/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170117.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, January 17, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 12
Headlines
1443 YORK GOTHAM: Shamailov Appeals Ruling in "Najera" Class Suit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Marentette Appeals From E.D.N.Y. Judgment
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: "Chang" Appeal Fully Briefed & Pending
ALFALFA'S MARKET: Faces "Gilmore" Wage & Hour Class Suit
AMERICAN RENAL: New York Class Action Dismissed
ANGIE'S LIST: Kron Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Order in "Moore" Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSH: Hernandez Alleges Violation of Cal. Labor Code
BEST BUY: Faces "Bautista" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages and OT
CADIZ INC: February 6 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
CARMIKE CINEMAS: Class Suit Proceedings Stayed Pending Merger
CCO HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for March 2017
CCO HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Sciabacucchi" Action Pending
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Ford" Settlement Still Pending
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in "Sinohui" Suit Set for June 2017
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Still Pending
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Against Peter Piper Litigation
CELADON GROUP: "Wilmoth" Class Action Appeal Underway
CELLADON CORP: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Tadros" Securities Suit
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Diaza" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CLIFFS NATURAL: Brown Files Another Appeal in NJ Treasury Suit
CONFORMIS INC: Plaintiff's Time to Appeal Expired
CVS PHARMACY: "Dorfman" Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
CYTRX CORPORATION: Securities Litigation Underway
DANA HOLDING: Brown Appeals Decision in Pension Funds Class Suit
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: March 20 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Bauer"
EBIX INC: Third Amended Class Action Complaint Filed
FIRST TRINITY: Class Action v. FBLIC Underway
FIRSTCASH INC: "Samtoy" Class Action Concluded
HEART TO HEART CARE: O'Campo Alleges Violation of Labor Code
ICONIX BRAND: Moved to Dismiss Securities Action
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Abrams" Suit
ISORAY INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for March 7
KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Issued Shares, Paid $250,000 in Accord
KELLOGG COMPANY: Hawkins Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
KING COUNTY, WA: Appeal Filed in "Moore" Suit v. Sheriff Urquhart
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: "Guerra" Claims Dismissed
LONG BEACH EUROCARS: Motaque Alleges Labor Code Violation
MARION COUNTY, IN: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Driver" Suit
MDL 2380: Morales Appeals Ruling to Third Circuit
MDL 2380: Vullings Appeals Ruling to Third Circuit
MGM RESORTS: Appeal in Securities Action Underway
MONEY STORE: Mazzei Seeks Writ of Certiorari from Supreme Court
MOTION PICTURE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Forsyth" Suit
NANTKWEST INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Underway
NANTKWEST INC: 4 Class Actions Removed to C.D. California
NORDSTROM INC: Kelen Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
NURSING CARE: Initial Conference in "Golding" Suit on Jan. 20
PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Alan Presswood Suit
POPULAR INC: Discovery Underway in "Valle" Class Action
POPULAR INC: Fee Dispute in "Quiles" Action Still Pending
POPULAR INC: Answers to "Fernandez" Amended Complaint Filed
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: To Defend Against Securities Action
SAVEOLOGY.COM LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of "Stoba" Case Ruling
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Appeals Decision in "Farris" Class Suit
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Brown" Suit in W.D. Ark.
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against "Williams" Action
SOUTHWEST GLASS: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nez" Class Suit
SPARK NETWORKS: Says Settlement Amounts Have Been Paid
SPARK NETWORKS: Settlement of Israeli Consumer Suits Awaits OK
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Ruling in Suit Over School Program Under Appeal
STERICYCLE INC: Defending Against Securities Class Action
SUNRUN INC: Baker et al. Class Suits Consolidated
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Amr Files 9th Cir. Appeal in "Tsirekidze" Suit
TALEN ENERGY: Stockholder Action Pending in Delaware Court
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Tran" Product Liability Suit in N.D. Ga.
TRANSENTERIX INC: Moves to Dismiss Amended "Bankley" Suit
TRANSENTERIX INC: "Pikal" Action Stayed Pending Bankley Suit
VECTREN UTILITY: Discovery Underway in Employee Class Suit
VOYA RETIREMENT: Motion to Dismiss "Dezelan" Action Underway
XOMA CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Markette" Suit Under Submission
*********
1443 YORK GOTHAM: Shamailov Appeals Ruling in "Najera" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Lana Shamailov filed an appeal from the District Court's
opinion dated November 22, 2016, and judgment dated December 2,
2016, entered in the lawsuit entitled Najera v. 1443 York Gotham
Pizza Inc., Case No. 12-cv-3133, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
The appellate case is captioned as Najera v. 1443 York Gotham
Pizza Inc., Case No. 16-4264, before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendants
1443 York Gotham Pizza Inc., 144 Ninth Gotham Pizza, Inc., 1667
First Gotham Pizza, Inc., 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza Inc. and Michael
Shamailov filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on August 24, 2016. That appellate case is captioned as
Najera v. 1443 York Gotham Pizza Inc., Case No. 16-3296, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs-Appellees Prisco Najera, Israel Fuentes, Carlos
Altamirano, Cristobal Bravo, Levi Gallardo, Lugo Romano, Pablo
Najera, Eleuterio Alonzo, Jose Luis Ortega, Wilfredo Ramirez,
Anastacio Antolin, Luis Antonio Canizy, Fausto Ramales, Ferndando
Arellane, Luis Najera, Adalberto Navarro Flores, Aureliano Tapia,
Israel Juarez Luna, Rodolfo Ruiz Briones, Manuel Montiel Lopez,
Fernando Rodriguez and Claudio Arias are represented by:
Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1 Grand Central Place
60 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
E-mail: JAndrophy@Faillacelaw.com
Defendant-Appellant Lana Shamailov is represented by:
Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN B. XUE, P.C.
401 Broadway
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 219-2275
Facsimile: (212) 219-2276
E-mail: benjaminxue@xuelaw.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Marentette Appeals From E.D.N.Y. Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sara Marentette, Matthew O'Neil Nighswander and Ellen
Steinlien filed an appeal from a District Court judgment, dated
December 7, 2016, in their lawsuit titled Marentette v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-2837, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, brought a putative class action against Abbott
Laboratories Inc. and Abbott Nutrition, alleging that Abbott
misled consumers about the ingredients of its Similac Advance
Organic Infant Formulas. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged
that the packaging for these products contains the representation
"Organic" when in fact the products contain many ingredients
prohibited by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
in organic products.
The appellate case is captioned as Marentette v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 17-62, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Sara Marentette, Matthew O'Neil Nighswander
and Ellen Steinlien, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 298-3281
E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Yvette Golan, Esq.
THE GOLAN FIRM
1712 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (713) 206-8250
E-mail: ygolan@tgfirm.com
- and -
Kim Eleazer Richman, Esq.
THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
195 Plymouth Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (212) 687-8291
Facsimile: (718) 228-8522
E-mail: ker@kerichman.com
Defendant-Appellee Abbott Laboratories, Inc., is represented by:
Scott P. Glauberman, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 558-5600
E-mail: sglauber@winston.com
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: "Chang" Appeal Fully Briefed & Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, 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
appeal, Chang v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-
CV-00504-SPL (9th Cir. filed Feb. 26, 2016), has been fully
briefed and is pending.
The Company said, "On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc.,
Lawrence Mehren, and Steve Reichling, Rapp v. Accelerate
Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504. The complaint alleges that we violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements about
our Accelerate Pheno(TM) system, formerly called the BACcel
System. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock
between March 7, 2014 and February 17, 2015."
On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the
purported class. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5, by making false
or misleading statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and
by allegedly employing schemes to defraud. Plaintiff sought
certification of the action as a class action, compensatory
damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and
costs, and such other relief as the court may order.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21,
2015. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case with
prejudice on January 28, 2016.
On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
challenges the dismissal of the amended complaint.
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. is an in vitro diagnostics company
dedicated to providing solutions that improve patient outcomes and
lower healthcare costs through the rapid diagnosis of serious
infections.
ALFALFA'S MARKET: Faces "Gilmore" Wage & Hour Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Grant Gilmore, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Alfalfa's Market, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00070 (D. Colo., January 10, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Founded in Boulder, Colorado in 1983, Alfalfa's Market is a
retailer of natural and organic products.
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
AMERICAN RENAL: New York Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the class action complaint filed in the Southern
District of New York was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff
without prejudice.
On August 31, 2016 and September 2, 2016, putative shareholder
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, respectively,
against the Company and certain officers and directors of the
Company. Both complaints assert federal securities law claims
against the Company and the individual defendants under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the SEC and in addition, the complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
complaints allege that the Company made material misstatements or
omissions, including in connection with its initial public
offering filings and other public filings. The complaints seek
unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities from
April 20, 2016 to August 18, 2016.
On October 26, 2016, the complaint filed in the Southern District
of New York was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without
prejudice. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself
against these claims.
ANGIE'S LIST: Kron Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Order in "Moore" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ryan Kron filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Janell Moore, et al. v. Angie's List Inc., Case No.
2-15-cv-01243, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.
The appellate case is captioned as Janell Moore, et al. v. Angie's
List Inc., Case No. 16-4430, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Janell Moore
claims she paid the contractor, Bravo Philadelphia, $4,000 to
remodel her kitchen after seeing positive reviews on Angie's List.
The contractor did not finish the work and refused to refund her
money, she says. After leaving a negative review for Bravo on the
site, she claims she was suddenly able to see scores of negative
remarks that had previously been concealed. She claims that, had
she seen the reviews, she never would have hired the contractor.
Ms. Moore alleges that Angie's List representatives did not cite
any technological error of the site. In its membership agreement
and its FAQ section, the company purports to rank service
providers based solely on the reviews given by customers, not by
any payment to the company, she notes. After Moore relayed the
event to an electrician he knew, however, he allegedly told her
that "he pays 'to be at the top' of search results."
The parties have settled the lawsuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant RYAN KRON is represented by:
Mardi Harrison, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARDI HARRISON
25 North Main Street
Doylestown, PA 18901
Telephone: (267) 880-1180
Facsimile: (267) 880-3823
E-mail: mardi@SueTheBoss.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees JANELL MOORE, MICHELLE ZYGELMAN and GARY
GLICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
are represented by:
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
GOLOMB & HONIK PC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
rhonik@golombhonik.com
dstanoch@golombhonik.com
- and -
W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
ARNOLD LAW FIRM
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
(916) 777-7777
Defendant-Appellee ANGIE'S LIST INC. is represented by:
J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
Elisa P. McEnroe, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-4806
E-mail: jgcooney@morganlewis.com
fcorrado@morganlewis.com
emcenroe@morganlewis.com
ANHEUSER-BUSH: Hernandez Alleges Violation of Cal. Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Hernandez, Plaintiff, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Anheuser-Bush, LLC, a Missouri
limited Liability Company and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC646330 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 9, 2017),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to accurately
itemized wage statements, provide off-duty rest periods, provide
off-duty meal periods and failure to pay all applicable overtime
and double-time wages for all hours worked.
Defendant Anheuser-Bush, LLC is an American brewing company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
Diversity Law Group, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
- and -
Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
Hyun Legal, APC
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 488-6555
Fax: (213) 488-6554
BEST BUY: Faces "Bautista" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages and OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mari S. Bautista, Plaintiff, an individual appearing on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Stores,
L.P., a Virginia Limited Partnership and Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. BC645925 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 9, 2017), seeks unpaid
wage and overtime compensation, saying the Defendant was in
violation of the Labor Code.
Defendant Best Buy Stores, L.P. is a Virginia Limited Partnership
with its principal place of business and headquarters in the state
of Minnesota. The Company sells merchandise to consumers
throughout the United States, like televisions, appliances,
computers and other items. The Company also provides services for
consumers throughout the United States, including installations
and computer troubleshooting.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg A. Farley, Esq.
Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley
880 Apollo Street, Suite 222
El Segundo, CA 90245
Tel: (310) 445-4024
Fax: (310) 445-4109
- and -
Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
Law Offices of Sahag Majarian
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Tel: (818) 609-0807
Fax: (818) 609-0892
CADIZ INC: February 6 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Cadiz, 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 hearing is scheduled for
February 6, 2017 to finalize the terms of a class action
settlement.
On April 24, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Van
Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM, was
filed against Cadiz and certain of its directors and officers
("Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California purporting to assert claims for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint, which
purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders,
alleges that the Company's public disclosures were inadequate in
relation to the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and
Storage Project (the "Water Project"). The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The Company believes that the claims alleged in the purported
class action lawsuit are baseless and without merit. On December
2, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and a
hearing on the motion was held in late February 2016.
Following court-mandated mediation discussions in April 2016, and
notwithstanding that the Company disputes the allegations in the
complaint, the parties agreed to settle the case and filed a
notice of settlement with the Court on May 6, 2016. On May 9,
2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice.
On June 16, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the settlement and supplemented such
motion on July 14, 2016 at the request of the Court. On September
30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval
of the settlement. In the settlement, the Company makes no
admission of liability or wrongdoing and does not concede the
validity of any of the allegations or legal claims made in the
litigation.
A hearing is scheduled for February 6, 2017 to finalize the terms
of settlement. The Company recorded a liability of $3.0 million
in accrued liabilities based on the terms of the preliminary
settlement. The Company's corporate insurance policy is expected
to cover the costs of this litigation and, therefore, the Company
also recorded $3.0 million in other assets.
Cadiz is a land and water resource development company with 45,000
acres of land in three separate areas of eastern San Bernardino
County, California.
CARMIKE CINEMAS: Class Suit Proceedings Stayed Pending Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carmike Cinemas, 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 all proceedings in
the consolidated class action action related to a merger agreement
have been temporarily stayed pending the close of the merger.
On March 3, 2016, AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. and the Company
announced that the companies had entered into a definitive merger
agreement under which AMC would acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company and the Company would become a wholly owned
subsidiary of AMC.
On November 15, 2016, Carmike Cinemas, Inc. announced that, at the
Special Meeting of the Company's Stockholders held that day,
Carmike stockholders approved the amended and restated merger
agreement with AMC Theatres (AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.).
On April 25, 2016 and May 10, 2016, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division (the "Court"),
against Carmike's directors, AMC, and Merger Sub arising from the
merger: Solak v. Passman, et al., C.A. No. 4:16-cv-154 (CDL)
("Solak Action") and Baskette v. Fleming, et al., C.A. No. 4:16-
cv-170 (CDL) ("Baskette Action" and, together with the Solak
Action, the "Actions"). The plaintiffs in the Actions, certain
purported holders of Carmike's common stock (which we refer to as
"Plaintiffs"), allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed
by Carmike on March 31, 2016 with the SEC in connection with the
merger contained false and misleading statements and omitted
material information in violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and further that
the director defendants are personally liable for those alleged
misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. Plaintiffs also allege that the director defendants breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the public stockholders of Carmike
in connection with the merger and that AMC and Merger Sub aided
and abetted those breaches. The Actions seek, among other things,
to enjoin the merger until the alleged Exchange Act violations and
breaches of fiduciary duties are remedied, to rescind the merger
agreement or any terms thereof to the extent such agreement or
terms have already been implemented, and an award of attorneys'
and experts' fees and costs. In addition, the Baskette Action
seeks an accounting and award of damages.
