015, the court entered an Order and Final Judgment ("Judgment"), whereby the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") agreed to by the plaintiff class, the Company and the remaining defendants was approved. Pursuant to the Stipulation, the plaintiff class's counsel reserved the right to seek an award of counsel fees and litigation expenses ("Fees Motion"). The maximum amount which may be awarded as a result of the Fees Motion is $1,000,000.00. The plaintiff class's counsel has made a Fee Motion to the court seeking a final award of counsel fees and litigation expenses of approximately $1,000,000.00. The Company and the remaining defendants have vigorously opposed that motion. It is anticipated that the plaintiff class's counsel will submit a reply to the opposition filed by the Company and the remaining defendants. The court has not scheduled a hearing date for the Fee Motion. BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Faces "West" Suit in S.D. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Benjamin Restaurant Group, LLC. The case is styled Mary West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Benjamin Restaurant Group, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09387 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2016). Founded in 2006, the family owned and operated Benjamin Restaurant Group has grown to comprise some of the New York metro areas premier culinary destinations offering high quality food in luxurious environments. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com BLU PRODUCTS: Phones Contain Spyware, Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Don Debenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action in Los Angeles claims that spyware in thousands of inexpensive Android cellphones may have secretly transmitted purchasers' personal data, contacts and text messages to a server in China. Lead plaintiff Darren Martinez claims Miami-based phone maker Blu Products knowingly used low-level control software from co- defendant Shanghai Adups Technology Co. and its subsidiary Adups USA, which included the undisclosed spyware. The software was set to send users' personal data to an Adups server in Shangai every 72 hours. "Unbeknown to the class, they had purchased mobile phones that contained extensive spyware that was intercepting, collecting and retransmitting information and data that they entered into the products during their ordinary use," according to the Dec. 2 complaint. Martinez lives in Los Angeles, co-plaintiff Joe Mocnik in Tennessee. A similar class action against the same defendants was filed on Nov. 22 in Miami Federal Court. All citations in this article are from the Los Angeles lawsuit. At least 120,000 Blu Products phones sold this year contain the suspect Adups software embedded in the software layer known as "firmware," the complaint states. Shanghai Adups makes the control firmware used in more than 700 million cellphones, tablets, automobiles and other devices, including many Blu Products devices. The Chinese company claims a 70 percent market share for such software in more than 150 countries. News about the alleged spyware broke Nov. 15 in a report from computer security company Kryptowire. The company discovered that Blu Products phones with recent Adups firmware would transmit users' full text messages, contact lists, call histories and unique device identifiers. "The firmware could target specific users and text messages matching remotely defined keywords," the Kryptowire report states. It also could execute system commands and reprogram the phones. After the Kryptowire report, Adups apologized in a statement and issued updated firmware without the security vulnerabilities. Blu Products said it moved quickly to upload the replacement firmware on its phones. "Our customers' privacy and security are of the upmost importance and priority," the company said in a statement. In a separate statement, Adups said it had created the information-transmitting application for unnamed clients who sought ways for users to flag and screen out junk texts and calls. In June, some Blu Products devices received firmware that "inadvertently included" that application, the company said. It said that all the data from those devices has been deleted, and none was shared with outsiders. "This is a private company that made a mistake," an attorney for Adups told The New York Times. Martinez's attorney, Lawrence M. Rosen of Los Angeles, said he does not discuss his cases in the press. His lawsuit presents a different view of what happened. "The defendants knew that the products utilized the Adups spyware," which "created serious security vulnerabilities, interfered detrimentally with the user experience, and otherwise rendered the products unfit for the purposes of which they were sold," the complaint states. It adds that Adups markets its services to companies that need "big data" analytics and that users' personal information was sent to a server at the address "bigdata.adups.com." "Despite this awareness, the defendants caused the software to be installed because it financially benefited from the software through the use and review of the data intercepted," according to the 40-page complaint. It's not enough that the defendants have apologized and replaced the offending application, the complaint states. "Despite the firmware update that purports to remove the spyware functions, the defendants, at any time, can push an update to the products that restarts the spyware functionality," it claims. The plaintiffs seek class certification and damages of up to $10,000 per user plus punitive damages for violations of the federal Wiretap Act and the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and for breach of warranty, fraud, deceptive advertising, negligence, invasion of privacy and violations of 20 states' consumer protection laws. In the Miami class action, lead plaintiff Aaron Bonds, of Alabama, is represented by Amy Zeman, with the Gibbs Law Group, of Miami Beach, assisted by Daniel Girard, with Girard Gibbs, in San Francisco. Rosen's law firm is assisted by Philip Kin and Christopher Hinton, both of New York City. The case is captioned, DARREN MARTINEZ AND JOE MOCNIK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. BLU PRODUCTS, INC., SHANGHAI ADUPS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., and ADUPS USA LLC, Defendants (C.D. Cal.). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: 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 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com - and - Christopher S. Hinton, Esq. THE HINTON LAW FIRM 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 723-3377 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 Email: chinton@hintonlegal.com BOTANAS II LLC: "Diaz-Ortiz" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Javier Diaz-Ortiz a/k/a Anahi Diaz-Ortiz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Botanas II, LLC d/b/a Botanas II Mexican Restaurant and Martha Navejar, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01596 (E.D. Wis., December 1, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, civil penalties, costs, attorneys' fees and/or any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendants operate the Botanas II Mexican Restaurant located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where Diaz-Ortiz worked as a bartender. He claims to have been denied overtime for work in excess of forty hours in a given workweek. Plaintiff was represented by: Summer H. Murshid, Esq. Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: 414-271-8650 Fax: 414-271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com BRAND PLUMBING: McFeeters Seeks to Certify Class of Plumbers ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DUANE MCFEETERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BRAND PLUMBING, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv-01122-EFM-KGS (D. Kan.), moves the Court for an order finding that he has met his burden under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) with regards to his Fair Labor Standards Act claims and conditionally certifying his claim as a collective action. Mr. McFeeters also seeks an order authorizing notice to be mailed to a class composed of all current and former employees of Brand Plumbing, who held the position of plumber, who were not paid any overtime premium for hours over 40 in any work week, from December 1, 2013, to the present as a consequence of not being credited and compensated for driving time in a company truck. He asks the Court to require the Defendant to (i) provide him the names, last- known addresses, telephone numbers, last four digits of the individual's social security number and date of birth of all members of the putative class, and (ii) post notice of the lawsuit in conspicuous locations where it employs its employees. He further asks to be appointed as as Class Representative and his counsel as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JChbtKtK The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald N. Peterson, Esq. Sean M. McGivern, Esq. GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC 218 N. Mosley St. Wichita, KS 67202 Telephone: (316) 266-4058 Facsimile: (316) 462-5566 E-mail: don@graybillhazlewood.com sean@graybillhazlewood.com BULLDOG OILFIELD: Faces "Yorba" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Yorba, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Bulldog Oilfield Services, Inc. and Brian K. Sneed, Case No. 5:16-cv-01656 (W.D. La., November 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bulldog Oilfield Services, Inc. operates a full service Frac Water Transfer company located in Shreveport, Louisiana. It also conducts business in North Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Goudelocke, Esq. DURIO, MCGOFFIN, STAGG & ACKERMANN 220 Heymann Blvd. P.O. Box 51308 (70505) Lafayette, LA 70503 Telephone: (337) 233-0300 Facsimile: (337) 233-0694 E-mail: ryan@dmsfirm.com CANDELA CORP: Body-Shaping System Doesn't Work, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a class in Chicago Cook County claims that Candela Corporation's Ultrashape body-shaping system, which is supposed to allow patients to drop two dress sizes in three treatments, does not work as advertised. The case is Renee Burke, MD, P.C., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Candela Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2016CH15692, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, December 2, 2016. Attorneys to the Plaintiff: Law Offices of Arnold H. Landis, Esq. 77 W. Washington, Ste. 702 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: 312-236-6268 CARBYLAN THERAPEUTICS: Voluntary Class Action Dismissal Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carbylan Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda (the "Court") on October 31, 2016, approved a voluntary dismissal of the purported stockholder class action complaint filed in the Court on September 26, 2016 against certain members of the board of directors and certain executives of Carbylan Therapeutics, Inc., as well as against KalVista Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Wedbush Securities Inc. and certain unknown employees of Wedbush, entitled Laidlaw v. Carbylan Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. RG16832665. CARDINAL INNOVATIONS: Kirkpatrick Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MOLLY KIRKPATRICK, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. CARDINAL INNOVATIONS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, Case No. 1:16-cv-01088-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying and approving notice to this Fair Labor Standards Act collective class: All persons who are, have been, or will be employed by Defendant as I/DD Care Coordinators within the State of North Carolina at any time within the last three years (the "I/DD Care Coordinator Collective Class"). Ms. Kirkpatrick also asks the Court to order Cardinal to provide her counsel the names, job locations, dates of employment, mailing addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of all persons who are, have been, or will be employed by the Defendant as I/DD Care Coordinators within the state of North Carolina at any time within the last three years. She also seeks authority to mail and e-mail her proposed notice and consent forms to the putative class members, and approval of a 90-day opt-in period. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U9bGAZeZ The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Strianese, Esq. Tamara L. Huckert, Esq. STRIANESE PLLC 401 North Tryon St., 10th Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 998-2577 Facsimile: (704) 998-5301 E-mail: chris@strilaw.com tamara@strilaw.com CARTER'S RETAIL: Wins Final Nod of $472,500 Deal in "Dudum" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement and their motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the lawsuit titled JULIE DUDUM, et al. v. CARTER'S RETAIL, INC., Case No. 3:14-cv-00988-HSG (N.D. Cal.). The Settlement Class includes all current and former hourly employees of the Defendant, who worked in the State of California from January 27, 2010, through and including January 15, 2015, and who (a) received one or more bonus payments during the class period; and (b) worked overtime at any point during the class period. In full settlement of the claims asserted, the Defendant agrees to pay $472,500. The Settlement Agreement provides that the disbursable settlement amount will be allocated to class members based on two factors. The Court approves payment of attorneys' fees for $150,488, costs for $7,012, estimated settlement administration costs of $13,599, service awards for $5,000 for each named Plaintiff, and payment of $4,000 to cover penalties under the Private Attorney General Act. The Parties and Settlement Administrator are directed to implement this Final Order and the Settlement Agreement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the provisions governing distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. The Court grants final certification of the class, and confirms the appointment of John McIntyre of Shea & McIntyre, A.P.C. and Cary Kletter of Kletter + Nguyen Law, LLP as co-lead counsel. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter Final Judgment consistent with this order, and to close the case. The Settlement Agreement provides that unclaimed settlement funds above a 50% floor will revert to the Defendant. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MrOdVwsy CHANG LUNG: Faces "Jian" Suit in Eastern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chang Lung Group Inc. The case is titled Jian Hua Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHANG LUNG GROUP INC. and Tommy Zhou, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 06722 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2016). Chang Lung Group is a busing and tourist services company. The Plaintiff appears pro se. CIM GROUP: Faces "Savickaite" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Lina Savickaite, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CIM Group, LP and Does 1 through 25, Case No. BC642234 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. CIM Group, LP operates a real estate investment firm in Dallas, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq. Rebecca G. Gundzik, Esq. GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 542-2100 Facsimile: (213) 542-2101 E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com rgundzik@gghslaw.com - and - Marshall A. Caskey, Esq. Daniel M. Holzman, Esq. Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq. CASKEY & HOLZMAN 24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 657-1070 Facsimile: (818) 297-1775 CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Clovis Oncology, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Clovis Defendants, along with the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture Capital Defendants' Motion to Dismiss remains pending. On November 19, 2015, Steve Kimbro, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kimbro Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Kimbro Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015. The Kimbro Complaint generally alleges that Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The Kimbro Complaint seeks unspecified damages. Also on November 19, 2015, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed by Sonny P. Medina, another purported Clovis shareholder, containing similar allegations to those set forth in the Kimbro Complaint, also in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The Medina Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and November 13, 2015. On November 20, 2015, a third complaint was filed by John Moran in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Moran Complaint"). The Moran Complaint contains similar allegations to those asserted in the Kimbro and Medina Complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 13, 2015. On December 14, 2015, Ralph P. Rocco, a fourth purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Rocco Complaint"). The Rocco Complaint contains similar allegations to those set forth in the previous complaints and purports to be asserted on behalf of a plaintiff class who purchased Clovis stock between October 31, 2013 and November 15, 2015. On January 19, 2016, a number of motions were filed in both the District of Colorado and the Northern District of California seeking to consolidate the shareholder class actions into one matter and for appointment of a lead plaintiff. All lead plaintiff movants other than M. Arkin (1999) LTD and Arkin Communications LTD (the "Arkin Plaintiffs") subsequently filed notices of non- opposition to the Arkin Plaintiffs' application. On February 2, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer the Moran Complaint to the District of Colorado (the "Motion to Transfer"). Also on February 2, 2016, the defendants filed a statement in the Northern District of California supporting the consolidation of all actions in a single court, the District of Colorado. On February 3, 2016, the Northern District of California court denied without prejudice the lead plaintiff motions filed in that court pending a decision on the Motion to Transfer. On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a memorandum in support of the Motion to Transfer, and plaintiff Moran filed a notice of non-opposition to the Motion to Transfer. On February 17, 2016, the Northern District of California court granted the Motion to Transfer. On February 18, 2016, the Medina court issued an opinion and order addressing the various motions for consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the District of Colorado actions. By this ruling, the court consolidated the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions into a single proceeding. The court also appointed the Arkin Plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman as lead counsel for the putative class. On April 1, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs and the defendants filed a stipulated motion to set the schedule for the filing of a consolidated complaint in the Medina, Kimbro and Rocco actions (the "Consolidated Complaint") and the responses thereto, including the defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), and to stay discovery and related proceedings until the District of Colorado issues a decision on the Motion to Dismiss. The stipulated motion was entered by the District of Colorado on April 4, 2016. Subject to further agreed-upon extensions by the parties, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint on May 6, 2016. The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers (the "Clovis Defendants"), certain underwriters (the "Underwriter Defendants") for a Company follow-on offering conducted in July 2015 (the "July 2015 Offering") and certain Company venture capital investors (the "Venture Capital Defendants"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants violated particular sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The purported misrepresentations and omissions concern allegedly misleading statements about rociletinib. The putative class action is purportedly brought on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's securities between May 31, 2014 and April 7, 2016 (with respect to the Exchange Act claims) and investors who purchased the Company's securities pursuant or traceable to the July 2015 Offering (with respect to the Securities Act claims). The Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and recessionary damages. On May 23, 2016, the Medina, Kimbro, Rocco and Moran actions were consolidated for all purposes in a single proceeding in the District of Colorado. The Clovis Defendants, along with the Underwriter Defendants and the Venture Capital Defendants, filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 27, 2016, the Arkin Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 23, 2016, and the defendants filed their replies on October 14, 2016. The Clovis Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Kimbro, Medina, Moran and Rocco Complaints, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing cancer treatments in the United States, Europe and other international markets. CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Electrical Workers Pension Fund's Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Clovis Oncology, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the San Mateo Superior Court has granted defendants' motion to stay proceedings in the lawsuit by Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts. On January 22, 2016, the Electrical Workers Local #357 Pension and Health & Welfare Trusts, a purported shareholder of Clovis, filed a purported class action complaint (the "Electrical Workers Complaint") against Clovis and certain of its officers, directors, investors and underwriters in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo. The Electrical Workers Complaint purports to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased stock in Clovis' July 8, 2015 follow-on offering. The Electrical Workers Complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act because the offering documents for the July 8, 2015 follow-on offering contained allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. The Electrical Workers Complaint seeks unspecified damages. On February 25, 2016, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and thereafter moved to transfer the case to the District of Colorado ("Motion to Transfer"). On March 2, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to San Mateo County Superior Court ("Motion to Remand"). Following briefing on the Motion to Transfer and the Motion to Remand, the Northern District of California held a hearing on April 18, 2016 concerning the Motion to Remand, at the conclusion of which the court granted to the Motion to Remand. On May 5, 2016, the Northern District of California issued a written decision and order granting the Motion to Remand the case to the Superior Court, County of San Mateo and denying the Motion to Transfer as moot. While the case was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the parties entered into a stipulation extending the defendants' time to respond to the Electrical Workers Complaint for 30 days following the filing of an amended complaint by plaintiff or the designation by plaintiff of the Electrical Workers Complaint as the operative complaint. Following remand, Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo so-ordered the stipulation on June 22, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the Electrical Workers Plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, certain underwriters for the July 2015 Offering and certain Company venture capital investors. The Amended Complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act based upon alleged misstatements in Clovis' offering documents for the July 2015 Offering. The Amended Complaint includes new allegations about the Company's rociletinib disclosures. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages. Pursuant to a briefing schedule ordered by the court on July 28, 2016, defendants filed a motion to stay the Electrical Workers action pending resolution of the Medina, Kimbro, Moran, and Rocco actions in the District of Colorado ("Motion to Stay"), and a demurrer to the Amended Complaint, on August 15, 2016; plaintiffs filed their oppositions on August 31, 2016; and the defendants filed their reply briefs on September 15, 2016. On September 23, 2016, after hearing oral argument, the San Mateo Superior Court granted defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of the related securities class action captioned Medina v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., et. al., No. 1:15-cv- 2546 (the "Colorado Action"). Per the order to stay proceedings, the San Mateo Superior Court will defer issuing a ruling on defendants' pending demurrer, and the parties' first status report as to the progress of the Colorado Action is due on March 23, 2017. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations contained in the Electrical Workers Amended Complaint, but there can be no assurance that the defense will be successful. Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing cancer treatments in the United States, Europe and other international markets. CUBESMART: Faces "Coleman" Class Suit in South. District Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against CubeSmart. The case is captioned Jerry Lee Coleman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CubeSmart, Case No. 1:16-cv- 25009-JEM (S.D. Fla., December 1, 2016). CubeSmart is a real estate investment trust and provider of self- storage facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Huff Schultz, Esq. Scott Brian Cosgrove, Esq. LEON COSGROVE LLC 255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 740-1986 Facsimile: (305) 437-8158 E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com - and - Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq. David Buckner, Esq. Seth Eric Miles, Esq. BUCKNER + MILES 3350 Mary Street Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 964-8003 Facsimile: (786) 523-0485 E-mail: vonborke@bucknermiles.com David@bucknermiles.com seth@bucknermiles.com DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces "Wells" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Darden Restaurants, Inc. The case is entitled ELIZABETH WELLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. DARDEN RESTAURANTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06295-GJP (E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Gerald J. Pappert. Darden Restaurants is an American multi-brand restaurant operator headquartered in Orlando. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Wins Prelim. OK of "Palmer" Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Paul G. Byron grants the parties' amended renewed joint motion for class certification and preliminary approval of class settlement filed in the lawsuit captioned RAY PALMER, JR. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC and CASCADE CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv- 00059-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.). The Court certified this class: (i) All persons with addresses in Florida; (ii) to whom Defendant Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC sent, or caused to be sent, a letter in the form of Exhibit A attached to the Complaint on behalf of Defendant Cascade Capital LLC; (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt originally due Bank of America; (iv) which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (v) on which the last payment was made five or more years prior to the date of mailing of the letter in the form of Exhibit A; and (vi) during the year prior to the filing of the original complaint in this action through the date of certification. The Court appoints (i) Ray Palmer, Jr., as lead Plaintiff and Class Representative, and (ii) Donald E. Petersen, Esq., and O. Randolph Bragg, Esq., as lead Class Counsel. The December 19, 2016 fairness hearing is cancelled. A hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement and final approval will be held on February 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m. The Court approves the proposed form of notice to the Class, which will be directed to the last known address of the Class members as shown on the Defendants' records. The Defendant's counsel will arrange for third party administrator, First Class, Inc., to mail the notice to Class members by December 16, 2016, and upon the Court's final approval of Class Settlement, for payment to be distributed pursuant to the Agreement to those Class members. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fhuNgw9e EBS SECURITY: "Lockley" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nathaniel Lockley, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EBS SECURITY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01500-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., December 5, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act; minimum wages under the Florida Constitution; and alleged unpaid wages under the Florida statutes. EBS SECURITY, INC. offers security services including government contracting, construction sites, special events security, private investigations, and body guard services. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. John Gadd, Esq. Bank America Building 2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste 250 Clearwater, FL 33762 Phone: (727) 524-6300 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Suit Over Constact Contact Deal Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to either of the Complaints related to the Constant Contact acquisition. On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, or the Chawdry Complaint, and on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828, or the Myers Complaint (together with the Chawdry Complaint, the Complaints) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware naming Constant Contact, each of Constant Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that in connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints seek, among other things, to rescind the acquisition, as well as award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the action. The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to either of these Complaints. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Complaints are without merit and intend to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp., its primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International Group, Inc., and other subsidiary companies of EIG. The Company is a provider of cloud- based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized businesses succeed online. EPIC SYSTEMS: "Schultz" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- SCHULTZ, K., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION c/o Judith R. Faulkner, 1979 Milky Way Verona, Wisconsin 53593, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-797 (W.D. Wis., December 2, 2016), alleges that Defendants were denied overtime wages under an illegal pay policy whereby they were commonly misclassified as exempt from overtime wages under state law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION -- http://www.epic.com/-- develops, installs, and supports software for medical groups, hospitals, and integrated healthcare organizations. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Zoeller, Esq. William E. Parsons, Esq. Caitlin M. Madden, Esq. Katelynn M. Williams, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. Post Office Box 2155 Madison, WI 53701-2155 Phone: 608-257-0040 Fax: 608-256-0236 Email: dzoeller@hq-law.com wparsons@hq-law.com cmadden@hq-law.com kwilliams@hq-law.com - and - Daniel A. Rottier, Esq. Jason Knutson, Esq. Breanne L. Snapp, Esq. HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C. 150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: 608-255-6663 Fax: 608-255-0745 Email: rottier@habush.com jknutson@habush.com bsnapp@habush.com ESA MANAGEMENT: Faces "Delaughter" Class Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against ESA Management LLC. The case is captioned Cynthia Delaughter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ESA Management LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-03302-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., December 1, 2016). ESA Management LLC is engaged in the motel and hotel management business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com FCA US LLC: Automotive Diesel Emissions Hit in "Chavez" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Robert Bosch GmBH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany; and Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06909, (N.D. Cal., December 1, 2016), seeks to temporarily and permanently enjoin FCA and Bosch from continuing unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent and unfair business practices; injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free replacement program; restitution including recovery of the purchase price of their affected vehicles, or the overpayment or diminution in value of such; damages, including punitive damages; costs and disgorgement; monetary relief under certain consumer protection statutes; pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; award of costs and attorneys' fees and such other or further relief as may be appropriate resulting from fraudulent concealment and violation of various state consumer protection and trade practice laws and regulations. Chavez purchased a new model year 2016 Dodge Ram 1500 EcoDiesel from Hilltop Chrysler Jeep Dodge. Its EcoDiesel engine allegedly emitted excessive level of pollutants. FCA US LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is wholly owned by holding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutch corporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom. FCA's principal place of business and headquarters is in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: "Babcock" Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Babcock, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas, Inc., Stephen L. Wambold and Alan C. Heitmann, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09294, (S.D. N.Y., December 1, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ferrellgas Partners, LP is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal offices located in Overland Park, Kansas, mainly into propane distribution. Ferrellgas, Inc. is the general partner of Ferrellgas. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that low oil prices were negatively impacting business operation, the Company was increasingly over-leveraged, it was unable to operate under the terms of its credit facility and accounts receivable securitization facility and that the Company would be forced to reduce its quarterly distribution. Ferrellgas' share price fell $3.50 per share upon dissemination of the news, to close at $13.00 per share -- a decline of 21.2% on unusually heavy trading volume. The stock price has continued to decline, dropping to $8.00 per share as of November 1, 2016, a decline of over 50% of its value. Babcock purchased securities of Ferrellgas at artificially inflated prices and has lost substantially. Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com FIREEYE INC: Defending Against Stockholder Suit California Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former members of our Board of Directors, current and former officers, and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering. On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The actions were consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief." "On April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the amended complaint be dismissed. On August 11, 2015, the court overruled defendants' demurrers. On January 6, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking that the action be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which the court denied on April 1, 2016. "On May 19, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking the overturning of the court's denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. On September 8, 2016, the court of appeal denied the petition. "On September 16, 2016, the Company and the individual defendants filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court of California. On November 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of the putative class, which the court granted in part and denied in part on July 11, 2016. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. "Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable," the Company said. FireEye, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a leader in stopping advanced cyber attacks that use advanced malware, zero- day exploits, and APT ("Advanced Persistent Threat") tactics. FIREEYE INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that no ruling has been issued on the Defendants' motion to dismiss a purported stockholder class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers. On June 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 2, 2014, and November 4, 2014. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. On August 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was heard on November 12, 2015. No ruling has been issued on the motion. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. FireEye, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries is a leader in stopping advanced cyber attacks that use advanced malware, zero- day exploits, and APT ("Advanced Persistent Threat") tactics. TARGA RESOURCES: TRC/TRP Merger Action Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against litigation related to TRC/TRP Merger. On December 16, 2015, two purported unitholders of TRP (the "State Court Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit challenging the TRC/TRP Merger against TRC, TRP (as a nominal defendant), TRP GP, the members of the board of TRP GP (the "TRP GP Board") and Merger Sub (collectively, the "State Court Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled Leslie Blumberg et al. v. TRC Resources Corp., et al., Cause No. 2015-75481, in the 234th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (the "State Court Lawsuit"). The State Court Plaintiffs amended the State Court Lawsuit on July 26, 2016. The State Court Plaintiffs allege several causes of action challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. Generally, the State Court Plaintiffs allege that (i) the members of the TRP GP Board breached express and/or implied duties under the Partnership Agreement and (ii) TRC, TRP GP, and Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of duties. The State Court Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP's unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC's stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the "no-solicitation," "matching rights," and "termination fee" provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair, (e) the TRP GP Board had conflicts of interest due to TRC's control of TRP GP, (f) the TRP GP Conflicts Committee's financial advisor was conflicted and conducted flawed analyses, and (g) the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger (the "Proxy") failed to disclose allegedly material information concerning, among other things, (i) the TRC and TRP projections included in the Proxy, and (ii) the analyses conducted by the TRP GP Conflicts Committee's financial advisor in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger. Based on these allegations, the State Court Plaintiffs seek damages and attorneys' fees. On February 26 and 29, 2016, the State Court Defendants filed general denials and asserted affirmative defenses. On August 26, 2016, the State Court Defendants filed Special Exceptions and a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking to have the State Court Lawsuit dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The Special Exceptions and Motion for Summary Judgment are pending before the Court. The State Court Defendants cannot predict the outcome of this or any other lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report, nor can the State Court Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve such litigation. The State Court Defendants believe the State Court Lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend vigorously against this lawsuit and any other actions that challenge the TRC/TRP Merger. Targa is engaged in the business of: gathering, compressing, treating, processing and selling natural gas; storing, fractionating, treating, transporting and selling natural gas liquids and NGL products, including services to LPG exporters; gathering, storing and terminaling crude oil; and storing, terminaling and selling refined petroleum products. FITBIT INC: Trial in Sleep Tracking Suit Set for May 2017 --------------------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that trial is scheduled for May 30, 2017, in the Sleep Tracking class action lawsuit. On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs have amended their complaint four times, and on January 15, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. On July 15, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Trial is currently scheduled for May 30, 2017. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. FITBIT INC: Hearing Held on Issue of Arbitrability -------------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that in the Heart Rate Tracking class action, a hearing was set for November 10, 2016, on whether the issue of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator. On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California, alleging that the PurePulse heart rate tracking technology in the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge do not consistently and accurately record users' heart rates. Plaintiffs allege common law claims as well as violations of various states' false advertising and unfair competition statutes based on the Company's sale and marketing of the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge. Plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint that combines the plaintiffs from the two previously filed complaints. On May 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. Attached as an exhibit was a "study" commissioned by the plaintiffs and performed by two researchers at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, which allegedly found that the Fitbit devices incorrectly measured heart rate by an average of 20 beats per minute during moderate to high exercise. The Company has not yet answered. On November 10, 2016, the parties had a hearing on whether the issue of arbitrability should be decided by the arbitrator. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. FITBIT INC: San Mateo Action Transferred to San Francisco --------------------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that a class action in San Mateo, California, has been transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers, its board members, the underwriters for the IPO, and a number of its investors (the "San Mateo Action"). On May 23, 2016, the Court granted plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss the investor defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the IPO registration statement contained material misstatements about the Company's products. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased Fitbit common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 17, 2016, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco alleging claims similar to those at issue in the San Mateo Action and the Federal Securities Class Action (the "San Francisco Action"). The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act based on alleged material misstatements in the registration statements for the IPO and November 2015 follow-on public offering and names as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters for the Company's public offerings, and two of the Company's investors. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who acquired Fitbit common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and follow-on public offering. The Company removed both the San Mateo Action and the San Francisco Action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 27, 2016, the District Court remanded the actions back to state court. Defendants have not yet answered. On September 19, 2016, the San Mateo Action was transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations in these actions are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Overstates CnF Value, FourWorld Report Says -------------------------------------------------------------- FourWorld Capital Management, LLC, has completed an independent analysis of the principal product of Flotek Industries Inc. (NYSE: FTK) ("Flotek"), challenging the efficacy and value of the fracking additive known as CnF. Houston-based Flotek, a supplier of specialty chemicals to the oil and gas industry, markets CnF as a high-potency fracking additive that it claims enhances the extraction of oil and natural gas from horizontal wells by 30% to 70% relative to similar additives. Touted as its "crown jewel," CnF has long been Flotek's primary driver of revenue and profitability, which is sold to operators of hydraulic fracturing oil and gas wells across the United States. Flotek sells CnF at a premium that is multiples of the price of widely available generic surfactants. New York-based FourWorld Capital is an SEC-registered investment advisor focusing on event-based investments prompted by specific tax, legal or regulatory drivers. The firm was founded by John Addis, formerly head of Americas Equity Finance at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. FourWorld's analysis reveals that Flotek overstates the impact of CnF on well productivity. In addition, an analysis using publicly available data on oil and gas wells shows the vast majority of major oil and gas producers have discontinued their use of CnF products in well completions in recent years. "Through a painstaking analysis of CnF performance -- using publicly available data on shale production from the leading industry data sources -- we found that CnF has no measurable impact on oil production in fracked wells," Mr. Addis stated. Among its findings on CnF, FourWorld's investigation has determined that: -- Flotek may not have provided critical information to an independent consulting firm, MHA Petroleum Consultants, commissioned by a special committee of the Flotek Board of Directors to evaluate the product earlier this year. FourWorld contends that the resulting study, published by Flotek this past January, was based on incomplete data and used an evaluation technique that failed to control for key variables in the oil extraction process. -- Employing evaluation techniques that properly control for the key variables in the oil production process (e.g., location, well length, water and sand volume), the estimated impact of CnF on oil production is indistinguishable from zero. The analysis covered the same focus areas indicated in DJ Basin report from MHA commissioned by Flotek. -- Studies of CnF use in fracking completions from a nationwide database of over 117,000 well sites from over 1,000 oil and gas operators across 25 states, shows nearly 85% of the end users of CnF products since November 2012 are no longer using Flotek's CnF product in their reported well completions. Among these are major operators like Anadarko Petroleum, Devon Energy, Aera Energy and ConocoPhilips, who all rank in the top ten operators by overall well count in the database during the study period. -- In recent earnings presentations, Flotek highlights the "resilience" of CnF sales volumes stemming from its broadening base of CnF customers. FourWorld's analysis shows the growing concentration of CnF use by just three operators -- due to changes in well design -- has masked the true level of CnF end user attrition, and demonstrates that consumption by new operators has been minimal. -- Flotek's financial condition is heavily dependent on CnF. FourWorld believes anyone reviewing the Company should carefully consider the impact on Flotek's income statement if CnF sales were materially reduced from either a reduction in pricing more in line with competitor products or a decline in volumes from existing customers. As of the publication date of the report, FourWorld, and FourWorld managed accounts, have a direct or indirect short position in Flotek stock, and stand to realize significant gains in the event the price of Flotek stock declines. The consulting firms hired by FourWorld, and referenced in the report, are receiving a fee based on the performance of FourWorld's positions in Flotek stock, and, independent of FourWorld, may have a direct or indirect short position in Flotek stock. Incomplete list of CnF trade names provided by Flotek helped overstate product's efficacy FourWorld believes that the list of trade names provided by Flotek to MHA, a Denver based consulting firm hired by a special committee of the Flotek Board of Directors, was incomplete and materially affected the results of their study in Denver-Julesburg Basin of Colorado. MHA relied on these trade names in order to determine which wells had Flotek's CnF products in them. The trade names present in the focus areas of the published study include at least two CnF products not present on the list provided by Flotek, which accounted for an estimated 22% of CnF wells in the focus areas reported to show materially improved results from CnF. Without these additional trade names, wells that used CnF would be misclassified as wells not using the product. Using its own comprehensive data set of wells in the same focus areas of the DJ Basin, FourWorld shows the impact of mislabeling these wells in a simple control study, like the one conducted by MHA, is material. The largest number of mislabeled wells in the data-set belonged to Noble Energy. The MHA study was commissioned by the Special Technical Committee, a committee formed from Flotek's own Board of Directors, which was tasked with handling an SEC inquiry into Flotek marketing practices and evaluating the efficacy of CnF. Among the members of the Flotek Board is Ted D. Brown, senior vice president of Noble's Northern Region, including operations in the DJ Basin, until January 31, 2015. FourWorld's own comparative study of 604 wells in the DJ basin shows no CnF benefit FourWorld, working closely with two Houston-based energy and performance measurement consultants, RK Trading LLC and Sylvania LLC, tested CnF extensively using various methods. The group performed analyses to evaluate the performance of wells located in the eastern Colorado section of the DJ Basin, the area reported in the study published by Flotek to show the highest levels of oil production outperformance from wells labeled as using a CnF product compared to wells determined not to contain a CnF product by MHA. These analyses demonstrate that simply controlling for the key variables known to affect oil production, such as well length, location, water volume, sand use and operator, reveals that the estimated effect of CnF on oil production is indistinguishable from zero. In simpler terms, where and how you frack the well matters. RK and Sylvania used robust regressions and Generalized Additive Models to demonstrate that production in the DJ Basin wells varies systematically with these key variables. The analysis indicates that all of the outperformance of wells using a CnF product was attributable to variable affecting oil production, and not the presence of CnF. RK and Sylvania indicate similar conclusions have been obtained for a large sample of wells completed in the Permian Basin, one of the most prolific oil and gas producing regions in the country. An analysis of a publicly available database shows 85% attrition of CnF end users Using FracFocus, the industry standard source for finding chemical data on oil and gas wells, FourWorld conducted a study of over 117,000 well sites from over 1,000 operators in 25 states to evaluate the use of CnF in fracking completions. The results of FourWorld's analyses show that of the 334 operators who have used CnF in any well completion over the last four years, nearly 85% of them no longer report using a CnF product in well completions. Among them are major operators like Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC), EOG Resources Inc. (EOG), Devon Energy Corp. (DVN), Aera Energy LLC and ConocoPhilips (COP). FourWorld analysis shows 160 