/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170418.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 77 Headlines ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Leads to Agreement in Principle ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: "Castillo" Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Appeal Underway in 9th Circuit ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ALLY FINANCIAL: May 31 Hearing on Bid to Remand Bucks County Suit ALLY FINANCIAL: National Shopmen Seeks to Remand Class Suit AMEREN CORPORATION: Municipal Taxes Class Suit Pending ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Callan" Suit in E.D. New York BURTON CORPORATION: Faces "McCoy" Suit in C.D. California BALBOA CAPITAL: Faces "Patel" Suit in Northern District Texas BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee BANK OF HAWAII: 2 Customer Class Suits Underway CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Desmond" Suit in E.D. New York CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Accord Reached in Three Merger Class Suits CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Has $1.5MM Deal to Settle Suit v. GreenBank CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Stern" Suit in Eastern District New York CHEMED CORPORATION: Still Faces "Seper" Class Suit CHEMED CORPORATION: "Chhina" Class Suit Remains Pending CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Popper" Suit in E.D. Pa. CVS HEALTH: "Palmer" Suit over Flushable Wipes Goes to Maryland DTS INC: "Garfield" Class Suit in California Now Concluded DTS INC: Attorneys' Fees Application in "Parshall" Pending EQUIDATA INC: Faces "Hensley" Suit in Central District California FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: FWK Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Pa. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Castillo" Suit Moved to E.D. Pa. FROST RESTAURANT: Faces "Cabrera" Suit in E.D. New York GEO GROUP: Shareholder Suit Pending in Florida GLOBE LIFE: Class Certification Motion in "Proctor" Suit Pending GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Working with Class Admin. to Notify Members GOGO INC: Appeal in "Salameno" Litigation Withdrawn GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Currencies-Related Suit Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount in Canada Case Paid into Trust GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Motion in Cobalt Suit Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Adeptus Health Securities Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces TerraForm & SunEdison Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Valeant Securities Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Valeant Suit in New Jersey Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal Bid in Interest Rate Swap Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Intervenors' Claims Underway GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces U.S. Treasury Securities-Related Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount in ISDAFIX Suit Paid into Escrow HALYARD HEALTH: Hit with $454 Million Fraud Verdict HALYARD HEALTH: Initial Conference in "Jackson" Moved to October HORIZON PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss "Schaffer" Suit Underway HORIZON PHARMA: "Lavrenov" and "Jordan" Suits Dismissed ILLINOIS CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Trainor" Suit in S.D. Ill. INSULET CORP: Feb. 2018 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in ATRS Suit JASPER CONTRACTORS: Faces "Walker" Suit in M.D. Florida JOHNSON & JOHNSON: No Class Cert. Hearing on "Field" Claim JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Motion to Dismiss Talc Powder Suit Underway JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Contact Lens Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO(R) Third-Party Payors' Suit Pending KYNES CORNER: Faces "Massi" Suit in S.D. New York LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends "Jansky" Suit in California LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Confab in Sandusky Moved to September LABORATORY CORP: "Davis" Class Suit Still Pending in Florida LABORATORY CORP: "Bloomquist" Class Suit Underway LABORATORY CORP: MOU in Sequenom Suit Terminated MDL 1869: Class Certification Motion Underway MDL 2081: Johnson & Johnson Retains OCD Liability in Reagent Suit MDL 2777: EcoDiesel Product Liability Case Moved to N.D. Cal. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Motion to Reconsider Order Remains Pending MORGAN STANLEY: Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Sought MORGAN STANLEY: Demurrer Denied in Calif. Attorney General's Suit MORGAN STANLEY: Finalizing Settlement of Forex Antitrust Suit NABORS INDUSTRIES: Briefing on Class Action Appeal Concluded NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Held on Class Certification Bid NRG ENERGY: June Hearings on Class Cert. Bid in TCPA Actions NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer Due June 15 NRG ENERGY: June 20 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Ahmed" Suit ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Laidlaw" Class Suit Dismissed ORANGE COUNTY: Faces "Agrella" Suit in C.D. California PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Charleston" Suit in E.D.N.Y. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Lane" Suit in District of Delaware SEMPRA ENERGY: 250 Lawsuits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak SMART ENERGY: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. California SOLIMA PEOPLE: Faces "Van Buskirk" Suit in W.D. Florida SQUARE INC: Fails to Reach Settlement of Caviar Lawsuits STEEL DYNAMICS: Accord with Indirect Purchasers Await Final OK TC PIPELINES: Plaintiffs' Appeal Dismissed TENET HEALTHCARE: Consolidated Securities Litigation Underway TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Defends "Maderazo" Class Suit TEREX CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending TIME INC: Appeal in "Coulter-Owens" Suit Underway TIME INC: Must Defend Against "Perlin" Suit UMA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Cuellar" Suit in Cal. Superior Court VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument in Securities Litigation Begins VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument in "Youngers" Action Begins WYNDHAM VACATION: "Boy" Suit Moved from Super. Court to C.D. Cal. XPO LOGISTICS: Accrued Full Amount of "Mendoza" Case Settlement XPO LOGISTICS: "Cortez" Suit in Initial Pleading Stage XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending XPO LOGISTICS: "Leung" Last Mile TCPA Claims in Early Stages XPO LOGISTICS: Settles Less-Than-Truckload Meal Break Claims ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Motions Pending in Symbol Suit ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settlement Payment Released from Escrow ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ********* ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Mediation Leads to Agreement in Principle ----------------------------------------------------------------- Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit had a mediation and agreed in principle to settle the action. The Company said, "In March 2015, following our announcement of the update to the timing of our planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID for the treatment of PD Psychosis and the subsequent decline of the price of our common stock, two putative securities class action complaints (captioned Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB, and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 15-cv-0593- BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, or the Court, against us and certain of our current and former officers. The complaints generally alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the timing of our planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "On April 10 and June 1, 2015, the Court entered orders deferring the defendants' response to the Rihn and Wright complaints until after the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and assigned lead counsel. On May 12, 2015, several putative stockholders filed separate motions to consolidate the two actions and be appointed lead plaintiff. On September 8, 2015, the Court issued an order consolidating the two actions, appointing lead plaintiff, and assigning lead counsel. "On November 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint with the Court which, like the prior complaints, accuses the defendants of making materially false and misleading statements regarding the anticipated timing of our planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID. "On January 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2016, the Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On December 6, 2016, the parties had a mediation and agreed in principle to settle the action." Acadia us a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of innovative medicines to address unmet medical needs in central nervous system, or CNS, disorders. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH: "Castillo" Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CESAR CASTILLO, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ACTAVIS ELIZABETH, LLC, BRECKENRIDGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN, INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., PLIVA, INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., UDL LABORATORIES, INC., and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL. INC., the Defendants, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, Case No. 17-CV-78, was transferred on April 12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01671-CMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe. Actavis Elizabeth develops and distributes generic pharmaceutical products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley J. Demuth, Esq. Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC 1211 Avenue of The Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438 9102 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Chul Pak, Esq. Jeffrey C. Bank, Esq. Michael S. Sommer, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI PC 1301 Ave. of Americas 40th Fl New York, NY 10019-6022 Telephone: (212) 999 5800 E-mail: cpak@wsgr.com jbank@wsgr.com msommer@wsgr.com - and - Hector Torres, Esq. Marc E. Kasowitz, Esq. Seth B. Davis, Esq. Seth A. Moskowitz, Esq. Sheron Korpus, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506 1700 E-mail: htorres@kasowitz.com mekcourtnotices@kasowitz.com sdavis@kasowitz.com smoskowitz@kasowitz.com skorpus@kasowitz.com - and - Kenneth I. Schacter, Esq. BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 399 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 752 5378 - and - R. Brendan Fee, Esq. Stacey Anne Mahoney, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963 5136 E-mail: bfee@morganlewis.com stacey.mahoney@morganlewis.com - and - John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434 5901 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com - and - Omid Gabriel Banuelos, Esq. Sarah F. Teich, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth St NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (773) 895 5477 E-mail: steich@wc.com Attorneys for Intervenor, United States Of America Ellen R. Clarke, Esq. Joseph C. Folio, Iii, Esq. U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE 450-5th Street NW Suite 11300 Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 598 2662 E-mail: ellen.clarke@usdoj.gov joseph.folio@usdoj.gov ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Appeal Underway in 9th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal in a securities class action lawsuit against Align Technology, Inc. remains pending, Align said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action")." "On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012, which rendered our financial statements and projections of future earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees. "On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint. On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss without leave to amend. "On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Briefing for the appeal was completed in May 2015 and the Ninth Circuit held oral arguments in October 2016. Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any." Align Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy, intraoral scanners and CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) digital services used in dentistry, orthodontics, and dental records storage. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case is captioned as Gwendolyn Moskowitz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP, formerly known as United Recovery Systems, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01958 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 5, 2017). Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com ALLY FINANCIAL: May 31 Hearing on Bid to Remand Bucks County Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al., a hearing on the Motion to Remand has been reset to May 31, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. before District Judge Judith E. Levy. Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in October 2016, a purported class action -- Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of Michigan. This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on November 18, 2016, and is currently pending there as Case No. 2:16-CV-14104. The complaint alleges material misstatements and omissions in connection with Ally's initial public offering in April 2014, including a failure to adequately disclose the severity of rising subprime automotive loan delinquency rates, deficient underwriting measures employed in the origination of subprime automotive loans, and aggressive tactics used with low- income borrowers. The request for relief includes an indeterminate amount of damages, fees, and costs and other remedies. ALLY FINANCIAL: National Shopmen Seeks to Remand Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, National Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al., Plaintiff has urged the federal court to remand the case to state court. Defendants have responded to the Motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply. The Court has yet to rule on the request. Ally Financial Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in January 2017, a purported class action -- National Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County in the State of Michigan. This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on January 30, 2017, and is currently pending there as Case No. 2:17- CV-10289. The allegations and requested relief in the complaint are substantially similar to those included in the complaint filed by Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund. "We intend to vigorously defend against these actions," the Company said. Ally Financial Inc. is a digital financial services company with $163.7 billion in assets as of December 31, 2016, offering diversified financial products for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers and corporate clients. AMEREN CORPORATION: Municipal Taxes Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Ameren Missouri continues to defend a class action lawsuit over municipal taxes, Ameren Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The cities of Creve Coeur and Winchester, Missouri, on behalf of themselves and other municipalities in Ameren Missouri's service area, filed a class action lawsuit in November 2011 against Ameren Missouri in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The lawsuit alleges that Ameren Missouri failed to collect and pay gross receipts taxes or license fees on certain revenues, including revenues from wholesale power and interchange sales. Ameren and Ameren Missouri recorded immaterial liabilities on their respective balance sheets as of December 31, 2016, and December 31, 2015, representing their estimate of the probable loss due as a result of this lawsuit. Ameren and Ameren Missouri believe there is a remote possibility that a liability relating to this lawsuit could be material to Ameren's and Ameren Missouri's results of operations, financial position, and liquidity. Ameren Missouri believes its defenses are meritorious and is defending itself vigorously. However, there can be no assurances that Ameren Missouri will be successful in its efforts. Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility holding company under PUHCA 2005. Ameren was formed in 1997. Ameren's primary assets are its equity interests in its subsidiaries, including Ameren Missouri, Ameren Illinois, and ATXI. Ameren's subsidiaries are separate, independent legal entities with separate businesses, assets, and liabilities. ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Callan" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Annamaria Callan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02205 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 11, 2017). ARS National offers accounts receivable management services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks; and credit card companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com BURTON CORPORATION: Faces "McCoy" Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Burton Corporation. The case is styled as Neiman McCoy, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Burton Corporation, a Vermont corporation, and Does 1 - 10 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02773 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 11, 2017). Burton manufacturers snowboards. The company is founded by Jake Burton Carpenter in 1977.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BALBOA CAPITAL: Faces "Patel" Suit in Northern District Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Balboa Capital Corporation. The case is styled as Dr. Jaideep Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Scott Postle, Cliff McKenzie, and Balboa Capital Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00963-D (N.D. Tex., Apr. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sidney A Fitzwater. Balboa Capital is a privately held independent financing company based in Costa Mesa, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua J Bennett, Esq. E Leon Carter, Esq. CARTER SCHOLER PLLC 8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 550 2112 Facsimile: (214) 550 8185 E-mail: jbennett@carterscholer.com lcarter@carterscholer.com - and - Donald C Massey, Esq. Jonathan P. Lemann, Esq. Robert Couhig, Jr., Esq. COUHIG PARTNERS LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 3250 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 599 5777 Facsimile: (504) 588 9750 E-mail: dmassey@couhigpartners.com lemannjp@couhigpartners.com couhigre@couhigpartners.com - and - Paul Crouch, Esq. Bailey Galyen, Esq. 2220 S Cooper St Arlington, TX 76013 Telephone: (817) 276 6020 Facsimile: (817) 276 6011 E-mail: pcrouch@galyen.com BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee --------------------------------------------------------- Bancorpsouth, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. On July 31, 2014, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaint was subsequently amended to add the former President and Chief Operating Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning the Company's expectation that it would be able to close two merger transactions within a specified time period and the Company's compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements. On July 10, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims concerning the Company's expectations about the closing of the mergers. Class certification was granted by the District Court on April 21, 2016, and a petition for immediate appeal of the class certification was filed and was granted. Class certification was vacated by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other equitable relief as the District Court may deem just and proper. At this stage of the lawsuit, management cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company as it is uncertain whether the lead Plaintiff will be successful in certifying a class on its second attempt and the exact amount of damages (should the District Court grant class certification again) is uncertain. Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to the litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results of operations. BancorpSouth, Inc. is a financial holding company incorporated in 1982. Through its principal bank subsidiary, BancorpSouth Bank, originally chartered in 1876, the Company conducts commercial banking and financial services operations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas and Illinois. BANK OF HAWAII: 2 Customer Class Suits Underway ----------------------------------------------- Bank of Hawaii Corporation is defending two class action lawsuits by bank customers over bank practices, Bank of Hawaii said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a Bank customer alleging Bank of Hawaii's practice of determining whether consumer deposit accounts were overdrawn based on "available balance" (which deducts debit card transactions that have taken place but which have not yet been posted) was not properly applied or disclosed to customers. Additionally, on January 20, 2017, another purported class action lawsuit was filed by a Bank customer alleging Bank of Hawaii's practice of assessing a continuous negative balance overdraft fee on accounts remaining in a negative balance for extended periods of time beyond the date of the initial overdraft constituted a usurious interest charge and a breach of contract with the customer. The Company said, "These lawsuits are similar to lawsuits filed against other financial institutions pertaining to available balance overdraft fee disclosures and continuing negative balance overdraft fees. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future, the outcome of these legal proceedings are uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, the applicable time period at issue, as well as an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions. Management disputes any wrongdoing and the cases are being vigorously defended." Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Desmond" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAC Financial Corp. The case is titled as Sean Desmond, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAC Financial Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02207 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 11, 2017). CAC Financial provides financial services and accounts receivable solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Accord Reached in Three Merger Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Capital Financial Bank has agreed to settle three class action lawsuits related to the merger agreement with CommunityOne, Capital Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On November 22, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with CommunityOne, pursuant to which CommunityOne will merge with and into CBF on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the CommunityOne Merger Agreement. On January 16, 2016, a case captioned Robert Garfield v. Capital Bank Financial Corp., et al., Index No. 2016-001194-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.) (the "Garfield Action"), was filed on behalf of a putative class of Capital Bank Financial shareholders against Capital Bank Financial, its directors, and CommunityOne in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida in connection with the merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Capital Bank Financial director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger, that CommunityOne aided and abetted such breaches, and that Capital Bank Financial, its directors and CommunityOne failed to disclose material information in connection with the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses. On February 29, 2016, a case captioned Curtis R. Pendleton v. Robert L. Reid, et al., Case 5:16-cv-00037 (W.D.N.C.) (the "Pendleton Action"), was filed on behalf of a putative class of CommunityOne shareholders against CommunityOne, its directors, and Capital Bank Financial in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in connection with the merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a Registration/Joint Proxy Statement that, plaintiff alleges, is materially incomplete and misleading. On March 14, 2016, a case captioned Floyd Scrogham v. Robert L. Reid, et al., No. 5:16-cv-00045 (the "Scrogham Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on behalf of a putative class of CommunityOne shareholders against CommunityOne, its directors, and Capital Bank Financial. The complaint in the Scrogham Action, like the complaint in the Pendleton Action, alleges, among other things, that certain defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a Registration/Joint Proxy Statement that, plaintiffs allege, is materially incomplete and misleading. The Pendleton and Scrogham Actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining the merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or money damages, interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses. On March 31, 2016, the Pendleton and Scrogham Actions were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re CommunityOne Bancorp Consolidated Stockholder Litigation, No. 5:16-cv-00037 (the "Consolidated WDNC Action"). On April 1, 2016, the parties to the Consolidated WDNC Action filed with the Court a memorandum of understanding in which the parties agreed on the terms of a settlement of those lawsuits. In connection with the settlement, CommunityOne made certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger on April 6, 2016. Following the completion of confirmatory discovery, the parties to the Consolidated WDNC Action entered into a stipulation of settlement dated January 31, 2017. The stipulation of settlement in the Consolidated WDNC Action was submitted to the court for preliminary approval on February 17, 2017. On April 4, 2016, the parties to the Garfield Action reached an agreement in principle regarding the settlement of the Garfield Action and entered into a stipulation of settlement. In connection with the settlement, Capital Bank Financial made certain supplemental disclosures related to the merger on April 6, 2016. Following the completion of confirmatory discovery, the stipulation of settlement in the Garfield Action was submitted to the court for preliminary approval on February 3, 2017. The defendants agreed to the settlement of these lawsuits to avoid the uncertainty, costs, distraction and disruption inherent in litigation and without admitting that further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. Settlement hearings will be scheduled to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed settlements following notice to the Capital Bank Financial and CommunityOne stockholders. If each of the proposed settlements is finally approved by the respective courts considering such settlements, the settlements will resolve and release all claims in the Garfield Action and the Consolidated WDNC Action that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger or the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement by the respective courts. In addition, in connection with the proposed settlements, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek awards of attorneys' fees and expenses from each respective court. Capital Bank Financial, CommunityOne or their successors will pay or cause to be paid those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the respective courts. There can be no assurance that the courts will approve the settlements. CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Has $1.5MM Deal to Settle Suit v. GreenBank -------------------------------------------------------------- Capital Financial Bank has agreed to settle litigation related to GreenBank, Capital Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On September 16, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to settle a purported class action litigation regarding the alleged improper assessment and collection of overdraft fees (the "Settlement Agreement"). The litigation was filed in the Chancery Court for Tennessee, 20th Judicial District, on February 1, 2011 against GreenBank ("GreenBank") regarding activity that occurred between February 1, 2005 and June 30, 2011. The Company completed the acquisition of GreenBank on September 8, 2011. The Company agreed to the Settlement Agreement solely by way of compromise and settlement and to avoid further litigation expense. The Company's agreement is not in any way an admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing by the Company or by GreenBank. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company will pay $1.5 million to settle the litigation which will be payable within 14 days after preliminary court approval of the settlement. In addition, the Company agreed not to use debit re- sequencing, weekend and holiday high-to-low posting or weekend and holiday batch processing for a period of at least 36 months following final court approval of the settlement. The Company does not currently engage in such re-sequencing or batching process described. CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Stern" Suit in Eastern District New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The case is titled as Aharon Stern, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Central Credit Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01959 (E.D.N.Y.). Central Credit Services is a collection agency that has been in business since 1987.