On June 10, 2016, the Court consoldiated the Actions into a single
action: In re Carmike Cinemas, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 4:16-cv-154 (CDL) (the "Consolidated
Action"). On June 14, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' request
for an order temporarily restraining the merger and for expedited
discovery in support of a motion to preliminarily enjoin the
merger. Following that ruling, all proceedings in the Consolidated
Action were temporarily stayed pending the close of the merger.
Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation
matters with certainty, Carmike believes that the claims raised in
the Consolidated Action are without merit and intends to defend
against them vigorously.
CCO HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for March 2017
---------------------------------------------------------
CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Holdings Capital Corp. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that a New York court has scheduled a final hearing in March
2017 to approve the settlement in the class action related to the
merger between Charter Communications and Time Warner.
In 2014, following an announcement by Comcast and Legacy TWC of
their intent to merge, Breffni Barrett and others filed suit in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of New
York against Comcast, Legacy TWC and their respective officers and
directors. Later five similar class actions were consolidated
with this matter (the "NY Actions"). The NY Actions were settled
in July 2014, however, such settlement was terminated following
the termination of the Comcast and TWC merger in April 2015.
In May 2015, Charter and TWC announced their intent to merge.
Subsequently, the parties in the NY Actions filed a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), removing Comcast as a defendant and naming TWC, the
members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger
subsidiaries as defendants. The Second Amended Complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders
during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the
merger agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and
equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and costs and attorneys' fees.
In September 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU,
the defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to
the mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with
prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, approval by the New York
Supreme Court. That court gave preliminary approval to the
settlement in October 2016. A hearing to consider final approval
of this settlement is set for March 2017.
In the event that the New York Supreme Court does not approve the
settlement, the defendants intend to vigorously defend against any
further litigation.
On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as
CCH I, LLC, or "Charter," an indirect parent company of CCO
Holdings, LLC) completed its previously reported merger
transactions among Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Legacy TWC"),
Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy Charter"), and certain other
subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC Transaction"). Also on May 18,
2016, Charter completed its previously reported acquisition of
Bright House Networks, LLC ("Legacy Bright House") from
Advance/Newhouse Partnership (the "Bright House Transaction," and,
together with the TWC Transaction, the "Transactions"). As a
result of the Transactions, Charter became the new public parent
company that holds the combined operations of Legacy Charter,
Legacy TWC and Legacy Bright House and was renamed Charter
Communications, Inc. Substantially all of the operations acquired
in the Transactions were contributed down to CCO Holdings.
CCO HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss "Sciabacucchi" Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
CCO Holdings, LLC and CCO Holdings Capital Corp. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Delaware court has not yet acted on Charter
Communications' motion to dismiss a class action complaint by
Matthew Sciabacucchi.
In August 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter, Matthew
Sciabacucchi, filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
on behalf of a putative class of Charter stockholders, challenging
the transactions between Charter, TWC, A/N, and Liberty Broadband
announced by Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the
"Transactions"). The lawsuit names as defendants Liberty
Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and New
Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly
benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter
shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy
statement in connection with the Transactions. Plaintiff
requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery
enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter
stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on
the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain
information relating to Charter and the Transactions.
The disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain
unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form
of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and
among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was
referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New
Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N.
On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter. In
return, the plaintiff agreed its disclosure claims were moot and
withdrew its application to enjoin the Charter stockholder vote on
the Transactions.
Charter has filed a motion to dismiss this litigation but the
court has not yet ruled upon it. Charter denies any liability,
believes that it has substantial defenses, and intends to
vigorously defend this suit.
On May 18, 2016, Charter Communications, Inc. (formerly known as
CCH I, LLC, or "Charter," an indirect parent company of CCO
Holdings, LLC) completed its previously reported merger
transactions among Charter, Time Warner Cable Inc. ("Legacy TWC"),
Charter Communications, Inc. ("Legacy Charter"), and certain other
subsidiaries of Charter (the "TWC Transaction"). Also on May 18,
2016, Charter completed its previously reported acquisition of
Bright House Networks, LLC ("Legacy Bright House") from
Advance/Newhouse Partnership (the "Bright House Transaction," and,
together with the TWC Transaction, the "Transactions"). As a
result of the Transactions, Charter became the new public parent
company that holds the combined operations of Legacy Charter,
Legacy TWC and Legacy Bright House and was renamed Charter
Communications, Inc. Substantially all of the operations acquired
in the Transactions were contributed down to CCO Holdings.
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: "Ford" Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
CEC 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 settlement
of the class action lawsuit by Franchesca Ford remains pending.
On January 27, 2014, former CEC employee Franchesca Ford filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford
Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-
situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the
Company in California who were employed from January 27, 2010 to
the present, and alleges violations of California state wage and
hour laws.
In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to California state court.
In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the
plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment.
On March 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the class settlement.
At hearing on August 11, 2016, the Court took the parties'
settlement agreement under advisement, but has not yet issued a
ruling on final approval. The settlement of this action is not
expected to have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.
The Company currently operates and franchises Chuck E. Cheese's
and Peter Piper Pizza family dining and entertainment centers in a
total of 47 states and 12 foreign countries and territories.
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Trial in "Sinohui" Suit Set for June 2017
------------------------------------------------------------
CEC 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 trial is
currently scheduled for June 2017 in the class action lawsuit by
Richard Sinohui.
On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui
Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated
current and former General Managers of the Company in California
during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit
sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify a class
based on allegations that CEC wrongfully classified current and
former California General Managers as exempt from overtime
protections; that such General Managers worked more than 40 hours
a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid
meal periods; and that the Company failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon separation
from employment, in violation of the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage
Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The
plaintiff also alleged that the Company failed to reimburse
General Managers for certain business expenses, including for
personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the
California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil
penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA").
On December 5, 2014, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order
denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion
to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's
misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class
with respect to Plaintiff's claims that the Company had wrongfully
failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage.
On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. The
parties participated in mediation in October 2016, but were unable
to reach an agreement on settlement at that time. Trial is
currently scheduled for June 2017.
The Company said, "We believe the Company has meritorious defenses
to this lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend it. While no
assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter,
we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will
not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources."
The Company currently operates and franchises Chuck E. Cheese's
and Peter Piper Pizza family dining and entertainment centers in a
total of 47 states and 12 foreign countries and territories.
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
CEC 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 parties
are awaiting the Court's ruling on defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the consolidated class action petition related to the merger
agreement with Apollo Global.
Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had
entered into a merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement"), pursuant
to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and
its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC
Entertainment surviving the merger (the "Merger"), four putative
shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the
Company, against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and
Merger Sub (as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection
with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated
thereby.
These actions were consolidated into one action in March 2014, and
on July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action petition was filed
as the operative consolidated complaint, asserting claims against
CEC Entertainment and its former directors, adding The Goldman
Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant, and removing all
Apollo entities as defendants ("Consolidated Class Action
Petition"). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in connection with their consideration and
approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things,
conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate
tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger
Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding
the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also
alleges that two members of the Company's board who also served as
the senior managers of the Company had material conflicts of
interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's
breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the
bank. The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other
things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Petition, and the parties are currently awaiting the Court's
ruling. The Court has not yet set this case for trial.
The Company believes the Consolidated Class Action Petition is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.
"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final
resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.
The Company currently operates and franchises Chuck E. Cheese's
and Peter Piper Pizza family dining and entertainment centers in a
total of 47 states and 12 foreign countries and territories.
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Against Peter Piper Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
CEC 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 is
defending against a class action lawsuit filed by Diane Jacobson.
On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class
action lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. ("Peter Piper") in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division
(the "Jacobson Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent
other similarly-situated consumers who, within the two years prior
to the filing of the Jacobson Litigation, received a printed
receipt on which Peter Piper allegedly printed more than the last
five digits of the consumer's credit/debit card number, in
violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.
The Company said, "We believe Peter Piper has meritorious defenses
to this lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend it. Since the
litigation is in its earliest stages, however, the Company does
not have sufficient information to reach a good faith
determination on Peter Piper's potential liability or exposure in
the event that its defense is unsuccessful."
The Company currently operates and franchises Chuck E. Cheese's
and Peter Piper Pizza family dining and entertainment centers in a
total of 47 states and 12 foreign countries and territories.
CELADON GROUP: "Wilmoth" Class Action Appeal Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Celadon 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 Company's
appeal of the judgment in the "Wilmoth" class action lawsuit
remains pending.
The Company's subsidiary has been named as the defendant in
Wilmoth et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action
proceeding. A summary judgment was granted in favor of the
plaintiffs.
The Company said, "We have appealed this judgment. We believe that
we will be successful on appeal, but it is also reasonably
possible the judgment will be upheld. We estimate the possible
range of financial exposure associated with this claim to be
between $0 and approximately $5.9 million. We currently do not
have a contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to
monitor its progress to determine if a reserve is necessary in the
future."
CELLADON CORP: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Tadros" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Wahid Tadros filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Wahid Tadros v. Celladon Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01458-AJB-DHB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.
The lawsuit alleges violations of securities laws.
The appellate case is captioned as Wahid Tadros v. Celladon
Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-56904, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by January 27, 2017;
-- Transcript is due on February 27, 2017;
-- Appellant Wahid Tadros' opening brief is due on April 7,
2017;
-- Answering brief of Appellees Celladon Corporation, Rebecque
J. Laba and Krisztina M. Zsebo is due on May 8, 2017; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
service of the answering brief.
Plaintiff-Appellant WAHID TADROS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Darryl James Alvarado, Esq.
Scott H. Saham, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com
scotts@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
Ira Alan Schochet, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: jbernstein@labaton.com
dgoldsmith@labaton.com
ischochet@labaton.com
Defendants-Appellees CELLADON CORPORATION, KRISZTINA M. ZSEBO and
REBECQUE J. LABA are represented by:
Ryan E. Blair, Esq.
Nicolas Echevestre, Esq.
Koji Fukumura, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
4401 Eastgate Mall
San Diego, CA 92121-1909
Telephone: (858) 550-6000
Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
E-mail: rblair@cooley.com
nechevestre@cooley.com
kfukumura@cooley.com
- and -
Matthew Ezer, Esq.
Michelle Ton, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
3175 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 843-5000
E-mail: mezer@cooley.com
mton@cooley.com
- and -
Adam Christopher Trigg, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
5 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
Telephone: (650) 843-5000
E-mail: atrigg@cooley.com
- and -
Laurence Mathew Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016-1101
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Diaza" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
Kiara Diaza, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00111 (E.D. N.Y. (Brooklyn), January 9, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt and
Collection Act.
Defendant Client Services is a full service Accounts Receivable
Management (ARM) firm offering a diverse selection of collection
and recovery solutions.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan J Sasson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11235
Tel: (718) 339-0856
Fax: (347) 244-7178
Email: alan@sassonlaw.com
CLIFFS NATURAL: Brown Files Another Appeal in NJ Treasury Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff M. Brown filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and
its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01031, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
The appellate case is captioned as Department of the Treasury of
the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment v. Cliffs
Natural Resources Inc., et al., Case No. 17-3001, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Objector Jeff
M. Brown previously filed two appeals from decisions entered in
the Original Case. In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2016, Cliffs
Natural said that the parties have settled the Original Case for
$84 million and the Original Case was dismissed on June 30, 2016.
As amended, the Original Case asserted violations of the federal
securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements or
omissions during the period of March 14, 2012, to March 26, 2013,
regarding operations at the Company's Bloom Lake mine in Quebec,
Canada, and the impact of those operations on the Company's
finances and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend.
According to the complaint, the alleged misstatements caused the
Company's common shares to trade at artificially inflated prices.
Movant-Appellant JEFF M. BROWN represents himself:
Jeff M. Brown, Esq.
LAVALLE, BROWN & RONAN
750 South Dixie Highway
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 395-0000
E-mail: jbrown@lavallebrown.com
Plaintiff-Appellee DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OF THE STATE OF NEW
JERSEY AND ITS DIVISION OF INVESTMENT, On Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
James Abram Harrod, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-0000
Telephone: (212) 554-1502
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
E-mail: jim.harrod@blbglaw.com
- and -
Scott D. Simpkins, Esq.
CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO & GAROFOLI CO., LPA
55 Public Square, Suite 1950
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 621-8484
Facsimile: (216) 771-1632
E-mail: sdsimp@climacolaw.com
Defendants-Appellees CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC., JOSEPH
CARRABBA, LAURIE BRLAS, TERRY PARADIE and DAVID BLAKE are
represented by:
Adrienne Ferraro Mueller, Esq.
John M. Newman, Jr., Esq.
Geoffrey John Ritts, Esq.
JONES DAY
901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114-0000
Telephone: (216) 586-7370
Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
E-mail: afmueller@jonesday.com
jmnewman@jonesday.com
gjritts@jonesday.com
CONFORMIS INC: Plaintiff's Time to Appeal Expired
-------------------------------------------------
ConforMIS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiff's time
to appeal the dismissal of a class action lawsuit has expired.
The Company said, "On September 3, 2015, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us, our Chief Executive
Officer, and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint was
brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our
common stock in connection with our initial public offering or on
the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015, which we
refer to as the class period."
"On January 11, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed
purporting to allege claims arising under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock was
artificially inflated during the class period because the
defendants allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make
proper disclosures regarding our manufacturing process prior to
our voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient-
specific instrumentation for certain of our knee replacement
product systems. The complaint sought, among other relief,
certification of the class, unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.
"On March 18 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims
of the consolidated amended complaint. On August 3, 2016, the
court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety, denied the
plaintiffs' request to replead their allegations, and dismissed
the lawsuit.
"The plaintiffs did not file an appeal, and the time for filing an
appeal has expired."
ConforMIS is a medical technology company that uses the Company's
proprietary iFit Image-to-Implant technology platform to develop,
manufacture and sell joint replacement implants that are
individually sized and shaped to fit each patient's unique
anatomy.
CVS PHARMACY: "Dorfman" Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------
Robert Dorfman, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., a Rhode Island
Corporation, Defendant, was removed from Superior Court of San
Diego County, Central Division, Case No. 37-2016-00017884-CU-NP-
CTL, to the U.S. District Court of Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago) Case No. 1:17-cv-00156 on January 10, 2017.
Defendant CVS Pharmacy is a subsidiary of the American retail and
health care company CVS Health, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode
Island.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brittany Courtney Casola, Esq.