of 183 operators are no longer using CnF products in well completions when the analysis is limited to horizontal fracked wells only. Flotek highlights new CnF customers while avoiding the turnover among existing users: "[T]he base of CnF users broadened meaningfully in the third quarter" Flotek CFO John Chisholm said in a 3rd Quarter 2016 earnings call. Analysis of Flotek's own presentation materials from an industry conference in November 2016 shows evidence of customer turnover of nearly 70% since the start of 2014, while the operator study described above shows a similar yet slightly higher attrition rate of 85% of CnF end users. Furthermore, using FracFocus data, FourWorld has identified just 19 "new" CnF end users in 2016, who have completed a combined total of 50 wells with CnF out of the 285 total well completed in the period. FourWorld believes Flotek's new customers have been almost exclusively smaller operators with minimal revenue potential. Water usage studies conducted by FourWorld show that the top three users of CnF have propped up CnF sales volumes despite a massively fall in CnF well completion counts for operators outside the top three, which highlight a worsening customer concentration problem and calls into question Flotek's claims of a broadening customer base and accelerated adoption of CnF chemistries. The collaboration of FourWorld, RK Trading and Sylvania produced multiple studies to measure the efficacy on CnF under strict variable controls. This powerful combination brought together expertise in data collection, database management, and statistical analysis of well chemistry and completion design. Dr. Jefferis, partner at RK Trading and consulting statistician, added, "The analysis is very cut and dried. We evaluated the DJ Basin data using several different approaches, and obtained the same answer in every case. Once you recognize that a well completed by someone who has already drilled several hundred wells in a given location is bound to behave differently than a well completed by party who has much less local experience, and acknowledge the challenge of pushing oil through an 8,000-ft. wellbore, the results more or less fall into your lap." FourWorld's full thesis, along with a white paper authored by RK Trading and Sylvania discussing their regression analysis and generalized additive model study, are available at www.fourworldcapital.com. About FourWorld Capital FourWorld Capital Management LLC -- http://www.fourworldcapital.com-- is an SEC registered investment adviser based in New York. FourWorld focuses on event-driven investing, with an emphasis on tax, legal and regulatory catalysts. Following publication of this report, FourWorld intends to continue transacting in the securities covered herein. The firm may be long, short, or neutral at any time hereafter regardless of its initial recommendation. Please see the full Disclaimer appearing in the report available on the FourWorld website at: http://fourworldcapital.com/research-flotek FourWorld Capital Management, LLC is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, CRD number 284138. FOREVER 21: Faces "Huang" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- LI HUANG, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FOREVER 21, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06712- ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y., December 5, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff have received from Defendant(s) unsolicited and unconsented-to commercial text messages to their mobile phones from FOREVER 21, INC. in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Forever 21, Inc. operates as a fashion retailer of women's, men's, and kid's clothing and accessories internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 GENCO SHIPPING: Dismissal of Merger Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, regarding the dismissal of their class action lawsuit related to the Company's merger with Baltic Trading Limited. On April 7, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive merger agreement with Baltic Trading under which the Company acquired Baltic Trading in a stock-for-stock transaction. In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. On May 26, 2015, the six actions were consolidated under the caption In Re Baltic Trading Ltd. Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 651241/2015, and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on June 10, 2015 (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint is purported to be brought by and on behalf of Baltic Trading's shareholders and alleges that the then-proposed July 2015 merger did not fairly compensate Baltic Trading's shareholders and undervalued Baltic Trading. The Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the Company, Baltic Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading's board, and the Company's merger subsidiary. The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty, including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii) aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified damages. On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the merger vote, scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015. The motion was thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015. The motion to enjoin the vote was denied on July 15, 2015 (the "Preliminary Injunction Denial"). Plaintiffs sought an emergency injunction and temporary restraining order from the New York State Appellate Division, First Department the following day, on July 16, 2015. The Appellate Division denied the request, and the vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July 17, 2015. Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew that appeal. On June 30, 2015, Defendants had moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs subsequently served an Amended Consolidated Complaint, and Defendants directed their motion to dismiss to that amended complaint. The motion to dismiss was granted and the Amended Consolidated Complaint was dismissed with prejudice on August 29, 2016 (the "Dismissal Decision"). On September 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, which recites their appeal of the Dismissal Decision, "including . . . and as referenced in" the Dismissal Order, the Preliminary Injunction Denial. Genco is a Marshall Islands company that transports iron ore, coal, grain, steel products and other drybulk cargoes along worldwide shipping routes through the ownership and operation of drybulk carrier vessels. GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Wagner" Suit Over Product Misbranding --------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-10961 (N.D. Ill., November 30, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's unfair and deceptive business practices by misrepresenting the nature and quality of GNC's L-Glutamine dietary supplements Pro Performance(R) L-Glutamine Powder 5000, Pro Performance(R) L- Glutamine 1500, Pro Performance(R) RapidDrive Glutamine 2500 Power Chew, and Pro Performance(R) RapidDrive Glutamine 5000 on the Products' labels. General Nutrition Corporation operates a health and fitness company that sells various weight loss, bodybuilding, nutritional supplements, and vitamins, including glutamine dietary supplements. The Plaintiff is represented by: Klint L. Bruno, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. THE BRUNO FIRM 900 West Jackson Boulevard Suite 4E Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (773) 969-6160 E-mail: kbruno@brunolawus.com msilverman@brunolawus.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 1644 Bracken Road Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com GEO CORRECTIONS: Faces "Weldon" Suit in California Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC. The case is captioned TAMETRA WELDON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. GEO CORRECTIONS AND DETENTION, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-16- 102833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 5, 2016). GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC was incorporated in 2012 and is based in Boca Raton, Florida. GEO Corrections and Detention, LLC operates as a subsidiary of GEO Corrections Holdings Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (888) 500 8469 GOPRO INC: Jan. 2017 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Camia Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss the Camia Investment Class Action is set for hearing in January 2017. The Company said, "Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of four purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of our current and former officers. Similar complaints were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016 and February 19, 2016." "Each of the complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased our publicly traded securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for the first three complaints and between November 26, 2014 and January 13, 2016 for the last filed complaint. Each complaint purports to allege that defendants made false and misleading statements about our business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and each seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. "On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three actions (Camia Investments Class Action); the court allowed the fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November 26, 2014 through July 20, 2015 (Majesty Palms Class Action) and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action. The lead plaintiff in the Majesty Palms Class Action did not file an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed the Majesty Palms Class Action on July 28, 2016. "On September 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Camia Investment Class Action. That motion is currently set for hearing in January 2017." GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. GOPRO INC: Bid to Dismiss San Mateo Court Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Defendants' demurrer (motion to dismiss) to an amended complaint was scheduled to be heard on November 22, 2016. The Company said, "On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of our current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of our IPO. The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased our stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with our IPO and purports to allege claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act). The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief. A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated on June 7, 2016. Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the consolidated action. On July 13, 2016, the Court sustained the demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend and ordered plaintiff to file any amended complaint by October 7, 2016. On October 7, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, again alleging claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act against the same group of defendants. The defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the amended complaint on October 28, 2016, which was scheduled to be heard on November 22, 2016. GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. GRUMA CORPORATION: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Carmen Pineda, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Gruma Corporation, Gruma Azteca, Inc., Mission Foods Corporation, Mission Mexican Foods, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC642396 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest for unpaid overtime wages for overtime hours worked; failure to provide adequate meal and rest periods or pay meal and rest period premium wages; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment and for failure to pay final paychecks; injunctive relief and other equitable relief; and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a food company that produces and distributes tortillas and corn flour throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 GC SERVICES: Ocampo's Bid for Class Certification Due on March 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on November 30, 2016, in the case titled Jose Luis Ocampo v. GC Services International, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan. The minute entry states that: -- Status hearing was held and continued to June 20, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Court adopts the parties' proposed dates; -- All fact discovery will be noticed in time to be completed by June 16, 2017; -- Dispositive motions are to be filed by July 18, 2017; -- Responses to the dispositive motions, if any, are to be filed by August 8, 2017, and replies, if any, are to be filed by August 29, 2017; -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken without prejudice. Plaintiff has preserved his right; -- Plaintiff is given leave to file a motion for class certification by March 3, 2017; and -- Response to motion for class certification to be filed by April 3, 2017 and reply to be filed by April 24, 2017. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YbDKyD0D GULF COAST: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fulgencio" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Fulgencio o/b/o himself and all similarly-situated individuals v. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 8:16- cv-03301-SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla., December 1, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc. operates a collection agency that provides receivables management services for commercial, health care, retail, and government. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com HOUSTON, TX: Cops Illegally Detain Arrestees, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that two Texans claim in a federal class action in Houston, that Houston unconstitutionally detains people it arrests longer than 48 hours without giving them a probable cause hearing. Lead plaintiff Juan Hernandez, 43, says Houston police arrested him without a warrant in January after he pushed his family member. He was charged with misdemeanor assault and booked into a city jail. Hernandez claims in a class action filed on December 5, in Houston federal court that the city doesn't provide probable cause hearings for its arrestees right away, instead only offering them the option of immediately getting out of jail by paying bail based on a set fee schedule. "The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Texas state law require that anyone arrested without a warrant be released promptly -- after 48 hours at the longest -- unless a neutral magistrate has concluded that there was probable cause for her arrest and continued detention," the Dec. 5 complaint states. "Houston has a policy and practice of disregarding this simple obligation." Houston arrestees don't start the pretrial hearing process until HPD transfers them to Harris County Jail, where they appear before a magistrate judge via video feed. "The arrestees remain in the jail and a hearing officer and an assistant district attorney participate in the hearing from a room in the courthouse. The assistant district attorney reads the alleged facts supporting the charges against the arrestee, and the hearing officer determines whether there was probable cause for the arrest," the complaint states. Hernandez says that after he was booked into a Houston city jail on Jan. 7, a female staffer told him the Harris County Jail was full and his transfer there would be delayed. "She told Mr. Hernandez to 'be patient,'" the complaint states. More than 49 hours later, Hernandez says, he was taken before a magistrate, who set his bond at $1,500, court records show. He pleaded guilty five days later and was sentenced to deferred adjudication, a form of probation under which he will not be jailed if he doesn't commit any crimes within one year. Hernandez's co-plaintiff, James Dossett, claims he was also arrested on Jan. 7 of this year and was held for 56 hours without receiving a probable cause hearing. He says the charges against him were ultimately dropped. According to the lawsuit, hundreds of Houston detainees were illegally held without a hearing in July and August because the county jail didn't have room for them. Hernandez and Dossett seek damages for alleged violations of the Fourth and 14th Amendments. They also seek certification of a class of those arrested without a warrant by Houston police and held longer than 48 hours without a probable cause hearing in the last two years. The two plaintiffs are represented by Rebecca Bernhardt with the Texas Fair Defense Project in Austin, Charles Gerstein with the Civil Rights Corps in Washington, D.C., and Patrick King with Kirkland Ellis in Houston. Houston's city attorney didn't immediately respond on December 7, to a request for comment on the lawsuit. Booking an average of 330 people per day, the county jail in downtown Houston is the biggest in Texas and third biggest in the United States, according to a federal class action filed in May that accused Harris County of illegally jailing misdemeanor arrestees who can't afford bail. Overcrowding, partly due to a revolving door of the mentally ill, is a constant problem for the jail. To prevent a crisis, Harris County shipped 133 inmates to jails in East Texas in April. Lame duck Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman has told local media outlets he has little control over the jail population because it depends on how many people are caught committing crimes and how quickly low-level offenders can post bond. A city-county processing center is under construction across the street from the Harris County Jail. When the new facility is done, Houston will close its jails and take all arrestees to the processing center, which should speed up the bonding-out process for misdemeanor offenders and provide mentally ill inmates with in-house treatment options. Hickman is a defendant in the class action over Harris County's bail system. He has unsuccessfully argued he should be dismissed from the suit because he is only complying with orders from judges to jail people who can't afford bail. Harris County Sheriff-elect Ed Gonzalez, a Democrat, filed an affidavit in the bail case, in which he announced he plans to support the plaintiffs. "Though I respect Sheriff Hickman, I respectfully disagree with his and his lawyers' position that the sheriff should not even be a party to this case," the Nov. 22 affidavit states. "I believe that the current operation of the money bail system, including the sheriff's active participation in that system, violates the United States Constitution. I believe that the sheriff should be a party to the current lawsuit, and I look forward to participating in the lawsuit in my official capacity once I am sworn into office on January I, 2017." (Emphasis in original.) Painfully aware the crowded jail is a festering problem for Harris County, officials are working on reforms. The Harris County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, made up of judges, law enforcement officers and prosecutors, is devising a data-driven tool to determine which county inmates should be released on bond before their cases are disposed. The council is partnering with Luminosity Inc., a St. Petersburg, Fla., criminal- justice consulting firm. The system, which is expected to go live in March 2017, will assess the risk of an arrestee not showing up to court, committing new crimes and committing violent crimes. The case is captioned, JUAN HERNANDEZ and JAMES DOSSETT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, Defendant (S.D. Tex.). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Rebecca Bernhardt, Esq. Attorney-in-Charge Susanne Pringle, Esq. Texas Fair Defense Project 314 E Highland Mall Blvd, Suite 108 Austin, Texas 78752 Tel: (512) 637-5220 E-mail: rbernhardt@fairdefense.org springle@fairdefense.org Charles Gerstein, Esq. Alec Karakatsanis, Esq. Civil Rights Corps 910 17th Street NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 681-2409 E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorp.org alec@civilrightscorps.org Patrick King, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP 600 Travis Street, Suite 330 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 835-3600 Telephone (713) 835-3601 Facsimile E-mail: patrick.king@kirkland.com Andrew Genser, Esq. Amanda Elbogen, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 (212) 446-4800 Telephone (212) 446-4900 Facsimile E-mail: agenser@kirkland.com amanda.elbogen@kirkland.com IMPERVA INC: Defendants' Operative Answer to Amended Suit Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants have filed their operative answer to the amended shareholder class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against us and certain of our current and former officers. On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014. The lawsuit named us and certain of our current and former officers and purported to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased our publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements about our operations and business and financial results and purported to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief." "On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 17, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 13, 2016, again naming the same current and former officers, alleging false and misleading statements about our operations and business and financial results, and seeking the same relief. "On February 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 16, 2016, the Court granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. On September 7, 2016, defendants filed their operative answer to the amended complaint." Imperva, Inc. was incorporated in April 2002 in Delaware. The Company is headquartered in Redwood Shores, California and has subsidiaries located throughout the world including Israel, Asia and Europe. The Company is engaged in the development, marketing, sales, service and support of cyber-security solutions that protect business-critical data and applications whether in the cloud or on premises. INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Plaintiff Drops Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed with prejudice the class action litigation related to the merger. On August 30, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc., a California corporation, Giant Merger Sub Inc., an Indiana corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Genesys, and, solely for the purposes of Section 5.16 of the merger agreement, Greeneden Lux 3 S. aR.L., a societe a responsabilite limitee under the laws of Luxembourg, Greeneden U.S. Holdings I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and Greeneden U.S. Holdings II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company. On October 6, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Scott Fischer v. Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-02666-TWP-MPB (the "Action") was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (the "Court") against the Company and its directors, alleging certain violations of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the SEC on October 4, 2016 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") for the proposed merger. In the Action, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, orders (i) certifying the lawsuit as a class action, (ii) enjoining the Company from closing the proposed merger until the Company discloses certain information, and (iii) rescinding the proposed merger if it is consummated or awarding damages to the Plaintiff and all other shareholders of the Company. On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction (the "Motion") to postpone the special meeting of the Company's shareholders scheduled to be held on November 9, 2016, until the Company discloses certain information regarding the proposed merger. On October 28, 2016, the Company and its directors filed their brief in opposition to the Motion. The Court set a hearing on the Motion for November 4, 2016. On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Action with prejudice. Also on November 1, 2016, the Court acknowledged Plaintiff's dismissal of the Action with prejudice, denied the Motion as moot, and vacated the hearing set for November 4, 2016. Interactive is a global provider of software and cloud services for customer engagement, communication and collaboration. INVENSENSE INC: Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the court has not yet filed an order ruling on the Class Action Defendants' motion seeking dismissal of the amended complaint. In January and March 2015, purported shareholders filed five substantially similar class action complaints in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two of the Company's current and former executives ("Class Action Defendants") (Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January 7, 2015; William Lendales v. InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on January 12, 2015; Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on January 16, 2015; William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, filed on January 29, 2015; and Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v. InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01134, filed on March 11, 2015). On April 23, 2015, three of those cases were consolidated into a single proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California and captioned In re InvenSense, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD (the "Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as lead plaintiff; the other two cases (Lendales and Saratoga Advantage Trust) were voluntarily dismissed in March and June 2015, respectively. On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On June 25, 2015, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case. A ruling granting the motion in part and denying it in part, and giving the lead plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint, issued on March 28, 2016. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2016. On May 5, 2016, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of the amended complaint. The motion was argued and submitted on June 29, 2016; the court has not yet filed an order ruling on the motion. In light of the unresolved legal issues, the amount of any potential loss cannot be estimated. At this stage, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and, accordingly, cannot estimate the potential financial impact on the Company's business, operating results, cash flows or financial position. InvenSense, Inc. designs, develops, markets and sells sensor systems on a chip, including accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for the mobile, wearable, smart home, gaming, industrial, and automotive market segments. INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Appeals Court Decision Pending --------------------------------------------------- InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court of Appeals has heard oral arguments on the appeal of a class action lawsuit but has not yet rendered a decision. On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and Francis Reynolds, its former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants (the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements related to the timing and completion of the clinical study of the Company's Neuro-Spinal Scaffold(TM) implant. The plaintiff sought class certification for purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from April 5, 2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice. On May 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this decision. Following the submission of briefs by the parties, the Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on April 6, 2016 but has not yet rendered a decision. InVivo is a research and clinical-stage biomaterials and biotechnology company with a focus on treatment of spinal cord injuries. ITC HOLDINGS: Class Suits Over Fortis Merger Pending ---------------------------------------------------- ITC Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend lawsuits associated with the Merger with Fortis, Inc. Following the announcement of the Merger with Fortis Inc., four putative state class action lawsuits were filed by purported shareholders of ITC Holdings on behalf of a purported class of ITC Holdings shareholders. Initially, the four actions (Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al., Harvey Siegelman v. Joseph L. Welch, et al., Alan Poland v. Fortis Inc., et al., Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch, et al.) were filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan. The complaints name as defendants a combination of ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that (1) ITC Holdings' directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger Agreement, (including, but not limited to, various alleged breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, care and independence), (2) ITC Holdings' directors failed to take appropriate steps to maximize shareholder value and claims that the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection provisions that are unnecessarily preclusive and (3) a combination of ITC Holdings, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek class action certification and a variety of relief including, among other things, enjoining defendants from completing the Merger, unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages, and costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses. The Siegelman case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 22, 2016. On March 23, 2016, the state court entered an order directing that the related cases be consolidated under the caption In re ITC Holdings Corporation Shareholder Litigation. On April 8, 2016, Poland filed an amended complaint to add derivative claims on behalf of ITC Holdings. On March 14, 2016, the Guerra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Paolo Guerra v. Albert Ernst, et al. The federal complaint names the same defendants (plus FortisUS), asserts the same general allegations and seeks the same types of relief as in the state court cases. On March 25, 2016, Guerra amended his federal complaint. The amended complaint dropped Fortis US, Fortis and Merger Sub as defendants and added claims alleging that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus, filed with the SEC in connection with the special meeting of shareholders to approve the Merger Agreement, was allegedly materially misleading and allegedly omitted material facts that were necessary to render it non-misleading. Another lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2016 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan captioned Harold Severance v. Joseph L. Welch et al. against the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors, Fortis, FortisUS and Merger Sub, asserting the same general allegations and seeking the same type of relief as Guerra. On April 22, 2016, the Mehrotra state court action was dismissed by the plaintiff and refiled in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, as Sanjiv Mehrotra v. Joseph L. Welch, et al. With the exception of Fortis, the federal complaint names the same defendants and asserts the same general allegations as the other federal complaints. On June 8, 2016, the state court denied a motion for summary disposition filed by ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors. ITC Holdings voluntarily made supplemental disclosures related to the Merger in response to certain allegations, which are set forth in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 13, 2016. Nothing in those supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth therein. On July 6, 2016, the federal actions were voluntarily dismissed by the federal plaintiffs. The federal plaintiffs reserved the right to make certain other claims, and ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors reserved the right to oppose any such claim. On July 8, 2016, the plaintiffs in Poland filed a motion for class certification. On July 13, 2016, ITC Holdings and the individual members of the ITC Holdings board of directors filed their respective answers to the amended complaint in Poland. On July 19, 2016, the Poland state court issued a scheduling order, which, among other things, requires the parties to complete discovery by March 10, 2017, and sets a trial date for June 5, 2017. On July 25, 2016, the Poland state court issued an order allowing a new plaintiff, Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System, to intervene in the Poland case. "We believe the remaining lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Merger Agreement or the Merger may be filed in the future," the Company said. ITC Holdings operates high-voltage systems in Michigan's Lower Peninsula and portions of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma that transmit electricity from generating stations to local distribution facilities connected to the Company's systems. JANI-KING INT'L: Faces "Mujo" Suit Under Conn. Minimum Wage Act --------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON MUJO and INDRIT MUHARREMI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. JANI-KING INTERNATIONAL, INC., JANI-KING INC., and JANI-KING OF HARTFORD, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01990 (D. Conn., December 5, 2016), alleges that Jani-King has taken and continues to take unlawful deductions from the compensation paid to Plaintiffs in violation of section 31-71 e of the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. Jani-King is in the business of providing commercial cleaning services to customers, which include restaurants, office buildings, retail establishments, hotels, government buildings, health care facilities, stadiums, and schools and universities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 501 Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: (860) 522-8888 Fax: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com JO-ANN STORES: Faces "West" Suit in New York for Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY WEST, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JO-ANN STORES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09386-LTS (S.D.N.Y., December 5, 2016), alleges that Defendant is denying blind individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Jo-Ann provides to their non-disabled customers through http://www.joann.com. Joann.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, careers, and other programs. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 JONES WOLF: Faces "Winters" Suit in District of New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jones, Wolf & Kapasi LLC. The case is styled JEFFREY A. WINTERS and COLLECTION SOLUTIONS, INC., a New Jersey Corporation; on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JOSEPH K. JONES, ESQ.; BENJAMIN J. WOLF, ESQ.; JONES, WOLF & KAPASI LLC; LAURA S. MANN, LLC.; ARI H. MARCUS, ESQ.; YITZCHAK ZELMAN, ESQ.; and MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09020-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez. Jones, Wolf & Kapasi, LLC is a law firm with offices in New York and New Jersey providing legal services in the areas of estate planning, business transactional law, consumer and commercial litigation, consumer protection law and class actions. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Hoffman, Esq. 15a New England Avenue Po Box 554 Summit, NJ 07901 Telephone: (908) 608 0333 E-mail: dhoffman@david-hoffman-esq.com LODGEWORKS PARTNERS: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D of New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lodgeworks Partners, L.P. The case is captioned Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lodgeworks Partners, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2016). LodgeWorks Partners, L.P., is a privately held hotel development and management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com KELLOGG COMPANY: "George" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Julie George, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in Missouri v. Kellogg Company, Case No. 1622-CC10943, was removed from St. Louis City Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-01887 to the proceeding. Kellogg Company operates a food manufacturing company headquartered in Battle Creek, Michigan. Julie George is a pro se plaintiff. The Defendant is represented by: Erwin O. Switzer, III GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC 10 South Broadway, Suite 2000 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 241-9090 Facsimile: (314) 241-8624 E-mail: eos@greensfelder.com LAS VEGAS SANDS: Summary Judgment Motion in "Fosbre" Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that no hearing date for the Defendants' motion for summary judgment has been set. On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S. District Court's order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process was suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter resumed. On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015, and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015. On January 22, 2016, defendants filed motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions for summary judgment on March 11, 2016. Defendants filed their replies in support of summary judgment on April 8, 2016. No hearing date for the summary judgment has been set. Management has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company intends to defend this matter vigorously. Las Vegas Sands owns and operates casino properties. LEE COUNTY, AL: Sheriff's Office Sued Over FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Grier, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Lee County Sheriff's Office, Case No. 3:16-cv-00931-SRW (M.D. Ala., December 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Lee County Sheriff's Office is committed to protect the lives, property and rights of all people, to maintain order and to enforce the laws of the State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick Glenn Montgomery, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN ALABAMA, PLLC 63 South Royal Street, Suite 710 Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 800-6030 Facsimile: (251) 800-6061 E-mail: pmontgomery@forthepeople.com LEIDOS HOLDINGS: "Fernandez" Class Action Appeal Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Martin Fernandez's appeal of the dismissal of his class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action, In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC") Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer backup tapes from a vehicle of a company employee. In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant, TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice. On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern District Court of California, related to the same theft of computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and other claims. On August 28, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by the Plaintiff against the Company. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this dismissal on November 17, 2015, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the appeal remains pending. Plaintiff filed his appellate brief on May 6, 2016. Leidos filed its response on July 6, 2016 and Plaintiff filed his reply on August 19, 2016. Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos"), a holding company whose direct 100%-owned subsidiaries are Leidos, Inc. and Leidos Innovations Corporation ("Leidos Innovations"), is a global science and technology solutions company that provides technology and engineering solutions in the defense, intelligence, homeland security, civil and health markets. Leidos' domestic customers include agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the Department of Health and Human Services, other U.S. Government civil agencies and state and local government agencies. Leidos' international customers include foreign governments and their agencies, primarily located in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Australia. LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Action Remanded to District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Leidos Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a securities class action litigation has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on plaintiffs' claim. Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In Re: SAIC, Inc. Securities Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint named as defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two former chief executive officers, a former group president and the former program manager on the Company's contract to develop and implement an automated time and attendance and workforce management system for certain agencies of the City of New York ("CityTime") and was filed purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 11, 2007, through September 1, 2011. The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price. On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint. On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motions. The plaintiffs then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part, and vacating in part, the District Court's ruling. In particular, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs should be permitted to pursue omissions claims against the Company with respect to the annual report the Company filed on Form 10-K on March 25, 2011; the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of all other claims, including all the claims against the individual defendants. The Company petitioned the Second Circuit on April 12, 2016 to rehear the appeal, which was denied on August 2, 2016. The case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings on plaintiffs' claim. Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos"), a holding company whose direct 100%-owned subsidiaries are Leidos, Inc. and Leidos Innovations Corporation ("Leidos Innovations"), is a global science and technology solutions company that provides technology and engineering solutions in the defense, intelligence, homeland security, civil and health markets. Leidos' domestic customers include agencies of the U.S. Department of Defense ("DoD"), the intelligence community, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), the Department of Health and Human Services, other U.S. Government civil agencies and state and local government agencies. Leidos' international customers include foreign governments and their agencies, primarily located in the United Kingdom, the Middle East and Australia. MARKET STREET: Faces "Gregori" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lucas Gregori and Willialn Gouge, on behalf of themselves and a1l others similarly situated v. Market Street Management, LLC d/b/a Family Meal (Frederick), Case No. 1:16-cv-03853-JFM (Md. Cir. Ct., November 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Market Street Management, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at 882 N East St, Frederick, MD 21701. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. Roy Lyford-Pike, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagirm.com rlyfordpike@zagfrm.com MARS PETCARE: Sued Over Price-Fixing of Prescription Pet Food ------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that pet owners claim in a federal antitrust class action in San Francisco, that Mars Petcare, Nestle Purina, Hill's Pet Nutrition, Petsmart and others colluded to sell prescription pet food at above-market prices -- and the food contains nothing that isn't also found in nonprescription products. The case is captioned, TAMARA MOORE, GRETA L. ERVIN, RAFF ARANDO, NICHOLS SMITH, RENEE EDGREN and CYNTHIA WELTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARS PETCARE US, INC.; NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY; HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.; PETSMART, INC.; MEDICAL MANAGEMENT NTERNATIONAL, INC. D/B/A BANFIELD PET HOSPITAL; BLUEPEARL VET, LLC, Defendants., Case No. 3:16-cv-7001 (N.D. Cal.). Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael A. Kelly, Esq. Matthew D. Davis, Esq. Spencer J. Pahlke, Esq. WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 650 California Street, 26th Fl San Francisco, CA 94108-2615 Telephone: (415) 981-7210 Facsimile: (415) 391-6965 E-mail: mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com mdavis@walkuplawoffice.com spahlke@walkuplawoffice.com - and - Daniel Shulman, Esq. Julia Dayton Klein, Esq. GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY, & BENNETT, P.A. 80 South Eight Street, Suite 500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 632-3335 Facsimile: (612) 632-4335 E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com julia.daytonklein@gpmlaw.com - and - Michael L. McGlamry, Esq. Wade H. Tomlinson III, Esq. Kimberly J. Johnson, Esq. POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C. 3391 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 300 Atlanta, Georgia 30326 Telephone: (404) 523-7706 Facsimile: (404) 524-1648 E-mail: mmcglamry@pmkm.com triptomlinson@pmkm.com kimjohnson@pmkm.com - and - Lynwood P. Evans, Esq. Edward J. Coyne III, Esq. Jeremy M. Wilson, Esq. WARD AND SMITH, P.A. 127 Racine Drive Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 794-4800 Facsimile: (910) 794-4877 E-mail: lpe@wardandsmith.com ejcoyne@wardandsmith.com jw@wardandsmith.com MAXIMUS INC: Norton Seeks Certification of Supervisors Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled YVETTE NORTON, JEANNETTE RODRIGUEZ-GUZMAN, KELLY BARKER, JOSEPH BELL, BRAD EPPERLY, STEPHANIE JONES, KATHERINE KELLEY KNOWLES, NANCY RICHARDS, and MARK ZUMWALT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MAXIMUS INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-00030-WBS (D. Idaho), move the Court for an order certifying the class, approving the notice to be sent to class members and approving the proposed settlement. The case is brought by the Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated putative collective action members employed by Maximus as Supervisors. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u4M4T9dZ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Howard A. Belodoff, Esq. BELODOFF LAW OFFICE PLLC 1004 West Fort Street Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 331-3378 Facsimile: (208) 947-0014 E-mail: hbelodoff@hotmail.com - and - Jeremiah M. Hudson, Esq. FISHER RAINEY HUDSON 950 West Bannock Street, Suite 630 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 345-7000 Facsimile: (208) 514-1900 E-mail: jeremiah@frhtriallawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: B. Newal Squyres, Esq. Douglas L. Abbott, Esq. Jennifer M. Jensen, Esq. HOLLAND & HART LLP 800 W. Main Street, Suite 1750 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 342-5000 Facsimile: (208) 343-8869 E-mail: Nsquyres@hollandhart.com dabbott@hollandhart.com jmjensen@hollandhart.com MDL 1869: Class Cert. Ruling in Fuel Surcharge Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- BNSF Railway Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869, the District Court has not yet issued an order whether to certify a class. Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints were filed in six federal district courts around the country by rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases were consolidated and are currently pending in the federal District Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April 2008. On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads appealed the class certification decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine whether to certify a class, but no order has been issued. The Company continues to believe that these claims are without merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously. The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. MISSISSIPPI LIMESTONE: Miss. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Elsie Williams, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Mississippi Limestone Corporation and Clifton Davis, Case No. 4:16-cv-238-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., November 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mississippi Limestone Corporation operates a company that provides asphalt and paving materials to its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher W. Espy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC 4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: (601) 718-2087 Facsimile: (601) 718-2102 E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Transfer of Case to D. Mass. Recommended ----------------------------------------------------------------- Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a magistrate judge has recommended the transfer of a class action lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suit against the Company and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of LOVENOX or generic enoxaparin sodium injection. The complaint alleges that, in connection with filing the September 2011 patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, the Company and Sandoz Inc. sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic enoxaparin sodium injection and thereby exclude competition for generic enoxaparin sodium injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified damages and fees. In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz Inc. filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Hearings on the motions were held before a U.S. magistrate in April 2016 and February 2016, respectively. On September 29, 2016, the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation to the District Court to deny the motions to dismiss and to transfer. These motions are subject to briefing and review by the District Court. While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation. Momenta is a biotechnology company focused on developing generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars and novel therapeutics for autoimmune diseases. NEW RELEASE: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Release DVD, LLC. The case is titled APRIL NGUYEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. NEW RELEASE DVD, LLC, doing business as NEW RELEASE DVD; NEW RELEASE DVD; and NEW RELEASE DVD II, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-06296-LS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Lawrence F. Stengel. New Release is a video rentals & sales store in Glenmoore, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com OCEAN SHORE: Settlement Reached in Merger Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Ocean Shore Holding Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants and plaintiffs have agreed to the terms of a settlement of a class action lawsuit. On July 12, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with OceanFirst Financial Corp., the parent company of OceanFirst Bank, and Masters Merger Sub Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of OceanFirst. On July 22, 2016, Robert Strougo, a purported Ocean Shore stockholder, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court for the State of New Jersey, Cape May County, against Ocean Shore, the members of the Ocean Shore board and OceanFirst on behalf of all Ocean Shore public stockholders. The lawsuit generally alleges that the members of the Ocean Shore board breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement because the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement with OceanFirst are procedurally flawed and financially inadequate, certain terms in the merger agreement are preclusive and unfair, and certain members of the Ocean Shore board are conflicted. Plaintiff further alleges that OceanFirst aided and abetted such breaches. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the merger, as well as unspecified money damages, costs and attorney's fees and expenses. On September 7, 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint bringing disclosure claims alleging that OceanFirst's registration statement on Form S-4 omitted certain material information. Although the defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses to the plaintiff's claims, defendants and plaintiffs agreed to the terms of a settlement on October 10, 2016 whereby additional disclosures were made in the Registration Statement. The terms of the settlement are subject to, among other things, further documentation and Court approval. Ocean Shore Holding Co. is the holding company for Ocean City Home Bank. The Company's assets consist of its investment in Ocean City Home Bank and its liquid investments. The Company is primarily engaged in the business of directing, planning, and coordinating the business activities of the Bank. OHIO: Palladeno Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class ------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TED PALLADENO, et al. v. GARY C. MOHR, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01126-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), moves the Court for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ted Palladeno, et al., state that they filed a complaint concurrently with the Motion, which sufficiently defines the class and the class claims. They assert that they are permitted to bring multiple unrelated claims since the claims are asserted against the same group of Defendants. They have also concurrently filed a motion for appointment of counsel, a motion for preliminary injunctions, and a motion to seal filings. Defendant Gary C. Mohr is the director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction. The Plaintiffs are incarcerated at the Toledo Correctional Institution, located at 2001 East Central Avenue, in Toledo, Ohio. They appear in this case pro se. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RmQ9cGBK PALM RESTAURANT: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. of New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Palm Restaurant Inc. The case is captioned Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Palm Restaurant Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09381 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 5, 2016). Palm is an American fine-dining steakhouse that opened in 1926. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com PERSONNEL STAFFING: Hunt et al. Allege Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ ANTWOIN HUNT, JAMES ZOLLICOFFER, NORMAN GREEN, JAMES LEWIS and KEVIN JAMES, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated laborers, Plaintiffs, v. PERSONNEL STAFFING GROUP, LLC d/b/a MVP, THE SEGERDAHL CORP., MERCURY PLASTICS, INC., MPS CHICAGO, INC. d/b/a JET LITHO, THE PENRAY COMPANIES, INC., ADVERTISING RESOURCES, INC. d/b/a ARI PACKAGING, LAWRENCE FOODS, INC. and BLOMMER CHOCOLATE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11086 (N.D. Ill., December 6, 2016), arises under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and challenges Defendants' alleged discrimination against African-American laborers. MVP, THE SEGERDAHL CORP. is a temporary staffing agency that assigns temporary laborers in its labor pool to its third party client companies for a fee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Williams, Esq. Alvar Ayala, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C. 53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 795-9121 - and - Joseph M. Sellers, Esq. Shaylyn Cochran, Esq. Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600 PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Rikos" Suit Moved from W.D. Ark. to S.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Dino Rikos, Tracey Burns, and Leo Jarzembrowski, On Behalf of Themselves, All Others Similarly Situated and the General Public, the Plaintiffs, v. The Procter & Gamble Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-mc-00103, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-mc-00030 to the proceeding. Procter & Gamble Co., also known as P&G, is an American multinational consumer goods company headquartered in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio, United States, founded by William Procter and James Gamble. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338 1100 Facsimile: (619) 338 1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com QS SAN LUIS: Final OK of Accord in "Orduna" Suit Under Submission ----------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing was held before the Hon. Josephine L. Staton in the lawsuit styled LILI ORDUNA v. Q.S. SAN LUIS OBISPO, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00593-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), with respect to certain matters, including: * Final Approval Hearing; * Plaintiff's Motion for Class Counsel's Attorneys' Fees and Costs, and Class Representative Incentive Payment; and * Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. According to the civil minutes, the Court's tentative ruling is set forth on the record; arguments were heard, and the matter is taken under submission. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z0gJUJR9 RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Faces "Wells" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raymours Furniture Company, Inc. The case is titled ELIZABETH WELLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., doing business as RAYMOURS FURNITURE, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06292-CMR (E.D. Pa., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe. Raymours Furniture retails furniture and mattresses in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364 5030 Facsimile: (215) 364 5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com RCH LAWN: Vail Lux, et al. Seek to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS HELIEL VAIL LUX, ALVARO GAMALIEL VAIL LUX, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. RCH LAWN MAINTENANCE LLC, SETH HOROWYTZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 25039-JLK (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own two other lawn service and maintenance companies throughout South Florida. The Plaintiffs are represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM REALOGY GROUP: Paries in "Strader" Suit in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------- Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the case, Strader, et al. and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California), are proceeding with discovery. This is a purported class action brought by four California residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section 8(a) of RESPA. Plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses comprised of all persons in the United States who, since January 31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan from either (a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or (b) one of the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for other lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or settlement services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in violation of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by referring business to one another under agreements or arrangements. Plaintiffs seek treble damages and an award of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements. On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case claiming that not only do the claims lack merit, but they are time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. On April 5, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on April 21, 2016, and a third amended complaint on May 12, 2016. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The Court denied the motion on October 6, 2016, without prejudice to defendants' ability to move for summary judgment after discovery. The parties are proceeding with discovery. The case raises significant claims and rests in part on certain interpretations of RESPA by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"), which are the subject of pending industry litigation in various jurisdictions. As with all class action litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to many uncertainties. The Company said, "We believe that we and the joint venture have complied with RESPA, the regulations promulgated thereunder and existing regulatory guidance. There can be no assurance, however, that if the action continues and a large class is subsequently certified, the plaintiffs will not seek a substantial damage award, penalties and other remedies. Given the early stage of this case and the novel claims and issues presented, we cannot estimate a range of reasonably potential losses for this litigation. The Company will vigorously defend this action." Realogy Holdings Corp. is a holding company for its consolidated subsidiaries including Realogy Intermediate Holdings LLC and Realogy Group LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries. Realogy through its subsidiaries is a global provider of residential real estate services. Neither Realogy Holdings, the indirect parent of Realogy Group, nor Realogy Intermediate, the direct parent company of Realogy Group, conducts any operations other than with respect to its respective direct or indirect ownership of Realogy Group. RENT RECOVER: Certification of Class Sought in "Anderson" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Anderson asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action styled SHIRLEY ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and a class v. RENT RECOVER OF BETTER NOI LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-10953 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the Defendant. The Plaintiff defines the class as (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses, (b) who paid a transaction fee to RR (c) at any time during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this action. The Case concerns the legality of a transaction fee the Defendant charges consumers to pay by credit card. The Defendant is a collection agency, collecting allegedly defaulted accounts originally owed to others. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ACbriSaH The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, 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: dedelman@edcombs.com cmiller@edcombs.com REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: To Settle Class Suit for $6.4 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has agreed to settle a securities class action litigation for $6.4 million in cash. As of May 2015, the Company became subject to a securities class action complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV 533635, which was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California against the Company and certain of its directors and executive officers at the time of the June 2014 follow-on public offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as the underwriters in the follow-on public offering. In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the then-present status of the RT001 topical clinical program and made false and misleading statements regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of its drug candidate, RT001 topical, for the treatment of crow's feet at the time of the follow-on public offering. The complaint has been brought as a purported class action on behalf of those who purchased common stock in the follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On October 5, 2015, the Company made a motion for transfer of the action to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on the basis that venue was improper in San Mateo County. Plaintiff's counsel did not oppose the transfer motion, and the action was received by Santa Clara Superior Court on November 6, 2015 and assigned the following case number, 15-CV-287794. On November 23, 2015, the Court issued an Order deeming the case complex and staying all discovery and motions pending further order. Before proceeding with further Court action, including the filing of its motions to dismiss under California rules, the Company agreed with Plaintiff to conduct a mediation. The parties did not reach agreement during the mediation. However, following the mediation, the parties continued discussions and, on October 31, 2016, executed a stipulation of settlement. Under this stipulation, in exchange for a release of all claims by the plaintiff class, the Company has agreed to settle the litigation for $6.4 million in cash, of which the Company expects $5.9 million to be covered by its insurance policies. The stipulation maintains that the defendants, including the Company, deny all wrongdoing and liability related to the litigation. Plaintiff's counsel advised the Court that they intended to file a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by November 14, 2016. The stipulation and proposed settlement remain subject to approval by the Court and certain other conditions. The Company said, "This litigation, including the proposed settlement, remains subject to uncertainty, and the actual defense and disposition costs may depend upon many unknown factors. Therefore, there can be no assurance that this litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position or cash flows." The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the development, manufacturing and commercialization of novel botulinum toxin products for multiple aesthetic and therapeutic indications, for dermatology, neurology and other specialties. ROTOBRUSH INT'L: Transferred "Seramur" Class Suit to N.D. Indiana ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Dennis R. Seramur d/b/a Dennis & Sons Builders, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Rotobrush International LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-01087-O, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-277-JVB-PRC to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that Rotobrush sent unsolicited facsimile messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Headquartered in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, Rotobrush International LLC is a supplier of residential and commercial cleaning services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ross M. Good, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwnaca@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott S. Morrisson, Esq. Blake P. Holler, Esq. KRIEG DEVAULT LLP 12800 N Meridian St Ste 300 Carmel, IN 46032 Telephone: (317) 636-4341 Facsimile: (317) 636-1507 E-mail: smorrisson@kdlegal.com bholler@kdlegal.com SHIPSTON ALUMINUM: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Zellars" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brandy Zellars and Justin Stewart, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Shipston Aluminum Technologies, Inc. f/k/a CTC Casting Technologies, Inc. and Busche Aluminum Technologies, Case No. 1:16-cv-03251-SEB-DKL (S.D. Ind., November 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing aluminum automotive parts at their facility located in Franklin, Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Hunt, Esq. Philip J. Gibbons Jr., Esq. GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 3091 E. 98th St., Suite 280 Indianapolis, IN 46280 Telephone: (317) 706-1100 Facsimile: (317) 623-8503 E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com SKYE WIRELESS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Break -------------------------------------------------------------- Muhammad Jassim Osman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Skye Wireless, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC642461 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failing to provide full, uninterrupted, and timely meal periods as required by California Labor Code. Skye Wireless, LLC is a dealer of T-Mobile products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. Deanna S. Leifer, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310)531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com SOS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Gutierrez-Bejar" Lawsuit Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JO ANN GUTIERREZ-BEJAR, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and DOES 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-09000 (C.D. Cal., December 5, 2016), seeks to recover liquidated damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover alleged unpaid wages and penalties under the California Labor Code associated with and/or arising from her -- and that of the class she seeks to represent -- misclassification as an "independent contractor". SOS INTERNATIONAL, LLC is engaged in the business of servicing federal contracts, particularly with respect to language interpretation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sheila K. Sexton, Esq. Costa Kerestenzis, Esq. Lorrie E. Bradley, Esq. BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC 483 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor Oakland, CA 94607-4051 Phone: (510) 625-9700 Fax: (510) 625-8275 Email: lbradley@beesontayer.com SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Pension Trust's Suit Removed to S.