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com CHEMED CORPORATION: Still Faces "Seper" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit by Jordan Seper remains pending, Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Jordan Seper, ("Seper") a Registered Nurse at VITAS' Inland Empire program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016. She alleged VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed to provide minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal period; (4) failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify for necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at time of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices. Seper seeks a state-wide class action of current and former non- exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. She seeks court determination that this action may be maintained as a class action for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jordan A. Seper on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 on October 13, 2016. On November 14, 2016, the Parties filed a Stipulation to transfer the venue of the lawsuit from San Francisco to Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Superior Court accepted transfer of the case on December 6, 2016. On December 16, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on Seper. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chemed Corporation (the Company or Chemed) was incorporated in Delaware in 1970 as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded to the business of W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of April 30, 1971 and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. until March 10, 1982. Chemed purchases, operates and divests subsidiaries engaged in diverse business activities for the purposes of maximizing shareholder value. CHEMED CORPORATION: "Chhina" Class Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit by Jiwan Chhina remains pending, Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Jiwan Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for VITAS' San Diego program. On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court, alleging (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failure to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3) failure to pay wages for all hours at the regular rate; (4) failure to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6) failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (7) failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses; (8) unfair business practices; and (9) violation of the California Private Attorneys General Act. Chhina seeks to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. He seeks court determination that this action may be maintained as a class action for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties associated with each claim, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwann Chhina v. VITAS Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation dba VITAS Healthcare, Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego Superior Court Case Number 37-2015- 00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November 3, 2016. On December 1, 2016, VITAS filed its Answer and served written discovery on Plaintiff. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Chemed Corporation (the Company or Chemed) was incorporated in Delaware in 1970 as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. and succeeded to the business of W.R. Grace & Co.'s Special Products Group as of April 30, 1971 and remained a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. until March 10, 1982. Chemed purchases, operates and divests subsidiaries engaged in diverse business activities for the purposes of maximizing shareholder value. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Popper" Suit in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC. The case is captioned as RICHARD POPPER, AN INDIVIDUAL FOR HIMSELF AND FOR A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS, the Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01627-JCJ (E.D. Pa., Apr. 10, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. J. Curtis Joyner. Convergent Outsourcing offers business process outsourcing, revenue cycle, and receivables management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Larosa, Esq. LAROSA & NASTASI 959 WEST CHESTER PIKE HAVERTOWN, PA 19083 Telephone: (610) 924 0999 E-mail: ml.larosalaw@verizon.net CVS HEALTH: "Palmer" Suit over Flushable Wipes Goes to Maryland --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Steven and Ellen Palmer, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CVS Health and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., the Defendants, and Anthony Belfiore, The Procter & Gamble Company, Eugene and Victoria Richard, Costco Wholesale Corporation, D. Joseph Kurtz, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02928, was transferred on April, 10, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00938-CCB to the proceeding. The case assigned to Hon. Chief Judge Catherine C. Blake. As reported by the Class Action Reporter on June 3, 2015, Steven and Ellen Palmer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS Health and Nice-Pak Products, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02928 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2015), is a class action brought in connection with the purchase of CVS Brand Flushable Wipes that were falsely marketed and advertised by the Defendants as safe to be flushed. The wipes at issue are not flushable but rather do not disintegrate immediately upon flushing, causing clog in sewer or septic systems. CVS Health is an American retail pharmacy and health care company headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Sean T. Masson, Esq. Lauren E. Karalis, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com smasson@rgrdlaw.com lkaralis@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. Mark Dearman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com mdearman@rgrdlaw.com DTS INC: "Garfield" Class Suit in California Now Concluded ---------------------------------------------------------- Garfield v. DTS, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. TN6317 (Superior Court of California, Ventura County), is now concluded, Xperi Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On October 26, 2016, an alleged stockholder of DTS, Robert Garfield, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, Ventura County, against DTS, Inc. ("DTS"), members of DTS's board of directors, DTS's financial advisor in connection with the DTS acquisition, and the Company. The complaint purported to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duties of care, good faith, and loyalty against the DTS directors; breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure against DTS and the DTS directors; and aiding and abetting the purported breaches of fiduciary duties against the Company and DTS's financial advisor. The complaint sought, inter alia, certification as a class action; an order enjoining the merger or, if it is consummated, an order rescinding it; a reduction in the termination fee payable by DTS to the Company; damages; and attorneys' fees. On October 31, 2016, Garfield filed an application for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the merger and for expedited discovery in aid of a preliminary injunction motion. The defendants opposed the TRO application. The defendants also filed motions to dismiss or stay the case, which motions were scheduled to be heard in January 2017. On November 30, 2016, the Court denied the TRO application. On December 26, 2016, Garfield filed a request to dismiss his case without prejudice and on December 28, 2016, the Court entered an order dismissing the case. This matter is now concluded. Xperi is a publicly-traded technology company based in Silicon Valley with operations around the world. Along with its operating subsidiaries, Xperi creates, develops and licenses innovative audio, computational imaging, computer vision and semiconductor packaging and interconnect technologies. DTS INC: Attorneys' Fees Application in "Parshall" Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The application for attorneys' fees by counsel in the case, Parshall v. DTS, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 12870 (Court of Chancery, State of Delaware), remains pending, Xperi Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On November 2, 2016, an alleged stockholder of DTS, Inc. ("DTS"), Paul Parshall, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the State of Delaware Court of Chancery against DTS, members of DTS's board of directors, the Company, and certain subsidiaries. The complaint purports to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty against members of DTS's Board of Directors, and aiding and abetting against DTS and the Company. The complaint seeks, inter alia, certification as a class action; an order enjoining the merger or, if it is consummated, an order rescinding it; damages; and attorneys' fees. On November 7, 2016, after the proxy statement at issue was amended, Parshall's counsel filed a letter with the Court acknowledging the supplemental disclosures and withdrawing Parshall's motion to expedite. On December 22, 2016, the Court granted the parties' stipulation and order dismissing the action as moot and setting a briefing schedule for Parshall's counsel's application for attorneys' fees. Xperi is a publicly-traded technology company based in Silicon Valley with operations around the world. Along with its operating subsidiaries, Xperi creates, develops and licenses innovative audio, computational imaging, computer vision and semiconductor packaging and interconnect technologies. EQUIDATA INC: Faces "Hensley" Suit in Central District California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equidata, Inc. The case is captioned as JONATHAN HENSLEY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Equidata, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02606 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 5, 2017). Equidata provides credit reporting services. The company offers credit bureau, mortgage reporting, accounts receivable management, and credit resolution.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: FWK Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to E.