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP
402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 756-6994
Fax: (619) 756-6991
Email: bcasola@carlsonlynch.com
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
Zaveri Tabb, APC
402 West Broadway
Suite 1950
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 831-6988
Fax: (619) 239-7800
Email: dev@zaveritabb.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lisa S. Yun, Esq.
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
501 West Broadway, 19th floor
San Diego, CA
Tel: (619) 338-6541
Fax: (619) 234-3815
Email: lyun@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Mark S. Eisen
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
70 W. Madison Street, 48th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312) 499-6300
Fax: (312) 499-6301
Email: meisen@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Shannon Z Petersen, Esq.
Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
501 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-3598
Tel: (619) 338-6500
Fax: (619) 234-3815
Email: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com
CYTRX CORPORATION: Securities Litigation Underway
-------------------------------------------------
CytRx 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 class action lawsuit in
California.
The Company said, "On July 25 and 29, 2016, nearly identical class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, titled Crihfield v. CytRx Corp.,
et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05519 and Dorce v. CytRx Corp., Case No.
2:16-cv-05666 alleging that we and certain of our officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making
materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failing to
disclose material adverse facts to the effect that the clinical
hold placed on the Phase 3 trial of aldoxorubicin for STS would
prevent sufficient follow-up for patients involved in the study,
thus requiring further analysis, which could cause the trial's
results and/or FDA approval to be materially adversely affected or
delayed. The plaintiffs allege that such wrongful acts and
omissions caused significant losses and damages to a class of
persons and entities that acquired our securities between November
18, 2014 and July 11, 2016, and seek an award of compensatory
damages, costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees,
and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper."
On October 26, 2016, the Court entered an Order consolidating the
actions titled In re: CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 16-cv-05519-SJO and appointing a Lead Plantiff and
Lead Counsel.
The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against the
foregoing complaints. We have directors' and officers' liability
insurance, which will be utilized in the defense of these matters.
The liability insurance may not cover all of the future
liabilities we may incur in connection with the foregoing matters.
These claims are subject to inherent uncertainties, and
management's view of these matters may change in the future."
CytRx is a biopharmaceutical research and development company
specializing in oncology.
DANA HOLDING: Brown Appeals Decision in Pension Funds Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff M. Brown filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the
lawsuit titled Plumbers and Pipe Fitters National Pension Fund, et
al. v. Michael Burns, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-07393, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.
The appellate case is captioned as Plumbers and Pipe Fitters
National Pension Fund, et al. v. Michael Burns, et al., Case No.
16-4764, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge James
Carr has given preliminary approval to a $64-million settlement to
be paid to investors by two former Dana Holding Corp. top
executives, who were the target of the securities-fraud class
action lawsuit.
The settlement would resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by union
pension groups in 2005 that accuses Michael Burns, Dana's former
chief executive, and Robert Richter, the former chief financial
officer, of knowingly misleading investors about financial woes
atDana in the years leading up to its bankruptcy in 2006.
Mr. Burns, the CEO from 2004 to 2008, left when the company
emerged from Chapter 11 reorganization. Mr. Richter, CFO and vice
president from 1999 to 2006, retired just days before Dana filed
for bankruptcy. The lead plaintiffs were the Plumbers & Pipe
fitters National Pension Fund, SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust,
and West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund.
Movant-Appellant JEFF M. BROWN represents himself:
Jeff M. Brown, Esq.
LAVALLE, BROWN & RONAN
750 South Dixie Highway
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 395-0000
E-mail: jbrown@lavallebrown.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees PLUMBERS AND PIPE FITTERS NATIONAL PENSION
FUND, SEIU PENSION PLANS MASTER TRUST and WEST VIRGINIA LABORERS
PENSION TRUST FUND, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:
Debra Jean Wyman, Esq.
ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: debraw@rgrdlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees MICHAEL J. BURNS and ROBERT C. RICHTER are
represented by:
Joel W. Sternman, Esq.
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
575 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 940-8800
Facsimile: (212) 940-6728
E-mail: j.sternman@kattenlaw.com
EAGLE PHARMACEUTICALS: March 20 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Bauer"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-03091 (D.N.J.), a motion to dismiss the case has been set
for hearing for March 20, 2017, before Judge Jose L. Linares.
Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be
decided on the papers and no appearances are required, according
to a docket entry made on Dec. 21, 2016.
Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend against the
"Bauer" securities class action lawsuit, 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 May 31, 2016, a federal securities class-action lawsuit
(captioned Bauer v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
16-cv-03091-JLL-JAD) was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer.
On August 1, 2016, plaintiffs Blake Bauer, Brent Kawamura and
Guarang Patel (the "EGRX Investors Group"), filed a motion
requesting the court to appoint the EGRX Investors Group as lead
plaintiff and Kirby McInerney LLP as lead counsel. The motion was
granted on September 9, 2016.
On October 31, 2016, the EGRX Investors Group filed an amended
class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the
defendants, seeking compensatory damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Amended
Complaint alleges the defendants violated the sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as amended, by making false
and/or misleading statements about, among other things: (a) EP-
6101, (b) the Company's expectations regarding the New Drug
Application submitted for EP-6101, and (c) the Company's business
prospects.
The defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint was December 16, 2016.
EBIX INC: Third Amended Class Action Complaint Filed
----------------------------------------------------
Ebix, 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 Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Class
Action and Derivative Complaint.
On December 3, 2012, the Company received a subpoena and letter
from the SEC dated November 30, 2012, stating that the SEC is
conducting a formal, non-public investigation styled In the Matter
of Ebix, Inc. (A-3318) and seeking documents primarily related to
the issues raised in the In re: Ebix, Inc. Securities Litigation.
On April 16, 2013, the Company received a second subpoena from the
SEC seeking additional documents. The Company has cooperated with
the SEC to provide the requested documents. The Company has had no
substantive communication with the SEC since February 2014.
On June 6, 2013, the Company was notified that the U.S. Attorney
for the Northern District of Georgia had opened an investigation
into allegations of intentional misconduct that had been brought
to its attention from the then-pending shareholder class action
lawsuit against the Company's directors and officers, the media
and other sources. The Company has cooperated with the U.S.
Attorney's office.
Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's
execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs &
Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the
proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
These complaints name as Defendants some combination of the
Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were
consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In
re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCS.
On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement
had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement
Agreement dated June 19, 2013. After Defendants moved to dismiss
the consolidated proceeding, Lead Plaintiffs amended their
operative complaint to drop their claims against Goldman Sachs &
Co. and focus their allegations on an Acquisition Bonus Agreement
("ABA") between the Company and Robin Raina.
On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its
Memorandum Opinion that granted in large part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss and narrowed the remaining claims. On September 15,
2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its Memorandum
Opinion.
On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order permitting
Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint. On
February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part in a January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order.
The remaining claims are as follows: (i) a purported class and
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty by the individual
Defendants for improperly maintaining the ABA as an unreasonable
anti-takeover device; (ii) a purported class claim against the
individual Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of
disclosure to the stockholders with respect to the Company's 2010
Proxy Statement and 2010 Stock Incentive Plan; (iii) a purported
derivative claim against the individual Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty to the Company in causing incentive compensation to
be awarded to themselves and others under the 2010 Stock Incentive
Plan; (iv) a purported class and derivative claim for breach of
fiduciary duty by the individual Defendants in adopting certain
bylaw amendments on December 19, 2014; and, (v) a purported class
and derivative claim seeking invalidation of the December 19, 2014
bylaw amendments under Delaware law.
Lead Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief with respect to the 2010
Stock Incentive Plan, the 2010 Proxy Statement, and the bylaw
amendments. Lead Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The parties have filed
answers to the remaining claims in the Second Amended and
Supplemented Complaint and discovery has commenced.
On October 25, 2016, the Court entered an Order permitting
Plaintiffs to file a Verified Third Amended and Supplemented Class
Action and Derivative Complaint, which was then filed on October
26, 2016. The Company denies any liability and intends to defend
the action vigorously.
Ebix, Inc. is a global supplier of software and e-commerce
solutions to the insurance, financial, and healthcare industries,
as well as e-governance solutions to governmental agencies in the
health and education sectors. Ebix provides a variety of
application software products for the insurance industry including
carrier systems, broker systems, agency systems and data exchanges
to custom software development for all entities involved in
insurance and financial services.
FIRST TRINITY: Class Action v. FBLIC Underway
---------------------------------------------
First Trinity Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
FBLIC continues to defend against a class action lawsuit.
Prior to its acquisition by TLIC, FBLIC developed, marketed, and
sold life insurance products known as "Decreasing Term to 95"
policies. On January 17, 2013, FBLIC's Board of Directors voted
that, effective March 1, 2013, it was not approving, and therefore
was not providing, a dividend for the Decreasing Term to 95
policies. On November 22, 2013, three individuals who owned
Decreasing Term to 95 policies filed a Petition in the Circuit
Court of Greene County, Missouri asserting claims against FBLIC
relating to FBLIC's decision to not provide a dividend under the
Decreasing Term to 95 policies.
On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended petition. Like the
original Petition, the amended Petition asserts claims for breach
of contract and anticipatory breach of contract, and alleges that
FBLIC breached, and will anticipatorily breach, the Decreasing
Term to 95 policies of insurance by not providing a dividend
sufficient to purchase a one year term life insurance policy which
would keep the death benefit under the Decreasing Term to 95
policies the same as that provided during the first year of
coverage under the policy. It also asserts claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"). It alleges that during its
sale of the Decreasing Term to 95 policies, FBLIC represented that
the owners of these policies would always be entitled to dividends
to purchase a one-year term life insurance policy and that the
owners would have a level death benefit without an increase in
premium.
The main difference between the original Petition and the amended
Petition is that the amended Petition also seeks equitable relief
based on two new theories: that the Decreasing Term to 95 policies
should be reformed so that they will provide a level death benefit
for a level premium payment until the policyholder reaches 95
years of age; and alternatively, Count VIII of the amended
Petition asks the Court to (1) find that the dividend provisions
in the Decreasing Term to 95 policies violate Missouri law,
specifically, Sec. 376.360 RSMo.; (2) order that the policies are
void ab initio; and (3) order that FBLIC return all premiums
collected under these policies. In addition, as part of the MMPA
claim, plaintiffs are now alleging that FBLIC undertook a
fraudulent scheme to sell the Decreasing Term to 95 policies as a
level premium for level benefit even though FBLIC never intended
to pay dividends for the life of the policies and that part of
this alleged fraudulent scheme included having a dividend option
which is not allowed under Missouri law.
FBLIC denies the allegations in the amended Petition and will
continue to defend against them.
On February 1, 2016, the plaintiffs asked that the Court certify
the case as a class action. With their motion, Plaintiffs filed an
affidavit from an actuary stating the opinion that FBLIC has
collected at least $2,548,939 in premiums on the Decreasing Term
to 95 policies. This presumably is the amount that Plaintiffs will
seek to be refunded to policyholders if the policies are declared
void. FBLIC opposed the request for class certification.
On July 21, 2016, the Court certified three classes to maintain
the claims for breach of contract, anticipatory breach of
contract, violation of the MMPA, reformation, and to void the
Decreasing Term to 95 policies.
On August 1, 2016, FBLIC filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with
the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District asking for
permission to appeal the Court's class certification. The Petition
for Leave to Appeal was denied.
FBLIC intends to defend vigorously against the class and
individual allegations. The Company is unable to determine the
potential magnitude of the claims in the event of a final
certification and the plaintiffs prevailing on this substantive
action.
FIRSTCASH INC: "Samtoy" Class Action Concluded
----------------------------------------------
Firstcash, 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 class action
lawsuit by Andrew Samtoy has concluded.
On July 6, 2016, Andrew Samtoy, a purported shareholder of Cash
America, filed a Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Petition
in the District Court of Dallas County of the State of Texas,
styled Samtoy et al. v. Stuart et al., DC-16-08063 (the "Samtoy
Action"), against Cash America's board of directors, the Company,
Merger Sub, and Cash America. The petition in the Samtoy Action
asserted direct and derivative claims against Cash America's board
of directors for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with their
approval of the proposed Merger including direct and derivative
claims against the Company and Merger Sub for allegedly aiding and
abetting Cash America's board of directors' breach of fiduciary
duties.
Plaintiff, however, in September 2016 non-suited and withdrew the
petition, and the judge signed the order of non-suit on September
19, 2016, concluding the Samtoy Action.
The Company is an operator of retail-based pawn stores with over
2,000 store locations in the United States and Latin America.
HEART TO HEART CARE: O'Campo Alleges Violation of Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia O'Campo, Plaintiff, individually and all others similarly
situated v. Heart To Heart Care, Inc., a California Corporation
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC646081
(Cal. Super. Ct., January 9, 2017), seeks minimum wage and
overtime compensation for Defendant's alleged violation of the
Labor Code.
The Suit claims that the Defendant failed to properly pay
Plaintiff and other members of the Class for all hours worked and
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek and/or eight
hours in a workday at time and one-half their regular rate in
violation of California age and hour laws.
Defendant Heart To Heart Care, Inc. is a privately owned company
which provides services for near-end-of-life patients.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Christina M. Lucio, Esq.
James Hawkins APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Tel: (949) 387-7200
Fax: (949) 387-6676
Email: james@jameshawkinsaple.com
Christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com
ICONIX BRAND: Moved to Dismiss Securities Action
------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand 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 Company
and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss a consolidated
amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend against the
claims.
Three securities class actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG,
Niksich v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al. , Docket No. 1:15-cv-
04860-PGG and Haverhill Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group,
Inc. et al Docket No. 1:15 - cv 06658, have been consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain former officers and one
current officer (each, a "Class Action" and, together, the "Class
Actions"). The plaintiffs in the Class Actions purport to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that
the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the
Company's business operations and prospects.
The Company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend
against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to
estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter.
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Abrams" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Lonnie M. Smith, Gary S.
Guthart and Marshall L. Mohr filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Spencer Abrams, et al. v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-01920-EJD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 11,
2017, the Hon. Edward J. Davila entered an order:
1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:
"all persons or entities who purchased or acquired the
publicly traded common stock of Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
during the period from February 6, 2012 through July 18,
2013, inclusive, and who were damaged,"
2. appointing Lead plaintiffs Employees' Retirement System of
the State of Hawaii and Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters'
Pension Fund as Class Representatives; and
3. appointing law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as class
counsel.
The appellate case is captioned as Spencer Abrams, et al. v.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80001, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff-Respondent SPENCER ABRAMS, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
707 Broadway, 10th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
E-mail: mblasy@scott-scott.com
- and -
Arthur Charles Leahy, Esq.
Danielle Suzanne Myers, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: artl@rgrdlaw.com
dmyers@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Shawn Anthony Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
100 Pine Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
Plaintiff-Respondent EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF
HAWAII is represented by:
Mark S. Arisohn, Esq.