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------------------------- The following case was removed from the 61st District Court of Harris County, Texas to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division: ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY; STEVEN L. MUELLER; R. CRAIG OWEN; JOSH C. ANDERS; JOHN D. GASS; CATHERINE A. KEHR; GREG D. KERLEY; TERRY L. RATHERT; VELLO A. KUUSKRAA; KENNETH R. MOURTON; ELLIOTT PEW; ALAN H. STEVENS; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; RBS SECURITIES INC.; BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP.; MITSUBISHI UFJ SECURITIES (USA), INC.; MIZUHO SECURITIES USA INC.; SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC.; BBVA SECURITIES INC.; CREDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES (USA) INC.; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP.; SG AMERICAS SECURITIES, LLC; BB&T CAPITAL MARKETS, A DIVISION OF BB&T SECURITIES, LLC; ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED; COMERICA SECURITIES, INC.; FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES, INC.; HSBC SECURITIES (USA) INC.; HEIKKINEN ENERGY SECURITIES, LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.; MACQUARIE CAPITAL (USA) INC.; PNC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC.; TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & CO. SECURITIES, INC.; and U.S. BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03569 (December 5, 2016). The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY COMPANY -- https://www.swn.com/ -- is an independent energy company primarily focused on natural gas and crude oil exploration, development and production within the United States. The Defendants are represented by: Noelle M. Reed, Esq. 1000 Louisiana, Suite 6800 Houston, TX 77002-5026 Phone: 713-655-5122 Fax: 713-483-9122 - and - Scott D. Musoff, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036-6518 Phone: (212) 735-3000 Fax: (212) 735-2000 - and - Wallis M. Hampton, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 6800 Houston, TX 77002-5026 Phone: 713-655-5116 Fax: 713-483-9116 STEALTH SECURITY: Class Certification Sought in G.M. Sign Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- G.M. Sign, Inc., moves the Court to issue an order certifying its action styled G.M. SIGN, INC., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. STEALTH SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-09249 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action. The Plaintiff proposes this class definition: All persons who were successfully sent a fax advertisement from March 2006 through October 2006 that advertised the security services of "Security Alert[,]" "specializing in all your security needs" for whom Defendant, Stealth Security Systems, Inc. cannot prove evidence of prior express permission or invitation for the sending of such faxes. G.M. Sign also asks the Court to certify the class, appoint it as the class representative, and appoint its attorneys as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GxxNF61c The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com david@classlawyers.com Christopher@bockhatchllc.com STONEMOR PARTNERS: "Klein" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEVE KLEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STONEMOR PARTNERS L.P., LAWRENCE R. MILLER, SEAN P. MCGRATH, JAMES M. PIPPIS, TIMOTHY K. MCGRATH, and WILLIAM R. SHANE, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06275-ER (E.D. Penn., December 2, 2016), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act for issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial performance. According to its public filings, STONEMOR PAR1NERS L.P. is the second-largest provider of funeral and cemetery products and services in the death care industry in the United States. SUNCOAST CREDIT: Kruzell Moves to Certify Bankruptcy Filers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce A. Kruzell moves for entry of an order certifying her case captioned JOYCE A. KRUZELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SUNCOAST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 8:16-cv- 01131-MSS-TBM (M.D. Fla.), as a class action. The Plaintiff also asks to be designated as representative of the Class and her counsel be named class counsel. The Plaintiff asks that the Court certify this class: All individuals who: (1) filed a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the Middle District of Florida, (2) obtained a discharge, and (3) after they received the discharge, received communications related to the discharged debt from or on behalf of Suncoast Credit Union, on or after March 17, 2014. Ms. Kruzell filed the class action against Suncoast asserting claims for violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and seeking relief under 11 U.S.C. Section 105(a) for the Defendant's alleged violation of the discharge injunction, based on the Defendant's sending collections communications regarding debts that were discharged in bankruptcy to numerous consumers. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8inJe0Q4 The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq. KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 3396 Tampa, FL 33601-3396 Telephone: (813) 229-1118 Facsimile: (813) 221-6750 E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com - and - Gus M. Centrone, Esq. Brian L. Shrader, Esq. CENTRONE & SHRADER, LLC 612 W. Bay Street Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 360-1529 E-mail: gcentrone@centroneshrader.com bshrader@centroneshrader.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas Folger Brink, Esq. Lindsay A. Wickham, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 5201 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 450 Tampa, FL 33609 Telephone: (813) 289-0690 Facsimile: (813) 289-0692 E-mail: brink@litchfieldcavo.com wickham@litchfieldcavo.com TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Norfolk Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- TerraVia Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's Motion to Dismiss the action, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02938 (N.D. Cal.), remains pending. In June 2015, a securities class action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed against the Company, its then CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Securities Class Action"). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all individuals who acquired the Company's securities (i) between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public equity and debt offerings in March 2014. The complaint alleges that investors were misled by statements made during that period about the construction progress, development, and production capacity associated with the production facility located in Brazil owned by the Company's joint venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renovaveis Ltda. An amended complaint was filed in December 2015. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the action in February 2016 that was heard in May 2016. The Company believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself vigorously. TerraVia Holdings, Inc. produces food, nutrition and specialty ingredients from algae. In May 2016, the Company changed its name from "Solazyme, Inc." to "TerraVia Holdings, Inc.", and changed its Nasdaq ticker listing symbol from SZYM to TVIA. TUBEMOGUL INC: Shareholders Challenge Adobe Systems Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that directors are selling Tubemogul (online video marketing) too cheaply through an unfair process to Adobe Systems, for $14 a share or $540 million, shareholders say in a class action in Oakland, Calif., Alameda County Court. The case is captioned, William Thiel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TubeMogul, Inc., Brett Wilson, Ajay Chopra, Rusell Fradin, Jack Lazaar, Paul Levine, Davit Toth, Adobe Systems Incorporated, and Tiger Acquisition Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 16841232 (Cal. Super, Alameda County, Dec. 5, 2016). Attorneys for Plaintiff: David E. Bower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES, PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Tel: (213) 446-6652 Fax: (212) 601-2610 E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com TYSON FOODS: "Lalondb" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA S. LALONDB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TYSON FOODS, INC., DONNIE SMITH, AND DENNIS LEATHERBY, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01120- SJD (S.D. Ohio, December 2, 2016), alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act for making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. together with its subsidiaries operate as a food company worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Wayne, Esq. Robert R. Sparks, Esq. Jeffrey A. Levine, Esq. STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Phone: 513-621-2120 Fax: 513-629-9426 E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com rrsparks@strausstroy.com jalevine@strausstroy.com UNITED STATES: "Malik" Sues Homeland Security Dept. in Ariz. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the U.S. Government. The case is captioned Rinkoo Malik, Raja Mohsin, and Qamar Pervaiz, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Petitioners, v. Loretta Lynch, US Attorney General; Jeh Johnson, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security; Juan P Osuna, acting Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review; Michael Zackowski, Assistant Field Office Director, Arizona District, the Respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-04232-JJT--ESW (D. Ariz., Dec. 5, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John J Tuchi. The current Attorney General, Loretta Lynch was nominated by President Obama after serving as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She was confirmed by the Senate on April 23, 2015 and sworn in by Vice President Biden on April 27, 2015. The Petitioners are represented by: Joseph Kenneth LaCome, Esq. LACOME LAW 14326 N Frank Lloyd Wright Blvd., Suite 1000 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: (415) 847 1944 UNIVERSAL CITY: "Fierro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Kehaulani Fierro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal City Studios LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC642460 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wage, and unreimbursed business expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code. Universal City Studios LLC operates a theme park resort in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Launa Adolph, Esq. Deanna S. Leifer, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310)531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com WINN-DIXIE STORES: Chaves Moves to Certify Class of Managers ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled KATHY CHAVES, Individually and on Behalf of others similarly situated v. WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01933-JCZ-DEK (E.D. La.), moves the Court to conditionally certify a class that consists of "all individuals who worked or are working for defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., in its retail supermarket operations as mid-level managers from March 7, 2013, until the date of the resolution of the present action, and who are or were eligible for overtime pursuant to the FLSA[.]" Kathy Chaves also asks the Court to approve the proposed form of notice, and to direct the Defendant to deliver to the Plaintiff's counsel a list with the names and last known addresses of the potential opt-in Plaintiffs. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=txLrqAxn The Plaintiff is represented by: George B. Recile, Esq. Patricia E. Pannell, Esq. Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Matthew A. Sherman, Esq. CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, WILLIAMS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM & HAYES, L.L.P. One Galleria Boulevard, Suite 1100 Metairie, LA 70001 Telephone: (504) 833-5600 Facsimile: (504) 833-8080 E-mail: gbr@chehardy.com pep@chehardy.com seh@chehardy.com mas@chehardy.com ZIMMER BIOMET: "Shah" Suit Alleges Violations of Securities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- RAJESH M. SHAH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., DAVID C. DVORAK, DANIEL P. FLORIN, and ROBERT J. MARSHALL JR., Defendants, Case No.: 3:16-cv-815 (N.D. Ind., December 2, 2016), alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. ZIMMER BIOMET HOLDINGS, INC., through various subsidiaries and related entities, designs develops and manufactures medical equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Offer Korin, Esq. KATZ & KORIN, PC 334 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317-464-1100 Fax: 317-464-1111 E-mail: okorin@katzkorin.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 ZYNGA INC: "Lee" Case Settlement Subject to Final Documentation --------------------------------------------------------------- Zynga, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the settlement in the case, Lee v. Pincus, et al., is subject to negotiation and execution of a final settlement document. On April 4, 2013, a purported class action captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers, and executives. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The complaint further states that "Zynga is named as a defendant herein solely because it is a party to agreements underlying and relating to the Secondary Offering." The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary offering. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been named as defendants. On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the motion for relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision is complete. A hearing date has not been set. On August 19, 2015 the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss three individual director defendants from the case. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on July 13, 2015, and, after briefing was completed, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion on November 20, 2015. On December 30, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On July 27, 2016, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a trial date of October 9, 2017. A mediation session was conducted on September 20, 2016. The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle Lee v. Pincus, et al. as to all defendants for $10.0 million. The settlement, which is subject to negotiation and execution of a final settlement document, notice to the class and court approval, would be funded entirely by insurance and lead to the dismissal of all claims against the defendants. Accordingly, and also because no claim for damages is asserted against Zynga in the Lee action, Zynga is not considered the obligor in the matter, and there would be no impact to Zynga's financial statements if the final settlement is consistent with the current agreement. Given its preliminary nature, it remains possible that the settlement in principle may not result in a final settlement, and that the assessment of the possibility of loss or adverse effect on our financial condition, if any, could therefore change in the near term. Zynga Inc. develops, markets, and operates social games as live services played over the Internet and on social networking sites and mobile platforms. * Edelson PC Files Suit Against Class Action Objector Law Firms --------------------------------------------------------------- A group of notorious class action "objector" attorneys were accused on Dec. 5 of extortion; abusing the court system by engaging in vexatious, harassing litigation; wire fraud; and racketeering in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit is seeking millions of dollars in damages and to prohibit the defendants from misusing the legal system going forward. The first-of-its-kind lawsuit was filed by Chicago-based consumer law firm Edelson PC. The firm alleges that well-known class action objector law firms have business models that consist of objecting to class action lawsuits settlements solely with the goal of extracting a payment from the law firms involved, and provide no value to injured parties or perform any substantive legal work. Defendants, which include among others The Bandas Law Firm (Texas), Darrell Palmer Law Office (Calif.), and Noonan Perillo & Thut (Calif.), are accused of planning and coordinating actions to extort profit from legitimate and court-approved class action settlements, and specifically from counsel representing the classes such as Edelson PC. The defendants are alleged to have conspired with one another to extort the plaintiffs. The proposed class is comprised of all entities that paid or agreed to pay fees to defendants related to an objection in a class action settlement, wherein so subsequent modifications were made to the settlement, no benefit was provided to the settlement class, and no court approved the payment. As an example of how the defendants operate: defendants recruited an associate to file a frivolous objection to a significant class action settlement for which Edelson PC had secured court approval. The objection was overruled by the court. Defendants then threatened to appeal, and in a December 1 mediation call with Edelson PC, defendants gave an ultimatum: pay a minimum of $225,000 to make defendants (who offered no suggestions or requests to alter the terms of the settlement in any way to benefit the class) go away, or else defendants would file the appeal and hold up, indefinitely, the payment of claims to the class and court-approved attorneys' fees to class counsel. Faced with this lose-lose situation, Edelson PC agreed to pay $225,000, and told defendants it would disclose the agreement and seek approval of the court. Plaintiff, fearing notifying the court of its extortion attempt would bring unwanted attention, attempted to then back out of the agreement. Edelson PC is seeking the defendants be named vexatious litigants who abused the legal process and be prohibited from filing objections to class actions without Court approval; that their actions be found to have violated RICO, the Hobbs Act, and the Illinois Attorney Act, and constitute wire fraud; and that they provide monetary compensation for the damage they have causes. A copy of the complaint is available at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/EdelsonPCBandasLawFirmComplaint.pdf ********* 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 * * *