/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 10, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 7 Headlines ADEPTUS HEALTH: Texas Securities Action Underway AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss "Fortunato" Suit Underway ANTHEM INC: Can Move PPO Members Into EPOs, Court Rules ASHFORD INC: Class Suit Over Remington Acquisition Pending AVID TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of Jan. 20 Date BIOSYNTECH: Quebec Court Confirms Dismissal of Class Action BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims, Defendants in "Applegate" Suit CANADA: Veterans Mull Suit Over Marijuana Privacy Breach CATALINA RESTAURNANT: "Farrar" WARN Act Suit Sent to C.D. Calif. CONNECTION MOTORS: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA DIMENSIONE EVENTI: Parents Call For Suit Over Conductor's Remarks DS HEALTHCARE: Settlement Discussions in "Shah" Action Ongoing ELDORADO RESORTS: Defending "Assad" Merger Class Suit ELECTRICITY MAINE: Terms of Service Include Arbitration Clauses EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Retirement Plans Appointed Lead Plaintiffs EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Judge Threatens to Transfer Venue of "Brosnan" FAIRPOINT ENERGY: Terms of Service Include Arbitration Clauses FBR & CO: Motion to Amend Complaint Remains Pending FBR & CO: Motion to Dismiss "Hull" Suit Remains Pending FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Another Class Action Over Defeat Devices FORD MOTOR: Judge Refuses to Certify Power Steering Class Action FORD MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Shattering Sunroofs GENESEO: Sued By Retirees Over Health Insurance GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Ferrare" Suit Working on Settlement GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "McLaughlin" Suit Working on Settlement GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Aks" Working on Settlement GREEN DOT: Suits Over Disruption in Service Pending HATCHIMALS: Lawsuit Threats After Toys Won't Hatch HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces "Hong" Stock Suit Over Equity Awards INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Individual Customer's Action Dismissed INTELIQUENT-INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Illinois INTREXON CORP: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to Feb. 23 J.G. WENTWORTH: Still Defending Class Action in Illinois JOHNS HOPKINS: Compensation Announced For Plaintiffs in Lawsuit JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Securities Litigation Underway KMART CORP: Should've Paid OT, Former Assistant Manager Says LENDINGCLUB CORP: Securities Suit in San Mateo Remains Pending LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending LIFELOCK INC: Appeal Briefs Due in January through March 2017 LIFELOCK INC: April 10 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Avila" Action LIFELOCK INC: Oral Argument in Securities Suit Appeal Not Yet Set LM FUNDING: Judge Certifies Deceptive Trade Practice Class Action MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Extra Value Meal Pricing MEDTRONIC: Appeals Court Reinstates Shareholder Suit Over Infuse MICHIGAN: UIA Software Incorrectly Snares Thousands MIDLAND CREDIT: "Tripp" Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts MISSOURI: Justice Center Files Suit vs. Dept. of Corrections MONAKER GROUP: Responds to Securities Class Suit Filed in Florida MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $16MM Related to Modafinil Settlement MYLAN N.V.: Bid to Dismiss Case Over Pioglitazone Still Pending MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Federal Securities Case Underway MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Securities Suit in Israel Pending MYLAN N.V.: Defending Against EpiPen Auto-Injector Consumer Suit MYLAN N.V.: Still Faces 16 Digoxin Price-Fixing Suits MYLAN N.V.: Still Faces Pravastatin Price-Fixing Suit NEW YORK: Bill Requiring State to Pay Indigent Defense Vetoed NEW YORK REIT: "Jacobs" Action Voluntarily Dismissed NICOLET RESTAURANT: Court Relies on Spokeo to Dismiss FACTA Case NORTH AMERICAN: Carnival Workers Sue Over Unpaid OT ORBIT CORP: Aggrieved Apartment Buyers File Representative Suit PALOS VERDES, CA: Security Measures to Be Enforced at Lunada Bay PENNSYLVANIA: School Pensions Plan Might Recover Funds Lost PORSCHE: Beige Interior Glare Lawsuit Settlement Reached PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jan. 23 Hearing on Discovery Protocol Bid RESOLUTE FOREST: "Reynolds" Class Suit in Preliminary Stage REX ENERGY: Plaintiff Appeal in "Cardinale" Case Remains Pending ROTI MODERN: Sued Over Too Many Credit Card Digits on Receipts RYE GOLF: Settles Employees' Wage Class Action for $1 Million SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss PFOA Class Action SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Investment Suit Remains Pending SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Class Suit Remains Pending SEATTLE GENETICS: Rosen Law Investigating Securities Claims SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Baker" Class Action Still Pending SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Consumer Suit Underway SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Class Action Still Pending SIENTRA INC: Settlement Reached in Stockholder Class Actions SIF CONSULTANTS: Summary Judgment in "Williams" Suit Affirmed SOLARCITY CORP: Dismissal of Stockholder Suit Under Appeal SOLARCITY CORP: Discovery Underway in TCPA Action SOLARCITY CORP: Bids to Dismiss, Transfer "Gibbs" Suit Pending SOLARCITY CORP: Defending Stockholder Class Action SPOKEO INC: 9th Cir. Hears Oral Argument in FCRA Class Action STARLINE TOURS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations SYNGENTA: Farmers Receive Notice to Join GMO Corn Class Action TESLA MOTORS: Model X Owner Files Lawsuit in California TESLA MOTORS: Korean Actor's Sudden Acceleration Suit Hit Stock TEXAS: Kept Children in Foster Homes With No 24-Hour Supervision UNILEVER: Faces Class Action Over St. Ives Apricot Facial Scrub UNITED STATES: IRS Fights Bid to Prevent Coinbase Data Search UNITED STATES: Judge Expected to Vacate Disabilities Suit VALVE CORP: Faces New Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices VANGUARD NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss LRE Merger Suit Underway VANGUARD NATURAL: Court Dismissed Eagle Rock Merger Suit VANGUARD NATURAL: Debt Exchange Lawsuit in Early Stages WASTE MANAGEMENT: No Trial Schedule Yet for Landfill Class Action WHITEWAVE FOODS: Status Conference Set for Jan. 25 WISCONSIN: Board to Talk Gender Identity Services Coverage WWE: Seeks Dismissal of Wrestlers' Amended Class Action Complaint ZAFGEN INC: First Circuit Appeal in "Bessler" Case Underway * NDP Gives Update on Canadian Tobacco Industry Lawsuit * Plaintiffs Attorneys Says Firms Need to Comply to Avoid Lawsuits ********* ADEPTUS HEALTH: Texas Securities Action Underway ------------------------------------------------ Adeptus Health Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against a securities class action complaint in Texas. On October 27, 2016, a purported securities class action complaint was filed by the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint also names as defendants, among others, the members of the Company's board of directors, Sterling Partners and the joint book-running managers in the Company's secondary public offering of shares of its Class A common stock completed in July 2015 (the "SPO"). The lawsuit is purportedly filed on behalf of all persons similarly situated and alleges material misstatements and omissions in the registration statement relating to the SPO and in the Company's SEC filings and other corporate reports and public announcements in violation of the federal securities laws. The action seeks rescission of the SPO and an award of the costs and attorneys' fees, accountants' fees and experts' fees of the litigation on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's shares of Class A common stock in the SPO under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The action also seeks monetary damages and an award of the costs and attorneys' fees, accountants' fees and experts' fees of the litigation on behalf of open market purchasers of the Company's shares of Class A common stock between April 23, 2015 and November 16, 2015 under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Management believes that the Company has meritorious defenses and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Adeptus Health Inc. is a holding company with its sole material asset being a controlling equity interest in Adeptus Health LLC ("Adeptus Health"). AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss "Fortunato" Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains pending. The Company said, "In September 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against us, including our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, and members of our Board of Directors, in the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering, and purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning the Phase 2b clinical study of vadadustat. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of certain stock purchases, attorneys' fees, and costs." "In October 2015, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The plaintiff's motion to remand was granted in April 2016. The case is, ANTHONY FORTUNATO, Plaintiff, v. AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-13501-PBS (D. Mass.). A copy of the Remand Order is available at https://is.gd/kh4Frp from Leagle.com. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Suffolk County Superior Court on August 15, 2016, and the Company served its memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 14, 2016. "We believe such claims are without merit and we will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation," the Company said. Akebia is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of novel proprietary therapeutics based on hypoxia inducible factor, or HIF, biology and the commercialization of these products for patients with serious unmet medical needs. ANTHEM INC: Can Move PPO Members Into EPOs, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------- AISHealth.com reports that at a Nov. 15 hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court, a judge denied a temporary restraining order that would have prevented Anthem, Inc.'s California subsidiary from moving some of its individual PPO members into exclusive provider organization (EPO) plans, which don't include coverage for out-of- network services. The judge, however, did acknowledge that Anthem Blue Cross violated federal law when it discontinued 2016 PPO policies and replaced them with EPO products. ASHFORD INC: Class Suit Over Remington Acquisition Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Ashford Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit related to the Company's acquisition of Remington Lodging remains pending. On September 17, 2015, Ashford entered into an Acquisition Agreement to acquire 80% of Remington Lodging for total consideration of $331.7 million, with an estimated fair value of $330.7 million. On December 11, 2015, a purported stockholder class action and derivative complaint challenging the Remington acquisition was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and styled Campbell v. Bennett et al., Case No. 11796. The complaint names as defendants each of the members of the Company's board of directors, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB Investments GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP, as well as the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with the Transactions and that Monty Bennett, Archie Bennett, Jr., Mark A. Sharkey, MJB Investments GP, LLC and Remington Holdings GP aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. In support of these claims, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's board of directors engaged in an unfair process with Remington Lodging and the Bennetts and as a result the Company overpaid for the 80% limited partnership and 100% general partnership interests in Remington Lodging. The complaint also alleges that the proxy statement filed with the SEC contains certain materially false and/or misleading statements. The action seeks injunctive relief, including enjoining the special meeting of stockholders and any vote on the contribution or the stock issuances or rescinding the Transactions if they are consummated, or in the alternative an award of damages, as well as unspecified attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to any other relief the court may deem proper. Since the filing of the complaint, the special meeting of stockholders and related vote occurred with the stockholders approving the acquisition. The outcome of this matter cannot be predicted with any certainty. A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the consummation of the Transactions, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely prohibit consummation of the Transactions. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint but intend to defend the claims raised in this lawsuit. Ashford's principal business objective is to provide asset management and other advisory services to other entities. AVID TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Reminds Investors of Jan. 20 Date ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of Avid Technology, Inc. securities from August 4, 2016 through November 9, 2016, inclusive of the important January 20, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Avid investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Avid class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases- 1003.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for information on the class action. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Avid made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business, operations, earnings, and financial prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period Avid knew but failed to disclose that because it had not launched all the enterprise level features for its new NEXIS solution product offerings, its enterprise customers were deferring renewals and purchases. The complaint alleges that on November 9, 2016, after the close of trading, Avid suddenly disclosed that both its 3Q16 bookings and revenues had come in considerably lower than the Company had led the investment community to expect, blaming "the transition of the storage product line" and disclosing that "some existing enterprise clients deferred normal upgrade and renewal decisions and new customers postponed investments until the release of functionality targeted to the enterprise market." The complaint alleges that on this news, Avid's stock price plummeted 28% on November 10, 2016, on unusually high trading volume. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 20, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1003.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. BIOSYNTECH: Quebec Court Confirms Dismissal of Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Jean-Philippe Mathieu, Esq. -- jpmathieu@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in In Groupe d'action d'investisseurs dans Biosyntech c. Tsang, 2016 QCCA 1923, the Quebec Court of Appeal (Justices Schrager, Dutil and Parent) recently confirmed the decision of the Quebec Superior Court to dismiss at the authorization stage a shareholder class action against the directors and officers of a public company. Background The Petitioner sought leave to institute a class action on behalf of the shareholders of BioSyntech, a medical device public company that filed for bankruptcy in 2010, against its eight directors and officers. BioSyntech was a biotech start-up and its success rested on its ability to access capital to develop and market a promising medical device, BST CarGel. In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, BioSyntech was not able to access sufficient capital to conclude its pivotal trial and reach the European and Canadian markets with its product, which ultimately led to its bankruptcy in 2010. The Petitioner alleged that BioSyntech's bankruptcy was avoidable and resulted from a pattern of faults of the directors and officers, who failed to properly address the company's financial condition. The Petitioner argued that, as a result of the faults of the directors and officers, the shareholders were deprived of the possibility to share in the potential profits of BioSyntech and were therefore entitled to compensatory damages. Before the Quebec Superior Court ("QCSC"), the Respondents argued, inter alia, that the shareholders of BioSyntech did not have the necessary standing to institute a class action against its directors and officers since the alleged faults, should they ever be proven, would have been committed against the company and only indirectly against its shareholders and the alleged damages (i.e. the loss in value of BioSyntech's shares) would have been suffered by the company and only indirectly by its shareholders. The QCSC accepted the damages argument and dismissed the Motion to Institute a Class Action on that basis. On appeal, the Petitioner argued that the QCSC interpreted the Supreme Court's leading cases of Peoples v. Wise and BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders too restrictively. The Petitioner argued that the Supreme Court opened the door to a direct action by shareholders against the directors and officers based on the violation of their duty of care under section 122 b) of the Canada Business Corporations Act. The Decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal The Quebec Court of Appeal ("QCCA") first noted that "the facts of the matters before the Supreme Court did not strictly require consideration of whether shareholders are included in "stakeholders" to whom the directors owed their duty of care under Section 122 b) C.B.C.A." and that "the debate is ongoing as to whether a direct right of action is open to shareholders against directors" (para. 21). Yet, for the purposes of the appeal, the QCCA, much like the QCSC, was prepared to adopt the Appellant's view that shareholders had such a direct right of action against the directors and officers of a company post-Peoples and BCE Inc. The QCCA agreed with the Respondents that irrespective of the question of the duty of care owed by the directors and officers to the shareholders, the proposed class action in the case at hand had no chance of success because the damages alleged by the Petitioner were indirect. The QCCA referred to other decisions rendered by the Courts of Appeal in British Columbia (Roback v. Gardner) and Newfoundland (Npv Management Limited v. Anthony). The QCCA also referred to the common law rule in Foss v. Harbottle, whereby shareholders cannot sue a wrongdoer where a company already has a right of action against the same wrongdoer for the same damages: "[23] Indirect damage is not that caused by the act of the wrongdoer, but rather is caused by the damage which the wrongdoer caused. In this case, the damages claimed for the loss of share value were not caused directly by the directors alleged breach of their duty of care by not obtaining, for example, adequate financing for BioSyntech. That alleged fault might (arguably) have caused (in whole or in part) the insolvency and inability of BioSyntech to pursue its business. It is the insolvency which caused the shares to lose their value so that such damage would be caused indirectly to the shareholders by the directors. [24] Such distinction, at least in the corporate context, is hardly exclusive to Quebec civil law. The principle is known in Common Law jurisdictions as the rule in Foss v. Harbottle. It is certainly recognized in Quebec and was explained by Laforest, J. speaking for a unanimous bench of the Supreme Court in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young: [26] Peoples and BCE did not change the rule in Foss v. Harbottle -- they did not (and it was not necessary to) address the rule. Again, and at best, the only assistance to Appellants in Peoples and BCE is the recognition of the possibility that the Section 122 b) C.B.C.A. duty of care is owed by directors directly to shareholders. However, there is really nothing in either of the Supreme Court cases to suggest that a breach of the duty of care entitles shareholders to recover compensation from directors for indirect injury." Our Comments Importantly, the QCCA confirmed that it is still possible for a class action in Quebec to be dismissed at the authorization stage, despite recent Supreme Court and QCCA rulings. The QCCA refers to its recent decision in Charles v. Boiron Canada inc., where Justice Bich questions the utility of the authorization process in Quebec, but still decides to maintain the dismissal of the Motion for Authorization. According to the QCCA, the QCSC's analysis in the case at hand had not gone beyond the filtering mechanism applicable at the authorization stage and the authorization judge was correct in denying authorization based "purely on a meticulous analysis of the legal argument under-pinning the factual allegations" (para. 33). Accordingly, it was legitimate for the QCSC to dismiss the proposed class action at the authorization stage. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on Jan. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of holders of Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. ("Brocade") (NASDAQ:BRCD) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Brocade by Broadcom Limited and its affiliates (collectively, "Broadcom") announced on November 2, 2016 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Brocade, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Broadcom, is captioned Steinberg v. Brocade Communications, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-07081-EMC (N.D. Cal.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/brocade- communications-systems-inc-brcd/. On November 2, 2016, Brocade entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Broadcom. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Broadcom will acquire Brocade and Brocade shareholders will receive $12.75 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction"). The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, on December 6, 2016, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Brocade stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to Brocade's financial information and the opinions and analyses of Brocade's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Brocade common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 3, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- regularly prosecutes securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation, and corporate governance litigation, on behalf of shareholders in states and federal courts throughout the United States. CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims, Defendants in "Applegate" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned BRAIN C. APPLEGATE, Plaintiff, v. CCI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01343-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal.), Judge Michael J. Seng issued an order requiring the plaintiff to either file a First Amended Complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on cognizable claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA) against the California Correctional Institution (CCI), the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the California Correctional Health Care Services (CCHCS), and J. Lewis, Deputy Director Policy/Risk Management Services. Brain C. Applegate is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Applegate is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, but complained of acts that occurred at CCI. He named the following defendants: (1) CCI; (2) CCHCS; (3) CDCR; (4) K. Said, PCP; (5) U. Baniga, CME; (6) S. Shiesha, CME; (7) B. Sanders, AW-ADA; (8) C. Wofford, SSA; (9) L. Nguyen, M.D.; (10) J. Wood, RAP; (11) J. Long, RAP; (12) E. Garcia, AW-ADA; (13) M. Dailo, AW-ADA; (14) C. Trotter, CCII; (15) J. Walsh, Sr. Psychologist; (16) W. Walsh, Chief of M.H.; (17) M. Phelphs; (18) John Doe, CDCR Lawyer; and (19) Lewis. Applegate, a "long-standing ADA prisoner," claimed violations of the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment and medical indifference), the RA, and the ADA. He also alleged a state law tort of negligence. He sought money damages and injunctive relief. Judge Seng found that Applegate's complaint stated cognizable ADA and RA claims against CCI, CDCR, CCHCS, and defendant Lewis in his official capacity. The judge found that Applegate's complaint stated no other cognizable claims. Judge Seng granted Applegate the opportunity to file an amended complaint to cure noted defects, to the extent he believes in good faith he can do so. The judge stated that if Applegate chooses to amend, he must demonstrate that the alleged acts resulted in a deprivation of his constitutional rights. Judge Seng also stated that if Applegate does not wish to file an amended complaint, and he is agreeable to proceeding only on the claims found to be cognizable, he may file a notice informing the Court that he does not intend to amend, and he is willing to proceed only on his cognizable claims. A full-text copy of Judge Seng's December 28, 2016 order is available at https://is.gd/Vg2qWj from Leagle.com. CANADA: Veterans Mull Suit Over Marijuana Privacy Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Gunn , writing for Herald News, reports that Veterans Affairs Canada could be facing another lawsuit after a privacy breach involving 3,000 veterans who are part of the federal medical marijuana program. Veterans began reporting the breach on Dec. 30 that effectively outed them as medical marijuana users. A VAC mailout informing patients about recent reimbursement changes lets anyone looking at the outside of the envelope know it was issued under the federal medical marijuana program. A photo of the letter posted by caregiver Carla Murray on a Facebook group for Canadian veterans shows the phrase "Re: Cannabis for Medical Purposes" on the envelope. Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr's office responded to concerns on Dec. 30 after being contacted by the Chronicle Herald. "We take the privacy of veterans very seriously and have asked the department to review this situation with Medavie-Blue Cross," the spokesman said. Ms. Murray, whose husband uses medical marijuana to treat a variety of conditions, called the violation a slap in the face. She said she and her husband are concerned for their safety as their Saskatchewan neighbourhood has been the target of more than 20 break-ins in recent months, most by people seeking drugs and booze. Ms. Murray said the experience has been triggering her husband's PTSD. "(For many people) with PTSD, especially veterans, security is the whole issue. It's always about whether your house is secure, whether your family is safe," she said. "Paranoia is part of it." Ms. Murray has reached out to VAC and a resolution officer is supposed to be in touch with her. But, she said, it's not good enough. "The damage has already been done." She said she is planning to get in touch with a lawyer to discuss legal options. A similar situation arose in November of 2013, when more than 41,000 Canadians received letters from Health Canada revealing them as medical marijuana users. The envelopes had the phrase "Marihuana Medical Access Program" on the outside in the return address beside the name and address of the recipient. A class action is still before the courts. Veteran Jason Hemsworth said Dec. 30 he received a piece of mail with information regarding his medical marijuana prescription, which is covered through Medavie-Blue Cross. It had "Re: Cannabis for Medical Purposes" on the outside. Inside it said "Protected - Personal Information." Mr. Hemsworth said a VAC supervisor confirmed the letter should have been sent in a windowless envelope. "Having my address as well as my personal medical information put out there by those that are supposed to keep it safe is a grave violation, as well as a security risk for not only myself and my family," he said. CATALINA RESTAURNANT: "Farrar" WARN Act Suit Sent to C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned JERI FARRAR and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, VS. CATALINA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and FOOD MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC., Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-09066-RSWL-AGR (October 25, 2015) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case arises from Defendants' alleged failure to provide Plaintiffs with 60 days advance notice of a mass layoff or plant closing in violation of the Federal and California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. CATALINA RESTAURANT operates and manages Coco's Bakery and Carrows Restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff R. Dingwall, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEFF R. DINGWALL, PLC 555 West Beech Street, Suite 510 San Diego, CA 92 101 Phone: 619.796.3464 Fax: 619.717.8762 E-mail: jeff@jrdingwall.com - and - Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FINN LLP 9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302 Houston, TX 77042 Phone: 713.223 .8855 Fax: 713.623 .6399 E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com CONNECTION MOTORS: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORGE RUIZ and DANIEL SOTO, Plaintiffs, v. THE CONNECTION MOTORS, INC., a Florida corporation, and ANTONIO MELERO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25274-JEM (S.D. Fla., December 20, 2016), seek on behalf of all those similarly situated unpaid minimum wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Connection Motors, Inc. -- http://www.theconnectionmotors.com/ -- sells used cars. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Militzok, Esq. MILITZOK LAW, P.A. Wells Fargo Building 4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402 Hollywood, FL 33021 Phone: (954) 780-8228 Fax: (954) 719-4016 E-mail: bjm@militzoklaw.com DIMENSIONE EVENTI: Parents Call For Suit Over Conductor's Remarks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sputnik News reports that an Italian orchestra conductor who told children at a Disney Christmas concert in Rome that Santa isn't real has been fired and organizers have distanced themselves from his remarks. At the end of a stage performance of Disney's "Frozen" in Rome's Auditorium Parco della Musica earlier this week, conductor Giacomo Loprieno took the stage and said "Santa Claus doesn't exist," local media reported. Loprieno was angry that families were leaving the event early to beat traffic, according to The Sun. Parents at the show have been expressing their outrage on the event's Facebook page, Dimensione Eventi Torino, and elsewhere on social media. One parent called the conductor's actions "despicable." "What happened that evening was outrageous . . .. I hope this 'gentleman' will lose his job, and I am angry at myself for having applauded him," Oberto Bevilacqua posted on the Facebook page, The Local reports. Other angry parents have started a new Facebook group to complain about the incident, with some calling for a class action suit against the organizers. Loprieno has been replaced by conductor Marco Dallara -- who appears on the event page arm in arm with Santa himself. Responding in a statement, the organizers said, "Like all those who were present, we remain bewildered by this personal declaration by the conductor after the event ended," Deutsche Welle reports. "What was said by the conductor of the orchestra was totally out of place and is an arbitrary gesture on the part of one person. As an organization, we work to make the event enjoyable for all the families." DS HEALTHCARE: Settlement Discussions in "Shah" Action Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- DS Healthcare Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that settlement discussions in the Prasant Shah class action are ongoing. On March 29, 2016, DS Healthcare, Daniel Khesin, and certain former members of the Board of Directors were sued in a class action styled, Prasant Shah v. DS Healthcare Group, Inc., et. al., Case No. 16-60661, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A later-filed class action has been consolidated. The class action arises from the Company's March 23, 2016 and March 28, 2016 8-K filings, which stated, in pertinent part, that the audit committee had concluded that the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company for the two fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015 (the "June and September 2015 Quarters"), should no longer be relied upon because of certain errors in such financial statements, and that Daniel Khesin had been terminated for cause and removed a Chairman and a member of the Board of Directors. Plaintiffs had until November 2, 2016 to file an Amended Complaint, which DS Healthcare must respond to no later than December 19, 2016. The Company also received the first of three related shareholder derivative demands on March 29, 2016. A mediation concerning the class action and the derivative demands was scheduled for October 17, 2016, in Miami, Florida. This meeting resulted in ongoing settlement discussions. ELDORADO RESORTS: Defending "Assad" Merger Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Eldorado Resorts, Inc. is defending the "Assad" class action lawsuit related to a merger agreement, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Eagle I Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub A"), and Eagle II Acquisition Company LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub B"). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, (1) the merger of Merger Sub A with and into Isle, with Isle as the surviving entity (the "First Step Merger"), and (2) a subsequent merger whereby Isle will merge with and into Merger Sub B, with Merger Sub B as the surviving entity (the "Second Step Merger" and together with the First Step Merger, the "Mergers"). In connection with the Mergers, a class action lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company board of directors in connection with the Mergers. The case was filed on November 8, 2016 in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada and is captioned Assad v. Eldorado Resorts, Inc., et. al, case no. CV 16- 02312. The case, which purports to be a class action on behalf of all of the stockholders of the Company, alleged, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty in failing to disclose all material information to stockholders in seeking approval of the issuance of shares of Company Common Stock in the Mergers and requests injunctive relief and an award of costs incurred by the plaintiff in the action. Resorts owns and operates the Eldorado Resort Casino Reno, a premier hotel, casino and entertainment facility centrally located in downtown Reno, Nevada ("Eldorado Reno"), which opened for business in 1973. Resorts also owns Eldorado Resort Casino Shreveport ("Eldorado Shreveport"), a 403-room all suite art deco- style hotel and a tri-level riverboat dockside casino complex situated on the Red River in Shreveport, Louisiana, which commenced operations under its previous owners in December 2000. ELECTRICITY MAINE: Terms of Service Include Arbitration Clauses --------------------------------------------------------------- Darren Fishell, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that when Oxford resident Frank Hodson called to see about a lower power rate with his supplier, Electricity Maine, he reportedly learned that the deal came with a catch: an agreement he would not join any class action lawsuits against the company. Attorneys pursuing just that kind of lawsuit against Electricity Maine and its new Texas-based owners allege the change came in response to the potential multi-million-dollar class action suit and have asked a judge to prevent the company from including those terms while the case is open. Such agreements require customers to waive their right to pursue any contract disputes before a judge and instead go alone before a third-party arbitrator who would hear and decide the case. An attorney for Electricity Maine's new owner, Spark Energy, wrote in an email that the change was not made in response to the suit. "Electricity Maine's existing terms of service do contain certain standard provisions that are commonly used in consumer contracts in various consumer facing industries, including an arbitration provision," Michelle Pector, an attorney representing Spark, wrote. "These provisions were contained in Electricity Maine's terms of service prior to the filing of the lawsuit." The company's terms of service filed with its latest annual report do not include such terms and neither does a version updated by the company in July. Plaintiffs said the company changed its terms and conditions in an Oct. 24 revision. They filed the lawsuit Nov. 18 but claimed they first notified Spark and Electricity Maine of their claims in a letter sent Sept. 26. That lawsuit alleges the company and its leaders deceived customers during late 2012 and early 2013 with promises of savings by switching from the default electricity rate. The plaintiffs estimated damages of $35 million. The suit followed a Bangor Daily News investigation detailing how companies have marketed their services and how customers would have saved $50 million from 2012 to 2015 by staying with the default standard offer rate. That report found Electricity Maine collected a net premium of about $36 million during that time, including savings of about $2.8 million for customers in 2012. In their filing on Dec. 23, the plaintiffs said the company is adding the arbitration clauses to terms for customers it automatically re-enrolls and for customers who have called to ask about ending service or lowering prices. In written testimony, Electricity Maine customer Hodson testified that he called the company to renegotiate his terms after learning of the class action lawsuit. He was offered a lower rate, to which he agreed, without realizing the new terms included an arbitration agreement. For any customers with the company since 2012, the plaintiffs argued that inclusion of an arbitration agreement or class action waiver in new contracts would "interfere with the administration of justice in this case." Ms. Pector wrote that those allegations "are not accurate" and that the company would file a detailed response in the federal court case. Spark took over Electricity Maine after its $28 million purchase closed on Aug. 1. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Retirement Plans Appointed Lead Plaintiffs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emergent Biosolutions Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has appointed the City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan and the City of Sunrise Police Officers' Retirement Plan as Lead Plaintiffs and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel in a shareholder class action lawsuit filed July 19, 2016. On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn, or Sponn, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive, or the Class Period, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its senior officers and directors, collectively, the Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and misleading statements about the government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that the Company's five-year exclusive procurement contract with HHS would be renewed and omitted certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified damages, including legal costs. On October 25, 2016 the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers' Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. The Defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously against those claims. Emergent BioSolutions Inc., or Emergent, is a specialty biopharmaceutical business focused on countermeasures that address public health threats, specifically Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive, or CBRNE, threats as well as emerging infectious diseases, or EID. The U.S. government is the primary purchaser of the Company's products and historically provided the Company with substantial funding for the development of product candidates. EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Judge Threatens to Transfer Venue of "Brosnan" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN BROSNAN, Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-06508-SI (N.D. Cal.)., District Judge Susan Illston directed the parties to show cause in writing no later than January 12, 2017, why this case should not be transferred. If the parties do not respond by January 12, 2017, this action will be transferred to the Central District of California for further proceedings. On December 23, 2016, defendants Experian Holdings, Inc. and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404. Experian Defendants ask that this case be transferred to the Central District of California, where over 40 class action lawsuits have been consolidated before the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford in In re Experian Data Breach Litigation. Plaintiff seems to be in agreement with Experian Defendants. Plaintiff, who appears pro se, sought permission to file this lawsuit from the Honorable William Alsup of this district. Case No. 15-mc-80297. Following Judge Alsup's grant of the request, plaintiff filed a notice of related case on May 5, 2016. Plaintiff informed the Court of the related case of Bhuta v. Experian, No. 8:15-cv-01592-AG-DFM, in the Central District of California, and asked the Court to transfer plaintiff's case "to the same judge assigned to the Bhuta v. Experian case." Case No. 15-mc-80297, Docket No. 5. Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. has answered plaintiff's complaint and as yet has taken no position on the requests to transfer venue. Experian is represented by Edward San Chang -- echang@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. T-Mobile US, Inc., is represented by Nancy Sher Cohen -- ncohen@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP. FAIRPOINT ENERGY: Terms of Service Include Arbitration Clauses -------------------------------------------------------------- Darren Fishell, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that contracts with credit card companies, banks, cellphone providers and others often include terms preventing customers from taking a company to court, alone or as part of a class with other customers. The contracts instead require customers to pursue any claims through another legal avenue, called arbitration, where a third- party assesses and decides how to resolve the dispute. The clauses are controversial. Supporters argue arbitration is a more efficient way to resolve disputes and that plaintiffs' lawyers can use frivolous class-action cases to net big fees. Consumer advocates argue the clauses are just a legal hurdle to shield a company from customers pooling resources to pursue shared claims. A 2015 investigation by The New York Times concluded that few people go to arbitration after their efforts at a class-action case is blocked. Such agreements are standard fare in many industries (the Washington Post reported the NYT series did not detail a clause for customers of its "Times Journeys" trip-organizing business). The issue has risen its head in a potential Maine class-action case that could involve thousands of households, filed against the retail electricity company Electricity Maine. Court filings show the company, whose sale to the Houston-based Spark Energy closed Aug. 1, has added an arbitration clause and class-action waiver to their contracts with customers. The second-largest retail electricity seller in the state, FairPoint Energy, has such a clause, too. The important part of those terms, from Electricity Maine's new terms, look something like this: FairPoint Energy's looks like this: The agreements face a blow in one important sector -- finance -- in the coming weeks. The federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau plans to unveil a rule in the coming weeks to prohibit banks from including such provisions in contracts for bank accounts, credit cards and loans, according to Forbes. The passages are an important detail for customers shopping around or offered power contracts, particularly as those supply agreements can be complex. For instance, they can change once a contract is up. Our reporting found suppliers regularly charged customers more than the power rate every home gets by default, netting a premium of at least $50 million between 2012 and 2015. Customers whose individual rates changed told us they started with a retail provider for low introductory rates. They later forgot about their contract. Customers of FairPoint Energy and Gulf Electricity told Bangor Daily News for an investigation published in August that it happened to them. State law allows companies to automatically renew those contracts when they're up, notifying customers by letter or email, without any confirmation that customers got the message. Customers have a right to reject a contract for up to five days after the company sends the new terms of service, if they happen to see them in that time. For such customers, arbitration clauses mean they are on their own to try and reclaim any money from those contracts. Lawyers for the two customers suing Electricity Maine have said the company's terms before September 2016 did not include arbitration agreements or class-action waivers. An attorney for Spark said the addition of the arbitration clause was not in response to the lawsuit and wrote that the company's formal response to the plaintiffs' latest motion would address multiple points the company said "are not accurate." FBR & CO: Motion to Amend Complaint Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------- An initial conference in the case, Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al., has been adjourned to April 21, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Laura Taylor Swain. FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, the previously disclosed putative class action lawsuit of Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, was dismissed in its entirety on March 30, 2016. The Court ruled that the operative amended complaint, filed on January 23, 2015, failed to allege any material misstatements. The Second Amended Complaint asserted claims against all the underwriters, including FBRCM, under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act in connection with offerings in September and December 2013. Plaintiffs have requested that the court grant them permission to amend their complaint a third time. Briefing on that motion is complete as of June 23, 2016 and a ruling is pending. Regional Management continues to indemnify all the underwriters, including FBRCM, pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement. FBR & CO: Motion to Dismiss "Hull" Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, Hull v. Miller et al., briefing on the defendants' motions to dismiss is pending. In November 2015, MLV was named a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits alleging substantially identical claims against the officers and directors and underwriters of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller"). The lawsuits, styled Goldberg v. Miller et al., and Gaynor v. Miller et al., are pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with 6 offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26; 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately $151 million. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller. A subsequent complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on May 12, 2016. The lawsuit, styled Hull v. Miller et al., alleges identical claims to the previously filed complaints under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against eight of the same underwriters, including MLV, and the officers and directors of Miller. Briefing on the defendants' motions to dismiss is pending. The Company said, "In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, we establish an accrued liability for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, we do not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, management, in conjunction with counsel, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether such matter presents a loss contingency that is probable and estimable. The pending cases discussed above involving FBRCM and MLV are at a preliminary stage, and based on management's review with counsel and present information known by management, a loss contingency for these matters was not probable and estimable as of September 30, 2016." "In certain circumstances, broker-dealers and asset managers may also be held liable by customers and clients for losses sustained on investments. In recent years, there has been an increasing incidence of litigation and actions by government agencies and self-regulatory organizations involving the securities industry, including class actions that seek substantial damages. We are also subject to the risk of litigation, including litigation that may be without merit. As we intend to actively defend any such litigation, significant legal expenses could be incurred. An adverse resolution of any future litigation against us could materially affect our financial condition, operating results and liquidity." FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Another Class Action Over Defeat Devices ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Wayland, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a class-action lawsuit alleging that diesel-powered heavy-duty pickups made by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV used defeat devices intended to cheat emissions testing was filed on Dec. 23 in United States District Court in Detroit. At least one other lawsuit involving the heavy-duty pickups had been filed earlier. The latest lawsuit names FCA US, the company's North American- based operations, as well as engine supplier Cummins Inc. It accuses the companies of using software designed to conceal its vehicles' emissions in more than 450,000 heavy-duty 2500 and 3500 Dodge and Ram pickups from the 2007-2012 model years with 6.7-liter diesel engines from Cummins. The suit, which includes plaintiff Jeremy Perdue, of North Carolina, is similar to another class-action lawsuit filed in November by four plaintiffs in California and Texas against both companies. Both suits include accusations of racketeering as well as breach and violation of warranties, fraudulent concealment and breach of contract. U.S. regulators including the Environmental Protection Agency have made no such allegations against the companies. Representatives from the companies could not immediately be reached for comment on Dec. 28. However, both denied the accusations in November. "Based on the information available to it, FCA US does not believe that the claims brought against it are meritorious," the company previously said. "FCA US will contest this lawsuit vigorously." Cummins spokesman Jon M. Mills said in November, "We're deeply disappointed in the effort to tarnish our image and we will vigorously defend ourselves. We've had a great partnership with Chrysler for more than 30 years and our companies continue to be committed to putting our customers first." Both lawsuits request a jury trial and seek compensatory damages and other financial relief. The lawsuits are separate from a class-action lawsuit filed Dec. 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that alleges diesel models of the automaker's Ram 1500 light-duty pickup and Jeep Grand Cherokee models were engineered to deceive emissions testers. That suit names the automaker as well as supplier Robert Bosch GmbH of installing software to mask excess exhaust emissions. The German-based supplier was behind the software tied to German automaker Volkswagen AG's diesel emissions-cheating scandal that led to a $14.7 billion settlement. Wolfsburg-based VW faces an industry-record $16.5 billion in criminal and civil litigation fines after admitting in 2015 that its diesel cars were outfitted with a devices that lowered emissions to legal levels only when it detected the vehicle was being tested. Volkswagen has agreed to a settlement with U.S. regulators that calls for the company to spend about $10 billion to fix or buy back about 475,000 polluting 2.0-liter vehicles as a part of a $14.7 billion deal between regulators and the beleaguered German automakers. Under that agreement, Volkswagen will compensate owners who purchased the diesels before September 2015 with payments of $5,100 to $10,000, depending on the age of the car. FORD MOTOR: Judge Refuses to Certify Power Steering Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Ford Focus and Fusion electronic power assisted steering (EPAS) lawsuit won't be certified as a class-action after a judge ruled the plaintiffs can't prove all owners experienced harm from the alleged defect. The Ford EPAS lawsuit was filed as a proposed class-action in 2014 after owners complained about their cars suddenly losing power steering while driving. The 2010-2014 Ford Fusion and 2012-2014 Ford Focus cars allegedly have defects in the sensors and steering gear assemblies that cause failures of the EPAS systems. The plaintiffs say Ford has known about the problems for years, problems that can cost owners $2,000 for repairs, especially when the steering problems typically pop up shortly after the warranties expire. Ford allegedly changed from a hydraulic system to an electromechanical system to increase fuel economy by taking pressure off the engine, something that caused the EPAS problems. Ford has ordered recalls for steering problems for the Focus and Fusion, specifically a May 2015 recall of 2011-2012 Ford Fusion cars after the automaker said an electrical connection in the steering gear could cause a loss of power steering. While battling for class-action certification, the plaintiffs received bad news in 2015 when U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed the suit after saying it was "unduly burdensome," but she gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend the complaint. After the complaint was amended, Ford filed another motion to dismiss the power steering lawsuit, but the judge denied Ford's motion. The automaker asked the judge to deny class certification because if power steering defects do exist, the plaintiffs can't claim a common defect because the Focus and Fusion cars were built at different times. In addition, Ford says many plaintiffs shouldn't be included in the lawsuit because they purchased the cars used or for business purposes. In denying class certification, the judge ruled certain claims contained in the lawsuit are without merit because Ford had ordered a recall to fix power steering problems, leaving injunctive relief unnecessary and baseless. The judge also ruled class-action certification is denied because members of the lawsuit can't prove they all were told the same things about how the EPAS systems worked. Judge Koh also ruled an expert used by the plaintiffs didn't present evidence that corresponded to the theory of liability in the lawsuit and didn't use a proper model for figuring damages. The Ford power steering lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of California - William Philips et al v. Ford Motor Company. The plaintiffs are represented by Baron & Budd PC, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, and Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC. FORD MOTOR: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Shattering Sunroofs ---------------------------------------------------------- Michelle De Leon at Northern California Record reports that a class-action lawsuit was filed against Ford Motor Co. following the complaints from consumers that the sunroofs of some of the vehicle models have reported defects. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California received a complaint against Ford which stated that at least 70 Ford vehicle owners have complained of the defective sunroofs. According to the court documents, approximately 80 of the panoramic sunroofs issued by Ford allegedly have shattered suddenly. The incidents were also submitted to the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. "NHTSA was informed of this problem in Ford vehicles as early as 2008," the lawyers said in the complaint, according to GlassBytes. "At least five NHTSA complaints in 2008 were related to panoramic sunroofs shattering in the Ford Edge." One of the most pressing concerns brought forward by the lawsuit, Douglas Krebsbach, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, is the safety risks posed by the shattering sunroofs. The reports submitted to the NHTSA allege that several drivers had been in accidents and near-miss accidents because of the glass exploding. Aside from these incidents, the other vehicle owners claimed to sustain cuts and wounds from the falling glass. "The shattering events are so powerful that startled drivers compare it to the sound of a gunshot, after which glass fragments rain down upon the occupants of the vehicle, sometimes while driving at highway speeds," the complainants said in their lawsuit against Ford, according to a news release from law firm Simmons Hanly Conroy. In the complaint, the plaintiffs aim to earn national and state class certification. They also seek to receive injunctive relief. In addition, the lawyers are fighting to get damages in behalf of their clients as well as other consumers who purchased or rented any vehicle under Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury that also had a sunroof spontaneously shatter. The documents indicated that one of the reasons Ford's vehicle models had problems with spontaneously shattering sunroofs is the switch the automaker made in its materials. The disputed vehicles had tempered glass instead of the usual laminated glass the company used in making their panoramic sunroofs. Ford also allegedly used "thinner glass" in the vehicle models. "We trust that the vehicles we choose to drive will keep us and our families safe from accidents, including those caused by defects that car manufacturers have incorporated into their automobiles. Car manufacturers must be held accountable for defects that contribute to accidents and injury to drivers of their vehicles." Paul Hanly, the lead counsel for the case and a shareholder at Simmons Hanly Conroy, said via the news release. "While several other automakers, including Volkswagen and Hyundai, have initiated voluntary recalls on their vehicles experiencing the same sunroof-shattering defect, Ford continues to deny owner and lessor warranty claims, much less to institute a recall of these defective vehicles," Hanly said. The following Ford models are named as subjects of the case: Edge 2007-present Flex 2009-2016 Focus 2009-2016 Fusion 2010-present Explorer 2011-2016 F-150 2011-2016 Mustang 2009-2014 Escape 2013-2016 Transit Connect 2014-2106 C-Max 2013-2016 Lincoln MKX 2007-2016 Lincoln MKS 2009-2015 Lincoln MKZ 2013-2016 Lincoln MKT 2010-2016 Mercury Milan 2010-2011 Mercury Montego 2010-2011 GENESEO: Sued By Retirees Over Health Insurance ----------------------------------------------- Lisa Hammer at QCOnline.com reports that a class action suit on behalf of some Geneseo retirees regarding health insurance was filed in Henry County Circuit Court. The suit alleges the city was wrong, five years ago, to have changed the proportional way the city and the retirees contributed to premiums; for example, the contribution had been 50-50 for an employee with 10 to 14 years of service but rose for retirees after that date. Filed by former police officer Larry Dawson on behalf of the rest, the suit said there might be up to 25 people involved but they didn't know without access to city records. City administrator Lisa Kotter said the city was talking strictly with six or seven non-union members in initial discussions and that agreements with union members had been worked out previously. She said she had not yet seen the suit. The suit claims the change, made by a prior city council, is in violation of both the contract and state constitution. It seeks $50,000 or more and restoration to the previous promised premium agreement. GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Ferrare" Suit Working on Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the class action lawsuit by Anthony Ferrare are working towards finalizing a settlement. On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively, dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff. On November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy's motion to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss. On June 10, 2015, the Court granted IDT Energy's motion to stay and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice. The parties participated in mediation, and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with respect to a proposed settlement of the above-captioned putative class action. There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The parties notified the Court of that development and are working towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. ("GOGAS"). GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "McLaughlin" Suit Working on Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, McLaughlin v. IDT Energy, Case No. 1:14-cv-04107 (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Eric N. Vitaliano entered an order granting a Motion to stay. Per the parties' request, this matter is stayed through February 1, 2017 in order to facilitate settlement. Correspondingly, the Court extends defendants' leave to renew their motion to dismiss to February 2. Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the class action lawsuit by Louis McLaughlin are working towards finalizing a settlement. On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, contending that he and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate program from July 2, 2008. On January 22, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of himself and all IDT Energy customers in New York State against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation, and Genie Energy Ltd. (collectively, "IDT Energy"). On February 22, 2016, IDT Energy moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and the named plaintiff opposed that motion. The parties participated in mediation, and entered into a MOU with respect to a proposed settlement of the above-captioned putative class action. There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The parties notified the Court of that development and are working towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. ("GOGAS"). GENIE ENERGY: Parties in "Aks" Working on Settlement ---------------------------------------------------- Genie Energy Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the class action lawsuit by Kimberly Aks are working towards finalizing a settlement. On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008 and the present. The parties were engaged in discovery prior to the mediation. On April 20, 2016, the named plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of herself and all IDT Energy customers in New Jersey against IDT Energy, Inc., Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. On June 27, 2016, defendants Genie Retail Energy, Genie Energy International Corporation and Genie Energy Ltd. filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 26, 2016, the named plaintiff opposed that motion and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of its motion to dismiss. The Court granted the motion to dismiss, but the parties agreed to set aside that decision to give the plaintiff an opportunity to submit opposition papers that had not been considered by the Court in rendering its decision. The parties participated in mediation, and entered into a MOU with respect to a proposed settlement of the above-captioned putative class action. There are a number of material issues not addressed by the MOU that must be resolved before a settlement can be finalized. The parties notified the Court of that development and are working towards finalizing the settlement, which will need to be approved by the Court. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit. The Company owns 99.3% of its subsidiary, Genie Energy International Corporation ("GEIC"), which owns 100% of Genie Retail Energy ("GRE") and 92% of Genie Oil and Gas, Inc. ("GOGAS"). GREEN DOT: Suits Over Disruption in Service Pending --------------------------------------------------- Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending two putative class action complaints related to disruption in service. The Company said, "During the three months ended June 30, 2016, we continued our planned conversion of customer files from our legacy third-party card processor to our new third-party card processor. As part of the conversion process, a small percentage of our active cardholders experienced limited disruptions in service that resulted in losses to us including, but not limited to, approximately $4.1 million in specific credits we paid to our customers and specific cardholder transaction losses incurred by us as a result of the service disruption. These specific losses have been fully reimbursed by our new third-party processor, while other expenses we incurred as a result of the disruption in service were not reimbursed to us." "As a result of this limited disruption in service, two putative class action complaints were filed during the three months ended June 30, 2016. Any settlement amount paid to resolve the consolidated class actions will be borne equally between us and our new third-party card processor. "During the three months ended September 30, 2016, we recorded an estimated accrual of approximately $2.8 million, which represents our portion of the estimated total settlement amount inclusive of legal fees, of which our insurance carrier has agreed to reimburse us for up to approximately $2.3 million. We recorded these amounts in other accrued liabilities and account receivable, respectively, on our consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2016." Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. HATCHIMALS: Lawsuit Threats After Toys Won't Hatch -------------------------------------------------- Paula Mooney of Inquisitr reports that the Hatchimals controversy continues to rage on, this time with talk of a lawsuit emerging. First off, parents were upset that some Hatchimals wouldn't hatch, as reported by the Inquisitr. That fact alone has some parents threatening a class action lawsuit against the Hatchimals maker, Spin Master. Along with the Hatchimals not hatching for some upset children, other problems are being reported -- as claimed in the following viral video that purports to show a Hatchimal toy cursing. However, some beg to differ over whether or not the hatched Hatchimal is saying what the video creator claims. The video has grown to more than 600,000 views on YouTube and showed up pretty prominently on the video-sharing website's trending list. However, the comments section is rife with claims that the Hatchimal toy is actually saying "hug me" repeatedly instead of any curse words. According to Business Insider, parents are still angry enough with the maker of Hatchimals that at least one of them is threatening a lawsuit. As seen in the below tweets from Twitter, a class action lawsuit or other lawsuit reports have been mentioned surrounding the Hatchimals melee. The fact that so many people paid more than the retail price for Hatchimals or went through quite a shopping hassle to garner one of the toys has added to dissatisfaction for those who couldn't get their Hatchimals to hatch. Failure to hatch: Hatchimal maker flooded with complaints: Many parents who shelled out for a . . #business #news https://t.co/zKL94DaBs5 - Jon (@rivercityjon) December 30, 2016 According to the Spin Master website, after playing with a Hatchimal while it's still inside the shell, eventually that little egg should crack and the Hatchimals toy should emerge. However, some people have reported that their toy wouldn't hatch - - and frustrated parents would "hatch" the toy themselves by breaking them open. Others reported that the Hatchimal stopped cooing and wouldn't do anything when it was time to hatch. One customer, Nicole Kijurina, reported to Business Insider that of the three Hatchimals that she bought -- two for her children and one for a needy family -- the two for her daughters did not hatch. Nicole ended up "hatching" them herself by ripping open the Hatchimals when her children cried for her to do so. Kijurina is one of the parents saying she will file a lawsuit against the Hatchimals maker if they don't reply to her email by January 3. People want new Hatchimals or compensation for the toys that they claim don't work. Lots of posts about crying kids on Christmas Day flooded the Hatchimals maker's Facebook page. On Twitter, the following comments about lawsuit talk surrounding Hatchimals have been published. St. Pete Bowl Champs: "SpinMaster epic fail on Hatchimals that don't hatch. Someone needs to call me, not the other way around. I smell class action . . . #lawsuit" DawnNYC: "Target bad business to advertise the Hatchimals yet not sold online and out of stock Ny Tri state area. #Ichecked #?lawsuit." JJ Ryan: "Walmart I was told by an associate that all Hatchimals orders companywide have been cancelled until after Christmas due to lawsuit. True?" Meanwhile, others like Facebook users Nick Allen See shared CNN International's post about Hatchimals, and agreed about the class action lawsuit threats. "All them people sold these for $200-350 smh . . 'Most popular toy of the year.' I hope the maker gets a class action lawsuit." However, some Facebook users, such as the one who wrote on the page How to Eat an Elephant about the Hatchimals lawsuit talk, called it unthinkable that children would cry over the toys not hatching and that parents would be angry enough to sue or remain on the phone waiting for customer service for two hours to hatch a Hatchimal. Parents Outraged Over Alleged Hatchimal Holiday Toy Fails - ABC News - https://t.co/inr4Y1TWpb - happy not to have bought one, did U? - tim (@timinphuket) December 30, 2016 HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Florida Record, reports that a former staff account for a car rental company claims she routinely worked more than 40 hours per week without being compensated with overtime pay. Brianne Gale filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated on Dec. 2 in the Tampa Division for the Middle District of Florida against The Hertz Corp. citing the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the defendant as hourly, non-exempt employee from August 2014 to December 2015. She alleges she was forced to perform work off-the-clock in order to complete her job duties. The plaintiffs hold The Hertz Corp. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to keep or provide an accurate record of its employees' hours worked, and failed to compensate its employees of overtime wages. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seek judgment against defendant, unpaid overtime wages, appoint claimant as the designated representative of the class, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, expenses of litigation and equitable relief as the court may deem appropriate. She is represented by Mitchell L. Feldman of Mitchell L. Feldman PA in Lutz. Tampa Division for the Middle District of Florida Case number 8:16-cv-03315 HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Faces "Hong" Stock Suit Over Equity Awards ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH HONG, individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., and derivatively on behalf HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff, vs. ARA K. HOVNANIAN, ROBERT B. COUTTS, EDWARD A. KANGAS, JOSEPH A. MARENGI, VINCENT PAGANO JR., J. LARRY SORSBY, and STEPHEN D. WEINROTH, Defendants, -and- HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 12999-CB (Del. Ch., December 27, 2016), is a securities lawsuit that seeks, among others: (1) a declaration that the equity awards denominated in Class B Stock that were granted to Ara from June 13, 2014 through June 10, 2016 unlawfully disenfranchised the Company's public stockholders, and are therefore ultra vires; and (2) invalidation or rescission of the stock awards granted to Ara in the form of Class B Stock. HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC. designs, constructs, and markets a variety of housing in sixteen states, and has both homebuilding and financial services operating segments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ned Weinberger, Esq. Thomas Curry, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-2540 - and - LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Amy Miller, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 E-mail: ek@zlk.com amiller@zlk.com jlindenfeld@zlk.com INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Individual Customer's Action Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss a class action by a former individual customer. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleged that the former customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint sought, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 28, 2016, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk of the Court to close the file. The Court noted, among other things, that IB LLC's customer agreement, federal law and associated industry rules grant IB LLC broad discretion to close out margin deficient customer accounts for IB LLC's protection. Should the plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of the complaint or seek leave to amend and re-file the complaint, the Company intends to continue its vigorous defense of the claims. INTELIQUENT-INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Dec. 29 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of holders of Inteliquent, Inc. ("Inteliquent") (NASDAQ:IQNT) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition of Inteliquent by GTCR LLC, Onvoy, LLC, and Onvoy Igloo Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively, the "Acquiring Parties") announced on November 3, 2016 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Inteliquent, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and the Acquiring Parties, is captioned Lon v. Inteliquent, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-11244 (N.D. Ill.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com; or at: http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/inteliquent-inc-iqnt- buyout/. On November 2, 2016, Inteliquent entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with the Acquiring Parties. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Inteliquent shareholders will receive $23.00 per share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction"). The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, on December 2, 2016, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Inteliquent stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to the opinions and analyses of Inteliquent's financial advisor and potential conflicts of interest. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Inteliquent common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 27, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com -- regularly prosecutes securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation, and corporate governance litigation, on behalf of shareholders in states and federal courts throughout the United States. INTREXON CORP: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Moved to Feb. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, In re Intrexon Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:16-cv-02398 (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg signed on a stipulation and order continuing the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The hearing previously set for Feb. 16, 2017, has been continued to Feb. 23 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco. Intrexon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "In May 2016, two purported shareholder class action lawsuits, captioned Hoffman v. Intrexon Corporation et al. and Gibrall v. Intrexon Corporation et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between May 12, 2015 and April 20, 2016 (the "Class Period"). In July 2016, the court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants us and certain of our current and former officers (the "Defendants"). It alleges, among other things, that the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements during the Class Period with respect to our business, operations, and prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs' claims are based upon allegations in a report published in April 2016 on the Seeking Alpha financial blog. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, interest and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this case." Intrexon Corporation ("Intrexon"), a Virginia corporation, forms collaborations to create biologically based products and processes using synthetic biology. Intrexon's primary domestic operations are in California, Florida, Maryland, and Virginia, and its primary international operations are in Belgium and Hungary. There have been no commercialized products derived from Intrexon's collaborations to date. J.G. WENTWORTH: Still Defending Class Action in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against a class action lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In February 2014, a purported class action filing was made against the Company and various subsidiaries, which was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and later transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; Case No.: 1:14-cv-09188. Based on amendments to the Illinois Structured Settlement Protection Act providing that where the terms of the structured settlement agreements prohibit sale, assignment, or encumbrance of such payment rights, a court is not precluded from hearing an application for transfer of the payment rights and ruling on the merits of such application, and a declaration that the amendment was "declarative of existing law", we believe that the original ruling in Illinois which commenced the continuing Illinois proceedings was not consistent with precedent and existing law, and we filed updates with the court accordingly. The Company said, "On July 27, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division entered an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed with prejudice any claims based on allegations that the transfer approval orders were void. The court held that Illinois courts that approved the original transfers had jurisdiction to approve the transfers and/or claims based on those orders being void ab initio were dismissed, as well as claims based on allegations that the venue was improper for the approval petitions or that the disclosures were inadequate. The court held that anti-assignment provisions in the original settlement agreements can be waived, but because the plaintiffs did not plead that they waived the anti-assignment clauses, the motion to dismiss those claims were denied. The court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims under RICO because plaintiffs failed to allege two predicate acts as to each defendants. The court also dismissed claims against entities that were not in existence at the time of the transfers. The court dismissed with prejudice claims for unjust enrichment and joint enterprise. The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims based on a breach of fiduciary duty, parts of the conversion claims and the defense of statute of limitations because plaintiffs' complaint stated a claim." "The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a third amended complaint by September 2, 2016 consistent with the order and set a status hearing for September 21, 2016. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on September 2, 2016, which dropped certain of the claims and now asserts claims only for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy, and conversion. At the September 21, 2016 conference, the parties discussed next steps in the matter but could not reach agreement. The court indicated that it would address schedule, discovery issues and arbitration requests at a subsequent status conference. The defendants continue to believe that some of the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred and all claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend these claims on a number of factual and legal grounds. J.G. Wentworth is a diversified financial services company that specializes in providing solutions to consumers in need of cash. JOHNS HOPKINS: Compensation Announced For Plaintiffs in Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- John Rydell at Foxbaltimore.com reports that more than 8,000 women who filed a class action lawsuit against Johns Hopkins Hospital, where the late Dr. Nikita Levy practiced, will receive compensation of between $1,700 and $26,000. Levy committed suicide after being accused of secretly videotaping his female patients. The $190 million lawsuit was filed more than two years ago. Retired Maryland Court of Appeals Judge Irma Raker, who is claims adjudicator in the case. "We understand that everybody would like their money as soon as possible." Judge Raker says letters are being mailed to all of the plaintiffs informing them of the compensation they are scheduled to receive. All plaintiffs still have 30 days to formally appeal that amount. Judge Raker says "The money will be distributed as soon as any reconsideration or appeals have been resolved." But Raker admits that because of the lengthy appeals process, it could be several months before all the victims will be compensated. Judge Raker says "We considered each person's experience with Dr. Levy, the duration of the treatment and the inappropriate comments or inappropriate touching." One of the victims contacted by Fox 45, who wanted to remain anonymous, says she is extremely upset by the small amount of compensation and says more money should be set aside to pay for psychological counseling for the women. JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Securities Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------- Juno Therapeutics, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated securities litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against Juno and our chief executive officer, Hans Bishop, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington under the following captions: Goce Veljanoski, etc. v. Juno Therapeutics, et al., No. 2:16-CV-01069 on July 12, 2016 (the "Veljanoski Complaint") and Jiayi Wan, etc. v. Juno Therapeutics, et al., No. 2:16-CV-01083 on July 13, 2016 (the "Wan Complaint"). On September 7, 2016, an additional putative securities class action complaint was filed against Juno, Mr. Bishop, and our chief financial officer, Steve Harr, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under the caption Liberata Paradisco, etc. v. Juno Therapeutics, et al., No. 2:16-CV-01425 (the "Paradisco Complaint"). The putative class in both the Veljanoski and the Wan Complaints is composed of all purchasers of the Company's securities between June 4, 2016 and July 7, 2016, inclusive. The putative class in the Paradisco Complaint is composed of all purchasers of the Company's securities between May 9, 2016 and July 7, 2016, inclusive. The complaints generally allege material misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding patient deaths in the Company's Phase II clinical trial of JCAR015, violations by all named defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by the individual defendants. All of the complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount. On October 7, 2016, the complaints were consolidated into a single action titled "In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc." On October 19, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. The Company has not recorded any liability as of September 30, 2016 since any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings. Juno is building a fully-integrated biopharmaceutical company focused on re-engaging the body's immune system to revolutionize the treatment of cancer. KMART CORP: Should've Paid OT, Former Assistant Manager Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin McGowan reports that Kmart Corp. violated federal and state law by not paying overtime to assistant managers who worked more than 40 hours a week, according to a federal district court lawsuit in Chicago (Roselan v. Kmart Corp., N.D. Ill., No. 16- 11667, complaint filed 12/28/16). Lawsuits against retailers seeking overtime pay for salaried employees who are called managers or assistant managers are common under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage laws. Kmart earlier this year settled for $3.8 million a separate FLSA lawsuit that covered about 425 assistant managers. The current lawsuit, filed Dec. 28, seeks relief for a nationwide class of current and former assistant store managers. Statutory Exemption at Issue Retailers generally contend that employees who are called managers or assistant managers fall under the FLSA's "white collar" exemption to overtime pay. But the employees argue that despite their job titles, they lack managerial authority and their job duties don't differ much from those of hourly employees who are entitled to overtime pay. The Labor Department issued a final rule in May that would require employers to pay overtime to any employee whose salary is less than $47,892 a year. The FLSA's white collar exemption would only apply to managers whose annual salary exceeds that amount, the department said. But a federal district court in Texas blocked the new rule from taking effect while a lawsuit challenging the DOL's test is pending. That means a manager or assistant manager earning at least $23,660 a year still can be denied overtime pay. Kmart Aims to Limit Costs, Suit Says In the current lawsuit, Kelliann Roselan, a former Kmart assistant manager in New York, seeks relief for current and former store assistants who worked for the retailer anywhere in the U.S. during the past three years. Kmart didn't pay assistant managers for overtime even though their job duties don't qualify them for the FLSA exemption, Roselan alleges. The retailer willfully denied overtime pay to the store assistants to minimize its labor costs, she said. Kmart scheduled Roselan to work 48 hours a week, but she actually worked 60 to 65 hours each week she was scheduled for five shifts, she said. The company paid assistant managers no overtime for their hours in excess of 40 a week, she said. Roselan seeks to pursue a class action under the New York Labor Law as well as an FLSA collective action. A spokesman for Sears Holdings Corp., which owns Kmart, said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. Attorneys representing Roselan weren't available for comment Dec. 29. Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Werman Salas PC, Hepworth Gershbaum & Roth PLLC, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Winebrake & Santillo LLC and Migliaccio & Rathod LLP represent Roselan. No attorney has yet entered an appearance for Kmart. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Securities Suit in San Mateo Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against a consolidated securities class actions in San Mateo County. During the first nine months of 2016, five putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in California Superior Court, San Mateo County, naming as defendants the Company, current and former directors, certain officers, and the underwriters in the December 2014 initial public offering (the IPO). All of these actions were consolidated into a single action (Consolidated State Court Action), entitled In re LendingClub Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. CIV537300. In August 2016, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated Complaint ("FACC") alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) based on allegedly false and misleading statements in the IPO registration statement and prospectus. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO registration statement and prospectus, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Defendants demurred to the FACC, and in September 2016, the Court overruled those demurrers with respect to the Section 11 and 15 claims, and sustained the demurrers with leave to amend as the Section 12(a)(2) claim. The Court has not yet set a date for plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. In May 2016, two related putative securities class actions (entitled Evellard v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV- 2627-WHA, and Wertz v. LendingClub Corporation, et al., No. 16-CV- 2670-WHA) were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Both actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and one of them asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act similar to those alleged in the Consolidated State Court Action. In mid-August 2016, the two actions were consolidated into a single action. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs' deadline to file a consolidated complaint was December 9, 2016. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Lending Club is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and investors. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Motion to Compel Arbitration Pending ------------------------------------------------------ LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company's motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis in the federal consumer class action is pending. The Company said, "In April 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in New York, alleging that persons received loans, through the Company's platform, that exceeded states' usury limits in violation of state usury and consumer protection laws, and the federal RICO statute. The defendants, in addition to the Company, are WebBank, Steel Partners Holdings, L.P. and the Lending Club Members Trust. The Company has agreed to indemnify WebBank and Steel Partners Holdings, L.P. against certain liabilities in connection with this matter. The plaintiff seeks treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration on an individual basis, which is now pending. The Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to defend this matter vigorously. Lending Club is an online marketplace connecting borrowers and investors. LIFELOCK INC: Appeal Briefs Due in January through March 2017 ------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that appellate briefs are due on various dates in January through March 2017. The Company said, "On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A second amended complaint was filed on November 4, 2015 on behalf of four plaintiffs who alleged that we engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, Breach of Contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act." "Under the terms of the FTC settlement, $100 million, was paid in December 2015 and was placed into the registry of the court overseeing the FTC Contempt Action, $68 million of which was authorized to be distributed to fund the consumer redress contemplated by the Ebarle Class Action settlement. Those funds have been transferred to the supervision of the court overseeing the Ebarle Class Action Settlement. "On September 20, 2016, the court overseeing the Ebarle Class Action entered judgment and an order granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the parties' proposed settlement agreement, awarding plaintiffs' counsel $10.2 million in fees and costs and awarding each of the four plaintiffs $2,000 as a service award, these amounts were previously expensed in the third quarter of 2015. "Beginning on October 11, 2016, the Court-appointed settlement administrator distributed settlement checks to settlement class members using the $68 million transferred in February 2016 to the court-appointed settlement administrator from the court's registry in the FTC Contempt Action. The remaining $32 million of the settlement remains in the registry of the Arizona court. In addition, we have $3.0 million accrued for a potential settlement with states attorneys general for related claims. "Appeals of the final approval order and judgment were filed by six objectors prior to the filing deadline and are pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals do not impact the timing of the payment of settlement checks to settlement class members or payment of the attorneys' fees, costs and service awards to plaintiffs. "A mediation assessment conference was scheduled with the Court of Appeals for November 9, 2016, in connection with the initial appeal filed, and the appeal briefs are currently due on various dates in January through March 2017. However, the parties have agreed to consolidate the appeals which is likely to have an impact on the current schedule." LIFELOCK INC: April 10 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Avila" Action --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing is set for April 10, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Susan R Bolton as to the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in the case, Avila v. LifeLock Incorporated et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01398 (D. Ariz.). LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that "On July 22, 2015, Miguel Avila, representing himself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from July 30, 2014 to July 20, 2015, inclusive, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. His complaint alleged that Todd Davis, Christopher Power, and we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts about our business, operations, and prospects, including with regard to our information security program, advertising, recordkeeping, and our compliance with the FTC Order. The complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs." "On September 21, 2015, four other Company stockholders, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Larisa Gassel, and Donna Thompson, and their respective attorneys all filed motions seeking to be appointed the lead plaintiff and lead counsel in this class action. "On October 9, 2015, the Court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System and Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On December 10, 2015 lead plaintiffs filed a substantively similar amended complaint. Lead plaintiffs moved to lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act on January 21, 2016. "On February 8, 2016, we, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, opposed that motion and on April 22, 2016, the Court denied lead plaintiffs' motion. We, along with Mr. Davis and Mr. Power, moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 29, 2016. "On August 3, 2016 the Court granted our motion to dismiss and later permitted lead plaintiffs until September 23, 2016 to seek leave to amend their complaint. On September 23, 2016, lead plaintiffs moved for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint, which we did not oppose. "On October 13, 2016, the Court granted lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. On October 14, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint, which is substantively similar to the amended complaint but adds our President, Hilary Schneider, as a named defendant. On December 16, 2016, the Company, along with Ms. Schneider and Messrs. Davis and Power moved to dismiss the Second Amend Complaint. LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection services for consumers and consumer risk management services for enterprises. LIFELOCK INC: Oral Argument in Securities Suit Appeal Not Yet Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that oral argument on the appeal related to the case, In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation, has not been set by the Ninth Circuit. On March 3, 2014, and March 10, 2014, two securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, against the Company, Todd Davis and Christopher Power. On June 16, 2014, the court consolidated the complaints into a single action captioned In re LifeLock, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Company said, "On August 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the Consolidated Amended Complaint), seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired our securities from February 26, 2013 to May 16, 2014, inclusive (the Class Period). The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that we, along with Mr. Davis, Mr. Power, and Ms. Schneider, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to disclose material facts regarding certain of our business, operational, and compliance policies, including with regard to certain of our services, our data security program, and Mr. Davis' compliance with the FTC Order. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that, as a result, certain of our financial statements issued during the Class Period and certain public statements made by Ms. Schneider, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power during the Class Period, were false and misleading. The Consolidated Amended Complaint sought certification as a class action, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs." "On December 17, 2014, the court granted our and the other defendants' motion and dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint, giving the lead plaintiff 21 days to seek leave to amend. On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed his Second Consolidated Amended Complaint which contained similar allegations, but no longer named Ms. Schneider as a defendant. "On July 21, 2015, the court granted our and the other defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, without leave to amend, and entered judgment in our favor. On August 18, 2015, the lead plaintiff along with another stockholder, City of Hallandale Beach Police and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund, moved to vacate the judgment on the grounds that the FTC's July 21, 2015 motion seeking to hold us in contempt of the FTC Order constituted surprise and newly discovered evidence. Plaintiffs also sought permission to file a Third Consolidated Amended Complaint. "We, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Power opposed plaintiffs' motion. On September 18, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the July 21, 2015 judgment and plaintiffs' request to file another complaint. "On September 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs appeal from the lower court's July 21, 2015 order dismissing the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint and entering judgment in our favor, and the court's September 18, 2015 order denying plaintiffs' motion to vacate that judgment. Briefing of the appeal has been completed, but oral argument on the appeal has not been set by the Ninth Circuit." LifeLock is a provider of proactive identity theft protection services for consumers and consumer risk management services for enterprises. LM FUNDING: Judge Certifies Deceptive Trade Practice Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Margie Manning, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reports that while LM Funding America Inc.'s stock price has seen a steady decline since the company went public in October 2015, the stock nosedived after a difficult third quarter in 2016. LM Funding America, a specialty finance company that provides funding for community associations, saw its stock fall from $8.50 a share on Jan. 4 to $4.10 a share on Dec. 23, a 51.8 percent decline in price. It was the second-largest stock price drop among Tampa Bay companies in 2016. LM Funding America, headquartered on Harbour Island, helps homeowners associations collect delinquent accounts. Its financial products are most attractive when delinquency rates are high, Bruce Rodgers, chairman and CEO, said during a third quarter earnings conference call. But 3Q 2016 was a slow quarter for real estate transactions in the company's target markets, which resulted in light numbers, Mr. Rodgers said. LM Funding reported a net loss of $914,180 on revenue of just over $1 million for the three months ended Sept. 30, and a net loss of $1.8 million on revenue of $4 million for the first nine months of 2016. In September, the company unveiled a cost-cutting plan to reduce expenses by about $2 million a year, by reducing non-sales related back office personnel and wages, and trimming the salaries of five executive officers, representing a 30 percent decrease to overall executive management salaries, a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said. Mr. Rodgers said that initiative should have a meaningful impact on operations in 4Q 2016 and beyond. The company also has had higher expenses related to increased legal activity, said Steve Weclew, chief financial officer. It faces two lawsuits -- one pending in federal court that alleges LM Funding directed a related company to violate provisions of a Florida law on trade practices, and another in circuit court in Miami-Dade County that makes similar deceptive trade practice allegations. LM Funding said both cases are without merit, but a judge in the Miami-Dade case recently certified it as a class action lawsuit, the Tampa Bay Times reported. MCDONALD'S: Faces Class Action Over Extra Value Meal Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman who claimed she overpaid for her sausage burrito meal at a McDonald's restaurant in The Loop has become the second plaintiff asking Cook County courts to make McDonald's and a local McDonald's franchisee pay for charging a few cents more the meal as a bundled "Extra Value Meal," rather than a la carte. On Dec. 22, plaintiff Kelly Killeen filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Oak Brook-based McDonald's and local franchise restaurant operator Salabad LLC, a company that operates McDonald's restaurant No. 6491 at Randolph and Dearborn streets in Chicago. Ms. Killeen is represented in the action by attorney Samuel Shelist, of Shelist Law Firm, and by JS Law. Both firms are in Chicago. In her lawsuit, Ms. Killeen alleges McDonald's allows certain franchise restaurant operators to charge too much for "Extra Value Meals" -- which typically include a sandwich, drink and either French fries or a hashbrown patty -- charging customers a few cents more for the "meal" than they would pay if they ordered the items separately. This, the lawsuit alleged, means McDonald's and its franchisees have violated Illinois law, as the company advertises the bundled meals as a "value," particularly when compared to ordering a la carte. In this case, Ms. Killeen said she had ordered a sausage burrito meal at the downtown Chicago McDonald's location and was charged $5.08. If the items had been ordered separately, Ms. Killeen argued she would have paid only $4.97. The lawsuit alleged the overcharge represents false advertising. The plaintiffs have asked the court to expand the lawsuit to potentially include hundreds or even thousands of other customers who may have purchased meals at the downtown Chicago restaurant or at any McDonald's restaurant anywhere else in Illinois, and who similarly may have paid more for the Extra Value Meal than ordering the items separately at the posted menu prices. They have requested actual and tripled damages, plus unspecified punitive damages and attorney fees. The lawsuit is the second such class action filed in Cook County courts over McDonald's meal pricing practices in December. On Dec. 13, plaintiff James Gertie, of Des Plaines, through his lawyers at the firm of Markoff Leinberger LLC, of Chicago, filed suit against McDonald's franchisee Karis Management Company, which operates McDonald's restaurants in suburban Des Plaines and Niles, alleging the company should be ordered to pay for charging 41 cents too much for a two cheeseburger Extra Value Meal. MEDTRONIC: Appeals Court Reinstates Shareholder Suit Over Infuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Carlson, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Medtronic was dealt a legal setback on Dec. 28 when a federal appeals court reinstated litigation from investment funds claiming that the medical device company misled investors and doctors by concealing known risks from the controversial Infuse bone graft product. Infuse has been used in more than 1 million surgeries worldwide to stimulate bone growth, usually in a procedure in which a spine surgeon fuses two or more vertebrae in a patient's back to alleviate pain from degenerative disc disease. Infuse is supposed to make the fusion happen more reliably and with less pain, but company-sponsored studies did not disclose risks that independent studies later reported. Three investment funds, including lead plaintiff West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare fund, are accusing Medtronic of securities fraud for allegedly taking part in a scheme to conceal Infuse's safety risks and mislead investors about future Infuse sales. In 2015 Minnesota's chief federal judge, John Tunheim, threw out the case on procedural grounds. On Dec. 28, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis unanimously overturned the Minnesota ruling and sent the case back to federal trial court in Minnesota. Medtronic moved its legal address to Ireland in 2015, but has retained corporate offices in the state. Medtronic said in a statement that it believes the shareholder litigation is without merit, but lawyers for the groups suing Medtronic cheered the decision. "What it means is that the case will get back onto the track that it was before it was dismissed. We were taking discovery, we had filed a motion for class certification. The litigation will continue toward an eventual trial unless there is some other event that resolves it," said Shawn Williams, an attorney with the California-based law firm heading up the plaintiffs' case. Mr. Williams' firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, represented the California pension fund that served as lead plaintiff in class action shareholder litigation against Minnetonka-based UnitedHealth Group that ultimately led to settlements of more than $925 million in 2008. When asked about a possible settlement in the Medtronic matter, neither Mr. Williams nor a Medtronic spokesman said one was likely. "We haven't discussed settlement with them at all," Mr. Williams said. A statement from Medtronic reaffirmed the device maker's commitment to winning the case in court. "We're disappointed with the decision, but continue to believe the claims in this case are without merit," a company spokesman said via e-mail. "The plaintiffs are still a long way from proving liability in this case, and we are prepared to defend ourselves in court." The three plaintiffs in the case are the West Virginia pipe fitters' union health and welfare fund, a Germany-based asset manager called Union Asset Management Holding AG, and the State of Hawaii Employees' Retirement System. In a similar-but-unrelated case, Medtronic learned earlier in December that it will likely have to go to trial in the first of thousands of patients' personal injury lawsuits stemming from use of Infuse. A state appeals court judge in St. Louis ruled Dec. 8 ruled that plaintiff Trisha Keim's allegations that Medtronic fraudulently marketed Infuse should go to trial. Medtronic denies any liability in the patients' cases, and has moved to settle thousands of the 6,000 injury claims pending against it over Infuse. MICHIGAN: UIA Software Incorrectly Snares Thousands --------------------------------------------------- Jordan Travis at Record Eagle reports that the software once used by Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency erroneously accused tens of thousands of people who filed for benefits of intentional misrepresentation, and one attorney fears there could be many more. The Michigan Integrated Data Automated System had a 93 percent error rate in 22,427 supposed fraud cases it auto-adjudicated between October 2013 and Aug. 4, 2015, and 20,965 of those were later overturned. That's according to UIA data reported to U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich. Levin has asked the state to review the remaining 30,000 fraud determinations made during the same time period, once in a letter to Gov. Rick Snyder and again in December. In a statement he said the review needs to go beyond a small subset of the cases, and while a few thousand have been repaid after being incorrectly fined, only a full audit will determine if the problem has been solved. "We have to make sure that everybody who was owed money is paid," he said. "They have to make sure that the record is clarified in every case where there was a false allegation of fraud. I mean, a 93 percent error rate is enormous." A February 2016 Michigan Office of the Auditor General report found a similar error rate among misrepresentation appeals made from October 2013 to June 2015. Attorney Jennifer Lord said she represents claimants who are suing in state court after being financially harmed by MiDAS' "golden touch." There's a separate class-action suit over the same issue in federal court. The software, once left in charge of rooting out fraud cases, pinpointed people with discrepancies in their files and notified them they were suspected of fraud, Lord said. Those notifications went into online system portals with little or no other notice, and gave claimants 10 days to respond. Those who responded were given fact-finding questionnaires with vague questions and predetermined responses, Lord said. "For the question, 'Why did you apply for unemployment,' one of the preselected answers is, 'Because I needed the money,'" she said. "If they answered 'I needed the money,' it was an automatic final determination of fraud." An April 2016 state Office of the Auditor General report criticized the agency's process for adjudicating intentional misrepresentation issues between October 2013 and April 2015. The UIA didn't get or factor in enough supporting information, asked claimants only two questions when making a redetermination and made them based on questions that didn't provide sufficient proof of fraud. Those who received a written redetermination of fraud weren't given the reasons or supporting facts behind it, according to the report. Lord said those wrongfully netted by the software had to pay staggering fines -- Michigan levies penalties equal to four times what a claimant received in unemployment payments. And because the system had access to the state and U.S. departments of treasury, it could garnish peoples' wages, seize their tax refunds or both. Fines the system collected totaled $56.9 million, money dumped into a state fund that ballooned from $3.1 million in 2011 to $68.8 million by September 2014, according to a fact sheet from the U.S. House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee. Lord pointed out Snyder could soon sign a bill reallocating $10 million of that money into the state's general fund. She believes the money should be held in trust until the state is certain everyone wrongfully accused and fined has been repaid. "This is not the state's money, it is not taxpayer money, it is money that was garnished from workers' wages," she said. Lord said she wants those wrongfully accused to be repaid and to ensure the state agency never repeats the mistake. The case is in the state Court of Appeals and Lord wants it made into a class- action lawsuit. It's a class that could be as large as 60,000 people who were potentially harmed by the system. Levin's office stated the UIA made 53,633 fraud determinations between October 2013 and August 2015. The UIA changed its procedure in August 2015, said David Murray, Department of Talent and Economic Development communications director. In most situations fraud cases were overturned after the agency received additional information. "It was the computer system identifying people, and we changed that because we wanted to have trained staffers have the final say before letters go out to people," he said. Michigan lawmakers have since passed a bill codifying the agency's changes, Murray said. The agency has also addressed issues with the notices it sends for suspected fraud, and will consider Levin's request to review the roughly 30,000 other fraud cases. "We realize that people come to the UIA for unemployment insurance during a very difficult and stressful time in their lives, when they've lost a job," he said. "We want to make sure that they get the benefits that they're entitled to and that we can do that quickly so they can get the assistance that they need as they look to move forward." The agency also must remain vigilant against fraud, Murray said. Anyone who believes the agency wrongfully accused them of fraud should go to their local UIA problem resolution office, Murray said. In Traverse City, it's at 1209 S. Garfield Ave. inside Northwest Michigan Works. As for the lawsuits, Murray said he couldn't speak about pending litigation. Levin said he'll keep track of the UIA's actions; he sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees the joint state- federal agency. "But it's primarily a state's responsibility to take the necessary steps to come clean and to make sure that people aren't injured because of the callousness of the state," he said. Total Fraud Determinations, October 2013 -- August 2015: 53,633 Total Cases Reviewed by State: 22,427 Total Fraud Determinations Upheld: 1,462 Total Fraud Determinations Overturned: 20,965 Individuals requiring repayment: 2,571 Amount repaid to individuals: $5,431,821 MIDLAND CREDIT: "Tripp" Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit entitled Tripp v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-12588-DLC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. Plaintiff Bethany Tripp, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C. 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc., is represented by: Andrew M. Schneiderman, Esq. Justin M. Fabella, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 28 State Street, 24th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 213-7000 Facsimile: (617) 213-7001 E-mail: aschneiderman@hinshawlaw.com jfabella@hinshawlaw.com MISSOURI: Justice Center Files Suit vs. Dept. of Corrections ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Rivas of STL American reported that at 16, Eric Gray did not have any stable adults in his life. Instead, he was exposed daily to trauma and violence on the streets of St. Louis -- including active recruitment by the Bloods. In March 2009, he got involved with an older woman, was in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up in a gang shootout. He lived but another man died, and Gray received a sentence of seven years for manslaughter and 25 years for armed criminal action. He is currently serving that time at the Crossroads Correction Center in Cameron, Mo. On July 13, Gray was supposed to be considered for release by a panel of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole. But after being interviewed by the panel for a short period of time, Gray received a single-page decision from the board stating he was denied parole. The unsigned decision, dated August 4, went on to state that Gray will not be considered for parole release again for another five years. On Dec. 28, MacArthur Justice Center in St. Louis filed a lawsuit alleging that the Missouri Department of Corrections' parole system violated Gray's constitutional rights and does so continually with youthful offenders. In the suit, Gray asks the Circuit Court of Cole County to declare unlawful the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole's procedures and its decision to deny his release. Citing a series of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, the suit argues that inmates who were sentenced for crimes committed as children require special consideration by the state's parole board. "Because youth are categorically less culpable than adults who commit the same offenses, they must be given a meaningful opportunity for release that focuses on their lack of maturity at the time of the crime, extreme vulnerability to peer pressure, and still developing moral compasses at the time they enter the justice system," said Mae Quinn, director of the MacArthur Justice Center, a public interest law firm that advocates for human rights and social justice through litigation. By depriving juvenile offenders of youth-focused assessments, the lawsuit argues that the department's parole proceedings violate due process requirements and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments. A department spokesman told The St. Louis American that the department does not comment on pending litigation. Gray's case Before the incident, Gray "found himself involved in an inappropriate relationship with an older predatory woman named Sonia Whitlock," according to a lawsuit. Whitlock -- who was in her twenties at the time -- became pregnant with Gray's child, but she was also involved with men from the opposing gang, the Crips. On March 20, 2009, Whitlock took Gray to her grandmother's home in St. Louis city. Whitlock walked Gray down a nearby street where he was confronted by men Whitlock knew from her neighborhood, including Crip gang member Alvin Williams. Words were exchanged, gunfire rang out, and ultimately Williams was shot. Gray and Whitlock ran from the scene together; Williams died that day. Gray was, thereafter, arrested and charged with causing Williams' death. Despite his youth, vulnerability and status as a child statutory rape victim, Gray stood trial as an adult. After hearing about the circumstances from Whitlock, the jury acquitted Gray of first-degree-murder. He was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, for recklessly causing Williams' death and one count of armed criminal action. The lawsuit alleges that the parole made several procedural flaws regarding Gray's parole hearing in July. Prior to the hearing, Gray was only allowed to name one person as his representative; therefore he couldn't name a witness and an attorney. Gray wasn't granted due process because he was not allowed to review the documents -- including any letters from the victim's family, notes from prison staff and risk assessment instruments -- that went before the parole board. These practices are unconstitutional, the lawsuit argues. "A one-sided, 15- or 20-minute, interrogation by board members and prison staff without any real consideration of modern brain science, adolescent development, or the impact of youthful traumas on child defendants does not amount to a real chance at a second chance," Quinn said. Quinn said the Missouri parole board's practices have long gone without challenge or scrutiny. Oftentimes, people like Gray don't have access to a public defender because the public defender's office does not have the resources to provide someone to represent them during parole proceedings, she said. "Unfortunately, unlike other states where attorneys are involved to ensure proceedings are fair, Missouri fails to provide the public defender system with sufficient funds to cover parole release or violation hearings," Quinn said. "Because problematic practices well-known to Missouri policymakers have gone largely unchecked for decades, we feel the need to serve as a watchdog on these issues." This is the third lawsuit filed by the MacArthur Center in the last two months, taking aim at Missouri's prisons. The most recent prior complaint, a class action filed in federal court in collaboration with the ACLU, seeks to force the department to provide appropriate treatment to inmates suffering from Hepatitis C. That case potentially impacts thousands of Missouri prisoners. "The MDOC system is broken," said Amy Breihan, the MacArthur staff attorney spearheading the group's efforts to fight for meaningful hepatitis treatment. "We see this in news reports about how it treats its own employees. And we see it in how the department treats (or doesn't treat) those in its care. Our lawsuits reflect the need for a fundamental cultural shift." Quinn noted that the current director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, George Lombardi, tendered his resignation this month. "That followed the center's two prior court filings and other emerging legal controversies involving the department, including accounts of a hostile and sometimes violent work environment where whistleblowers who call for change face retaliation," she said. In August, the national Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center opened an office in St. Louis. Quinn, most recently the director of the Juvenile Law and Justice Clinic and a tenured professor at Washington University School of Law, was named director of the new office. Since its 1985 founding in Chicago by the family of J. Roderick MacArthur, the MacArthur Justice Center has worked to bring police misconduct to the public's attention and helped wrongfully convicted men and women win multimillion dollar verdicts and settlements as compensation for the time they were imprisoned. "This region has recently received national and international attention -- and scorn -- because of problematic court, incarceration, and policing practices, including the shooting death of unarmed Michael Brown by Ferguson law enforcement," said Locke E. Bowman, Executive Director of the MacArthur Justice Center, which is based at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law in Chicago. "St. Louis was an obvious choice for our newest initiative." MONAKER GROUP: Responds to Securities Class Suit Filed in Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monaker Group (the "Company"), a travel and technology Company focused on the alternative lodging rental (ALR) market, on Dec. 29 responded to a report that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Monaker Group alleging violations of federal securities laws Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is April 6, 2012 through June 23, 2016. "The action claims that Monaker supported RealBiz Media Group, to the detriment of Monaker's shareholders, without fully disclosing the support provided to RealBiz Media Group. Monaker Group believes that this action is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action." MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $16MM Related to Modafinil Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company has accrued approximately $16.0 million at September 30, related to the settlement with putative indirect purchasers in the Modafinil antitrust litigation. Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing direct and indirect purchasers of the drug modafinil and in a lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs. These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of patent litigation with Cephalon relating to modafinil. Discovery has closed. On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs' motion). On January 28, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants' summary judgment motions based on factors identified in the Supreme Court's Actavis decision. In an order of June 1, 2015, vacated and reissued on June 11, 2015, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition for leave to appeal the certification decision, which was denied by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on December 21, 2015. On July 27, 2015, the District Court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 9, 2015, the Third Circuit granted defendants' petition for leave to appeal the class certification decision. On October 16, 2015, defendants filed a motion to stay the liability trial, which had been set to begin on February 2, 2016, with the District Court pending the appeal of the decision to certify the direct purchaser class; this motion was denied on December 17, 2015. On December 17, 2015, the District Court approved the form and manner of notice to the certified class of direct purchasers; the notice was subsequently issued to the class. On December 21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to stay with the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which was granted on January 25, 2016; the trial is now stayed and the case has been placed in suspense. The appeal was fully briefed on April 28, 2016. Oral arguments on the appeal took place on July 12, 2016. On September 13, 2016, the Third Circuit reversed the district court's certification order and remanded for further proceedings. On October 14, 2016 direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition seeking rehearing. On October 31, 2016 the petition seeking rehearing was denied. On March 24, 2015, Mylan reached a settlement in principle with the putative indirect purchasers, and on November 20, 2015, Mylan entered into a settlement agreement with the putative indirect purchasers. Plaintiffs have not yet moved for preliminary approval of that settlement. At September 30, 2016, the Company has accrued approximately $16.0 million related to this settlement. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN N.V.: Bid to Dismiss Case Over Pioglitazone Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that briefing on Defendants' motion to dismiss the putative direct purchaser class' amended complaint in the Pioglitazone litigation has been completed. Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). These actions allege violations of state and federal competition laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on October 10, 2014. Two additional complaints were subsequently filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent classes of direct purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). On September 23, 2015, the District Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers amended complaints with prejudice. The indirect purchasers filed a notice of appeal on October 22, 2015; however they have since abandoned and dismissed their appeal of the District Court's dismissal of claims asserted against Mylan. The putative direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint on January 8, 2016. Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed on January 28, 2016 and the briefing has been completed. The case has been stayed pending the resolution of the indirect purchasers' appeal against the defendants remaining in that case. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Federal Securities Case Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Federal Securities Litigation. Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016 against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc. and certain of their directors and officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the "defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or Mylan Inc. The complaints allege that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating to Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc.'s classification of their EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The complaints seek damages, as well as the plaintiffs' fees and costs. "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN N.V.: EpiPen Auto-Injector Securities Suit in Israel Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Securities litigation in Israel. On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed a lawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders, against Mylan N.V. and four of its officers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the "defendants") in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact in Mylan N.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding Mylan N.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposes of the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, in violation of both U.S. and Israeli securities laws, the Israeli Companies Law and the Israeli Torts Ordinance. The plaintiff seeks damages, among other remedies. We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN N.V.: Defending Against EpiPen Auto-Injector Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Civil Litigation. Beginning in August 2016, Mylan Specialty L.P. and other Mylan- affiliated entities have been named as defendants in certain putative class action lawsuits relating to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs in these suits assert violations of various state consumer protection laws, as well as common law claims, including claims for unjust enrichment, restitution, disgorgement and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the product in packages containing two auto-injectors. "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN N.V.: Still Faces 16 Digoxin Price-Fixing Suits ----------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against 16 class action lawsuits related to price-fixing of Doxycycline and Digoxin products. Beginning in March 2016, sixteen putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and one filed in the District of Rhode Island by indirect purchasers against Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and other pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleging conspiracies to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of certain Doxycycline and Digoxin products and to allocate markets and customers for those products. In addition, three putative class action complaints have been filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by direct purchasers against Mylan and other pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has established an MDL in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the cases have been consolidated. Mylan and its subsidiary intend to deny liability and to defend these actions vigorously. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. MYLAN N.V.: Still Faces Pravastatin Price-Fixing Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against 16 class action lawsuits related to price-fixing of Pravastatin products. On September 21, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by indirect purchasers against Mylan Inc. and other pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleging conspiracies to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the price of certain Pravastatin products. Mylan intends to deny liability and to defend this action vigorously. Mylan is a global pharmaceutical company, which develops, licenses, manufactures, markets and distributes generic, branded generic and specialty pharmaceuticals. NEW YORK: Bill Requiring State to Pay Indigent Defense Vetoed ------------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Felder, writing for JURIST, reports that NY Governor Andrew Cuomo on Dec. 31 vetoed a bill that would require the state to pay for indigent representation when counties were unable. The bill was passed six months ago with bipartisan support, though the lawsuit giving rise to the issue was settled approximately 2 years ago. After weeks of negotiation Gov. Cuomo vetoed the bill, with a spokesperson stating that "[u]nfortunately, an agreement was unable to be reached and the Legislature was committed to a flawed bill that placed an $800 million burden on taxpayers -- $600 million of which was unnecessary -- with no way to pay for it and no plan to make one." Gov. Cuomo assured that it would be "revisited" in the upcoming legislation cycle. This is not the first time that the rights of indigent defendants have suffered due to costs. Last January, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Louisiana filed a class action lawsuit against the New Orleans Public Defenders Office and the Louisiana Public Defender Board due to the lack of available public defenders for individuals with no access to an attorney. The ACLU claimed that as a result of the lack of state funding for public defenders, individuals are forced to wait months in jail without counsel or accept bail and plea negotiations which can have irreparable effects on their case. This was not the first time the New Orleans County Public Defender's Office had struggled to adequately provide enough public defenders, who represent close to 80 percent of criminal defendants in New Orleans. Due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, 31 of the office's 39 public defenders were laid off and the annual budget was dropped from $2.5 million to $500,000. The financing system was accused of being unconstitutional because it relied heavily on surcharges from traffic tickets, which were abandoned since Hurricane Katrina, and forced poor people to pay for the system. Many cases involving public defenders were suspended and a petition was granted to free a prisoner facing serious charges because the suspect lacked counsel. Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr. launched an investigation in 2006 into the dire finances of the state's indigent defense system. NEW YORK REIT: "Jacobs" Action Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- New York REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Irene Jacobs and Marvin Jacobs have discontinued their class action lawsuit. During June 2016, Irene Jacobs and Marvin Jacobs filed a class action complaint (the "Jacobs Complaint") on behalf of public stockholders of the Company against the Company, the OP, Michael Happel, the Company's chief executive officer, and its board of directors. The Jacobs Complaint was originally filed in New York Supreme Court, New York County on June 17, 2016, but the New York action was discontinued and re-filed in Maryland Circuit Court on July 12, 2016. The Jacobs Complaint seeks to enjoin the series of transactions contemplated by the Master Combination Agreement (the "JBG Combination Agreement") the Company entered into in May 2016 with JBG Properties, Inc. and JBG/Operating Partners, L.P (collectively "JBG Management Entities"), and certain pooled investment funds that are affiliates of the JBG Management Entities (collectively with the JBG Management Entities and certain affiliated entities, "JBG"). The Jacobs Complaint alleges, among other things, that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the public stockholders of the Company by causing the Company to enter into the JBG Combination Agreement, and that the Company, the OP and JBG knowingly assisted in those alleged breaches. On August 2, 2016, the Company and the OP entered into an agreement with JBG to terminate the JBG Combination Agreement. On September 2, 2016, following termination of the JBG Combination Agreement, a stipulation of voluntary discontinuance of the Jacobs Complaint was filed, concluding the matter. NICOLET RESTAURANT: Court Relies on Spokeo to Dismiss FACTA Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brooke Conkle, Esq. -- brooke.conkle@troutmansanders.com -- and Michael E. Lacy, Esq. -- michael.lacy@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on December 13, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the dismissal of a proposed class action alleging that a restaurant did not properly truncate credit card expiration dates on receipts, finding the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. The plaintiff, Jeremy Meyers, was given a copy of his receipt after dining at Nicolet Restaurant of de Pere, a restaurant owned by the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin. Mr. Meyers noticed that the receipt did not truncate the expiration date of his credit card, as required by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). NORTH AMERICAN: Carnival Workers Sue Over Unpaid OT --------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports that a carnival operator which has billed itself as "the world's largest traveling outdoor amusement park," providing carnival services to 10 of the 50 largest fairs in North America, including the Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky state fairs, is facing a class action wage complaint from employees who allege violations of laws in five states. Patrick Smith, Brenna Smith, Jeremiah Jones, Sierra Holcomb, Michael Galvin, Joseph Dawson, Andries Van Der Walt, Annette Stiles, Robert Hulett, Yvon Hanekom and Lauren Hanekom filed their complaint Dec. 22 in Cook County Circuit Court, accusing Farmland, Ind.-based North American Midway Entertainment-Astro Amusement of violating wage and hour laws in Illinois, Kansas and Wisconsin, as well as common laws in Texas and Louisiana. According to the complaint, NAME has, for more than a decade, frequently required employees to work 55 or more hours each week without paying overtime or "their agreed contract wages." Often, workers got $6 or $7 per hour, including those in which they exceeded 40 hours per week. The employees who filed the complaint worked as ride operators, ticket sellers, game operators, concession stand attendants and foremen, some for as many as 11 years. They noted NAME, for a decade, "routinely obtained labor through the H-2B temporary foreign worker visa program." Under that process, employers file temporary employment certification applications with the Department of Labor. Such paperwork specifies wages and other employment terms offered to workers, including a requirement to meet federal prevailing wage standards for H-2B workers and to offer equivalent terms to American citizen employees. Smith, Van Der Walt and Hanekom are H-2B workers who came from South Africa. All the employees named as plaintiffs said they worked in several parts of the country, including stints at state fairs in Illinois, Kansas and Texas, when they worked more than 70 hours a week. In some cases, the workers said they got the federal prevailing wage, but no overtime pay, despite always working more than 40 hours a week. Other employees cited weekly pay figures, such as $375 a week in 2013, $450 per week in 2014 and $425 per week in 2015, despite working at least 50 hours each week. Each employee stipulated NAME never paid them for all the hours they worked, as they never paid one and a half times the regular rate for any hours past 40 in a single week. The complaint said the alleged wage violations also constitute breach of contract, including H-2B terms. The class would include anyone who worked for NAME through Jan. 1, 2016 in the following states: at Illinois carnivals from as far back as Jan. 1, 2007; in Texas from Jan. 1, 2013; in Louisiana and Kansas from Jan. 1, 2014; and in Wisconsin from Jan. 1, 2015. In addition to class certification and a jury trial, the plaintiffs want back pay with a 2 percent interest penalty, according to the relevant state laws. Representing the plaintiffs, and serving as putative class attorneys, are lawyers from the Chicago firm of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym. ORBIT CORP: Aggrieved Apartment Buyers File Representative Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Yogesh Sadhwani and Bapu Deedwania, writing for Mumbai Mirror, report that aggrieved apartment buyers in the uber luxurious Orbit Terraces project, in Lower Parel, have requested the High Court to allow them to complete the construction of the project that has been stuck since 2015. Nine of the buyers, who are representing 50 other owners, including noted architect Hafeez Contractor, have filed the rarely used Representative Suit against the building's developer, Orbit Corporation, and sought that the project be handed over to them. The buyers have requested that the construction should be supervised by the HC. In case they are not allowed to take over the construction, their plaint states that the money they paid to the developer should be refunded along with 18% interest. When it was launched in 2010, the property, which consists entirely of luxury duplexes, was touted and sold as a potential SoBo landmark by Orbit Corporation. The construction of the 55- storey building progressed steadily until 2014, but came to grinding halt in 2015. In September, Orbit Corporation's promoter Pujit Aggarwal was arrested by the Mumbai Police for numerous cases of cheating in a couple of his other projects. A Representative Suit, which is akin to the class action suit filed in western countries, is uncommon in India. According to the Civil Procedure Code, if there are numerous people having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such person may sue, or be sued on behalf of all persons interested with the permission of the court. Famous class action suits in the West include Erin Brokovich's battle against Pacific Gas and Electric in 1993 (it was later made into a movie starring Julia Roberts), and the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement that forced cigarette manufacturers in the US to, among other things, stop targeting young smokers. "It is amazing that the makers of the law envisaged such a remedy more than 100 years ago. This rule is an exception to the general rule that all persons interested should be party to the suit. Basically, if there is a similar cause of action amongst a large group, a few can come forward to file a suit for all the others as well with the prior permission of the court. The other thing is that it also does not harm the interest of anyone who does not become a part of such a suit," advocate Vivek Shiralkar, who is representing the buyers, told Mumbai Mirror. The petition, filed earlier in December, states that most buyers bought flats between 2010 and 2014. While some of the deals were registered with Registrar of Stamps, many other buyers were issued allotment letters. The plaint states that the buyers individually contacted office bearers of Orbit on multiple occasions, but did not get any response. Uniting for a cause With construction of tower stuck at the 40th floor, the buyers came together under the banner of 'Orbit Flat Purchasers Association (OFPA)', which has around 60 members. "The Plaintiffs (buyers) and other purchasers started contacting each other and decided to form a collective forum for approaching the Defendant No.1(Orbit), as they were not responding to individual requests and avoiding personal contacts with various flat purchasers," the petition states. "Some of the members of the Plaintiffs Association and whom they are representing are living in tenanted and/or licensed premises. They have not only put their hard earned money and lifetime savings in the proposed construction of the said project, but have also sought setoff in respect of capital gains, which they have made while selling their other properties and which they have used for purchasing the flats in the said project being done by the Defendant No. 1(Orbit)," the plaint states. Buyers left in a lurch OFPA says that since the developers did not progress on construction front and only gave the buyers verbal assurances, they decided to carry out their independent investigations. They claim that their investigations revealed that Orbit collected huge sums from them for the flats and diverted the monies to other projects. The association in this case have also made State Bank of India and Union Bank of India as parties. The two banks extended loans to Orbit, which have now been defaulted. Earlier in 2016, the two banks took symbolic possession of the complex to recover their dues totalling Rs 135 crores. The buyers have sought that banks should not be allowed to alienate, or sell any part of the building to recover their dues. The buyers say that they have also managed to lay their hands on communication between Orbit and banks. The claim that in a letter dated June 3, 2016, Orbit has written to the banks seeking a settlement of dues. "As per the said letter dated 3rd June 2016, total amount of Rs.184.63 Crores is still required for completion of the said project," the plaint states. "The Defendant No.1 (Orbit) has not come with clean hands and with any concrete plan and solution and except for giving bare and empty assurances and promises, they have done nothing further in the matter . . . The Plaintiffs (buyers) have made relentless efforts for following up with the Defendant No.1 and their representatives, but none of commitments and promises made by them is met till date . . .," the plaint says. Stepping into the shoes of the developer According to Advocate Shiralkar, the suit is ambitious in nature, but the buyers, he said, have full faith in the judiciary. "Considering the situation at hand, we have gone with what is the best possible remedy available under the law," he said. When quizzed about the plaintiffs seeking to step into the shoes of the developer to complete the project, he said, "Again, it's the law that provides for it. Under the MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act), it is a statutory obligation of the promoter/developer to handover both conveyance and title of the property and specifically that. It is not the same as a simple agreement of sale, or any other contract. The prayer to seek such a relief comes from there, to seek completion of the project, if not by the developer then asking the courts to allow the buyers to do the same and failing which asking the promoter developer to return the amount," he said Shiralkar explained that in their suit before Justice S J Kathawalla, the plaintiffs have also pointed out the circulars issued by Reserve Bank of India, which entail that even after disbursement of a loan amount by a bank to a developer for a project, the bank should monitor the progress of the project. The matter will now come up for hearing on January 19. What developer is saying When Mumbai Mirror reached out to Orbit Corporation, their spokesperson stated in an emailed response that "the work on Orbit Terraces has been stalled for some time, and we are extending all co-operation to the buyers for speedy completion of the project. However, the matter is subjudice." PALOS VERDES, CA: Security Measures to Be Enforced at Lunada Bay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oren Peleg, writing for Laist, reports that surfers at the famous Lunada Bay in Palos Verdes Estates may be seeing a lot more law enforcement patrol soon. Park rangers from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, along with potential police surveillance cameras, will keep an eye on the spot known to have violent, territorial clashes between surfers. A group known as the Lunada Bay Boys has threatened and intimidated fellow surfers, and has illegally blocked public access to the cove, for decades. In the last year, a series of civil, state, and federal suits has been brought against the group to end their reign. "The plaintiffs brought the lawsuits to open access to a beach that was stolen 40 years ago by a bunch of trust-fund bullies," Victor Otten, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in a state suit, said, notes the Los Angeles Times. "The plaintiffs are confident they will succeed in making Lunada Bay public again." Reports have cited the gang assaulting unwelcomed beach-goers, slashing tires, dumping beer on people, and pelting others with dirt clods. In 2014, a planned Martin Luther King Jr. Day event at the beach was met by members of the Lunada Bay Boys dressed in black face and Afro wigs. The Bay Boys alleged told the event organizer, "You don't pay enough taxes to be here." In March, a federal class-action suit was filed to require the city of Palos Verdes Estates to investigate and prosecute the alleged crimes. But Jeff Kepley, the Palos Verdes Estates Police Chief, challenges the beach's bad rap. "I think there may be times when there are surfers down there that might do something to dissuade a visitor and that would equate to denying access to the coastal resource," Mr. Kepley said in January, according to the Long Beach Press-Telegram. "But there are plenty of times when anyone can go down there and enjoy themselves and nobody could care less." City Manager Tony Dahlerbruch added that he hopes to implement the proposed security measures shortly after January 1. "We're looking to start as soon as we can." PENNSYLVANIA: School Pensions Plan Might Recover Funds Lost ----------------------------------------------------------- Debra Erdley at Triblive reports that Pennsylvania's school pension fund will recover some of the losses it suffered in the Great Recession after the settlement of a class-action suit against Bank of America. The Pennsylvania School Employees Retirement System, or PSERs, has $51 billion in assets and was the lead plaintiff in a 2011 lawsuit against Bank of America. The suit alleged the financial institution hid debt and misled investors about its position in mortgage-backed securities between February 2009 and October 2010. U.S. District Court Judge William H. Pauley III, of the Southern District of New York, this week approved a $335 million settlement. The ruling ends nearly six years of litigation. Attorneys for Bank of America did not return a call for comment. PSERs spokeswoman Evelyn Williams said it is unclear how much the pension fund will recover in the settlement. "Final payouts to members of the class are still being determined," Williams said. Other large institutional investors that joined the suit included the Arkansas Teacher Retirement fund, the Anchorage Fire and Police Retirement fund and two trade union funds as well as asset managers. Williams said PSERs lost about $8 million on its Bank of America holdings. But "calculated losses do not equate to recoverable damages," she cautioned. The pension fund, which represents more than a half million retired and active school employees, pays out approximately $6 billion annually in benefits. The value of the fund, which is underwritten through employee, state and school contributions and investment returns, slipped from $68 billion in 2007 to $47 billion in 2010. As of June 30, 2015, the fund had $37.3 billion in unfunded liabilities. Williams said a combination of losses during the recession, as a series of unfunded benefit increases between 2001 and 2003 and more than a decade of underfunding by the state and schools, contributed to the unfunded liability. PORSCHE: Beige Interior Glare Lawsuit Settlement Reached -------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood at Carcomplaints.com reports that Porsche beige interior glare lawsuits will be settled after owners sued over cars with beige interiors that allegedly reflect a dangerous glare off the windshields. Porsche and plaintiffs from different class-action lawsuits agreed to settle the cases after fighting back and forth in the courts since 2015. One of the lawsuits was filed by Roy Jones and Alyce Rubinfeld, who claim Luxor Beige, Sand Beige and other light-colored dashboards create a blinding glare off the windshields that creates a safety hazard when driving. The lawsuit alleges Porsche knew the interiors caused problems but refused to tell consumers about the glare, choosing instead to tell drivers to wear sunglasses. Porsche filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing any windshield can reflect a glare from the dashboard if the sun is shining and no owners ever reported they stopped driving their cars because of a glare. The automaker also told the court none of the plaintiffs suffered any injuries or loss from beige interiors and the entire lawsuit was filed based on buyer's remorse. Without evidence of a safety defect, Porsche told the court the plaintiffs didn't have a case and none of the plaintiffs could even provide dates for when they started having the alleged problems. The automaker also told the judge that just because a few people complained about glare from the interiors, it doesn't mean Porsche hid a safety defect from the public. After meeting earlier in 2016, all parties decided the best course of action was to settle the cases and save money and headaches on future litigation. The proposed Porsche beige interior settlement includes all former and current lessees and owners of 2007-2016 vehicles in the U.S. equipped with colored dashboards including Cognac, Luxor Beige, Natural Brown, Platinum Grey and Sand Beige. The plaintiffs didn't exactly get what they wanted because owners wanted Porsche to recall cars with beige interiors and to pay "damages" to the plaintiffs. How Porsche was supposed to do this is unknown. Instead, the settlement agreement provides different reimbursement amounts based on model years. Former lessees and owners of 2007-2010 Porsche models qualify for $50, owners and lessees of 2007-2010 models can receive $75 and current owners and lessees of 2011-2016 Porsche vehicles can get $175. Attorneys for the plaintiffs will receive up to $790,000 plus expenses. The court still needs to give final approval to the settlement agreement, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2017. The Porsche beige interior glare lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California Los Angeles County - Roy Jones et al v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Chan v. Porsche Cars North America Inc. The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC, the Law Offices of Joseph R. Santoli, the Law Office of Robert L. Starr, and the Law Offices of Stephen M. Harris PC. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Jan. 23 Hearing on Discovery Protocol Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HsingChing Hsu v. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00865 (C.D. Cal.), Judge Andrew J. Guilford will hold a hearing on Jan. 23, 2017, to consider a Motion to Supplement the December 5, 2016 Scheduling Order and Establish an Informal Discovery Dispute Protocol filed by Lead Plaintiff Norfolk County Council, as Administering Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund. Puma Biotechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:15-cv- 00865-AG-JCG). On October 16, 2015, lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that we and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. "On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiff opposed this motion, and the court heard oral argument on March 14, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court denied our motion to dismiss. We intend to vigorously defend this matter." Puma is a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on the development and commercialization of innovative products to enhance cancer care. RESOLUTE FOREST: "Reynolds" Class Suit in Preliminary Stage ----------------------------------------------------------- Resolute Forest Products Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the proposed class action lawsuit, Reynolds, et al v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan, is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified. The Company said, "Effective January 1, 2015, we modified our U.S. OPEB plan so that unionized participants, upon reaching Medicare eligibility, are provided Medicare coverage via a Medicare Exchange program rather than via a Company-sponsored medical plan. On March 2, 2016, a proposed class action lawsuit (Reynolds, et al v. Resolute Forest Products Inc., Resolute FP US Inc., Resolute FP US Health and Resolute Welfare Benefit Plan) was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee on behalf of certain Medicare-eligible retirees who were previously unionized employees of our Calhoun, Tennessee; Catawba, South Carolina; and Coosa Pines, Alabama, mills, and their spouses and dependents. The plaintiffs allege that the modifications described above breach the collective bargaining agreements and plan covering the members of the proposed class in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs seek reinstatement of the health care benefits as in effect before January 1, 2015, for the proposed class in the lawsuit." "The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the action. On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. "The proposed class action lawsuit is at a preliminary stage and no class has been certified. Accordingly, we are not presently able to determine the ultimate resolution of this matter or to reasonably estimate the potential impact on our Consolidated Financial Statements," the Company said. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Garrison, Esq. Scott Tift, Esq. Seth Hyatt, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com - and - William T. Payne, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Pittsburgh North Office 12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203 Pittsburgh, PA 15215 Tel: (412) 492-8797 Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com - and - Pamina Ewing, Esq. Joel R. Hurt, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Allegheny Building, 17th Floor 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 281-8400 Email: pewing@fdpklaw.com jhurt@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com - and - Joseph P. Stuligross, Esq. ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL UNITED STEELWORKERS Five Gateway Center, Suite 807 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 562-2526 Email: jstuligross@usw.org Resolute Forest Products is a global leader in the forest products industry with a diverse range of products, including market pulp, tissue, wood products, newsprint and specialty papers, which are marketed in close to 80 countries. REX ENERGY: Plaintiff Appeal in "Cardinale" Case Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rex Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal by plaintiff in the Cardinale case remains pending. The Company said, "In October 2011, we were named as defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed between the Company and each proposed class member when representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008, and each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and order for payment and Company. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring the rights of the parties with respect to those proposed leases, as well as damages and other relief as may be established by plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees." "We filed affirmative defenses and preliminary objections to the plaintiff's claims, and the parties each made various responsive filings throughout the first quarter of 2012. In May 2012, the trial court dismissed the Cardinale case with prejudice on the grounds that there was no contract formed between us and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal during the second half of 2012. In May 2013, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the Common Pleas Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. "In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for the Billotte case contained the same claims as those set forth in the Cardinale case. The Meeker case is not a class action, but the claims are similar to those in Cardinale and the plaintiffs would be included in a class under Cardinale and Billotte if one were certified. These two additional lawsuits were filed for procedural reasons in light of the dismissal of the Cardinale case and the pendency of the appeal. Proceedings in both the Billotte and Meeker cases were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Cardinale case. When the Cardinale case was remanded, we agreed to consolidate the Billotte and Cardinale cases; the cases have proceeded as Cardinale. The Meeker case remains stayed, and has not been consolidated. "In June 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's motion for certification of a class in the Cardinale case. In July 2015, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification in September 2015. "In June 2016, we and the plaintiffs each presented our arguments on the appeal before a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. To date, the court has not ruled on the appeal. We expect to receive the court's ruling on the appeal in the fourth quarter of 2016. "We continue to vigorously defend against each of these claims. At this time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of potential losses, if any." Rex Energy Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is an independent oil, natural gas liquid ("NGL") and natural gas company with operations currently focused in the Appalachian Basin. ROTI MODERN: Sued Over Too Many Credit Card Digits on Receipts -------------------------------------------------------------- Ally Marotti, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that two consumers have filed a class-action lawsuit against Roti Modern Mediterranean, claiming the chain prints too many digits of customer credit card numbers on sales receipts, a practice they say puts diners at risk for identity theft and credit card fraud. The complaint, filed Dec. 16 in Cook County Circuit Court, alleges that Roti is violating a federal law prohibiting companies from printing more than the last five digits of a debit or credit card on a sales receipt. Roti allegedly printed the first six and last four digits. "Somebody would only have to figure out those other six digits to have a full card," said Paul Markoff, partner at Markoff Leinberger, the firm representing the plaintiffs in the case. Roti is a fast-casual restaurant that serves Mediterranean food. It operates 12 locations in Illinois, with one more set to open soon, according to its website. The two plaintiffs named in the case are Illinois residents Cooper Lindner and Kim Smith, both of whom used Visa cards to make a purchase at Roti in July. Ms. Smith and Mr. Lindner's receipts displayed 10 digits, according to court documents. The information identity thieves are most interested in getting their hands on are full, 16-digit credit card numbers, said Jim Speta, a professor at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law. It's unclear whether printing five digits would keep consumers safer than printing six, for example, but the theory is "more digits increase the risk of identity theft," he said. Thieves can use the 10 credit card digits to persuade the consumer to turn over more sensitive information, the complaint alleges. It's also easier for them to guess six digits than the 11 that the law states should be blocked out. This is not the first iteration of the lawsuit. Lindner and Smith first filed a suit in the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois, Eastern Division, in July, bringing similar allegations against Roti. The Chicago-based restaurant chain moved to dismiss the case, saying that the first six credit card digits are "the numeric equivalent of the card's issuing bank," and that no harm came from printing those digits. Those numbers do relate to bank information, said Ed Haag, president of Schaumburg-based consulting firm Undo Identity Theft, but he said printing them should be a concern for banks and consumers. "It's one more hurdle (the banks) have to protect against because it could give (identity thieves) some type of access," Mr. Haag said. Ultimately, Mr. Lindner and Ms. Smith filed documents to dismiss the case in federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in another case that damage must have been done for the case to have a standing in federal court. Since neither Lindner nor Smith's identities had been stolen, they decided to move the case to state court, Mr. Markoff said. The suit could represent more than 100 people, Mr. Markoff said. The plaintiffs asked the court to certify a class for the suit, bar Roti from printing more than the last five digits of credit cards on receipts, and require Roti to pay damages. Roti CEO Carl Segal said in a statement that the plaintiffs' claims still have no merit. "There have been no allegations that anyone's credit card information was ever compromised and Roti is not aware that anything like that happened," he said. "We will vigorously defend this lawsuit." Other companies that have been accused of violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and printing too many numbers on receipts include Costco and Burger King. RYE GOLF: Settles Employees' Wage Class Action for $1 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Woyton, writing for Rye Patch, reports that a group of former and current Rye Golf Club employees have settled a class- action lawsuit to the tune of $1 million. The lawsuit was filed over stolen wages and unpaid tips. Employees had originally sought to recoup $4 million. SAINT-GOBAIN: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss PFOA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Carson, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that a Vermont judge has denied Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics' motion to dismiss or stay a class action lawsuit filed over PFOA contamination. The suit was filed in May by residents of Bennington and North Bennington for $5 million in damages against Saint-Gobain, the company believed by the state to be responsible for contaminating private wells with the chemical, which was used for decades in the production of the non-stick coating Teflon. A memorandum filed in July by Saint-Gobain's lawyers argued that the complaint brought forward by North Bennington residents should be dismissed or stayed because the company was challenging the state's advisory standard for the man-made chemical. Vermont has the lowest threshold for PFOA in the country, at a concentration of 20 parts per trillion in water. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has set a threshold of 70 ppt. The company has argued that the threshold was improperly or unfairly set after the contamination was discovered in the local wells. In his decision, Judge Geoffrey Crawford, of the Rutland District Court, wrote in his decision that the plaintiffs' claims and class designation do not hinge on the 20 ppt designation. Furthermore, he wrote, "The final administrative rules regarding groundwater and hazardous waste management have only just been issued. Assuming that Saint-Gobain elects to challenge those final rules in state court, the court process (including appeal to the Vermont State Court) will likely take years. Awaiting resolution of the state administrative and appeals process would cause substantial delay in this case. Moreover, the benefit of abstaining in favor of that process is marginal at best." "We're glad that Judge Crawford has correctly decided to dismiss the motion," said Attorney Patrick Bernal -- patrick@greenmtlaw.com -- of Woolmington, Campbell, Bernal & Bent, one of four law firms representing the plaintiffs, "We viewed this motion all along as a dilatory tactic, and our clients are eager to get their case before a Vermont jury." SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Investment Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15- cv-2129-K. On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the Kumar Lawsuit). Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Class Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The complaints in the Parmelee Lawsuit and Benson Lawsuit allege that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with the Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior periods in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek damages and other relief. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16- cv-783. On Dec. 20, Plaintiffs Cynthia A Parmelee and Kelly Baxley filed an Amended Complaint with jury demand. SEATTLE GENETICS: Rosen Law Investigating Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Seattle Genetics, Inc. resulting from allegations that Seattle Genetics may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On December 27, 2016, Seattle Genetics announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had placed a clinical hold or partial clinical hold on several early stage trials of its experimental cancer drug, vadastuximab talirine, to evaluate the potential risk of hepatotoxicity. Seattle Genetics stated that six acute myeloid leukemia patients had been identified with liver toxicity and that four had died. On this news, Seattle Genetics shares fell $9.95 per share or over 16% from its previous closing price to close at $52.36 on December 27, 2016. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Seattle Genetics investors. If you purchased shares of Seattle Genetics on or before December 27, 2016, please visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases- 1020.html for more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Baker" Class Action Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the securities class action lawsuit, Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al. On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA (KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers and Blackstone. On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspëdagoger and Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs, Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the Company's Board, certain of its executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial public offering and secondary public offerings. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the time of each public statement. On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, without prejudice. On May 31, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), which, among other things, no longer names the Company's Board or underwriters as defendants. On June 29, 2016, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On October 28, 2016, defendants filed their Answer to the Second Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., owns and operates twelve theme parks within the United States. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Appeal in Consumer Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal in a consolidated consumer class action lawsuit remains pending. On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall Matter"). The complaint identifies three putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld "experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San Antonio, Texas respectively. The complaint alleges causes of action under California Unfair Competition Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The complaint further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against the Company and its affiliates. The first three actions were filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015, respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK (the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the "Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v. SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne Matter"). On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs. On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims, along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in an action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15: cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter"). All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and relief sought in the Hall Matter. On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015. The FAC pursued the same seven causes of action as the original Hall complaint, and added a request for punitive damages pursuant to the California CLRA. The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its motion was granted on December 24, 2015. The Court granted dismissal with prejudice as to the California CLRA claim, the portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim premised on the CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and on all California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by the Company. The Court granted leave to amend as to the remainder of the complaint. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC pursues the same causes of action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted above, was dismissed with prejudice. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of the SAC with prejudice on February 25, 2016. The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and entered judgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") on June 10, 2016. On September 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit. The Company's response brief was due on November 18, 2016. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., owns and operates twelve theme parks within the United States. SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Class Action Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., remains pending, SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10- Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson Matter"). The putative class consists of all consumers within California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to SeaWorld San Diego. On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint (the "First Amended Complaint"). The First Amended Complaint alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and treatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding its orcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff and purported class members. The First Amended Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000, but the liability exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 15: cv-2172-SC. On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety. The motion was fully briefed. On September 24, 2015, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, and contemporaneously filed a petition for permission to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On October 14, 2015, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was fully briefed. On January 12, 2016 the district court granted in part and denied in part the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case. On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed. On April 7, 2016, the Ninth Circuit denied both of plaintiffs' petitions for permission to appeal and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"), seeking to add two additional plaintiffs and make various pleading adjustments. The Company opposed the motion. On August 1, 2016, the district court issued an order granting in part the Company's motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint by August 22, 2016, which they filed. The Second Amended Complaint likewise asserts causes of action based on the California False Advertising Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA. Essentially plaintiffs allege there were fraudulent representations made by the Company about the health of its orcas that ultimately induced consumers to purchase admission tickets to SeaWorld parks and in some cases, plush toys while in the parks. The Company moved to dismiss this on various grounds. On November 7, 2016, the district court issued an order granting in part, and denying in part, the Company's motion to dismiss. The district court found the named plaintiff failed to allege reliance on any specific statements so those claims, in their entirety, have been dismissed. In addition, the district court determined that plaintiffs did not allege any misrepresentations made about the plush toy purchases, which disposes of the CLRA claims based on the toys. The district court also found that certain plaintiff's conversation with SeaWorld's trainers was not "advertising," and dismissed the false advertising claim and Unfair Competition Law claim premised on it. What remains at this point are a plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the CLRA based on the purchase of tickets; a plaintiff's California Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law claims based on the purchase of plush toys; and a plaintiff's claims under California's Unfair Competition Law based on the purchase of plush toys. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc., owns and operates twelve theme parks within the United States. SIENTRA INC: Settlement Reached in Stockholder Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a settlement has been reached in the stockholder class action lawsuits. The Company said, "On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names the Company and certain of our officers as defendants, or the Sientra Defendants, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees." "On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to approve their selection on lead counsel. On December 10, 2015, the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of lead counsel. "On February 19, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, which added a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act and named as defendants the underwriters associated with the Company's follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015, or the Underwriter Defendants. "On March 21, 2016, the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss, or the Motions to Dismiss, the consolidated amended complaints. On April 20, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motions to Dismiss, and the Sientra Defendants and Underwriter Defendants filed separate replies on May 5, 2016. "On June 9, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the Motions to Dismiss. On July 14, 2016, the Sientra Defendants moved the court to reconsider its June 9, 2016 order and grant the Motions to Dismiss in full. "On August 4, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration. On August 12, 2016, the court denied the motion for reconsideration, and the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint. "On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo. The lawsuits name the Company, certain of our officers and directors, and the underwriters associated with our follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements in our offering documents associated with the follow-on offering concerning our business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. "On December 4, 2015, defendants removed all three lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior Court, or Motions to Remand. On January 19, 2016, defendants filed their opposition to the Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the Motions to Remand on January 26, 2016. "On May 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' Motions to Remand, and the San Mateo Superior Court received the remanded cases on May 27, 2016. On July 19, 2016, the San Mateo Superior Court consolidated the three lawsuits. On August 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. On August 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings in favor of the class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. "On September 13, 2016, the parties to the actions pending in the San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California signed a memorandum of understanding that sets forth the material deal points of a settlement that covers both actions and includes class-wide relief. "On September 13, 2016, and September 20, 2016, respectively, the parties filed notices of settlement in both courts. On September 22, 2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed that action pending the court's approval of a settlement. On September 23, 2016, the San Mateo Superior Court stayed that action as well as pending the court's approval of a settlement. "As a result of these developments, we have determined that a probable loss has been incurred and have recognized a net charge to earnings of approximately $1.6 million within general and administrative expense which is comprised of the loss contingency of approximately $10.9 million, net of expected insurance proceeds of approximately $9.3 million. We have classified the loss contingency as "legal settlement payable" and the expected insurance proceeds as "insurance recovery receivable" on the accompanying condensed balance sheets. While it is possible that we may incur a loss greater than the amounts recognized in the accompanying interim financial statements, we are unable to determine a range of possible losses greater than the amount recognized." Sientra, Inc., was incorporated in the State of Delaware on August 29, 2003 under the name Juliet Medical, Inc. and subsequently changed its name to Sientra, Inc. in April 2007. The Company acquired substantially all the assets of Silimed, Inc. on April 4, 2007. The purpose of the acquisition was to acquire the rights to the silicone breast implant clinical trials, related product specifications and premarket approval, or PMA, assets. Following this acquisition, the Company focused on completing the clinical trials to gain Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, approval to offer its silicone gel breast implants in the United States. SIF CONSULTANTS: Summary Judgment in "Williams" Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third Circuit affirmed the trial court's findings and judgment granting the plaintiff class' motions for summary judgment in the case captioned GEORGE RAYMOND WILLIAMS, M.D. v. SIF CONSULTANTS OF LOUISIANA, INC., No. 16-343 (La. Ct. App.). The plaintiff class of medical providers filed suit against Executive Risk Specialty Insurance Company and Homeland Insurance Company of New York under the direct action statute. Executive Risk and Homeland had each issued a claims-made errors and omissions policy to CorVel, Corp. during consecutive time periods. Executive Risk issued policies to CorVel for annual periods from October 31, 1999, to October 31, 2005. Homeland issued policies for annual periods from October 31, 2005. CorVel settled with the plaintiff class for failure to comply with the mandatory notice provisions of billing discounts in the Louisiana PPO Act, La.R.S. 40:2203.1. After the trial court certified the plaintiff class and the appellate court upheld that certification, a motion for partial summary judgment was filed by the plaintiff class against Executive Risk. The trial court granted the motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of coverage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. While an application for writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court was pending, the plaintiff class settled with Executive Risk, but reserved it rights against Homeland. Thereafter, the plaintiff class filed a motion for summary judgment against Homeland. The trial court granted the motion. Homeland appealed the granting of the plaintiff class' motions for summary judgment, raising three assignments of error. In the first assignment of error, Homeland argued that a previous opinion of the appellate court affirming the grant of a motion for summary judgment against another defendant, Executive Risk, finding that Executive Risk's policy provides coverage to the plaintiffs' claims, renders plaintiffs' assertion that Homeland's policy provides coverage to the plaintiffs' claims barred under res judicata. The appellate court found this argument to be without merit. The appellate court found that Homeland is not the same party as Executive Risk, and that Homeland does not "share the same 'quality' as parties" with Executive Risk so as to have "identity of parties" as required to apply res judicata. The appellate court also found that this matter does not arise "out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter." In its second assignment of error, Homeland contended that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to apply judicial estoppel, thus allowing plaintiffs to take contrary positions in obtaining two contradictory summary judgments. The appellate court disagreed, holding that while it is true that the plaintiffs' position in the summary judgment is different than previously, this inconsistency is based on an argument the merits of which have not been adjudicated. Their previous position was that a "claim," as defined in Executive Risk's policy, was first filed during the time when Executive Risk's policy was in effect. Now, they are arguing that a "claim," as defined in Homeland's policy, was first filed during the time that Homeland's policy was in effect because under Homeland's policy a "claim" must be a covered claim. In its final assignment of error, Homeland avered that the trial court committed legal error in granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against it despite a number of genuinely disputed issues of material fact. The appellate court, however, found no such genuine issues of material fact exist. A full-text copy of the Court's December 29, 2016 ruling is available at https://is.gd/eMS1iA from Leagle.com. Defendant/Appellee, Med-Comp USA, Inc. is represented by: Charles Thach Curtis Jr., Esq. Gerard George Metzger, Esq. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 829, Baronne Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Tel. No. (504) 581-9322 Patrick Juneau, Special Master is represented by: Patrick A. Juneau Jr., Esq. THE JUNEAU FIRM Post Office Drawer 51268 Lafayette, LA 70505-1268 Tel: (337) 269-0052 Email: paj@juneaudavid.com George Raymond Williams, M.D. Orthopaedic Surgery, A ProfessionalMedical, LLC are represented by: John S. Bradford, Esq. William B. Monk, Esq. STOCKWILL, SIEVERT, VICCELLIO, CLEMENTS & SHADDOCK, L.L.P. One Lakeside Plaza, Fourth Floor, Lake Charles, LA 70601 Tel: (337) 436-9491 Email: jsbradford@ssvcss.com wbmonk@ssvcs.com -- and -- Patrick C. Morrow, Esq. James P. Ryan, Esq. MORROW, MORROW, RYAN & BASSET P. O. Box 1787 Opelousas, LA 70570 Tel: (337) 948-4483 Email: patm@mmrblaw.com jamesr@mmrblaw.com -- and -- Stephen B. Murray, Esq. Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq. Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Nicole A. Murray-Ieyoub, Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM 650, Poydras Street, Ste., 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 525-8100 Email: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com amurray@murray-lawfirm.com -- and -- Thomas A. Filo, Esq. Somer G. Brown, Esq. Michael K. Cox, Esq. COX, COX, FILO, CAMEL & WILSON L.L.C. 723, Broad Street Lake Charles, LA 70601 Tel: (337) 436-6611 Defendant/Appellee, Bestcomp, Inc. is represented by: Larry Lane Roy, Esq. BROWN SIMS 600, Jefferson St., Suite 800 Lafayette, LA 70501 Tel: (337) 484-1240 Email: lroy@brownsims.com Defendant/Appellant, Homeland Ins. Co. of New York is represented by: Randall Kurt Theunissen, Esq. ALLEN & GOOCH P. O. Box 81129 Lafayette, LA 70598-1129 Tel: (337) 291-1000 -- and -- Martin A. Stern, Esq. E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Esq. Raymond P. Ward, Esq. ADAMS & REESE LLP 701, Poydras St., Suite 4500 New Orleans, LA 70139 Tel: (504) 581-3234 Email: martin.stern@arlaw.com paige.sensenbrenner@arlaw.com raymond.ward@arlaw.com -- and -- Michael E. Parker, Esq. ALLEN & GOOCH P. O. Box 81129 Lafayette, LA 70598-1129 Tel: (337) 291-1000 -- and -- Michael J. Rosen, Esq. Peter F. Lovato, Esq. SKARZYNSKI BLACK, LLP 205, N. Michigan Ave., Ste., 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 946-4200 Email: mrosen@skarzynski.com plovato@skarzynski.com Defendant/Appellee, Risk Management Services is represented by: Janice Bertucci Unland, Esq. RABALAIS, UNLAND 1404, Greengate Dr., #110 Covington, LA 70433-5272 Tel: (985) 893-9900 -- and -- Daniel J. Layden, Esq. Ronald P. Schiller, Esq. HANGLEY, ARONCHICK, SEGAL One Logan Square, 27th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Email: dlayden@hangley.com rschiller@hangley.com Defendant/Appellee, Executive Risk Specialty Ins. Co. is represented by: Steven William Usdin, Esq. BARRASSO, USDIN, KUPPERMAN 909, Poydras St., #2400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Tel: (504) 589-9700 Email: susdin@barrassousdin.com Defendant/Appellee, SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc. is represented by: Cynthia J. Thomas, Esq. GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, ET AL. 3, Sanctuary Blvd., Suite 301 Manderville, LA 70471 Tel: (985) 674-6710 Cor Vel Corp. is represented by: John Mark Fezio, Esq. STONE, PIGMAN, ET AL. 546, Carondelet St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 581-3200 SOLARCITY CORP: Dismissal of Stockholder Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiffs have filed an appeal from the dismissal of a stockholder class action lawsuit. On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. After a series of amendments to the original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and entered a judgment in the Company's favor on August 9, 2016. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. The Company is primarily engaged in the design, manufacture, installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. SOLARCITY CORP: Discovery Underway in TCPA Action ------------------------------------------------- SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery has commenced in a class action lawsuit alleging violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On November 6, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls to the plaintiff and others, in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf of himself and a certified class. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the District Court denied on April 6, 2016. Discovery has commenced. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. The Company is primarily engaged in the design, manufacture, installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. SOLARCITY CORP: Bids to Dismiss, Transfer "Gibbs" Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Gibbs et al v. SolarCity Corporation, Case No. 4:16- cv-11010 (D. Mass.), Judge Timothy S Hillman held a hearing on a motion to dismiss the case, a motion to intervene, and a motion to transfer case venue. Following the hearing, the Court took the motions under advisement. SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a putative class action lawsuit, Gibbs v. SolarCity, alleging that the Company made unlawful telephone marketing calls in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, was filed on June 1, 2016, against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The two named plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and statutory damages, on behalf of themselves and a certified class. The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint; the hearing on that motion was set for December 8, 2016. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. The Company is primarily engaged in the design, manufacture, installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. SOLARCITY CORP: Defending Stockholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------- SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against a purported stockholder class action lawsuit in California. On August 15, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, two of its officers and a former officer. The complaint alleges that the Company made projections of future sales and installations that the Company failed to achieve and that these projections were fraudulent when made. The plaintiffs claim violations of federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities from May 5, 2015 to February 16, 2016. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. The Company is primarily engaged in the design, manufacture, installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. SPOKEO INC: 9th Cir. Hears Oral Argument in FCRA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Ross D. Andre, Esq. -- ross.andre@troutmansanders.com -- David N. Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- Alan D. Wingfield, Esq. -- alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com -- and Cindy D. Hanson, Esq. -- cindy.hanson@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that on December 13, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the long-simmering Robins v. Spokeo Inc. putative class action, following reversal of the appellate court's previous opinion by the Supreme Court. Robins alleges that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by maintaining various inaccurate data points about the plaintiff in an online Spokeo profile. Spokeo sought to dismiss the case, arguing (among other things) that Robins had no standing because he could not show that he had been injured by the supposed inaccuracies in his Spokeo file. The District Court ultimately granted that motion, Robins appealed, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, sending the case to the Supreme Court. In a May 2016 decision that has continued to see mixed application by the lower courts, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the Ninth Circuit had not thoroughly analyzed the requirement that Robins show a concrete and particularized injury beyond Robins's allegation of mere statutory violation, which it held was not necessarily sufficient to confer Article III standing. The Ninth Circuit is now left to reconsider whether Robins has sufficiently pled concrete and particularized injury owing to Spokeo's alleged wrongdoing. At arguments on December 13, Robins's attorney argued that all the plaintiff needs to show is that the statute protects a concrete interest and that that interest has been violated, not that he needs to show injury in the traditional sense. From that, he argued that Robins has identified various inaccuracies in the information Spokeo maintains and that those inaccuracies cut to the heart of what the FCRA is designed to protect. Conversely, Spokeo's counsel urged the court to require a showing that Robins was himself personally harmed by Spokeo's inaccuracies -- an inquiry that may prove fatal to his attempts to maintain his case as a class action. In questions to counsel, the Ninth Circuit panel wondered whether Robins should be made (or permitted) to amend his pleading to state with more specificity the harms he supposedly suffered, an invitation that Robins's counsel dismissed as unnecessary and one that Spokeo encouraged. The panel also pressed the parties to explain precisely how, in their view, the Ninth Circuit had erred in its original standing analysis, thus resulting in the Supreme Court's decision. Again, Robins's counsel was careful to argue that the Supreme Court was looking only for more depth from the Ninth Circuit and for it to confirm anew that the right infringed here was a foundational FCRA-protected right, while counsel for Spokeo argued that the Supreme Court is looking for an inquiry into what happened to Robins and whether his experience was sufficient for Article III purposes. The case is now fully briefed and argued, and the Ninth Circuit's opinion is expected sometime in 2017. Given the stakes in the case, which has attracted a slate of amicus briefs on both sides, it is possible that whatever the Ninth Circuit decides will result in another petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The Troutman Sanders' Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor blog offers timely updates regarding the financial services industry to inform you of recent changes in the law, upcoming regulatory deadlines and significant judicial opinions that may impact your business. STARLINE TOURS: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that Starline Tours of Hollywood is facing new allegations that it has systematically shortchanged its employees. The celebrity tour company is already facing a class action lawsuit on behalf of its bus drivers. That case alleges that drivers were not paid for the hours they worked, were not paid overtime, and had wages deducted for violations of company policies, among other labor law violations. The new lawsuit -- filed in L.A. Superior Court -- alleges that Starline is also failing to properly compensate its bus washers, tree cutters, mechanics and maintenance workers. The suit names two Starline employees, Nezhdik Keshishyan and Delon Moore, as plaintiffs. The suit claims that they were not paid minimum wage, were forced to work off the clock, and had wages deducted for meal breaks that they were not allowed to take. The earlier wage-and-hour lawsuit contributed to the split between Starline and TMZ, which had partnered with the tour company to offer its Hollywood tours. TMZ alleged that Starline failed to live up to its obligation to cover the costs of defending TMZ in the suit. After winning a $201,000 judgment, TMZ called in sheriff's deputies to raid the tour companies' offices. Starline has alleged that TMZ is now offering a competing tour without permission from the state Public Utilities Commission. Reached by phone, Starline owner Kami Farhadi said he had not received the new lawsuit yet. Louis Benowitz, the plaintiffs' attorney, declined to comment. Starline is the largest operator of Hollywood tour buses, with 120 buses and nearly 200 employees. At least 20 companies offer similar tours along Hollywood Boulevard. The industry has generated complaints from residents and calls for stricter regulation. In August, NBC4 investigated the industry, raising concerns about customer safety and bad information dispensed by some tour operators. Earlier in December, a jury awarded $26 million to the family of Mason Zisette, a Manhattan Beach teenager who was struck in the head and killed while riding on the second deck of a Starline bus in 2014. Starline provided the double-decker bus for a private party, and the plaintiffs alleged the company failed to take adequate security precautions. Mohammed Ghods, an attorney for Starline, said the suit is a "garden variety" wage-and-hour claim. "They use a legitimate payroll service. They keep track of benefits and hours properly," Mr. Ghods said. "They're not running a sweatshop or some underground operation." SYNGENTA: Farmers Receive Notice to Join GMO Corn Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Zigterman, writing for The News-Gazette, reports that three years after China began rejecting U.S. corn imports, a class- action lawsuit against Syngenta is moving forward and corn farmers have begun receiving notice that they may be part of the lawsuit. A local lawyer is encouraging farmers to opt out of the class- action lawsuit and file individual lawsuits against Syngenta, a Swiss agriculture company. "It comes down to essentially the assertion that basically every farmer farms the same, and that's just not true," said attorney Ryan Bradley, a partner at Koester & Bradley LLP in Champaign. The class-action lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in June, and any farmer who priced corn after Nov. 18, 2013, is automatically a part of the class unless they opt out. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that Syngenta caused billions of dollars in losses for corn farmers because it began selling a new genetically modified corn seed before China had approved it, leading to China's ban on all U.S. corn imports and a drop in corn prices. Syngenta denies the claims and says it acted lawfully and shouldn't need China's approval to sell U.S.-approved corn to U.S. farmers. Corn farmers have until April 1 to opt out, which they can do by sending a personally signed letter requesting exclusion. As a lawyer seeking individual clients, Mr. Bradley admits he has a vested interest on this issue, but he believes individual lawsuits against Syngenta will result in greater returns for farmers. "Everyone farms differently," he said. "As part of the class action, farmers will be unable to prosecute their own individual claims and pursue damages unique to them. Rather, the class action will treat all farmers the same and will not provide full and just compensation." Additionally, individual lawsuits would be tried in front of a local jury, and Bradley says a class-action lawsuit "doesn't hold (Syngenta's) toes to the fire as much as a series of lawsuits will." William Chaney, one of the attorneys representing farmers in the class-action lawsuit, defended the class action. "My personal belief is that their rights will be protected best through the class action, and I believe that it is the best way to present the damages that are very similar, although different in amount for each farmer," he said. The class action's website argues against individual litigation, saying that "individual action exposes your farmer to the very real potential of intensive discovery, deposition and production of personal and financial records." While Messrs. Bradley and Chaney disagree about how to move forward, both agree they have a strong case against Syngenta. "While Syngenta is not to blame for all of the decrease in corn prices, it did contribute substantially and our experts estimate that the farmers lost between $5 billion and $7 billion," Bradley said. TESLA MOTORS: Model X Owner Files Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------- Alexandria Sage at Reuters reports that Tesla Motors Inc was sued on Friday by a Model X owner who said his electric SUV suddenly accelerated while being parked, causing it to crash through the garage into owner's living room, injuring the driver and a passenger. The Model X owner, Ji Chang Son, said that one night in September, he slowly pulled into his driveway as his garage door opened when the car suddenly sped forward. "The vehicle spontaneously began to accelerate at full power, jerking forward and crashing through the interior wall of the garage, destroying several wooden support beams in the wall and a steel sewer pipe, among other things, and coming to rest in Plaintiffs' living room," the lawsuit said. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, seeks class action status. It cites seven other complaints registered in a database compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) dealing with sudden acceleration without warning. The lawsuit alleges product liability, negligence and breaches of warranty, and seeks unspecified damages. Tesla did not immediately return an email seeking comment. NHTSA did not return a phone call seeking verification. The luxury Model X, launched in late 2015 X, was Tesla's first sport utility vehicle. In its marketing, Tesla claims the Model X is the safest SUV in history. TESLA MOTORS: Korean Actor's Sudden Acceleration Suit Hit Stock --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Kessler, writing for Smart Stock News, reports that Tesla Motors Inc. shares declined 0.46% on December 30, 2016, as, Ji Chang Son, a Model X owner, sued the company. According to Mr. Son, his elective SUV surprisingly accelerated while it was being parked in his driveway. This led the vehicle to smash through the owner's garage into the living room, harming the driver as well as the passenger. This can cause Tesla shares, which have already declined 10.97% year-to-date through December 30, to a further decline in the near future. The lawsuit stated, "The vehicle spontaneously began to accelerate at full power, jerking forward and crashing through the interior wall of the garage, destroying several wooden support beams in the wall and a steel sewer pipe, among other things, and coming to rest in Plaintiffs' living room." It was filed by Ji Chan in California District Court. The owner calls for class action status. The lawsuit also claims breaches of warranty, product negligence, and product liability, and asks for unspecified damages. Moreover, Reuters report stated that the lawsuit cited seven other complaints registered with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding sudden acceleration without warning. However, NHTSA did not respond to the phone call asking for verifications of complaints in its database. Consequently, Tesla stated that it conducted thorough research upon claims made by the Model X owner. The $33.48 billion company said that the evidence and car data reveals that the incident resulted from the owner flooring the accelerator pedal. The automaker further added that its vehicles possess several ways to counter against the pedal misapplication. It also has Autopilot sensors to differ between standard pedal application and erroneous cases. Furthermore, the company also claims that its Model X is the best safety-rated SUV ever created. TEXAS: Kept Children in Foster Homes With No 24-Hour Supervision ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lana Shadwick at Breitbart reports that the federal judge overseeing a class action lawsuit against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (TDFPS) has issued an order that finds that the agency has not been complying with her December 2015 order keeping the department from placing children in foster homes that lack 24-hour supervision. She opines that the state agency has continued to have children in these facilities for over a year. In the order, U.S. District Court Judge Janis Graham Jack includes the language from her prior finding. She writes, "The Injunction states as follows" (emphasis added): The State shall establish and implement policies and procedures to ensure that Texas's PMC foster children are free from an unreasonable risk of harm. To effect this injunction, the Court will appoint a Special Master to help the State implement the Goals outlined below. Further, the State shall immediately stop placing PMC foster children in unsafe placements, which include foster group homes that lack 24-hour awake-night supervision. Foster group homes that immediately require 24-hour awake-night supervision may continue to operate while the Special Master and the State craft and enforce the Implementation Plan. "PMC" is an acronym for "Permanent Managing Conservatorship." The judge overseeing the class action suit brought by a children's advocacy group ordered the state agency to comply with her order issued a year ago--December 17, 2015. The judge says in her order that last year's injunction order "was being incorrectly interpreted" by the agency. The class action lawsuit was filed in December 2014 by a New York group called Children's Rights, as reported by Breitbart Texas. Approximately 12,000 children who were in long-term care in Texas were included in the class action suit. The advocacy group successfully sought and received a scathing order from the federal district judge. Judge Janis Graham Jack ordered the State of Texas to enact reforms in the system and in doing so she opined that the long- term foster care system was improperly run and "broken." She called it a place "where rape, abuse, psychotropic medication and instability are the norm," as reported by the Dallas Morning News in December 2015. She also said the system was underfunded. The judge writes on December 27 that TDFPS: interpreted the Injunction as allowing permanent managing conservatorship ("PMC") children currently in foster care group homes without 24-hour awake-night supervision to remain in said homes and to disallow only future placement of PMC foster children into foster group homes without such 24-hour supervision. As a result, for over one year PMC as well as temporary managing conservatorship ("TMC") foster children, have remained in foster group homes without 24-hour awake-night supervision, in contravention to the Court's desired effect of its Injunction. The order references that the parties to the lawsuit have agreed to "clarify" the injunction order. The Court makes the issue of 24-hour supervision in foster care very clear writing, "it is ORDERED that no PMC foster child shall be placed in or remain in any foster group home that does not provide 24-hour awake night supervision." Judge Jack also ordered that the two special masters that were appointed in the case "shall continue to gather information regarding the number of foster care group homes, defined as those foster homes that exceed six (6) children (including birth, adoptive, or any other non-foster children living with the foster parents) which continue to exist with or without 24-hour awake- night supervision." A YouTube video about the sexual and physical abuse suffered by a 13-year-old boy in the Texas CPS (Child Protective Services) foster care system went viral after Breitbart Texas included it a 2014 article. The YouTube video shows the young teenage boy holding homemade signs that convey his story of what he says CPS caseworkers, and the CPS foster care system, has done to him and his family. One sign says "I was beatened [sic] and sexually assaulted on a day to day basis while my Social Worker did Nothing." He holds another sign saying "My abuse goes uninvestigated." Patrick Crimmins, a spokesman for DFPS said, "The allegations were thoroughly investigated and there was no evidence of any wrongdoing, nor have any criminal charges been filed against anyone in connection to the allegations in the YouTube video." Breitbart Texas has reached out to the mother of the teenager to get an update on the response to her testimony before the Texas Legislature, and if there was any response to her request to TDFPS for a complete investigation of the foster home and circumstances surrounding the abuse said to be suffered by her child. Breitbart has reported in the past that Angel Linthicum Cook said "they are trying to rake this abuse under the rug." Mrs. Cook told Breitbart Texas that during the time period when the former TDFPS commissioner was in office, an individual from the Office of Consumer Affairs at DFPS contacted her after she spoke at the Sunset Commission before Texas lawmakers. Cook said, "I sent him evidence upon evidence only for him to never question me, my children, or our attorneys. She received an email that said, "I encourage you to contact the DFPS Abuse Hotline at 1-800- 252-5400 to report your concerns relating to your children during their placements in CPS care." Cook sent the message she said she received from the representative who said the photographs of her children "are not dated, and do not identify the children in the photographs" and asked that she provide that information, and the identity of the foster care caregivers, to the hotline staff. Instead of forwarding the information to the other department within his own agency, he messaged Mrs. Cook that RCCL (Residential Child Care Licensing) was "a DFPS program responsible for investigating reports of suspected abuse or neglect of children in DFPS care." Cook said, "My children were once again failed by the very agency that was built to protect them. It's been two years since they sat before state lawmakers trembling in fear while telling their gut- wrenching foster care stories. Today they still hold on to hope that the new commissioner, Governor Abbott, and state lawmakers, will hear their voices and stand united in fixing this broken system." Justin Cook, the teenager in the photo messaged this writer: My mom told me about your message and I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you for being my voice and thank you for telling my story. I'm 16 now and I'm doing a lot better but still struggle with things that were allowed to happen to me in foster care, but with people like you and my parents I have hope that my video can and has raised awareness to not only the broken foster system but cps too. My mom tells me that I have helped give a voice to thousands of children and I pray that I have. I plan on speaking again at the Capital soon but I'm afraid my voice won't be heard again like the last time. I can't help but be disappointed in Tx state lawmakers and the agency that said they were here to protect me but instead hid my abuse. My abuser still walks free today, my foster parents that did nothing to stop it still foster Tx children and my caseworker's and casa workers still hold a job. I can't understand how that's even possible, but it leaves me to believe that children truly don't matter to the state of Texas. Sorry for bothering you with this but I know you will listen and I know you will give others a voice. I know you have never met me, but your sort of my hero. Thank you for all you have done for me and my family. And happy late birthday. UNILEVER: Faces Class Action Over St. Ives Apricot Facial Scrub --------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Bretting, writing for Perfscience, reports that St. Ives Apricot Scrub claims to give people softer skin but a recently filed lawsuit alleges that the popular product is "unfit" to be sold as a facial scrub because it can do real harm to the user's skin. The lawsuit has been filed by Kaylee Browning and Sarah Basile in the U.S. District Court in California against British-Dutch multinational consumer goods giant Unilever, the parent company of St. Ives. Ms. Browning and Ms. Basile claim that the scrub contains crushed walnut shells, which make the product completely unsuitable to be used on face. When contacted, a company representative said, "We do not comment on pending litigation. We can say that for over 30 years, consumers have loved and trusted the St. Ives brand to refresh and revitalize their skin. We are proud to be America's top facial scrub brand and stand by our dermatologist-tested formula." But, Ms. Browning and Ms. Basile also argued that the company is misleading consumers by advertising false claims about the scrub. They stressed that they would have never purchased the product if they had known that it could cause damage their skin. The plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in compensation from Unilever. The legal action can soon become a class-action suit as many more users of the controversial scrub may join the battle. UNITED STATES: IRS Fights Bid to Prevent Coinbase Data Search ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael del Castillo, writing for CoinDesk, reports that the IRS has asked a district court in California to dismiss a filing by a Coinbase customer that might prevent it from gaining access to the company's user data. Filed in the US District Court of Northern California (which oversees the city of San Francisco where Coinbase is headquartered), the new documents request the filing be dismissed on the grounds that the request was only for unidentified users of Coinbase. In the process of filing his documents to prevent the search, so goes the IRS argument, lawyer Jeffrey K Berns of the Berns Weiss law firm had revealed himself as a user, and as a result, was no longer of interest to their query. The IRS now requests that its earlier motion be allowed to proceed. Notably, in Mr. Berns' original filing earlier in December, he had requested that the IRS motion be refused on the grounds that the so-called "John Doe" summons (for information pertaining to anyone in a particular group of potential tax violators) would constitute an "abuse of process." Yet by 30th November, US District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley had approved the request, paving the way for the IRS to force Coinbase to hand over information about its users. In addition to concerns that the request for the Coinbase user information was "overbroad", Mr. Berns expressed concerns that handing over user information could make users vulnerable to attack. Developing case All told, the filing represents the latest in an escalation of legal filings that have occured since it was revealed in November that the IRS would seek to target cryptocurrency users for potential tax violations. The action followed a recommendation from the agency's inspector general earlier that month in which it found the IRS had done little to police cryptocurrency tax infringements since ruling on its classification in 2013. When reached for comment by CoinDesk earlier in December Coinbase said it looks "forward to engaging the IRS," adding that it will keep its customers updated on developments. UNITED STATES: Judge Expected to Vacate Disabilities Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Post reports that a federal judge is expected this month to officially vacate the landmark lawsuit brought against the D.C. government for its care of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. That the District has apparently been able to satisfy the court's requirements for improved care is welcome news. But it must be tempered by the fact that the city took an agonizing 40 years to finally get things right. Even more sobering is the knowledge that of the more than 3,000 members of the original plaintiffs, only 479 are known to still be alive. U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle issued an opinion Dec. 13 indicating the District has achieved compliance with the court- ordered benchmarks established as part of the class-action lawsuit brought in 1976 by six residents of Forest Haven, the District's former institution in Laurel for developmentally disabled people. Citing the "long, and sometimes torturous, history of this litigation," Judge Huvelle said the time has come to end court supervision of the city's care and she set a final hearing in the case for Jan 10. The Evans lawsuit, named for lead plaintiff Joy Evans who was 8 when she was committed to Forest Haven and 17 when she died there in 1976, forced the closure of the notorious institution. So inadequate was the care and so poor the conditions that the court ruled it violated constitutional rights. Unfortunately, though, the city failed miserably in its efforts to place residents in the least restrictive setting with individualized care. A powerful Post investigation in 1999, "Invisible Lives," detailed the dreadful conditions and lack of attention to vulnerable people placed in the city's care. But despite promises from city officials, there was little improvement. "Systemic, continuous, and serious noncompliance" was the characterization of Judge Huvelle in a 2007 ruling that was followed by a series of reports chronicling the city's failure to make significant progress in improving the lives of the surviving members of the class action. A key development appears to have occurred in 2010, when the city agreed to the appointment of an independent administrator to help bring the city in compliance with court orders. Credit also goes to capable leadership in the Department on Disability Services, which set goals focused on providing residents with comprehensive residential and health services and opportunities to lead self- directed lives. There is still, as the judge makes clear in her ruling, work to be done in some areas. There's also the understandable worry from advocates for disabled people that once court monitoring stops, the city could drift back into bad habits. Some safeguards have been put in place over the decades, but city officials need to determine if more are needed. Equally important is the need for advocates -- including University Legal Services, which has been so admirably dogged in its representation of Evans plaintiffs -- to continue to be watchdogs. VALVE CORP: Faces New Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices --------------------------------------------------------- Joss Wood, writing for Esports Betting Report, reports that Despite a federal court ruling in Valve's favour over the class action filed three months ago, the company is not yet out of the legal woods. A new action was filed just after Christmas, involving primarily the same lawyers who launched the first action. The first action failed after the judge ruled that "gambling losses are not sufficient injury to business or property for RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) standing." The new suit takes a different legal angle, but the demand is virtually the same: "Restitution of all money wrongfully obtained by Valve Corp. through the alleged online gambling and a court order barring Valve Corp. from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair or deceptive practices complained of." The Valve Corporation is wealthy, and therefore vulnerable to such lawsuits. The smaller skin betting operators such as CSGOLounge may not have the financial resources to make a class action worthwhile, but even so ESforce and Borewick are wise to emphasize their legal position that they were in no way involved in any form of illegal gambling. VANGUARD NATURAL: Motion to Dismiss LRE Merger Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss litigation relating to Vanguard's merger with LRR Energy, L.P. has been fully briefed. In June and July 2015, purported LRE unitholders filed four lawsuits challenging the LRE Merger. These lawsuits were styled (a) Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087-VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware; (b) Christopher Tiberio v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-39864, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 334th Judicial District; (c) Eddie Hammond v. Eric Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-40154, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District; and (d) Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-2017, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. These lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed or nonsuited. On August 18, 2015, another purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit in connection with the LRE Merger. This lawsuit is styled Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00711-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "LRE Lawsuit"). On June 22, 2016, the LRE Plaintiff filed his Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended LRE Complaint") against LRE, the members of the LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, LRE Merger Sub, and the members of Vanguard's board of directors (the "LRE Lawsuit Defendants"). In the Amended LRE Complaint, the LRE Plaintiff alleges multiple causes of action related to the registration statement and proxy statement filed with the SEC in connection with the LRE Merger (the "LRE Proxy"), including that (i) Vanguard and its directors have allegedly violated Section 11 of the Securities Act because the LRE Proxy allegedly contained misleading statements and omitted allegedly material information, (ii) the members of Vanguard's board of directors have allegedly violated Section 15 of the Exchange Act by signing the LRE Proxy and participating in the issuance of common units in connection with the LRE Merger, (iii) the LRE Lawsuit Defendants have allegedly violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder because the LRE Proxy allegedly contained misleading statements and omitted allegedly material information, and (iv) LRE's and Vanguard's directors have allegedly violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly controlling LRE and Vanguard in disseminating the LRE Proxy. In general, the LRE Plaintiff alleges that the LRE Proxy failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning Vanguard's (x) debt obligations and (y) ability to maintain distributions to unitholders. Based on these allegations, the LRE Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, to rescind the LRE Merger, and an award of damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On August 22, 2016, the LRE Lawsuit Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the LRE Lawsuit in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The LRE Lawsuit Defendants argue that, among other things, the LRE Lawsuit should be dismissed because the LRE Plaintiff (i) improperly bases his omission claims on publicly available and/or immaterial information, (ii) improperly alleges the LRE Lawsuit Defendants should have disclosed information that was speculative or contingent, (iii) inadequately alleges that the purported omissions rendered the LRE Proxy misleading, and (iv) improperly bases his claims on forward- looking statements protected by the bespeaks caution doctrine. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed. Vanguard is a publicly traded limited liability company focused on the acquisition and development of mature, long-lived oil and natural gas properties in the United States. VANGUARD NATURAL: Court Dismissed Eagle Rock Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit relating to the Company's merger with Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. On May 28, 2015 and June 10, 2015, alleged Eagle Rock unitholders (the "State Plaintiffs") filed two derivative and class action lawsuits against Eagle Rock, Eagle Rock GP, Eagle Rock Energy G&P, LLC ("Eagle Rock G&P"), Vanguard, Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Vanguard ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (collectively, the "Defendants"). These lawsuits were consolidated as Irving and Judith Braun v. Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015- 30441, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 125th Judicial District (the "State Lawsuits"). On November 11, 2015, the State Lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On June 1, 2015, another alleged Eagle Rock unitholder filed a class action lawsuit against Eagle Rock G&P and the members of Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (the "Federal Defendants"). This lawsuit was styled Pieter Heydenrych v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. On February 12, 2016, certain additional alleged Eagle Rock unitholders (the "Federal Plaintiffs") amended the complaint in this lawsuit (the "Amended Complaint"), which is now styled Irving Braun, et al. v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470 (the "Federal Lawsuit"). In the Amended Complaint, the Federal Plaintiffs alleged multiple causes of action related to the registration statement and proxy statement filed with the SEC in connection with the Eagle Rock Merger, including that (i) Vanguard and certain of its officers and directors allegedly violated Section 11 of the Securities Act by including inaccurate, misleading and untrue material statements in the registration statement and proxy statement related to the Eagle Rock Merger, (ii) the members of Vanguard's board of directors were allegedly culpable participants in the alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act by signing the registration statements and of Section 15 of the Securities Act by participating in the issuance of common units in connection with the Eagle Rock Merger, (iii) the Defendants allegedly violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by filing proxy statements with misleading and untrue material statements and (iv) the Defendants allegedly violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act by failing to use their control and influence to stop the violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. The Federal Plaintiffs alleged that the registration statement and proxy statement filed in connection with the Eagle Rock Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning (x) Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial and operational projections, (y) Vanguard's debt obligations and (z) an imminent reduction in Vanguard's distributions to unitholders. Based on these allegations, the Federal Plaintiffs sought damages and attorneys' fees. The Federal Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Federal Lawsuit in its entirety under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On October 21, 2016, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Federal Defendants' motion and dismissed the Federal Lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice. Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Federal Lawsuit or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Federal Lawsuit. The Defendants believe the Federal Lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it in the event that the Federal Plaintiffs attempt to appeal the dismissal of the Federal Lawsuit. Vanguard is a publicly traded limited liability company focused on the acquisition and development of mature, long-lived oil and natural gas properties in the United States. VANGUARD NATURAL: Debt Exchange Lawsuit in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------- Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the the lawsuit relating to the Company's exchange of 7.875% Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Senior Notes due 2020") for 7.0% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2023 (the "Senior Secured Second Lien Notes"), is in the early stages of litigation. On March 1, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due 2020, Gregory Maniatis, individually and purportedly on behalf of other non-qualified institutional buyers ("non-QIBs") who beneficially held the Senior Notes due 2020, filed a class action lawsuit, against Vanguard and VNRF in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). The lawsuit was styled Gregory Maniatis v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC and VNR Finance Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-1578. On March 18, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due 2020, William Rowland, individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit, against Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was styled, Rowland v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC et al, Case No. 1:16- cv-2021. On March 29, 2016, a purported holder of the Senior Notes due 2020, Lawrence Culp, individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated filed a class action lawsuit, against Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC. The lawsuit was styled, Culp v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-2303. On April 12, 2016, purported holders of Senior Notes due 2020, Richard I. Kaufmann and Laura Kaufmann, individually and purportedly on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was styled Kaufmann et al v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-02743. On April 14, 2016, the above styled lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes and captioned In re Vanguard Natural Resources Bondholder Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-01578 (the "Debt Exchange Lawsuit"). Maniatis, Rowland and Culp (the "Debt Exchange Plaintiffs") filed an Amended Complaint in the Debt Exchange Lawsuit against Vanguard, VNRF, Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC (the "Debt Exchange Defendants") on April 20, 2016. The Debt Exchange Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the Company's debt exchange, whereby the Debt Exchange Defendants issued new Senior Secured Second Lien Notes in exchange for certain Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Exchange Offer"), including that the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly (a) violated Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (the "TIA") by benefiting themselves and a minority of the holders of Senior Notes due 2020 at the expense of the non-QIB holders of Senior Notes due 2020, (b) breached the terms of the indenture governing the Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Senior Notes Indenture") and the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs' and class members' contractual rights under the Senior Notes Indenture, (c) breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the Exchange Offer, and (d) unjustly enriched themselves at the expense of the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs and class members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the Senior Notes due 2020. Based on these allegations, the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs seek to be declared a proper class and a declaration that the Exchange Offer violated the TIA and the Senior Notes Indenture.The Debt Exchange Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages and attorneys' fees. On August 10, 2016, the Debt Exchange Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), in which they realleged the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, named Vanguard Operating, LLC, Escambia Operating Co. LLC, Escambia Asset Co. LLC, Eagle Rock Upstream Development Company, Inc., Eagle Rock Upstream Development Company II, Inc., Eagle Rock Acquisition Partnership, L.P., Eagle Rock Acquisition Partnership II, L.P., Eagle Rock Energy Acquisition Co., Inc., and Eagle Rock Energy Acquisition Co., II, Inc. (collectively with the Debt Exchange Defendants , the "Defendants") as additional defendants in the Debt Exchange Lawsuit, and added an additional breach of the Senior Notes Indenture claim. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety with prejudice on August 19, 2016 (the "Motion to Dismiss") arguing that the: (1) Debt Exchange Plaintiffs lack standing; (2) Second Amended Complaint fails to plead plausible facts demonstrating that the Exchange Offer Violated the TIA; (3) Debt Exchange Plaintiffs are barred from bringing state law claims; (4) Second Amended Complaint fails to plead plausible facts demonstrating that the Exchange Offer breached the terms of the Senior Notes Indenture; (5) Second Amended Complaint fails to plead plausible facts demonstrating a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (6) unjust enrichment is not available as a cause of action; and (7) declaratory judgment claims are duplicative. The Debt Exchange Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on September 19, 2016, and the Defendants filed a reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss on October 7, 2016. The Debt Exchange Lawsuit is in the early stages of litigation. Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Debt Exchange Lawsuit or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Debt Exchange Lawsuit. The Defendants believe the Debt Exchange Lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it. Vanguard is a publicly traded limited liability company focused on the acquisition and development of mature, long-lived oil and natural gas properties in the United States. WASTE MANAGEMENT: No Trial Schedule Yet for Landfill Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Shelly, David Martin, Karen Dillon and Scott Wilson, writing for The Pitch, report that The Deffenbaugh landfill is located in western Shawnee, on top of a large bluff that oversees the confluence of Mill Creek and the Kansas River, with Interstate 435 and Lake Quivira on the east and Johnson Drive to the south. From the bluff, a person has an expansive view of rolling hills and forests, making it, despite the proximity to the metro's garbage, catnip for developers. The population in the area has grown exponentially over the past few years. For most of that time, the landfill had managed to co-exist with the thousands of middle- and upper-middle-class homes and new businesses sprouting up. Odor problems, when they happened, were sporadic and quickly mitigated. But Deffenbaugh was sold in March 2015 to a subsidiary of Houston- based Waste Management, the largest waste disposal company in the United States. And the new ownership has not shown Shawnee's neighborhoods and businesses -- or its City Council -- much respect. Soon after the transaction, a gut-churning stench began to seep up and out of the dump. The smell clung for miles. Complaints rolled in -- more than 100 in the last three months of 2015. Three came from Shawnee Mayor Michelle Distler, who lives eight miles from the dump. Residents began showing up at city government meetings to voice their complaints. Mayor Mike Olson of Lake Quivira attended one of them and shared a petition from his constituents, expressing their concerns. Meanwhile, Waste Management wasn't limiting its provocations to Shawnee. It steadily began to piss off many of its customers around the metro by allowing its pickup services to devolve toward chaos. Trash and recycling trucks were often no-shows on their established routes throughout the area. The company used a novel PR strategy to push back at its new market, blaming its woes on a shortage of qualified local drivers who could pass drug tests. The city of Prairie Village was unmoved by this explanation and dropped the company's service in favor of a company that had actually bid a higher price. Jim Murray, senior district manager for Deffenbaugh, could not be reached for this story, but at a public meeting last summer he blamed the extreme odors on 300 tons of wet yard waste. Left unexplained for now is what special magic Deffenbaugh used over the years to contain the smell as well as it did. By September, with the putrefaction still percolating, three western Shawnee residents, Julie Johnston, April Wittenauer and Joseph Clark, had had enough. They hired Liddle & Dubin, a Michigan law firm that handles environmental-contamination class- action lawsuits. The firm's website says its lawyers have won several multimillion-dollar judgments. The attorneys filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. Federal District Court in Kansas City, Kansas, on Sept. 26. The lawsuit noted that there are thousands of owners and renters within the proposed class area, which has a circumference of about two miles. The residents' injuries include "exposure to pollutants, horrific odors and air contaminants," the lawsuit said. "The foul odors experienced by area residents constitute a stench so overwhelming that no reasonable person should be expected to endure it." The odors have caused residents to remain inside their homes and not use their yards, and have caused "embarrassment and reluctance to invite guests to their homes," the lawsuit said. According to the lawsuit, Deffenbaugh "intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously, grossly and negligently failed to construct, maintain and/or operate the landfill and caused the invasion of Plaintiff's property by noxious odors, air contaminants and other airborne pollutants on intermittent and recurring dates." At a Shawnee Planning Commission last summer, a senior district manager for Waste Management, responding to the odor complaints, acknowledged that the "conditions at the landfill have caused the emission of odors," according to the lawsuit. The manager said, "Quite honestly, we dropped the ball . . . we didn't perform up to the level the city was used to." No trial has yet been scheduled. WHITEWAVE FOODS: Status Conference Set for Jan. 25 -------------------------------------------------- In the case, City of Dearborn Heights ACT 345 Police & Fire Retirement System v. The White Waves Food Company, Case No. 1:16- cv-02355 (D. Colo.), a telephone status conference is set for Jan. 25, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer. On Dec. 9, 2016, Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer granted Plaintiff's Motion For Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel. The Court appointed the City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff and designated the law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Lead Counsel in this action. The WhiteWave Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that on September 19, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado challenging the proposed merger between WhiteWave and Danone by City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Retirement System, a purported stockholder of WhiteWave, against WhiteWave, its directors, Danone, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the directors of WhiteWave breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger by, among other things, conducting an allegedly unfair and inadequate sale process, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other potential bidders from making competing bids for WhiteWave, allegedly failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest, and allegedly failing to disclose all material information to WhiteWave stockholders in connection with the proposed merger, and that Danone and Merger Sub aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint further asserts a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against WhiteWave and its directors, and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the WhiteWave directors, Danone, and Merger Sub for allegedly disseminating a materially misleading proxy statement in connection with the proposed merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, rescissory damages, and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees. WhiteWave believes the lawsuit is without merit. WhiteWave Foods is a consumer packaged food and beverage company focused on high-growth product categories that are aligned with emerging consumer trends. WISCONSIN: Board to Talk Gender Identity Services Coverage ---------------------------------------------------------- Jessie Opoien at The Cap Times reports that the board that oversees state employees' health benefits in Wisconsin will meet to discuss the potential impact on covered benefits and services related to gender identity pending the results of a multi-state lawsuit. Members of the Group Insurance Board will meet with state Department of Justice attorneys to discuss how coverage for state employees may be affected by the upcoming ruling in a federal class action lawsuit filed in Texas by several health care providers and states including Wisconsin. The lawsuit opposes the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' rule on the Affordable Care Act's nondiscrimination requirements, which determined that health care providers cannot discriminate on the basis of gender identity. The board in July adopted changes to the state's Group Health Insurance Program's uniform benefits to comply with the federal rule. Those changes are set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2017. The changes, recommended by the state Department of Employee Trust Funds (ETF) and adopted unanimously by the Group Insurance Board, would remove exclusions in coverage for "procedures, services, and supplies related to surgery and sex hormones associated with gender reassignment" and for "sexual counseling services ... related to sexual transformation." Attorneys for the state DOJ have said those changes should be abandoned. In an August memo to the board, then-deputy attorney general Andy Cook argued that in issuing its rules to ban discrimination based on gender identity, HHS misinterpreted federal law that prohibits sex discrimination. "The Affordable Care Act only prohibits discrimination coextensive with Title IX. But Title IX's prohibition against discrimination on the biological basis of 'sex' does not extend to the distinct concept of 'gender identity,'" Cook wrote. In addition to the Texas case, Wisconsin is also one of 12 states suing the Obama administration over its guidance regarding the treatment of transgender students in public schools, based on a similar interpretation of Title IX to include gender identity. Cook also argued the HHS rule disrupts the state's right to administer its own health policy. The changes adopted by the board go beyond what the HHS rule may require by effectively mandating coverage for specific procedures, Cook wrote. The state DOJ specifically argued against removing an exclusion for sexual transformation counseling. "Since non-transgender patients cannot receive such counseling, no discrimination exists by denying coverage for it," Cook wrote. "Alternatively, a blanket exclusion for all sexual counseling services would further protect the Uniform Benefits from challenge." Earlier this month, DOJ attorneys recommended the board follow "existing laws" on the issue. Jenni Dye, an attorney and research director for the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, said the state should cover services for transgender employees regardless of whether federal rules require it. WWE: Seeks Dismissal of Wrestlers' Amended Class Action Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Thomas, writing for WInsider, reports that WWE has filed a new motion seeking dismissal of the class-action lawsuit against them from dozens of wrestlers claiming that the company is responsible for numerous health-related injuries over the years. The motion was filed on December 23rd and was followed by a personal motion filed by Vince McMahon, both of which again ask the court to dismiss the lawsuit and also request that the US District Court of Connecticut sanction lawyers Konstantine Kyros, Brenden Leydon, S. James Boumil, Anthony Norris, Erica C. Mirabella and R. Christopher Gilreath. The motion argues that the Amended lawsuit, which was last updated in November, incorrectly claims that "all of the deceased wrestlers who have been studied to date had CTE" and that "several hundred wrestlers died from Alzheimer's or dementia related injuries" per the Cauliflower Alley Club's website. It also says that the lawsuit incorrectly alleges that WWE knew wrestlers had "received repetitive head trauma that dramatically increased their risks of developing neurological disorders because of its relationship to the CAC." The new motion to dismiss argues against the notion that the company is legally responsible for the claims of former talent from WCW and ECW, both of which WWE purchased in 1991. WWE claims that "The Amended Complaint falsely alleges that WWE had a continuity of ownership, management, employees, and physical location with both WCW and ECW. It also falsely alleges that Diana Myers, Aaron Blitzstein, Rob Garner, and Steve Barrett, all former WCW employees, were subsequently employed by WWE." It adds that the ECW-related claims should be dismissed, calling them "legally frivolous because WWE acquired certain assets of ECW free and clear of all claims pursuant to an order of a federal Bankruptcy Court, because WWE did not acquire or assume any liability to Plaintiffs, and because Plaintiffs cannot plead any exception to the general rule that a corporation that merely purchases certain assets of another corporation is not liable for the seller's liabilities." The motion argues that WWE did not take over WCW operations from parent company Universal Wrestling Corp, as the corporate entity still exists in name. The motion also response to claims that Ashley Massaro made upon joining the lawsuit in November, in which she alleged that WWE pressured her not to report a sexual assault allegation while on a military base in Kuwait for the 2006 Tribute to the Troops show. The motion calls those claims false and says, "This baseless and inflammatory allegation is wholly unrelated to the claims in this case and was presented for the improper purpose of generating negative publicity against WWE in violation of this Court's prior admonitions." WWE also noted in regard to claims by the estates of Brian "Axl Rotten" Knighton and John "Balls Mahoney" Rechner that there are not any "plausible" facts that establish a casual relationship between WWE and Rechner's heart attack or Knighton's accidental drug overdose, saying, "Plaintiffs' allegations are based merely on rank speculation in violation of the Court's prior admonitions." It adds that the claims from Rechner's estate are "legally frivolous because Gayle Schecter is not the executor or administrator of his estate and therefore lacks standing to assert such a claim," pointing out that a previous wrongful death lawsuit from Matt Obsorne's girlfriend and mother of his children was dismissed for the same reason. WWE argues that several of the Plaintiffs, "despite their claims of traumatic brain injuries from wrestling and knowledge of the reported long-term risks of such injuries," still currently work for wrestling companies and thus their claims should be dismissed. They specifically name Caroline Moore-Begnaud (Jazz), Rodney Mack, Mark Canterbury (Henry Godwin), Bryan Clark, (Adam Bomb), Marc Copani (Muhammad Hassan), Michael Enos, Bill Eadie (Demolition Ax), Perry Saturn, Ahmed Johnson, Marty Jannetty, John Nord (Bezerker), Shane Douglas, Jimmy Snuka, Terry Szopinski (The Warlord), Mark Jindrak, Michael Halac (Mantaur), James Harrell (Boris Zukov), Rick Jones, and James "Kamala" Harris. WWE's arguments that some of these, such as Snuka and Kamala, are working wrestling shows could relate to their appearances at shows but obviously neither of them are working matches, as both have serious health issues preventing them from doing so. WWE additionally claims that an unnamed twenty of the plaintiffs are legally barred from suing them due to contractual agreements they made and that twenty -- again unnamed -- have released WWE of their claims in the lawsuit. Whether these names are in additional material from the motion, much of which was sealed, is unknown. Several of the names -- Jazz, Rodney Mack, Terry Brunk (Sabu), Barry Darsow (Demolition Smash), Bill Eadie, Sylvain Grenier, Chavo Guerrero Sr., Chavo Guerrero Jr., Michael Halac, Earl Hebner, Jon Heidenreich, Marty Jannetty, Mark Jindrak, Troy Martin, Charles Bernard Scaggs (2 Cold Scorpio), Tracy Smothers, Terry Szopinksi and Sione Havea Vailahi (The Barbarian) -- are argued as having been unable to "make individualized allegations to support each of its claims and does not identify the specific Plaintiffs who are asserting the claims in each count." The motion also says that a RICO claim brought against Vince McMahon in the November Amended Complaint "is legally frivolous because it is predicated on baseless claims of mail and wire fraud in the presentation of Booking Contracts to Plaintiffs that expressly set forth their agreement to be classified and treated as independent contractors and fails to allege that McMahon made any false statements of fact to Plaintiffs with the contemporaneous intent to defraud them." It noted that these allegations were copied from a previously-dismissed lawsuit filed by Raven Levy and others arguing against WWE's independent contractor classification and that there is no factual basis for them as talent willingly signed their independent contractor deals. WWE argues that the lawyers in the case should be sanctioned because "they have disregarded the repeated admonitions of this Court and have continued to make patently false allegations, assert frivolous legal claims, and maintain this action in bad faith and for improper purposes." It also says that the November Amended Complaint" was filed in bad faith and for the improper purposes of needlessly increasing the costs of the litigation, soliciting additional plaintiffs to sue Defendants, and attempting to exert pressure on Defendants as part of a negative media campaign." Finally, WWE points out that the Amended Complaint is the "thirteenth complaint or amended complaint filed against WWE" by Kyros in the last two years. Four of them have been dismissed and "the Court also has repeatedly admonished Attorney Kyros on multiple occasions for filing excessively lengthy complaints, making knowingly false and deliberately misleading statements, asserting completely irrelevant and inflammatory allegations, repeatedly misrepresenting evidence, pursuing baseless claims as part of a media campaign to pressure the Defendants with negative public relations, and engaging in highly unprofessional and vexatious conduct. This Court also has admonished Attorney Kyros and his co-counsel to adhere to the standards of professional conduct and applicable rules and court orders or risk future sanctions or referral to the Disciplinary Committee of this Court." A case conference is scheduled for January 24th. ZAFGEN INC: First Circuit Appeal in "Bessler" Case Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Zafgen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs' appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals remains pending. On October 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company and Thomas E. Hughes, captioned Aviad Bessler v. Zafgen, Inc. and Thomas E. Hughes, No. 1:15-cv-13618. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2016. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's clinical trials for its drug beloranib. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price between June 19, 2014 and October 16, 2015, as a result of those allegedly false and misleading statements, as well as punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On April 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 9, 2016, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On August 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and, on October 26, 2016, they filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this action and therefore cannot estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if any. Zafgen is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to significantly improving the health and well-being of patients affected by metabolic diseases including type 2 diabetes and obesity. * NDP Gives Update on Canadian Tobacco Industry Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- James Wood of Calgary Herald reports that in 2012, the former Progressive Conservative government filed suit against 14 Canadian and international tobacco firms, seeking $10 billion to recover smoking-related health costs. The process around the Tory government's decision to hire the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers consortium as counsel on the case remains mired in controversy and under review, but Ganley said the NDP is satisfied with the work done so far. "The quality of the work itself has been very good," she said in a recent interview. "So, at this point, it would cause further delay and be quite costly to change counsel at this point. And so I don't think it would be in the best interest of taxpayers to do that." British Columbia's conflict of interest commissioner, Paul Fraser, is currently reviewing the actions of former premier Alison Redford in relation to questions of potential conflict of interest around her awarding of the tobacco lawsuit legal contract as justice minister in 2010. A key part of the consortium is Calgary- based JSS Barristers, a firm in which her ex-husband is a partner. Redford was cleared by Alberta's then-ethics commissioner Neil Wilkinson when the matter was investigated in 2013, but a report this spring from former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci cited concerns that Wilkinson didn't have all the relevant information. He recommended Alberta's ethics commissioner take another look, but a potential conflict led to the appointment of B.C.'s commissioner. Ganley said she couldn't comment on how that report may ultimately affect the government's legal action against the tobacco companies, but reiterated the NDP's support for the case. "We do believe in the merits and the cause of the case, and I think it's potentially worth an enormous amount of money to the taxpayers of Alberta, so it's definitely worth pursuing," she said. Among the allegations in the government's lawsuit, none of which has been proven in court, is that the companies deliberately designed tobacco products to be highly addictive, deceived Albertans by minimizing the products' addictiveness and harm, and falsely denied the health risks of exposure to tobacco products. Ganley said the defendants in the case filed statements of defence in the spring. The next step will be the exchange of documents, then the questioning phase. "These things typically take a while," said Ganley. "There's going to be an enormous amount of documents." It has been slow going for legal action against the tobacco industry by Canadian provinces since British Columbia filed the first lawsuit in 1998, said Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society in Ottawa. There are 12 provinces and territories that have enabling legislation allowing them to launch lawsuits and 10 have legal action already underway. "There are no trial dates set for any of the cases. The cases that are the most advanced it seems are B.C. and New Brunswick, in terms of the pre-trial discovery process," said Cunningham, noting that he has no indication the controversy around Alberta's legal contract has affected its case. "It's incumbent for provincial governments to get these cases to trial." In 1999, the U.S. tobacco industry settled with 46 U.S. states by agreeing to pay almost $250 billion over 25 years. That deal featured restrictions on how tobacco products were marketed and sold. Cunningham said a case to watch in Canada is a Quebec class-action lawsuit that awarded $15.5 billion in damages to plaintiffs from tobacco companies. The case was appealed and heard at the Quebec Court of Appeal in November, with a decision expected in 2017. Cunningham noted many of the same documents and issues that were in play in the class-action trial will be at issue in the provincial cases. "The Quebec case demonstrates overwhelmingly the tobacco industry can be beaten," he said. * Plaintiffs Attorneys Says Firms Need to Comply to Avoid Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Karmasek of Legal News Line reports that plaintiffs' attorneys and consumer advocacy groups agree there has been a significant uptick in the amount of food and beverage class action lawsuits filed in recent years, but they contend much of the blame lies with manufacturers themselves and poor government regulation. Richard Barrett, a Mississippi plaintiffs attorney who has brought dozens of cases against food and beverage companies, said firms such as his own, Barrett Law Group PA in Lexington, Miss., simply are trying to change the way food companies do business. "Food companies should be forced to follow the laws already in place," Barrett told Legal Newsline. "They don't." Barrett's firm has combined with several other high-quality, small to mid-sized firms across the country to take on what he describes as "mega-corporations" over their allegedly misleading and illegal labeling of food products. "Our group has filed approximately 50 cases for a variety of violations," he explained. In 2012, the group filed a lawsuit against Welch Foods Inc. over its grape juices, alleging the company violated federal and state law when it, among other things, labeled its juices with a "big, bold, eye-catching" no-sugar-added statement without the required disclosure that the juice had more sugar in it per ounce than a Pepsi-brand soda. "Our cases focus on ingredient labeling," Barrett explained. Barrett contends class action litigation, against large companies such as Welch, serves an important purpose. "When large corporations have a strategy to deprive the American consumer of just a little bit each transaction so that the consumer barely notices or feels like it's not worth the effort to sue, class actions allow consumers to address injury that may be small but is huge to the corporation," he said. "These particular cases are interesting to me because in researching these companies and claims, I have become stunned by the amount of labeling violations designed only to influence the volume of sales. It's no wonder that we, as a society, are sick and overweight." Barrett takes issue with claims that the plaintiffs bar is solely responsible for the increase in food-related class actions, all in the name of profits. "I'm glad they [company attorneys] think that," he said. "If the plaintiffs bar is bothering them by seeking them to comply with federal and state labeling laws, there is an easy fix. They should immediately make all their labels compliant with the law." He continued, "The reason that there is a 'surge' is that plaintiff attorneys are helping their clients by taking to task these food companies that intentionally mislead the purchasers of the companies' products. There would be no surge without misleading information on food labels that the companies put on intentionally." Maia Kats, director of litigation for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, contends some of the blame may rest with plaintiffs attorneys looking for their next paycheck, but she argues the federal government hasn't done its part. "In terms of casting aspersions on one side versus another -- it's more complex than that," she told Legal Newsline. "Yes, some other areas in class action law have tightened in terms of feasibility of prosecution. But it's also because this area, in particular, is one in which the government enforcement agencies assigned to it -- the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice and Food and Drug Administration -- really are not active in ensuring the statutes and regulations are adhered to by food companies. "I think, in this instance, it's more so a void between the law and the enforcement of that law." CSPI, based in Washington, D.C., is one of the nation's top consumer advocates. According to its website, the group fights for government policies and corporate practices that "promote healthy diets, prevent deceptive marketing practices, and ensure that science is used to promote the public good." Kats also agrees that consumers simply are more health savvy these days. "We have customers who are wanting to purchase and consume foods that are better for them," she said. But Kats doesn't deny that a lot of the class actions being filed on behalf of consumers are frivolous. "It's sad because, from our perspective, those lawsuits really undermine our ability to make meaningful cases," she said. "There are a lot of bad class actions out there right now, and people are doing it for the wrong reasons. "A lot of them have absolutely no nutritional consequence. A lot of them make you go, 'huh?' I mean, too much ice in your drink? Who really believes a Crunchberry is a real berry?" Again, it goes back to better regulation, Kats says. "Compliance isn't adequately monitored," she said. "But stop and reflect on the number of food products out there on the market. That's a daunting task to fund and for the FDA to accomplish." Improved labeling guidelines would be a start, she argues -- in particular, predominance labeling and naming. "One activity that would help considerably, we think, to ensure that the naming of the product is accurate is to go by the predominance of the ingredients," Kats explained. "If you're going to show on your products images of 'green leafy goodness,' for example, then those images that are on the label should be reflective of the predominance of the ingredients in the product." Listing percentages also would prove helpful to consumers, she said. Barrett doubts more guidelines would help. "I believe that the FDA and the like are doing what they can with the resources they have," he said. "If I could wish for anything in the rulemaking process, I would remove the power of 'big food' to lobby its influence into the decisions of the FDA and other agencies regarding regulation formation and interpretation, particularly when it comes to labeling. "I can't say more guidelines would help since the food giants are ignoring them anyway." ********* 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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. 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 * * *