Alec T. Coquin, Esq.
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Jonathan M. Plasse, Esq.
Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0840
Facsimile: (212) 883-7040
E-mail: marisohn@labaton.com
acoquin@labaton.com
cfox@labaton.com
jgardner@labaton.com
jplasse@labaton.com
mstocker@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
Plaintiff-Respondent GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND
is represented by:
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005-1108
Telephone: (212) 907-0840
Facsimile: (212) 883-7040
E-mail: jgardner@labaton.com
mstocker@labaton.com
cvillegas@labaton.com
- and -
Danielle Suzanne Myers, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Shawn Anthony Williams, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
100 Pine Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
Plaintiff-Respondent PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND
RETIREMENT FUND OF CHICAGO is represented by:
Jennifer R. Crutchfield, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: jcrutchfield@cpmlegal.com
Defendants-Petitioners Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Lonnie M. Smith,
Gary S. Guthart and Marshall L. Mohr are represented by:
Michael David Celio, Esq.
Cody S. Harris, Esq.
John Watkins Keker, Esq.
Laurie Carr Mims, Esq.
Philip James Tassin, Esq.
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
E-mail: mdc@kvn.com
charris@kvn.com
jkeker@kvn.com
lmims@kvn.com
ptassin@kvn.com
ISORAY INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for March 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, 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 final class
action settlement approval hearing is scheduled for March 7, 2017.
On May 22, 2015, the first of three lawsuits was filed against
IsoRay, Inc. and two of its officers -- Dwight Babcock (the
Company's retired CEO) and Brien Ragle, CFO -- related to a press
release on May 20, 2015 regarding a May 19 online publication of
the peer-reviewed article in the journal Brachytherapy titled
"Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation vs. Wedge Resection vs. Wedge
Resection Plus Cesium-131 Brachytherapy in Early-Stage Lung
Cancer" by Dr. Bhupesh Parashar, et al. The lawsuits are class
actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
By Order dated August 17, 2015, all of the pending lawsuits were
consolidated into one case -- In re IsoRay, Inc. Securities
Litigation; Case No. 4:15-cv-05046-LRS, in the US District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington. On October 16, 2015, an
amended complaint was filed with more detailed allegations
relating to alleged violations of federal securities laws.
On December 15, 2015, IsoRay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint altogether. On June 1, 2016, the court entered an order
denying IsoRay's motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint's
allegations, if accepted as true, state a plausible claim to
relief. The order did not adjudicate the merits of the lawsuit. No
other issues were decided in the ruling.
On June 15, 2016, IsoRay filed their answer to the amended
complaint.
On September 23, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement which, if it becomes final, will provide for a payment
to the plaintiff class of $3,537,500, which will be paid by our
insurers. On October 4, 2016, the stipulation of settlement was
filed with the court, along with plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 20, 2016, the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Following
notice to class members, the class action is subject to final
approval by the court. A final approval hearing is scheduled for
March 7, 2017.
If the proposed settlement is not approved by the court or if
IsoRay is otherwise unable to obtain a favorable resolution of the
claims set forth in the complaint, the lawsuit could have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition.
IsoRay, Inc. is a brachytherapy device manufacturer with FDA
clearance and CE marking for a single medical device that can be
delivered to the physician in multiple configurations as
prescribed for the treatment of cancers in multiple body sites.
The Company manufactures and sells this product as the Cesium-131
brachytherapy seed.
KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Issued Shares, Paid $250,000 in Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kalobios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company has issued as of September 30, 2016, 300,000 shares and
made a $250,000 payment related to a class action settlement.
On December 18, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (captioned
Li v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., 5:15-cv-05841-EJD)
was filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (the "Class Action
Court"), alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the
Company, Herb Cross and Martin Shkreli, the Company's former
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. On December 23, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the
Class Action Court (captioned Sciabacucchi v. KaloBios
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., 3:15-cv-05992-CRB), similarly
alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the Company
and Mr. Shkreli. On December 31, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Class Action Court
(captioned Isensee v. KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case
No. 15-cv-06331-EJD) also alleging violation of the federal
securities laws by the Company, a former officer and Mr. Shkreli.
On April 18, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the Isensee
suit, adding Herb Cross and Ronald Martell as defendants.
On April 28, 2016, the Class Action Court consolidated these cases
(the "Securities Class Action Litigation") and appointed certain
plaintiffs as the lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs in the
Securities Class Action Litigation were seeking damages of $20.0
million on behalf of all the affected members of the class
represented in the Securities Class Action Litigation, (the
"Securities Class Action Members").
On June 15, 2016, a settlement stipulation (the "Securities Class
Action Settlement"), was approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Subject
to the approval of the Class Action Court, the Securities Class
Action Settlement required the Company to issue 300,000 shares of
common stock and submit a payment of $250,000 to the Securities
Class Action Members and advance insurance proceeds of $1.25
million to the Securities Class Action Members (collectively, the
consideration is the "Securities Class Action Settlement
Consideration").
Subject to the final approval of the Securities Class Action
Settlement, any Securities Class Action Member is entitled to
share in the Securities Class Action Settlement Consideration. The
Securities Class Action Settlement provides for releases and
related injunctions to be granted for the benefit of, among
others, the Company, Ronald Martell, Herb Cross and all of the
Company's past, present and future directors, officers and
employees, excluding Mr. Shkreli. Alternatively, Securities Class
Action Members may exclude themselves from the Securities Class
Action Settlement and are thereby not bound by the terms of the
Securities Class Action Settlement nor entitled to receive any
amount of the Securities Class Acton Settlement Consideration.
Such Securities Class Action Members, to the extent they properly
exclude themselves from the Securities Class Action Settlement and
have timely and properly filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy
case, may have certain rights under the Plan with respect to such
claims. Pursuant to the Plan and Confirmation Order, such claims
are subordinated to the level of the Company's common stock that
was issued and outstanding when the Company's bankruptcy case was
filed. Such claims are also subject to the Company's objection or
other response.
The Company's agreement to the Securities Class Action Settlement
was not in any way an admission of the Company's wrongdoing or
liability. As of September 30, 2016, the 300,000 shares have been
issued and the $250,000 payment has been made.
KaloBios is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
medicines for patients with neglected and rare diseases, with an
ancillary focus on pediatric conditions.
KELLOGG COMPANY: Hawkins Appeals S.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Shavonda Hawkins filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Shavonda Hawkins v. Kellogg Company, Case No.
3:16-cv-00147-JAH-JMA, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought for injunctive relief, abatement of nuisance,
violations of the unfair competition law, and breach of implied
warranty in relation to the Defendant's sale of "Trans Fat
Cookies" (TF Cookies), which allegedly contain or contained
partially hydrogenated oil.
The appellate case is captioned as Shavonda Hawkins v. Kellogg
Company, Case No. 17-55035, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Shavonda Hawkins' opening brief is due on
April 17, 2017;
-- Appellee Kellogg Company's answering brief is due on
May 15, 2017;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
service of the answering brief.
Plaintiff-Appellant SHAVONDA HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Gregory Weston, Esq.
THE WESTON FIRM
1405 Morena Boulevard, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 255-7098
E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com
Defendant-Appellee KELLOGG COMPANY is represented by:
Kenneth K. Lee, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
633 West 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-5152
E-mail: KLee@jenner.com
KING COUNTY, WA: Appeal Filed in "Moore" Suit v. Sheriff Urquhart
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cherrelle Davis, Nina Davis, Eva Moore and Brooke Shaw
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Eva
Moore, et al. v. John Urquhart, Case No. 2:16-cv-01123-TSZ, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.
John Urquhart is the 33rd Sheriff of King County, Washington.
The appellate case is captioned as Eva Moore, et al. v. John
Urquhart, Case No. 16-36086, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Opening brief of Appellants Cherrelle Davis, Nina Davis,
Eva Moore and Brooke Shaw is due April 7, 2017;
-- Appellee John Urquhart's answering brief is due May 8,
2017; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
service of the answering brief.
Plaintiffs-Appellants EVA MOORE, BROOKE SHAW, CHERRELLE DAVIS and
NINA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
936 North 34th Street
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
E-mail: tmarshall@tmdlegal.com
Defendant-Appellee JOHN URQUHART, in his official capacity as King
County Sheriff, is represented by:
David J. Hackett, Esq.
KING COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
500 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 477-9483
E-mail: david.hackett@kingcounty.gov
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: "Guerra" Claims Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
Linear Technology Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the claims of
David Guerra, have been subsequently dismissed with prejudice.
On July 26, 2016, the Company announced that it had entered into a
definitive merger agreement with Analog Devices, Inc., a
Massachusetts corporation, under which a wholly owned subsidiary
of Analog Devices will merge with and into the Company, and the
Company will survive as a wholly owned subsidiary of Analog
Devices.
On September 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Analog Acquisition was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California captioned David
Guerra v. Linear Technology Corp. et al. (the "Action") on behalf
of a putative class of the Company's public shareholders.
The Company said, "The Action alleged that the Company and the
Board failed to comply with federal securities laws by failing to
disclose material information in our definitive proxy statement,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 19,
2016. While the Company believes that the definitive proxy
statement disclosed all material information, in order to avoid
the burden, expense and distraction of litigation, the Company
filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 12, 2016 to supplement the
disclosures in the definitive proxy statement and agreed to pay
certain attorneys' fees. The claims of the named Plaintiff were
subsequently dismissed with prejudice on October 24, 2016."
"We believe that any future litigation or proceedings would be
without merit, but there can be no assurance that they will not be
brought. If additional litigation or other legal proceedings are
in fact brought against us or our Board, we intend to defend
against it vigorously, but we might not be successful in doing so.
An adverse outcome in such matters, as well as the costs and
efforts of a defense even if successful, could have a material
adverse effect on our business, results of operation or financial
condition, including through the possible diversion of our
resources or distraction of key personnel.
"Further, one of the conditions to the completion of the Analog
Acquisition is that no injunction by any court or other tribunal
of competent jurisdiction be in effect that temporarily or
permanently prohibits, enjoins or makes illegal the consummation
of the Analog Acquisition. As such, if any of the plaintiffs are
successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the consummation
of the Analog Acquisition, that injunction may prevent the Analog
Acquisition from becoming effective or from becoming effective
within the expected timeframe."
Linear Technology, a member of the S&P 500, has been designing,
manufacturing and marketing a broad line of high performance
analog integrated circuits for major companies worldwide for over
three decades.
LONG BEACH EUROCARS: Motaque Alleges Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Jemal L. Motaque, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Long Beach Eurocars, LLC, a limited
Liability Company doing business in California and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC646087 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 9, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
provide complete and accurate wage statement.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant knowingly and
intentionally failed to comply with its obligation to provide a
complete and accurate wage statement under the Labor Code.
Defendant operates "Mercedes-Benz of Long Beach" an auto
dealership located at 2300 E. Spring Street, Signal Hill, CA
90755.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Dionisios Aliazis, Esq.
Mahoney Law Group
249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 908032
Tel: (562) 590-5550
Fax: (562) 590-8400
Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
Daliazis@mahoney-law.net
MARION COUNTY, IN: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Driver" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Michael Boyd, Terry Clayton, Michael Driver, Roy
Shofner and Nicholas Swords filed an appeal from a court ruling in
their lawsuit titled Michael Driver, et al. v. Marion County
Sheriff's Depar, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs claim that Marion County Sheriff John Layton has a
policy or practice of holding inmates for up to 72 hours after
they are ordered released. The suit filed in December 2014 and
amended two months later claims potentially thousands of people
were held longer than jailers were legally allowed. Plaintiffs
allege in some cases people were held up to five days after their
release orders were approved.
The Sheriff's Department has blamed computer systems that were
inadequate to ensure the timely release of prisoners as a key
problem that resulted in the detentions.
The appellate case is captioned as Michael Driver, et al. v.
Marion County Sheriff's Department, et al., Case No. 16-4239, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The appellate case has been transferred from Miscellaneous Docket
No. 16-8024 to this current docket.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript information sheet was due by January 10, 2017;
and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before February 6, 2017, for
Michael Boyd, Terry Clayton, Michael Driver, Roy Shofner
and Nicholas Swords.
Plaintiffs-Appellants MICHAEL DRIVER, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL BOYD,
NICHOLAS SWORDS and ROY SHOFNER, individually and as
representatives of a class of all similarly situated individuals,
are represented by:
Richard A. Waples, Esq.
WAPLES & HANGER
410 N. Audubon Road
Indianapolis, IN 46219
Telephone: (317) 357-0903
Facsimile: (317) 357-0275
E-mail: rwaples@wapleshanger.com
- and -
John P. Young, Esq.
YOUNG & YOUNG
128 N. Delaware Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-0000
Telephone: (317) 639-5161
Facsimile: (317) 639-4978
E-mail: john@youngandyoungin.com
Defendants-Appellees MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT and
CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY are
represented by:
Anthony W. Overholt, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
201 N. Illinois Street
P.O. Box 44961
Indianapolis, IN 46204-4236
Telephone: (317) 237-3936
E-mail: aoverholt@fbtlaw.com
MDL 2380: Morales Appeals Ruling to Third Circuit
-------------------------------------------------
Nonparty Shirley Morales filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the multidistrict litigation entitled In re: Shop-Vac Marketing
and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 4-12-md-02380, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Shop-Vac Corporation and Lowe's
Home Centers, LLC misrepresented the peak horsepower ratings and
tank capacity of the Vacuums. The Defendants deny these
allegations.
The Parties have settled the litigation. The Settlement, among
other things, would extend the manufacturer's warranty on the
motors of the Vacuums for at least 2 years. The Settlement also
includes changes to the descriptions of peak horsepower ratings
and tank capacity on marketing materials.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Shop-Vac Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 16-4425, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Another nonparty -- Michelle W. Vullings -- also filed an appeal.
That appeal was assigned Case No. 16-4370.
The Clerk of the Appellate Court entered an order ruling that both
appeals are consolidated for purposes of scheduling, joint
appendix and disposition.
Not Party-Appellant SHIRLEY MORALES is represented by:
Mardi Harrison, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARDI HARRISON
25 North Main Street
Doylestown, PA 18901
Telephone: (267) 880-1180
Facsimile: (267) 880-3823
E-mail: mardi@SueTheBoss.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees ALAN MCMICHAEL, ANDREW HARBUT, KRIS REID,
DAVID PALOMINO and SCOTT GIANNETTI are represented by:
Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 613-5646
Facsimile: (212) 273-4333
E-mail: jczeisler@milberg.com
sdumain@milberg.com
arado@milberg.com
- and -
Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 877-3820
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
E-mail: bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com
- and -
Robert I. Lax, Esq.
LAX LLP
380 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10168
Telephone: (212) 818-9150
Facsimile: (212) 208-4309
E-mail: rlax@lax-law.com
- and -
James J. Rodgers, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 575-7000
Facsimile: (215) 575-7200
E-mail: jrodgers@dilworthlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees SHOP VAC CORP., LOWES HOME CENTERS INC.,
LOWES HIW INC., and LOWES HOME CENTERS LLC are represented by:
Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6143
E-mail: mcampbell@sidley.com
mshortnacy@sidley.com
Defendants-Appellees SHOP VAC CORP. and LOWES HOME CENTERS LLC are
represented by:
Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6143
E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com
Defendant-Appellee SHOP VAC CORP. is represented by:
Thomas G. Collins, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
409 North Second Street, Suite 500
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 237-4843
E-mail: collinstg@bipc.com
MDL 2380: Vullings Appeals Ruling to Third Circuit
--------------------------------------------------
Nonparty Michelle W. Vullings filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the multidistrict litigation entitled In re: Shop-Vac Marketing
and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 4-12-md-02380, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Shop-Vac Corporation and Lowe's
Home Centers, LLC misrepresented the peak horsepower ratings and
tank capacity of the Vacuums. The Defendants deny these
allegations.
The Parties have settled the litigation. The Settlement, among
other things, would extend the manufacturer's warranty on the
motors of the Vacuums for at least 2 years. The Settlement also
includes changes to the descriptions of peak horsepower ratings
and tank capacity on marketing materials.
The appellate case is captioned as In re: Shop-Vac Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 16-4370, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Not Party-Appellant Michelle W. Vullings is represented by:
Brent F. Vullings, Esq.
VULLINGS LAW GROUP, LLC
3953 Ridge Pike
Collegeville, PA 19426
Telephone: (610) 489-6060
Facsimile: (610) 489-1997
E-mail: bvullings@vullingslaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee EMANUELE DIMARE is represented by:
Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
PARKER & WAICHMAN LLP
3301 Bonita Beach Road
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Telephone: (239) 390-1000
Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees EMANUELE DIMARE and DEBORAH BLAYLOCK, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Brian F. Fox, Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
E-mail: bfox@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees EMANUELE DIMARE, DEBORAH BLAYLOCK, IGOR
SELIZHUK, FRED PHILLIPS, CHARLES KATES and WALT LAVESPERE are
represented by:
James C. Munley, Esq.
MUNLEY LAW
227 Penn Avenue
The Forum Plaza
Scranton, PA 18508
Telephone: (570) 346-7401
Facsimile: (570) 346-3452
E-mail: cmunley@munley.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees EMANUELE DIMARE, DEBORAH BLAYLOCK, ALAN
MCMICHAEL, ANDREW HARBUT, SCOTT MAHONEY, IGOR SELIZHUK, FRED
PHILLIPS, CHARLES KATES, WALT LAVESPERE, DEBRA JOHNSON and KRIS
REID are represented by:
Elizabeth J. Goldstein, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
112 Market Street, Suite 800
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 213-4106
Facsimile: (717) 236-7811
E-mail: egoldstein@dilworthlaw.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees EMANUELE DIMARE, DEBORAH BLAYLOCK, ALAN
MCMICHAEL, ANDREW HARBUT, CLAY SCOTT, SCOTT MAHONEY, IGOR
SELIZHUK, FRED PHILLIPS, CHARLES KATES, WALT LAVESPERE, DEBRA
JOHNSON and KRIS REID are represented by:
James J. Rodgers, Esq.
DILWORTH PAXSON LLP
1500 Market Street, Suite 3500E
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 575-7000
Facsimile: (215) 575-7200
E-mail: jrodgers@dilworthlaw.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE RICHMAN LLP
875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
Plaintiff-Appellee DEBORAH BLAYLOCK, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
Eric D. Holland, Esq.
HOLLAND GROVES SCHNELLER & STOLZE LLC
300 North Tucker, Suite 801
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 241-8111
Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com
eholland@allfela.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
30 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-0000
Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee ALAN MCMICHAEL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Paul J. Andrejkovics, Esq.
Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 613-5646
Facsimile: (212) 273-4333
E-mail: pandrejkovics@milberg.com
jczeisler@milberg.com
sdumain@milberg.com
sfoglietta@milberg.com
arado@milberg.com
- and -
Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & RIVAS, LLC
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 877-3820
Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
E-mail: bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees ALAN MCMICHAEL and ANDREW HARBUT are
represented by:
Robert I. Lax, Esq.
LAX LLP
380 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10168
Telephone: (212) 818-9150
Facsimile: (212) 208-4309
E-mail: rlax@lax-law.com
Plaintiffs-Appellees ALAN MCMICHAEL, ANDREW HARBUT and SCOTT
MAHONEY are represented by:
Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Bonner C. Walsh, Esq.
WALSH LLC
100 East Corsicana Street, Suite 208
Athens, TX 75751
Telephone: (903) 574-1807
Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
E-mail: bonner@walshpllc.com
Plaintiff-Appellee ANDREW HARBUT, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
William J. Pinilis, Esq.
PINILISHALPERN
160 Morris Street
Morristown, NJ 07960
Telephone: (973) 401-1111
Facsimile: (973) 401-1114
E-mail: wpinilis@consumerfrandlawyer.com
- and -
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 613-5646
Facsimile: (212) 273-4333
E-mail: arado@milberg.com
Plaintiff-Appellee CLAY SCOTT is represented by:
Robert I. Lax, Esq.
LAX LLP
380 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10168
Telephone: (212) 818-9150
Facsimile: (212) 208-4309
E-mail: rlax@lax-law.com
Plaintiff-Appellee SCOTT MAHONEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Nicole M. Acchione, Esq.
Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq.
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
Woodland Falls Corporate Park
220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 482-5222
Facsimile: (856) 482-6980
E-mail: nacchione@schnader.com
lrodriguez2@schnader.com
Plaintiff-Appellee IGOR SELIZHUK is represented by:
Jerrold S. Parker, Esq.
PARKER & WAICHMAN LLP
111 John Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 267-6700
Facsimile: (516) 466-6665
E-mail: Jerry@yourlawyer.com
Plaintiff-Appellee FRED PHILLIPS is represented by:
Caroline F. Bartlett, Esq.
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO PC
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
E-mail: cbartlett@carellabyrne.com
JCecchi@CarellaByrne.com
decklund@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Scott A. George, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 553-7982
E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
Plaintiff-Appellee CHARLES KATES is represented by:
Nicholas J. Drakulich, Esq.
Robert J. Drakulich, Esq.
THE DRAKULICH FIRM
2727 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 322
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (858) 755-5887
Facsimile: (858) 755-6456
E-mail: rjd@draklaw.com
njd@draklaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee WALT LAVESPERE is represented by:
Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
Douglas E. Rushton, Jr., Esq.
NEBLETT BEARD & ARSENAULT
2220 Bonaventure Court
P.O. Box 1190
Alexandria, LA 71301
Telephone: (318) 487-9874
Facsimile: (318) 561-2591
E-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com
drushton@nbalawfirm.com
Plaintiff-Appellee DEBRA JOHNSON is represented by:
Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
BECNEL LAW FIRM
106 West Seventh Street
Reserve, LA 70084
Telephone: (985) 536-1186
Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
E-mail: mmoreland@becnellaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee KRIS REID is represented by:
Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10119
Telephone: (212) 613-5646
Facsimile: (212) 273-4333
E-mail: arado@milberg.com
Defendants-Appellees SHOP VAC CORP, LOWES HOME CENTERS INC, LOWES
HIW INC and LOWES HOME CENTERS LLC are represented by:
Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
Michael B. Shortnacy, Esq.
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 896-6143
E-mail: mcampbell@sidley.com
mmallow@sidley.com
mshortnacy@sidley.com
Defendant-Appellee SHOP VAC CORP is represented by:
Thomas G. Collins, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
409 North Second Street, Suite 500
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 237-4843
E-mail: collinstg@bipc.com
MGM RESORTS: Appeal in Securities Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International 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 appeal
related to the case, In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case
No. 2:09-cv-01558-GMN-LRL, remains pending.
In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada consolidated
the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-
RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM
MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-RJJ, filed October 19,
2009) putative class actions under the caption "In re MGM MIRAGE
Securities Litigation." The cases named the Company and certain
former and current directors and officers as defendants and allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. After transfer of the cases in
2010 to the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, the court appointed
several employee retirement benefits funds as co-lead plaintiffs
and their counsel as co-lead and co-liaison counsel. In January
2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009, the
Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.
In September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Defendants answered the amended
complaint, the court entered a scheduling order and discovery
commenced. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
November 2014. Defendants filed their opposition to class
certification in February 2015. The court heard oral argument on
the class certification motion on April 21, 2015 and took the
matter under advisement. No trial date was set in this case.
In July 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants agreed in
principle to settle the securities class actions. In August 2015,
the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claims against the Company
and the named former and current directors and officers will be
dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $75
million cash payment by the Company's directors and officers
liability insurers. In August 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed with
the court an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement Agreement. In September 2015, the court entered an
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, preliminarily certified
the class for settlement purposes only, established class
notification procedures and scheduled a hearing to determine
whether to grant final approval to the settlement.
On March 1, 2016 the court conducted a settlement hearing and
entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice
(the "Final Judgment"). At the hearing, the court considered,
among other factors, the strength of the available defenses on the
merits, the size of the settlement, the non-objections to the
settlement by more than 200,000 putative members of the settlement
class, and the express endorsement of the settlement by the four
court-appointed institutional lead plaintiffs. Only one class
member objected to the adequacy of the settlement and the court
entering Final Judgment. The court entered the Final Judgment over
his objection.
In the Final Judgment, the court found that the settlement was
fair, reasonable and adequate to the settlement class in all
respects. The court granted final approval of the Settlement
Agreement, dismissed the actions and all released claims with
prejudice as to all defendants, and expressly provided that
neither the settlement nor associated negotiations and proceedings
constitute an admission or evidence of liability, fault or
omission by the defendants.
On March 25, 2016, the objector filed a Notice of Appeal as to the
Final Judgment and related orders entered by the court concerning
the plan of settlement distribution and award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to the lead plaintiffs' counsel. The appeal is in the
briefing stage, with appellant's opening brief having been filed
on August 5, 2016; defendants/appellees and plaintiffs/appellees
having filed their respective answering briefs on October 6, 2016;
and a November 23, 2016 filing deadline for appellant's optional
reply brief.
The Company and all other defendants plan to vigorously defend the
Final Judgment on appeal. If the Final Judgment is affirmed, the
Company may pursue an award of damages against the objector on the
grounds that the appeal filed was frivolous. If the Final Judgment
is reversed on appeal, the Company and other defendants will
vigorously defend against the claims asserted in these securities
cases.
MGM's primary business is the ownership and operation of casino
resorts, which offer gaming, hotel, convention, dining,
entertainment, retail and other resort amenities.
MONEY STORE: Mazzei Seeks Writ of Certiorari from Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Joseph Mazzei, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner v. The Money
Store, et al., Case No. 15-2054, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari to the Supreme Court of United States of America.
The Supreme Court Case is captioned as Joseph Mazzei, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Petitioner v. The Money
Store, et al., Case No. 16-809.
Response to the petition is due on January 23, 2017.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Circuit Judge
Dennis Jacobs of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed a
district court's judgment decertifying a class in Mr. Mazzei'
Appellate Case.
In 1994, Joseph Mazzei obtained a mortgage loan from his employer,
The Money Store. At that time, The Money Store was a loan servicer
and mortgage lender. Mazzei missed payments on the loan for years
beginning in late 1997, and received three notices of default in
1998. In 1999, The Money Store changed ownership, and Mazzei was
laid off. Soon after, The Money Store ceased originating loans and
became HomEq Servicing Corp.
Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Mazzei initiated a class action against
The Money Store et al., alleging, inter alia, overcharge of late
fees on mortgages, and prevailed in a jury trial. The United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Koeltl,J.) (i) granted defendants-appellees' post-verdict motion
to decertify (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C)) a
class that was previously certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3); and (ii) entered judgment in favor only of Mazzei, the
putative class representative.
The certified class action eventually went to trial. The jury
returned a verdict in favor of Mazzei and the class on the late
fee claims. It awarded Mazzei $133.80, and it awarded the class
approximately $32 million plus prejudgment interest.
After trial, and before the entry of judgment, The Money Store
moved for decertification of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), or, in the alternative, the entry of
judgment as a matter of law on the class late fee claims pursuant
to Federal Rule 50.
In his Order dated July 15, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Lc3723
from Leagle.com, Judge Jacobs concluded that the district court
did not abuse discretion in determining that, given the failure of
class-wide evidence as to privity at trial, Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)
requirements were not satisfied and decertification was therefore
warranted.
Petitioner Joseph Mazzei is represented by:
Paul Grobman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PAUL GROBMAN
535 Fifth Ave. 17th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-5880
E-mail: crobtown@aol.com
MOTION PICTURE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Forsyth" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Timothy Forsyth filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit entitled Timothy Forsyth v. Motion Picture Association
of America, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00935-RS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 2,
2016, District Judge Richard Seeborg granted the Defendants'
motion to strike and in the alternative dismiss the Case.
The Defendants are major movie studios, the National Association
of Theater Owners (NATO), and the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA). The Defendants control the Classification and
Rating Administration (CARA), which was established by NATO and
the MPAA, and operated as a division of the MPAA. CARA is
responsible for determining movie ratings.
Timothy Forsyth, father of two children, ages 12 and 13, and has
bought them tickets to PG-13-rated movies that featured tobacco
imagery. According to Forsyth, defendants have known since 2003
that tobacco imagery in films is not appropriate for children and
adolescents because it can promote tobacco use, which in turn
causes disease and death. Forsyth alleges defendants have failed
to respond appropriately to such fact, and have wrongly applied
ratings less stringent than "R" to movies containing tobacco
imagery.
On behalf of a putative class, Mr. Forsyth brought claims for
negligence, negligence in a voluntary undertaking, breach of
fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, unfair competition,
false advertising, negligent misrepresentation, and private and
public nuisance. Forsyth's prayer for relief seeks class
certification, over $20 million in damages, and various forms of
declaratory and injunctive relief. Primarily, Forsyth seeks an
injunction requiring defendants to assign an "R" rating to all
movies depicting tobacco, unless the presentation of tobacco
clearly and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences of
tobacco use or is necessary to represent the smoking of a real
historical figure who actually used tobacco.
The appellate case is captioned as Timothy Forsyth v. Motion
Picture Association of America, Inc., Case No. 16-17362, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript must be ordered by January 30, 2017;
-- Transcript is due on February 27, 2017;
-- Appellant Timothy Forsyth's opening brief is due on
April 10, 2017;
-- Answering brief of Appellees Motion Picture Association of
America, Inc., National Association of Theatre Owners,
Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, Universal City Studios LLC and Warner Bros.
Entertainment Inc. is due on May 10, 2017; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
service of the answering brief.
Plaintiff-Appellant TIMOTHY FORSYTH, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals, is represented by:
John Jacobs, Esq.
Bryan Kolton, Esq.
JACOBS KOLTON, CHARTERED
55 West Monroe Street, Suite 2970
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 427-4000
Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
E-mail: jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com
bgkolton@jacobskolton.com
- and -
Jeffrey F. Keller, Esq.
KELLER GROVER LLP
1965 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Telephone: (415) 543-1305
Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
E-mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com
- and -
David Schachman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID SCHACHMAN, PC
55 West Monroe, Suite 2970
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 427-9500
Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
E-mail: ds@schachmanlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC.,
a New York corporation; THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation; PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; SONY PICTURES ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware
corporation; TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC, a Delaware corporation;
WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware corporation; and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THEATRE OWNERS, a New York corporation,
are represented by:
Adam Isaac Kaplan, Esq.
Achyut Jayant Phadke, Esq.
MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4016
E-mail: adam.kaplan@mto.com
Achyut.Phadke@mto.com
- and -
Kelly M. Klaus, Esq.
Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 683-9238
E-mail: Kelly.Klaus@mto.com
Glenn.Pomerantz@mto.com
- and -
K. Lee Marshall, Esq.
Roger Rex Myers, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 675-3444
Facsimile: (415) 675-3434
E-mail: klmarshall@bryancave.com
roger.myers@bryancave.com
NANTKWEST INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
NantKwest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint in th securities class
action lawsuit remains pending.
In March 2016, a securities class action complaint captioned
Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01947 was filed
in federal district court for the Central District of California
related to the Company's restatement of certain interim financial
statements for the periods ending June 30, 2015 and September 30,
2015.
In May 2016 a similar complaint was filed, captioned Forsythe v.
NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-03438; those two cases
subsequently were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was
filed on August 4, 2016. The consolidated complaint names as
defendants the Company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and various investment banks which served as
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering. The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief on
behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired
the Company's securities during various time periods from July 28,
2015 through March 11, 2016.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. Management intends to vigorously defend these
proceedings.
"At this time, we cannot predict how the Court will rule on the
merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the
event of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable,
our liability could have a material adverse effect on our results
of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred,"
the Company said.
NantKwest is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on
harnessing the power of the innate immune system by using the
natural killer cell to treat cancer, infectious diseases and
inflammatory diseases. Natural killer, or NK, cells are the body's
first line of defense due to their innate ability to rapidly seek
and destroy abnormal cells, such as cancer or virally-infected
cells, without prior exposure or activation by other support
molecules required to activate adaptive immune cells such as T-
cells.
NANTKWEST INC: 4 Class Actions Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
NantKwest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that four class action
complaints have been removed to the federal district court for the
Central District of California and consolidated with the
Sudunagunta and Forsythe cases.
In May 2016, the first of several complaints was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County also related to the
Company's restatement of certain interim financial statements.
Those complaints are captioned Wagner v. NantKwest, Inc., et al.,
No. BC621292, Frye v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. BC621665, Hare
v. NantKwest, Inc., No. BC621836, and Wiencek v. NantKwest, Inc.
et al., No. BC623233. The complaints allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misrepresentations or
omissions in the Company's initial public offering registration
statement. The complaints name as defendants the Company, certain
of its current and former officers and directors, various
investment banks which served as underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering, and two venture funds. The complaints
seek unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and recession
or other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased common stock in and/or traceable to the Company's July
28, 2015 initial public offering.
These four complaints were subsequently removed to the federal
district court for the Central District of California and on
October 11, 2016, were consolidated with the Sudunagunta and
Forsythe cases.
Management intends to vigorously defend these proceedings.
"At this time, we cannot predict how the Court will rule on the
merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the
event of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable,
the liability could have a material adverse effect on our results
of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred,"
the Company said.
NantKwest is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on
harnessing the power of the innate immune system by using the
natural killer cell to treat cancer, infectious diseases and
inflammatory diseases. Natural killer, or NK, cells are the body's
first line of defense due to their innate ability to rapidly seek
and destroy abnormal cells, such as cancer or virally-infected
cells, without prior exposure or activation by other support
molecules required to activate adaptive immune cells such as T-
cells.
NORDSTROM INC: Kelen Appeals Order and Judgment to Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ester Kelen filed an appeal from the District Court's
opinion and order dated December 16, 2016, and judgment dated
December 19, 2016, both entered in the lawsuit styled Kelen v.
Nordstrom, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-1617, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.
The appellate case is captioned as Kelen v. Nordstrom, Inc., Case
No. 16-4275, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant Ester Kelen, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq.
BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
26 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 248-7906
E-mail: jonathanmiller314@gmail.com
Defendants-Appellees Nordstrom, Inc., and Nordstrom FSB, DBA
Nordstrom Bank, are represented by:
David John Fioccola, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
250 West 55th Street
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 468-8000
E-mail: dfioccola@mofo.com
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss a shareholder class action complaint
remains pending.
On August 26, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland. The lawsuit names the Company and CEO Linda
Powers as defendants.
On December 14, 2015, the court appointed two lead plaintiffs. The
Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 12, 2016,
purportedly on behalf of all of those who purchased common stock
in NW Bio between January 13, 2014 and August 21, 2015. The
amended complaint generally claims that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making misleading statements and/or omissions on a variety
of subjects, including the status and results of the Company's
DCVax trials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs. The Company and Ms. Powers filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on April 12, 2016.
The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on
June 13, 2016. The Company and Ms. Powers filed a reply in support
of their motion to dismiss on July 28, 2016. The Company intends
to vigorously defend the case.
Northwest Biotherapeutics is a biotechnology company focused on
developing immunotherapy products to treat cancers more
effectively than current treatments, without toxicities of the
kind associated with chemotherapies, and, through a proprietary
batch manufacturing process, on a cost-effective basis, initially
in the United States, Canada and Europe.
NURSING CARE: Initial Conference in "Golding" Suit on Jan. 20
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dahlia Golding, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Nursing Care Center at Medford,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 615488/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., January 9,
2017), a preliminary conference has been set for January 20, 2017
at 10:00 a.m.
Defendant Nursing Care Center at Medford, Inc. is engaged in
nursing home.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
1613 Northern Blvd.
Roslyn, NY 11576
Tel: (516) 625-0105
The Defendant is represented by:
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
58 SOUTH SERVICE RD, STE 250
MELVILLE, NY 11747
Tel: (631) 247-0404
PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in Alan Presswood Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C., filed an appeal from a Memo & Order
dated October 25, 2016, a Memo & Order and an Order both dated
November 30, 2016, entered in the lawsuit entitled Alan Presswood
v. Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00592-
NAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis.
The appellate case is captioned as Alan Presswood v. Pernix
Therapeutics Holdings, et al., Case No. 17-1010, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Bankruptcy
Judge Laura K. Grandy of the Southern District of Illinois
Bankruptcy Court denied the request of Robert T. Bruegge, the
Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee in the case of Alan Lee Presswood, to
compromise the Chapter 7 Debtor's interest in a class action
lawsuit.
Debtor Alan Presswood (Debtor) filed a Chapter 7 petition on
May 29, 2012 and movant Robert T. Bruegge was appointed Trustee of
the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy case is captioned, IN RE:
ALAN LEE PRESSWOOD, Chapter 7, Debtor(s), Case No. 12-60237
(Bankr. S.D. Ill.)
At the time that the petition was filed, the Debtor did not
schedule or otherwise disclose any pre-petition claims or causes
of action in which he may have an interest.
On February 25, 2015, Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C. filed a class
action lawsuit against Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (Pernix)
and other defendants in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri (Case No. 15SL-CC00687) based, inter alia, on alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA). Specifically, the class action complaint alleges that in
April 2011, Pernix sent two unsolicited facsimiles to the Debtor
in violation of the TCPA. Pernix subsequently removed the suit to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (Case No. 15-cv-00592-NAB) where it remains pending. To
date, the punitive class remains unidentified and uncertified.
The Plaintiff-Appellant Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON & WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
bwanca@andersonwanca.com
- and -
Max G. Margulis, Esq.
MARGULIS LAW GROUP
28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Telephone: (636) 536-7022
Facsimile: (636) 536-6652
E-mail: MaxMargulis@MargulisLaw.com
Defendants-Appellees Pernix Therapeutics Holdings and Somaxon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are represented by:
Grace Greenhall, Esq.
Craig Mills, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
1835 Market Street, 14th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-8700
Facsimile: (215) 665-8760
E-mail: grace.greenhall@bipc.com
craig.mills@bipc.com
- and -
Sean Patrick Dolan, Esq.
EVANS & DIXON LLC
501 W. Cherry Street, Suite 200
Columbia, MO 65201
Telephone: (573) 777-8823
E-mail: sdolan@evans-dixon.com
Defendant-Appellee Pernix Therapeutics Holdings is represented by:
Christopher James Dalton, Esq.
BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
550 Broad Street, Suite 810
Newark, NJ 07102-4582
Telephone: (973) 273-9800
Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com
POPULAR INC: Discovery Underway in "Valle" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 discovery is
ongoing in the case Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank.
PCB has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community
Bank, filed in November 2012 in the New York State Supreme Court
(New York County). Plaintiffs, PCB customers, allege among other
things that PCB has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade
practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and
payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint
further alleges that PCB improperly disclosed its consumer
overdraft policies and that the overdraft rates and fees assessed
by PCB violate New York's usury laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25,
2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the
putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss
the amended complaint was filed in February 2014. In August 2014,
the Court entered an order granting in part PCB's motion to
dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to PCB's item processing
policy.
On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted
in the court's decision and order. PCB subsequently filed a motion
in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further
sought to compel arbitration.
In June 2015, this matter was reassigned to a new judge and on
July 22, 2015, such Court denied PCB's motion to compel
arbitration and granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint to replead certain claims based on item processing
reordering, misstatement of balance information and failure to
notify customers in advance of potential overdrafts. The Court did
not, however, allow plaintiffs to replead their claim for the
alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. On August 24, 2015, PCB filed a Notice of Appeal as to
the order granting leave to file the second amended complaint and
on September 17, 2015, it filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.
On February 18, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
PCB's pending motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiffs'
unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices claim to the extent
it sought to recover overdraft fees incurred prior to September
2011.
On March 28, 2016, PCB filed an answer to second amended complaint
and on April 7, 2016, it filed a notice of appeal on the partial
denial of PCB's motion to dismiss. A mediation session held on
September 21, 2016 proved unsuccessful. Discovery is ongoing.
Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United
States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides
retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its
principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and
equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through
specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation
operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses
efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA
operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under
the name of Popular Community Bank.
POPULAR INC: Fee Dispute in "Quiles" Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 dispute over
counsel fees remains pending in the case, Neysha Quiles et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al., remains pending.
BPPR has been named a defendant in a putative class action
complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico et al., filed in December 2013 in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR).
Plaintiffs essentially allege that they and others, who have been
employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly
titled positions, have been paid only for scheduled work time,
rather than time actually worked. The complaint seeks to maintain
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on
behalf of all individuals formerly or currently employed by BPPR
in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands as hourly paid, non-exempt,
bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time
during the past three years. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that BPPR violated FLSA by willfully failing to pay overtime
premiums. Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law.
On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for
conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed.
On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it
granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the
FLSA action. Following the Court's order, plaintiffs sent out
notices to all purported class members with instructions for
opting into the class. Approximately sixty potential class members
opted into the class prior to the expiration of the opt-in period.
On June 25, 2015, the Court denied with prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. On October 20, 2015, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the referenced action for an
immaterial amount, subject to their reaching an agreement on the
payment of reasonable attorneys' fees. The parties submitted
briefing to the Court on this issue and on September 20, 2016, the
Court dismissed plaintiffs' request without prejudice. A copy of
the Court's ruling is available at https://is.gd/t7CIZE from
Leagle.com.
According to the Court, "plaintiffs may refile their motion not
later than November 1, 2016, with contemporaneous time records
describing the specific work done and time spent on each such work
the day it was performed by each of the attorneys on whose behalf
payment of fees is requested. If no such records exist, they
should so certify, discussing with reference to relevant caselaw,
the effect of not having presented those records in the analysis
of fees to be awarded. Similarly, the motion must include an
explanation of the items for which costs are requested, and must
be accompanied by documents (such as receipts), in support of the
expenses claimed as recoverable costs. The court will consider the
request for fees and costs anew upon filing in conformity with
this Order."
Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United
States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides
retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its
principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and
equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through
specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation
operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses
efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA
operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under
the name of Popular Community Bank.
POPULAR INC: Answers to "Fernandez" Amended Complaint Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-02859 (S.D.N.Y.), Popular Securities, LLC filed an answer
to the Amended Complaint on January 13, 2017. UBS A.G., UBS Bank
USA, UBS Financial Services Inc., UBS Financial Services
Incorporated of Puerto Rico, and UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico
also filed their answer to the Amended Complaint.
Popular, 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 BPPR and Popular
Securities have been named defendants in a putative class action
complaint captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (SDNY) on May 5, 2014 on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto
Rico closed-end investment companies. UBS Financial Services
Incorporated of Puerto Rico, another named defendant, is the
sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co-sponsor,
together with UBS, of nine of those funds. Plaintiffs allege
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against Popular
Securities, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against
BPPR, and similar claims against the UBS entities. The complaint
seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and
attorneys' fees.
On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class
action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually
identical complaint in the USDC-PR and requested that the case be
consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services
Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the
USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties.
The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation
request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the
ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a
choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The
Popular defendants joined the opposition and motion filed by UBS.
By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court
granted defendants' motion to transfer.
On May 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the SDNY
containing virtually identical allegations with respect to Popular
Securities and BPPR. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on June 18, 2015.
Oral arguments were held on the motions to dismiss in front of
Judge Stein of the SDNY on October 14, 2016. Those motions are
pending the Court's determination.
Popular, Inc. (the "Corporation") is a diversified, publicly-owned
financial holding company subject to the supervision and
regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the United
States and the Caribbean. In Puerto Rico, the Corporation provides
retail, mortgage, and commercial banking services through its
principal banking subsidiary, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico
("BPPR"), as well as investment banking, broker-dealer, auto and
equipment leasing and financing, and insurance services through
specialized subsidiaries. In the U.S. mainland, the Corporation
operates Banco Popular North America ("BPNA"). BPNA focuses
efforts and resources on the core community banking business. BPNA
operates branches in New York, New Jersey and South Florida under
the name of Popular Community Bank.
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: To Defend Against Securities Action
--------------------------------------------------------
ProNAi Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
believes that the claims in a securities class action complaint
are without merit and that it intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
The Company said, "On November 9, 2016, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of
our executive officers. The lawsuit was brought by purported
stockholders of our company seeking to represent a class
consisting of stockholders who purchased stock between July 15,
2015 and June 6, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief."
"Due to the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to
predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make a
meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome."
ProNAi is a clinical-stage drug development company focused on
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer.
SAVEOLOGY.COM LLC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of "Stoba" Case Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Elephant Group, Inc., Saveology.com, LLC and Time
Warner Cable, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to the lawsuit titled George Stoba, et al. v. Saveology.com, LLC,
et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02925-BAS-NLS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California, San Diego.
The appellate case is captioned as George Stoba, et al. v.
Saveology.com, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-56903, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Daphne Stoba and George Stoba previously filed two appeals to
the Ninth Circuit. Those appellate cases are assigned Case Nos.
16-56866 and 16-80130.
In their complaint, the Stobas allege they were contacted on
multiple occasions on their landline by a telemarking company,
Saveology.com. Defendant Elephant Group, Inc., is the parent
company of Saveology. Saveology made the contacts on behalf of
Defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. The Stobas allege that their
telephone calls were recorded without their consent and without
the proper notice, all in violation of California law, including
the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- First cross appeal brief is due on March 24, 2017, for
Daphne Stoba and George Stoba;
-- Second brief on cross appeal is due on April 24, 2017, for
Elephant Group, Inc., Saveology.com, LLC and Time Warner
Cable, Inc.;
-- Third brief on cross appeal is due on May 24, 2017, for
Daphne Stoba and George Stoba; and
-- Optional cross appeal Reply brief for Elephant Group, Inc.,
Saveology.com, LLC and Time Warner Cable, Inc. is due
within 14 days of service of Third brief on cross appeal.
Plaintiffs-Appellees GEORGE STOBA and DAPHNE STOBA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:
Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
6156 Innovation Way
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Telephone: (760) 929-9303
E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com
- and -
James M. Treglio, Esq.
CLARK & TREGLIO LLP
205 W. Date Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 239-1321
Facsimile: (888) 273-4554
- and -
Christina Elizabeth Wickman, Esq.
Steven Allen Wickman, Esq.
WICKMAN & WICKMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
500 La Terraza Boulevard, Suite 150
Escondido, CA 92025
Telephone: (760) 732-3300
Facsimile: (619) 271-8656
E-mail: Christina@wickmanlaw.com
Steve@wickmanlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees SAVEOLOGY.COM, LLC, ELEPHANT GROUP, INC., and
TIME WARNER CABLE, INC. are represented by:
Rachel Jari Feldman, Esq.
Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 620-7700
E-mail: rfeldman@whitecase.com
bmerryman@whitecase.com
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Appeals Decision in "Farris" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Aaron Boogaerts
and Sherri Ross filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Christopher Farris, et al. v. Schlumberger Technology
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00012-RRB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska, Anchorage.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges unpaid overtime compensation.
The appellate case is captioned as Christopher Farris, et al. v.
Schlumberger Technology Corporation, et al., Case No. 17-80000, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiffs-Respondents CHRISTOPHER FARRIS and CALEB SAUNDERS, on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:
Kenneth W. Legacki, Esq.
KENNETH W. LEGACKI, P.C.
425 "G" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 258-2422
Facsimile: (907) 278-4848
E-mail: legacki@gci.net
Defendants-Petitioners SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, AARON
BOOGAERTS and SHERRI ROSS are represented by:
Robert P. Lombardi, Esq.
Samuel Zurik, III, Esq.
THE KULLMAN FIRM
1100 Poydras Street
1600 Energy Centre
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 524-4162
Facsimile: (504) 596-4114
E-mail: rpl@kullmanlaw.com
sz@kullmanlaw.com
SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Brown" Suit in W.D. Ark.
-----------------------------------------------------
Eugene Brown and Sharon Velazquez, Plaintiffs, on behalf all
others similarly situated v. Securus Technologies, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-05008-TBLB (W.D. Ark., January 10,
2017), is brought against the Defendant for alleged contract
violation.
Defendant Securus is an American for-profit prison technology
company based in Dallas, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy C. Martin, Esq.
P.O. Box 765
Fayetteville, AR 72702
Tel: (479) 422-4611
Email: theamymartin@gmail.com
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS: Defending Against "Williams" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sorrento 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 believes that the class action by Yvonne Williams is
without merit, and will vigorously defend itself against the
action.
On September 8, 2016, Yvonne Williams filed an action both
derivatively and on behalf of a purported class of stockholders in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against each of the
members of the Prior Board; George Ng, the Company's Executive
Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, and Chief Legal
Officer; Jeffrey Su, the Company's Executive Vice President &
Chief Operating Officer; and the Company as nominal defendant,
alleging: (1) breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the
Subsidiary Options Claim; and (2) breach of fiduciary duty with
respect to the Yuhan Agreement Claim (the "Williams Action").
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will occur
with respect to the Williams Action or to estimate the range of
such potential loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued
by the Company as of the date of filing of this Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the Company
will prevail in this suit or receive any damages or other relief
if it does prevail.
Sorrento Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in
the discovery, acquisition, development and commercialization of
proprietary drug therapeutics for addressing significant unmet
medical needs worldwide.
SOUTHWEST GLASS: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Nez" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Nez, Jr., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled 1:15-CV-01041-RJ-LF, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico - Albuquerque.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover wages for all hours worked, and an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs from the Defendants under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New Mexico Public Works Minimum Wage Act and New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
The appellate case is captioned as Nez, Jr., et al. v. Southwest
Glass and Glazing, et al., Case No. 17-700, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Response to petition for permission to appeal is due on Jan. 19,
2017, for Defendants-Respondents Southwest Glass and Glazing,
Inc., Anthony S. Baca, Carol McCarthy, and Kira A. Sowanic.
Plaintiffs-Petitioners HENRY NEZ, JR., HAROLD BROWN, VERNON YAZZIE
and HECTOR MAYORGA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Caroline N. Cohen, Esq.
Caren Sencer, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1001 Marina Village, Suite 200
Alameda, CA 94501
Telephone: (510) 337-1001
E-mail: ccohen@unioncounsel.net
csencer@unioncounsel.net
- and -
James Montalbano, Esq.
Shane Youtz, Esq.
YOUTZ & VALDEZ PC
900 Gold Avenue, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87102-0000
Telephone: (505) 244-1200
Facsimile: (505) 242-9700
E-mail: james@youtzvaldez.com
shane@youtzvaldez.com
Defendants-Respondents SOUTHWEST GLASS AND GLAZING, INC., ANTHONY
S. BACA, CAROL MCCARTHY, and KIRA A. SOWANIC are represented by:
Christopher Murray Moody, Esq.
Repps D. Stanford, Esq.
MOODY & WARNER, P.C.
4169 Montgomery Boulevard, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Telephone: (505) 944-0033
Facsimile: (505) 944-0034
E-mail: moody@nmlaborlaw.com
stanford@nmlaborlaw.com
SPARK NETWORKS: Says Settlement Amounts Have Been Paid
------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that all amounts
related to the settlement of the cases, Werner, et al. v. Spark
Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v.
Spark Networks, Inc., Spark Networks USA, LLC, et al., have been
paid as of September 30, 2016.
On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action
Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks").
The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website
ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation. The Werner Complaint requests the following
relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just
and appropriate.
On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class
Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark
Networks, Inc. The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks,
Inc.'s commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com,
LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com,
MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com
violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The Wright
Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and
an award for any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.
A motion filed by Spark Networks to coordinate the two matters in
Los Angeles Superior Court was granted. During the nine months
ended September 30, 2016, the parties reached a settlement
including the following terms: (1) individual settlement payments
of $4,000 each in statutory damages and $5,000 each in service
awards to plaintiffs Werner and Wright, and (2) $450,000 in
attorneys' fees and costs to compensate Werner and Wright's
counsel for their time and out-of-pocket expenses.
On April 19, 2016, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for an
order granting approval of the settlement. On June 27, 2016, the
judge approved the settlement during the hearing on the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. All amounts have
been paid as of September 30, 2016.
The common stock of Spark Networks, Inc. is traded on the NYSE MKT
under the ticker symbol LOV. The Company is a leader in creating
communities that help individuals form life-long relationships
with others that share their interests and values. The Company's
core properties, JDate and ChristianMingle, are communities geared
towards singles of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
SPARK NETWORKS: Settlement of Israeli Consumer Suits Awaits OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the judge in the
Israeli Consumer Actions Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel)
Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark
Networks (Israel) Ltd., has not yet approved the settlement
agreement.
Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging
inter alia violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of
1981. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark Israel") was served
with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class
Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014. The plaintiff
alleges that Spark Israel refused to cancel her subscription and
provide a refund for unused periods and claims that such a refusal
is in violation of the Consumer Protection Law.
Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a motion to
Certify it as a Class Action in the Gever action on January 21,
2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel renewed his one
month subscription without receiving his positive agreement in
advance and claims that such renewal is prohibited under the
Consumer Protection Law and its regulations.
Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to
Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12,
2014. The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel refused to give her
a full refund and charged her the price of a one month
subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer
Protection Law.
In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal
damages and damages on behalf of a defined group. On May 8, 2014,
the Court granted Spark Israel's motion to consolidate all three
cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be litigated
jointly.
Spark Israel's combined response to these motions to certify the
class actions was filed November 1, 2014, and the plaintiffs
responded to the combined response. The parties had a hearing
before the judge on December 24, 2014. Following the hearing the
judge ordered that the pleadings filed by the parties be
transferred to the Israel Consumer Council ("ICC") so that the ICC
can provide its position as to the parties' allegations within 90
days. The ICC issued its opinion on April 1, 2015. Following the
filing of the ICC opinion, the parties filed briefs addressing the
ICC opinion.
On January 7, 2016, the parties advised the Court that they have
agreed on the terms of a settlement agreement, and jointly moved
to approve the agreement and give it the effect of a judgment.
According to the terms of the settlement agreement, clients who
bought a subscription to JDate.co.il on October 12, 2008 or later
will be entitled to receive certain benefits. The settlement
agreement, which provides for compensation and legal fees, will
only come into effect if the court approves it.
On January 14, 2016 the Court ordered the parties to publish the
terms of the proposed settlement agreement. The Court allowed for
the Attorney General or any person who wishes to object to the
settlement or exclude himself from the class to file their
position with the Court through March 10, 2016.
On March 10, 2016, the Consumer Council filed an objection to the
settlement agreement, arguing inter alia that the benefits offered
to the clients are insufficient, and that the Company's new
business model does not comply with certain legal requirements.
The Company and the plaintiffs filed their responses on March 24,
2016.
On April 14, 2016, the Attorney General notified the Court that it
has no objection to the settlement agreement. As of September 30,
2016, the judge has not yet approved the settlement agreement.
The Company has recorded an accrual of $52,000 for the probable
cost related to resolving this matter as of September 30, 2016.
The common stock of Spark Networks, Inc. is traded on the NYSE MKT
under the ticker symbol LOV. The Company is a leader in creating
communities that help individuals form life-long relationships
with others that share their interests and values. The Company's
core properties, JDate and ChristianMingle, are communities geared
towards singles of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Ruling in Suit Over School Program Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Disability Law Center, Inc., Parent/Professional Advocacy League
and S. S. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled S.S., et al. v. City of Springfield, et al., Case No. 3:14-
cv-30116-MGM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Springfield.
The appellate case is captioned as S.S., et al. v. City of
Springfield, et al., Case No. 17-8001, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Dec. 28,
2016, District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni issued a ruling
that rejected the lawsuit against the City and School Department
that sought to end a public day school program for students with
mental health issues.
The ruling was praised by school officials who called it a
"vindication" of the public day school program. City and school
officials denied the students were being improperly segregated
from the regular classrooms and defended the programs and services
being provided in the day school program.
"It's a significant win not just for the district but for all
public schools in Massachusetts and their special education
students," said Melinda Phelps, a lawyer representing the School
Department. "It's a vindication for the hard work day in and day
out of the Springfield Public School Program."
School Committee Vice-Chairman Christopher Collins agreed, saying
it upholds the Springfield approach and the people providing
services from the principals down to the counselors and teachers.
The civil suit was initially filed by a parent of a teen with
mental health issues, with the student identified in the suit as
S.S. It was filed on his behalf and "other similarly situated
students" and by the Parent/Professional Advocacy League and the
Disability Law Center. The motion for "Class Certification" was
denied by Judge Mastroianni in a ruling.
Appearance form in the Appellate Case is due on January 18, 2017.
The First Circuit also notified the parties that the December 1,
2016 amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure make
significant changes to appellate practice. The full text of the
amendments, as well as a summary of major rule changes, is
available at https://goo.gl/tzUpHu The changes were effective on
December 1, 2016.
Plaintiffs-Petitioners S. S., a minor, by his mother, S.Y., on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated students,
PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE and DISABILITY LAW CENTER,
INC., are represented by:
Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103-0000
Telephone: (860) 240-2700
E-mail: michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com
- and -
Matthew T. Bohenek, Esq.
Elizabeth M. Bresnahan, Esq.
Jacqueline S. Delbasty, Esq.
Jeff Goldman, Esq.
Robert E. McDonnell, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110-1726
Telephone: (617) 951-8945
Facsimile: (617) 951-8736
E-mail: matthew.bohenek@morganlewis.com
elizabeth.bresnahan@morganlewis.com
jacqueline.delbasty@morganlewis.com
jeff.goldman@morganlewis.com
robert.mcdonnell@morganlewis.com
- and -
Ira A. Burnim, Esq.
Jennifer Mathis, Esq.
BAZELON CENTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH LAW
1101 15th St., N.W., Suite 1212
Washington, DC 20005-5002
Telephone: (202) 467-5730
Facsimile: (202) 223-0409
E-mail: irab@bazelon.org
jenniferm@bazelon.org
- and -
Deborah Alyse Dorfman, Esq.
Robert D. Fleischner, Esq.
Samuel R. Miller, Esq.
Sandra J. Staub, Esq.
CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
22 Green St.
Northampton, MA 01060-0000
Telephone: (413) 586-6024
E-mail: ddorfman@cpr-ma.org
rfleischner@cpr-ma.org
smiller@cpr-ma.org
sstaub@cpr-ma.org
- and -
Carol Elisabeth Head, Esq.
MA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
One Ashburton Pl
Boston, MA 02108-0000
Telephone: (617) 963-2690
E-mail: carol.head@state.ma.us
Defendant-Respondent SPRINGFIELD, MA, is represented by:
Mary Ellen Manganelli, Esq.
BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
33 Broad Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 368-2503
Facsimile: (617) 368-2525
E-mail: mmanganelli@bulkley.com
- and -
Melinda Marsh Phelps, Esq.
KEYES & DONNELLAN PC
1243 Main St.
Springfield, MA 01103-0000
Telephone: (413) 781-2820
- and -
Lisa Caryl deSousa, Esq.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LAW DEPARTMENT
36 Court Street, Room 210
Springfield, MA 01103-0000
Telephone: (413) 787-6085
Facsimile: (413) 787-6173
E-mail: ldsousa@springfieldcityhall.com
Defendants-Respondents SPRINGFIELD, MA; SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC
SCHOOLS; DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR., in his official capacity as Mayor
of City of Springfield; and DANIEL J. WARWICK, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools, are
represented by:
Edward M. Pikula, Esq.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LAW DEPARTMENT
36 Court Street, Room 210
Springfield, MA 01103-0000
Telephone: (413) 787-6085
Facsimile: (413) 787-6173
E-mail: epikula@springfieldcityhall.com
Defendants-Respondents SPRINGFIELD, MA, and SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC
SCHOOLS are represented by:
Mary Jane Kennedy, Esq.
1500 Main St.
P.O. Box 15507
Springfield, MA 01115-0000
Telephone: (413) 781-2820
Defendants-Respondents SPRINGFIELD, MA, and DOMENIC J. SARNO, JR.,
in his official capacity as Mayor of City of Springfield, are
represented by:
Anthony Ivan Wilson, Esq.
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, LAW DEPARTMENT
36 Court Street, Room 210
Springfield, MA 01103-0000
Telephone: (413) 787-6085
Facsimile: (413) 787-6173
E-mail: awilson@springfieldcityhall.com
Interested Party UNITED STATES is represented by:
Dina Michael Chaitowitz, Esq.
Michelle L. Leung, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
One Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
Boston, MA 02110-0000
Telephone: (617) 748-3361
Facsimile: (617) 748-3967
E-mail: dina.chaitowitz@usdoj.gov
michelle.leung@usdoj.gov
- and -
Karen L. Goodwin, Esq.
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
300 State Street, Suite 230
Springfield, MA 01105-2926
Telephone: (413) 785-0269
Facsimile: (413) 785-0394
E-mail: karen.goodwin@usdoj.gov
- and -
Anne Langford, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Telephone: (202) 616-2727
E-mail: anne.langford@usdoj.gov
STERICYCLE INC: Defending Against Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 lawsuit.
The Company said, "On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs purported to
sue for themselves and on behalf of all purchasers of our publicly
traded securities between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016,
inclusive, and all those who purchased securities in our public
offering of depositary shares, each representing a 1/10th interest
in a share of our mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or
around September 15, 2015. The complaint named as defendants the
Company, our directors and certain of our current and former
officers, and certain of the underwriters in the public offering.
The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC
Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company imposed unauthorized or excessive
price increases and other charges on its customers in breach of
its contracts, and that defendants failed to disclose those
alleged practices in public filings and other statements issued
during the proposed class period beginning February 7, 2013 and
ending April 28, 2016."
"On August 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint that
purports to assert additional misrepresentations in public
statements through July 28, 2016, and therefore to change the
putative class period to the period from February 7, 2013 to July
28, 2016, inclusive.
"On October 21, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Corrected Amended
Complaint adding the Company as a named defendant in plaintiff's
Count I, asserting a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act,
which had previously been asserted only against the Underwriters
and certain officers and directors.
"On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead
Counsel and ordered the parties to confer on a schedule going
forward.
"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this lawsuit."
Stericycle is a business-to-business services provider with a
focus on regulated and compliance solutions for healthcare,
retail, manufacturing, and commercial businesses. This includes
the collection and processing of regulated and specialized waste
for disposal and the collection of personal and confidential
information for secure destruction, plus a variety of training,
consulting, recall/return, communication, and compliance services.
SUNRUN INC: Baker et al. Class Suits Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the Baker, Brown, Cohen,
Mancy, Nunez, Pytel and Steinberg class actions lawsuits have been
consolidated.
On April 13, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Pytel v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538215, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of the Company's directors and officers, the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering and certain
other defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 by making false or misleading statements in connection
with the Company's August 5, 2015 initial public offering
regarding the continuation of net metering programs.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who acquired
the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the initial
public offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, including
interest, rescission or rescissory damages, an award of reasonable
costs and attorneys' fees, and any equitable or injunctive relief
deemed appropriate by the court.
On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Mancy v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538303, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.
On April 22, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Brown et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538311, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.
On April 29, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Baker et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538419, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.
On May 6, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Greenberg v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case 3:16-cv-02480, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On May 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Nunez v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538593, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.
On June 10, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Steinberg v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. 539064, was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.
The Mancy, Brown, Baker, Greenberg, Nunez and Steinberg complaints
are substantially similar to the Pytel complaint, and seek similar
relief against similar defendants on behalf of the same purported
class.
On April 21, 2016, a purported shareholder class action captioned
Cohen, et al. v. Sunrun Inc., et al., Case No. CIV 538304, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo,
against the Company, certain of the Company's directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by
making false or misleading statements in connection with an August
5, 2015 initial public offering regarding the Company's business
practices and its dependence on complex financial instruments.
The Cohen plaintiffs seek to represent the same class and seek
similar relief as the plaintiffs in the Pytel, Mancy, Brown,
Greenberg, Nunez, Steinberg and Baker actions.
On September 26, 2016, the Baker, Brown, Cohen, Mancy, Nunez,
Pytel and Steinberg actions were consolidated.
The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against these
complaints. The Company is not able to estimate the ultimate
outcome or a range of possible loss at this time.
SunRun provides clean, solar energy to homeowners at a significant
savings compared to traditional utility energy.
SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Amr Files 9th Cir. Appeal in "Tsirekidze" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Amr filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
titled Teimuraz Tsirekidze, et al. v. Syntax-Brillian Corporation,
et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02204-FJM, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, Phoenix.
The lawsuit is brought against the Company and certain of its
officers by Syntax stockholders alleging violations of federal
securities laws.
The appellate case is captioned as Teimuraz Tsirekidze, et al. v.
Syntax-Brillian Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-17328, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Ahmed Amr's opening brief is due on March 27,
2017;
-- Answering brief of Appellees Bloomfield Incorporated,
Angelko Bogdanov, Nagel Family Trust, Vincent F. Sollitto
Jr., St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System,
Syntax-Brillian Corporation and Teimuraz Tsirekidze is due
on April 28, 2017; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
service of the answering brief.
Movant-Appellant AHMED AMR appears pro se.
Plaintiffs-Appellees TEIMURAZ TSIREKIDZE, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, NAGEL FAMILY TRUST, ANGELKO
BOGDANOV and BLOOMFIELD INCORPORATED are represented by:
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
- and -
Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP
32 East 57th St., 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
Plaintiff-Appellee ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM is represented by:
Daniel Steven Drosman, Esq.
Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
E-mail: dand@csgrr.com
darrenr@csgrr.com
Defendants-Appellees SYNTAX-BRILLIAN CORPORATION and VINCENT F.
SOLLITTO, Jr., are represented by:
Robert A. Mandel, Esq.
MANDEL YOUNG, PLC
2390 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 374-4591
E-mail: rob@mandelyoung.com
- and -
Brian J. Schulman, Esq.
E. Jeffrey Walsh, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
2375 East Camelback Road
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 445-8407
Facsimile: (602) 445-8690
E-mail: schulmanb@gtlaw.com
walshj@gtlaw.com
Defendant-Appellee VINCENT F. SOLLITTO, Jr., is represented by:
Christopher Cowan, Esq.
Craig Varnen, Esq.
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
1800 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
Telephone: (310) 203-7048
E-mail: ccowan@irell.com
cvarnen@irell.com
TALEN ENERGY: Stockholder Action Pending in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Talen Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against a consolidated stockholder class
action lawsuit.
In August 2016, a purported stockholder of Talen Energy
Corporation commenced a putative class action lawsuit in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Manuel Abt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The
complaint named as defendants Talen Energy Corporation, the
directors of Talen Energy Corporation and Riverstone and certain
of its affiliates.
Also in August 2016, two purported stockholders of Talen Energy
Corporation commenced a separate putative class action lawsuit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Wendell
R. Hunt and Kenneth J. Melchiorre, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated. The complaint named as defendants
Talen Energy Corporation, the directors of Talen Energy
Corporation and Riverstone and certain of its affiliates.
In October 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated putative
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware alleging, among other things, that (i) the directors of
Talen Energy Corporation breached fiduciary duties owed to Talen
Energy Corporation's public stockholders in approving the Merger,
(ii) Riverstone and certain of its affiliates have aided and
abetted the directors of Talen Energy Corporation in the alleged
breaches of their fiduciary duties, and (iii) Riverstone, as a de
facto controlling stockholder of Talen Energy Corporation,
breached fiduciary duties that it owed Talen Energy Corporation
and its minority stockholders in the Merger. The consolidated
complaint seeks to rescind the Merger and also seeks damages,
costs and attorney's fees.
Talen Energy believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to defend vigorously against the allegations. At this time
Talen Energy cannot predict the outcome of these matters or their
effects on Talen Energy or the Merger, however a material adverse
judgment for monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the
results of operations and liquidity of Talen Energy.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Tran" Product Liability Suit in N.D. Ga.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hueduc Tran and Bobby York, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00085 (N.D. Ga., January 10,
2017), is brought against the Defendant for product liability.
Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. manufactures and sells
vehicles. It offers cars, trucks, sports utility vehicles,
crossovers, hybrids and vehicles, hybrid cars, hybrid sports
utility vehicles, concept vehicles, and accessories.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Joseph Coomes
McConnell & Sneed, LLC
990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840
Atlanta, GA 30328
Tel: (404) 220-9994
Fax: (404) 665-3476
Email: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com
TRANSENTERIX INC: Moves to Dismiss Amended "Bankley" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
TransEnterix, 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 defendants
have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the "Bankley" class
action.
On June 2, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and
Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the
"Initial Complaint"), against the Company and two of its executive
officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and
May 10, 2016.
On August 4, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Initial Complaint for failure to state a claim under the
securities laws. On August 30, 2016, the court appointed Randall
Clark, Samir Patel, the Underhill Cemetery Association, and the
North Underhill Cemetery Association as the lead plaintiffs in the
Initial Complaint, and also provided the plaintiffs an opportunity
to amend the Initial Complaint.
On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint. Among other things, the Amended Complaint asserts
revised claims against the Company and Messrs. Pope and Slattery,
and adds claims against certain current and former members of the
Company's Board of Directors, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the
sales agent under the 2016 Sales Agreement, under which the
Company offered and sold, through Cantor, shares of common stock
in its 2016 ATM Offering.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading public statements related to the Company's SurgiBot
System and its 510(k) application in violation of certain federal
securities laws. The Amended Complaint seeks class certification
of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and
May 10, 2016, class certification of a subclass of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock in
connection with the 2016 ATM Offering between February 9, 2016 and
April 19, 2016, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees.
On November 8, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.
TransEnterix, Inc. is a medical device company that is pioneering
the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by
addressing the clinical challenges associated with current
laparoscopic and robotic options.
TRANSENTERIX INC: "Pikal" Action Stayed Pending Bankley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TransEnterix, 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
entered an order staying the Otto Pikal litigation pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the
Bankley Action.
On July 8, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative derivative
complaint, Otto Pikal v. Todd M. Pope, et al., in the General
Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Wake County, North
Carolina (case number 16CV008930), on behalf of the Company
against certain of our current officers and directors. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating false and
misleading information to the Company's shareholders relating to
the Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in
violation of certain federal securities laws and by failing to
ensure that the Company maintained adequate internal controls.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and an order directing the Company to take steps to
improve its corporate governance and to protect the Company and
its stockholders from future wrongdoing such as that alleged in
the complaint.
On September 29, 2016, the court entered an order staying the
litigation pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Bankley Action.
TransEnterix, Inc. is a medical device company that is pioneering
the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by
addressing the clinical challenges associated with current
laparoscopic and robotic options.
VECTREN UTILITY: Discovery Underway in Employee Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that discovery
is ongoing in the class action lawsuit by employees.
During the third quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of
claims by a group of current and former SIGECO employees
("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan"). That plan was
merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula. On March 12, 2015,
certain claimants filed a Class Action Complaint against the
Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in federal district court
requesting that a class be certified and for various relief
including that the Combined Plan be reformed and benefits
thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the allegations set
forth in the Complaint and moved to dismiss the case. In April
2016, the court dismissed part of the Complaint but allowed the
remaining claims to proceed. The court will not consider the class
certification issue until after the summary judgment stage of the
case. The parties are now engaged in the discovery process.
Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc., an Indiana corporation, was formed
on March 31, 2000 to serve as the intermediate holding company for
Vectren Corporation's (Vectren) three operating public utilities:
Indiana Gas Company, Inc. (Indiana Gas or Vectren Energy Delivery
of Indiana - North), Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company
(SIGECO or Vectren Energy Delivery of Indiana - South), and
Vectren Energy Delivery of Ohio, Inc. (VEDO). Utility Holdings
also earns a return on shared assets that provide information
technology and other services to the three utilities. Vectren, an
Indiana corporation, is an energy holding company headquartered in
Evansville, Indiana and was organized on June 10, 1999. Both
Vectren and Utility Holdings are holding companies as defined by
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Energy Act).
VOYA RETIREMENT: Motion to Dismiss "Dezelan" Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity 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 litigation includes Dezelan v. Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No.
3:16-cv-1251)(filed July 26, 2016), a putative class action in
which plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b) Plan, seeks to
represent the a class of plans whose assets are invested in VRIAC
"Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds." Plaintiff alleges
that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 by charging unreasonable fees and setting its own
compensation in connection with stable value products. Plaintiff
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
damages and attorney's fees. The Company denies the allegations,
which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the
case vigorously.
In October 2016, Voya filed a motion to dismiss the case, and the
Plaintiff filed a response. Both parties have filed memorandums
in support of their arguments.
XOMA CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Markette" Suit Under Submission
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Markette v. XOMA Corp et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03425
(N.D. Cal.), the Court, according to a Dec. 14 docket entry, has
taken a pending motion to dismiss under submission. The hearing
previously scheduled for at 2:00 p.m. that day was vacated.
XOMA 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 on July 24, 2015,
a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al. (Case No.
3:15-cv-3425) against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Medical Officer. The complaint asserts that all
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21,
2015. The plaintiff also alleges that Messrs. Varian and Rubin
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 8,
2016 asserting the same claims and adding a former director as a
defendant.
On September 2, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss with
prejudice the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition to
the motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016. Defendants filed a reply
on October 21, 2016. The motion was set for hearing on December
15, 2016.
Based on a review of allegations, the Company believes that the
plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does
not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material
adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an
unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations for the period in which such a loss is
recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit.
XOMA Corporation, a Delaware corporation, is a development stage
biotechnology company with a portfolio of therapeutic antibodies.
*********
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 * * *