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled FWK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDOZ, INC., NOVARTIS AG, AKORN, INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., WOCKHARDT LTD., and MORTON GROVE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 16-CV-9897, was transferred on April 12, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17- cv-01662-CMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe. Fougera Pharmaceuticals develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells specialty pharmaceuticals for the treatment of skin diseases to dermatologists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Germaine, Esq. Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. VANEK VICKERS & MASINI PC 55 West Monroe St Ste 3500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 224 1500 Facsimile: (312) 224 1510 E-mail: dgermaine@vaneklaw.com jvanek@vaneklaw.com - and - David S. Nalven, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Main Street 4th Fl Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482 3700 E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com - and - Hae Sung Nam, Esq. JEFFREY PHILIP CAMPISI KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687 1980 E-mail: hnam@kaplanfox.com - and - Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq. Robert N Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Ave., 14th Fl New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687 1980 E-mail: rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com rkaplan@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: Laura S. Shores, Esq. Margaret A. Rogers, Esq. Saul P Morgenstern, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 600 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 942 5000 E-mail: laura.shores@apks.com margaret.rogers@apks.com saul.morgenstern@apks.com - and - Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Joseph Serino, Jr., Esq. Katherine A. Rocco, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 601 Lexington Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446 4970 E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com joseph.serino@kirkland.com katherine.rocco@kirkland.com - and - Damon W. Suden, Esq. William A. Escobar, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 101 Park Ave 27th Fl New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 808-7800 E-mail: dsuden@kelleydrye.com wescobar@kelleydrye.com FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Castillo" Suit Moved to E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CESAR CASTILLO, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NOVARTIS AG, SANDOZ, INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 16-01668, was transferred on April 12, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01668-CMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe. Fougera Pharmaceuticals develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells specialty pharmaceuticals for the treatment of skin diseases to dermatologists.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (917) 438 9189 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com FROST RESTAURANT: Faces "Cabrera" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frost Restaurant Inc. The case is entitled as Claudio Cabrera, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frost Restaurant Inc., Jointly and Severally; Rocco DePaola, Jointly and Severally; Giovanni DePaola, Jointly and Severally; and Giuseppe Morena, Jointly and Severally, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 02221 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 12, 2017). Frost is an Italian restaurant serving traditional dishes, including seafood, since 1959.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. GEO GROUP: Shareholder Suit Pending in Florida ---------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, Inc. is defending against a purported shareholder class action lawsuit in Florida, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On August 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, George C. Zoley ("Mr. Zoley"), and its Chief Financial Officer, Brian R. Evans ("Mr. Evans"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. The lawsuit alleges that it is brought by John J. Mulvaney individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities during the alleged class period between March 1, 2012 through and including August 17, 2016. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleges that Messrs. Zoley and Evans violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees, other costs, and such other relief as the court may deem proper. The Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend itself and Messrs. Zoley and Evans. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this time, as a loss is not considered probable or reasonably estimable at this preliminary stage of the lawsuit. GLOBE LIFE: Class Certification Motion in "Proctor" Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Torchmark Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that The Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned, Proctor v. Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company. Litigation was filed on February 10, 2015 against Torchmark subsidiary, Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma District Court (Proctor v. Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company, Case No. CJ-2015-838) asserting claims for breach of the implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing and for false representation, deceit and conversion in connection with Globe's denial of plaintiff's claim on a life insurance policy for non-payment of premium. Plaintiff, who had alleged that Globe had improperly retained 12 monthly premium payments on a policy that was treated as lapsed or not returned to in-force status, seeks actual and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, costs and other relief. Plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint to add allegations of conversion and civil theft on behalf of a purported class of Globe's U.S. policyholders who had paid premiums retained by Globe when their policies were lapsed and not reinstated at the time of the premium payments. Globe removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Case No. 15-CV-0070-M) on July 10, 2015 and filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2015. The Court denied plaintiff's Motion to Remand back to state court on October 26, 2015, but allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to assert a putative class action in federal court. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on September 23, 2016. Globe filed a Response in Opposition on November 4, 2016. The Court has not yet ruled on Plaintiff's Motion. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Torchmark Corporation (Torchmark) is an insurance holding company incorporated in Delaware in 1979. Its primary subsidiaries are American Income Life Insurance Company (American Income), Liberty National Life Insurance Company (Liberty National), Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company (Globe), United American Insurance Company (United American), and Family Heritage Life Insurance Company of America (Family Heritage). GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Working with Class Admin. to Notify Members ------------------------------------------------------------ Global Payments Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are working with a class administrator to notify the class members. Heartland, Heartland's board of directors, Global Payments, Data Merger Sub One, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments) and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Global Payments) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger with Heartland. The suit was filed on January 8, 2016 in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, and is captioned Kevin Merchant v. Heartland Payment Systems, et al, L-45-16. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Heartland breached their fiduciary duties to Heartland stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for inadequate consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection terms in the merger agreement, failing to properly value Heartland, and filing a materially incomplete registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, the complaint alleges that Heartland, Global Payments, Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the validity of any allegations made by the plaintiff, Heartland and Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the suit and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to document the terms and conditions for settlement of the suit. The court has approved the settlement and the parties are working with a class administrator to notify the class members. The settlement releases all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger with Heartland or the merger agreement related thereto. The terms of the settlement will be disclosed to stockholders before final approval of the proposed settlement. The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, results of operations or cash flows. Global payments is a worldwide provider of payment technology services delivering innovative solutions to customers globally. GOGO INC: Appeal in "Salameno" Litigation Withdrawn --------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the "Salameno" litigation have withdrawn their appeal with prejudice, Gogo, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "On January 29, 2016, Charles Salameno, Maria- Angela Sanzone and John Jensen filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of a putative class of national purchasers and a subclass of New York purchasers of our connectivity service, alleging that we violated New York and other consumer protection laws, as well as unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of contract arising from alleged false statements in our marketing materials and alleged data security issues arising from our network design and certain network practices. The suit sought unspecified damages." "On May 23, 2016, we filed motions to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit, moving in the alternative to transfer venue and/or dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim. The Court held a hearing on June 30, 2016 where we argued the motions to dismiss and on July 7, 2016 the Court issued its opinion granting our motion to compel arbitration. "On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider its decision to compel arbitration. On September 15, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. "On October 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiffs' withdrew their appeal with prejudice on November 4, 2016, concluding the Salameno class action. Plaintiffs' have the right to pursue their claims individually in arbitration." Gogo is a global provider of in-flight broadband connectivity and connectivity-enabled services to commercial and business aviation. GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Currencies-Related Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss currencies-related litigation remains pending. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 26, 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The complaint generally alleges that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and seeks injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 23, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount in Canada Case Paid into Trust --------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Sachs has paid the full amount of the proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit in Canada related to trading in foreign exchange markets pending final settlement approval, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. are among the defendants named in putative class actions related to trading in foreign exchange markets, filed beginning in September 2015 in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada and the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments traded in Canada. The complaints generally allege a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and assert claims under Canada's Competition Act and common law. The Ontario and Quebec complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages in the amounts of 1 billion Canadian dollars and 100 million Canadian dollars, respectively, as well as restitution and 50 million Canadian dollars in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages. In December 2016, the courts preliminarily approved a settlement of the claims against the Goldman Sachs defendants. The firm has paid the full amount of the proposed settlement into trust pending final settlement approval. GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Certification Motion in Cobalt Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the Cobalt International Energy Securities Litigation remains pending. Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and the underwriters (including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 1, 2015, asserts claims under the federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts and alleges material misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a $1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others, Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with respect to all five offerings. The consolidated amended complaint also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690 million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately $508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion. On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the underwriter defendants' motions to dismiss as to claims by plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013, but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects. On November 3, 2016, plaintiffs moved for class certification. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Adeptus Health Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is defending against Adeptus Health Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in October 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), its sponsor, and certain of directors and officers of Adeptus. As to the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the $124 million June 2014 initial public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering. The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws and seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages. GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June 2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $184 million, and all the shares of common stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $175 million. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces TerraForm & SunEdison Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend securities litigation related to the public offerings of TerraForm Global and SunEdison, Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters, placement agents and initial purchasers named as defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in October 2015 relating to the $675 million July 2015 initial public offering of the common stock of TerraForm Global, Inc. (TerraForm Global), the August 2015 public offering of $650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred stock, the June 2015 private placement of $335 million of TerraForm Global Class D units, and the August 2015 Rule 144A offering of $810 million principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes. SunEdison is TerraForm Global's controlling shareholder and sponsor. Beginning in October 2016, the pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and on January 16, 2017, certain plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint relating to TerraForm Global's initial public offering. The defendants also include TerraForm Global, SunEdison and certain of their directors and officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the offerings, assert claims under federal securities laws and, in certain actions, state laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as rescission or rescissory damages. TerraForm Global sold 154,800 Class D units, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $155 million, to the individual plaintiffs. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $139 million and sold 2,340,000 shares of TerraForm Global common stock in the initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $35 million. GS&Co., as initial purchaser, sold approximately $49 million principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes in the Rule 144A offering. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Valeant Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Securities Litigation in Canada, Goldman Sachs said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's auditor. As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint generally alleges misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering materials for the June 2013 public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule 144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal amount of senior notes. The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Valeant Suit in New Jersey Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Securities Litigation in New Jersey. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the initial purchasers named as defendants in a putative class action filed on June 24, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In addition to the initial purchasers for Valeant's Rule 144A debt offerings, the defendants include Valeant, certain directors and officers of Valeant, Valeant's auditor and the underwriters for a common stock offering in which GS&Co. did not participate. As to GS&Co., the complaint generally alleges misstatements and omissions in connection with the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule 144A offerings described, asserts claims under the federal securities laws, and seeks rescission and compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on September 13, 2016. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 27,058,824 shares of common stock in the June 2013 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $2.3 billion and, as initial purchasers, sold approximately $1.3 billion and $293 million in principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule 144A offerings, respectively. GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal Bid in Interest Rate Swap Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Defendants' motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint in the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation remains pending. Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in putative antitrust class actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed beginning in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The second consolidated amended complaint filed on December 9, 2016 generally alleges a conspiracy among the defendants since at least January 1, 2007 to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 20, 2017. Group Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in April 2016 by two operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated with the class action described for pretrial proceedings. The second consolidated amended complaint filed on December 9, 2016 generally asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude trading of interest rate swaps on the plaintiffs' respective swap execution facilities and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 20, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Commodities-Related Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the Commodities-Related Litigation remains pending. Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on July 27, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On September 21, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Dismiss Intervenors' Claims Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims of intervenors in an employment- related class action remains pending. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm. On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class certification recommended that the motion be denied in all respects. On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of that recommendation and granted the plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female individuals, one of whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the magistrate judge's decision. On June 6, 2016, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision on intervention. On September 28, 2015, and by a supplemental motion filed July 11, 2016 (after the second intervenor ceased to be an employee), the defendants moved to dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of standing and mootness. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces U.S. Treasury Securities-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) remains a defendant in the case, U.S. Treasury Securities-Related Litigation, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities, as well as related futures and options, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Amount in ISDAFIX Suit Paid into Escrow ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. has paid the full amount of the proposed settlement in the case, ISDAFIX-Related Litigation, into an escrow fund, Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Group Inc. is among the defendants named in several putative class actions relating to trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning in September 2014 and most recently amended on February 12, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmarks and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On December 19, 2016, the court preliminarily approved a settlement of the claims against Group Inc. The firm has paid the full amount of the proposed settlement into an escrow fund. HALYARD HEALTH: Hit with $454 Million Fraud Verdict --------------------------------------------------- A Los Angeles jury on the night of April 7 hit Kimberly-Clark Corporation (NYSE: KMB) and Halyard Health Inc. (NYSE: HYH) with a stunning $454 Million fraud verdict due to the sale by the companies of defective medical devices to doctors, hospitals and trauma centers throughout California for years. The unanimous verdict, rendered by an eight-person Federal Court jury after hearing extensive evidence in the two-week trial, is likely one of the largest verdicts in U.S. history against a medical device maker. Pursuant to an indemnification agreement entered into between the two defendants, Halyard Health is obligated to pay the entirety of the $454 Million awarded by the jury. "The trial was a search for the truth and the jury found it." The class action lawsuit, Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly- Clark Corp et al, Case No. CV 14-8390-DMG, was filed in Los Angeles in United States District Court in October 2014, alleging that the defendants had committed fraud in the marketing and sale of certain of their medical gowns used in critical surgeries. In particular, the suit claimed that the companies had falsely represented to the FDA, health care workers and the general public that the company's "Microcool Breathable High Performance Surgical Gowns" (the "Surgical Gowns") were impermeable and provided protection against serious diseases, including Ebola and HIV, despite the fact that the companies had known since 2012 that the gowns were defective, failed industry tests, and did not meet relevant standards, thus placing healthcare professionals and patients at considerable risk for infection, serious bodily harm and death. The jury sided with the Plaintiffs and found that the companies had concealed material information from healthcare professionals throughout California and had carried out their scheme with malice, oppression and/or fraud. "This fraud verdict should send a clear message to corporations throughout the United States that concealment and cover-up are not part of doing business," said lead attorney Michael Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti, LLP, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. "The trial was a search for the truth and the jury found it." The evidence presented at trial showed that Kimberly-Clark and Halyard knowingly misled the medical community, regulators and the general public about the safety of the Surgical Gowns and even after learning of multiple test failures, failed to alert the FDA, healthcare professionals and patients. Internal e-mails and documents from the companies showed employees describing the manufacturing process as "crap" and admitting that they were knowingly using defective and substandard equipment to make the gowns in Honduras. Instead of recalling the gowns and disclosing the truth, the companies concealed what they knew, fired employees who knew too much and continued promoting, marketing and selling the gowns by stating they were impermeable, even going so far as to recommend that the gowns be used when treating patients with serious infectious diseases, including Ebola and HIV. * * * Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reported that an attorney for the class, Michael Avenatti of Eagan Avenatti LLP, told jurors during closing arguments earlier in the day [April 7] that it was widely known within the companies that their MicroCool surgical gowns were not compliant with safety standards and posed a risk to users. The verdict was announced after about five hours of deliberations on Friday, following a nine-day trial. "We are incredibly grateful for the jury's verdict although we cannot say that we are surprised," Avenatti told Law360. "It has been nearly three years of hard-fought litigation together with our clients. We feel incredibly vindicated." The jury ordered Kimberly-Clark to pay $3,889,327 in compensatory damages and $350 million in punitive damages, according to Avenatti. In addition, jurors ordered Halyard Health to pay $261,445 in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages. Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that, "We have an Indemnification Obligation for, and have assumed the defense of, the matter styled Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Halyard Health, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal.) ("Bahamas"), filed on October 29, 2014. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action asserting claims for common law fraud (affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law in connection with our marketing and sale of MicroCool surgical gowns." "On June 1, 2016, the plaintiff moved for class certification of a California-only damages class and a California-only injunctive relief class. Although the plaintiff did not also move for certification of a nationwide class to determine liability, damages, or injunctive relief, it did move for certification of a nationwide "issue" class purporting to resolve certain issues allegedly "common" to members of that class. "On July 8, 2016, we moved for summary judgment. On November 8, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court certified a California- only class for damages and injunctive relief arising from fraud by omission, but it rejected certification of a California-only class arising from affirmative fraud, and it also rejected certification of a nationwide "issue" class. The court also rejected the plaintiff's request for "full restitution" damages, meaning the full value of the gowns. Instead, the court found any damages would be based on the difference between the purchase price of the gowns and what the purchase price would have been for gowns with no AAMI rating. "On November 15, 2016, the court denied our motion for summary judgment. The parties remain engaged in discovery. The trial [wa]s scheduled to begin on March 28, 2017. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of the matter." The Plaintiffs were represented at trial by Michael Avenatti, Ahmed Ibrahim and Filippo Marchino of California-based Eagan Avenatti, LLP, together with William C. Hearon of William C. Hearon, PA, based in Miami, Florida. Contacts: Eagan Avenatti, LLP Suzy Quinn, Director of Media Relations Cell: 310.465.9893 E-mail: squinn@eaganavenatti.com Headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, Halyard Health, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on eliminating pain, speeding recovery and preventing infection for healthcare providers and patients in more than 100 countries. HALYARD HEALTH: Initial Conference in "Jackson" Moved to October ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the case captioned, Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., remains pending, Halyard Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in a matter styled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative class action against the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain information about the safety and effectiveness of our MicroCool gowns and thereby artificially inflated the Company's stock prices during the respective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasers of Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Halyard Health securities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and the alleged class period for purchasers of Halyard Health securities is October 21, 2014 to April 29, 2016." "On February 16, 2017, we moved to dismiss the case. We intend to continue our vigorous defense of this matter," the Company said. On March 2, 2017, Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an Order granting a Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The initial conference is adjourned to October 27, 2017, at 10:00 AM as control date, and the related deadlines are suspended pending further Court order. Headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, Halyard Health, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on eliminating pain, speeding recovery and preventing infection for healthcare providers and patients in more than 100 countries. HORIZON PHARMA: Motion to Dismiss "Schaffer" Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Pharma Plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties await the Court's ruling on th emotion to dismiss the "Schaffer" consolidated class action lawsuit. Beginning on March 8, 2016, two federal securities class action lawsuits (captioned Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case No. 16-cv-01763-JMF and Banie v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al., Case No. 16-cv-01789-JMF) were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers (the "Officer Defendants"). On March 24, 2016, the court consolidated the two actions under Schaffer v. Horizon Pharma plc, et al. On June 3, 2016, the court appointed Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers-Employers Construction Industry Retirement Trust and the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California as lead plaintiffs and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. On July 25, 2016, lead plaintiffs and additional named plaintiff Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund filed their consolidated complaint, which they subsequently amended on October 7, 2016, including additional current and former officers, the Company's Board of Directors (the "Director Defendants"), and underwriters involved with the Company's April 2015 public offering (the "Underwriter Defendants") as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company and the Officer Defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making false and/or misleading statements about, among other things: (a) the Company's financial performance, (b) the Company's business prospects and drug-pricing practices, (c) the Company's sales and promotional practices, and (d) the Company's design, implementation, performance, and risks associated with the Company's Prescriptions-Made-Easy program. The plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company, the Director Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants violated sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") in connection with the Company's April 2015 public offering. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of damages allegedly sustained by plaintiffs and the putative class, including a reasonable allowance for costs and attorneys' fees. On November 14, 2016, all defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs' filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 21, 2016. Briefing on the Motion to Dismiss was completed on January 27, 2017 and the parties await the Court's ruling. HORIZON PHARMA: "Lavrenov" and "Jordan" Suits Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Horizon Pharma Plc said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the "Lavrenov" and "Jordan" class action lawsuits. Between October 5 and October 7, 2016, two complaints (captioned Lavrenov v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No. 16-cv- 00901, and Jordan v. Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp., et al., Case No. 16-cv-00913) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Both actions were filed against Raptor and each member of Raptor's board of directors. The Company and Misneach Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, were named as defendants in the Lavrenov action, but not the Jordan action. The actions were brought by purported stockholders of Raptor, on their own behalf and as a putative class of Raptor stockholders, and assert causes of action under Sections 14 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Lavrenov action also asserts breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims under Delaware law. The complaints allege, among other things, that the process leading up to the Raptor acquisition was inadequate and that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Raptor with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") omits certain material information, which allegedly renders the information disclosed materially misleading. The complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the Raptor acquisition, or in the event the Raptor acquisition is consummated, to recover money damages. On October 17, 2016, Raptor filed an amended Schedule 14D-9 with the SEC. Plaintiffs did not file a motion to preliminarily enjoin the Raptor acquisition, which was completed on October 25, 2016. On December 2, 2016, named plaintiffs dismissed both suits with prejudice as to named plaintiffs, and without prejudice to any other potential party. The Court has retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of ruling upon plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees, in the event such a motion is filed. ILLINOIS CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Trainor" Suit in S.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Illinois Correctional Industry. The case is titled as Corey Trainor, for himself and for a class and subclass of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Illinois Correctional Industry; John Baldwin, Director, IDOC; Gladyse Taylor, Former Director IDOC; Michael P. Randle, Former Director of IDOC; Donald Snyder, Former Director of IDOC; and Unknown Party, John/Jane Doe are wardens, dietary managers, and Illinois Correctional Industry Superintendents, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00369-DRH (S.D. Ill., Apr. 10, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge David R. Herndon. Illinois Correctional provides inmates with the skills and training necessary to be successful upon release from prison.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. INSULET CORP: Feb. 2018 Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in ATRS Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv- 12345, which remains outstanding, Insulet said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On March 31, 2017, a Notice was entered Setting Hearing on Class Certification Motion for February 7, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 10 before Judge Mark L. Wolf. Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court, Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were voluntarily dismissed. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv- 12345, which remains outstanding, alleges that the Company (and certain executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of loss, in connection with this matter. Insulet is primarily engaged in the development, manufacturing and sale of proprietary Omnipod(R) Insulin Management System (the "Omnipod System"), an innovative, discreet and easy-to-use continuous insulin delivery system for people with insulin- dependent diabetes. JASPER CONTRACTORS: Faces "Walker" Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jasper Contractors, Inc. The case is entitled as John Walker, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Jasper Contractors, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00644- GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., Apr. 10, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Gregory A. Presnell. Jasper Contractors is a national roofing contractor company headquartered in Kennesaw, Georgia in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Marco, Esq. SMITHMARCO, PC 55 W Monroe St Ste 1200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 546 6539 Facsimile: (888) 418 1277 E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: No Class Cert. Hearing on "Field" Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017, that there is currently no date set for hearing on the class certification motion related to the Civil Claim filed by Nick Field. In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim). The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the- counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington, Pennsylvania facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 was adjourned, and there is currently no date set for that hearing. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Motion to Dismiss Talc Powder Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- The motion of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. to dismiss one class action lawsuit over alleged health risks associated with talc powder remains pending, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017. In May 2014, two purported class actions were filed in federal court, one in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (now Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.) (JJCI), alleging violations of state consumer fraud statutes based on nondisclosure of alleged health risks associated with talc contained in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder and JOHNSON'S(R) Shower to Shower (a product no longer sold by JJCI). Both cases seek injunctive relief and monetary damages; neither includes a claim for personal injuries. In October 2016, both cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the District Court of New Jersey as part of a newly created federal multi-district litigation. In December 2016, J&J and JJCI filed a motion to dismiss one of the cases. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Discovery Ongoing in Contact Lens Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit by contact lens patients, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017. In March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints allege that the manufacturers reached agreements with each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015. The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action complaint in November 2015, and in December 2015, JJVCI and other defendants filed motions to dismiss. In June 2016, the Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: XARELTO(R) Third-Party Payors' Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit by third-party payors over XARELTO(R) remains pending, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017. In August 2015, two third-party payors filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil- Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose its risks. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887. KYNES CORNER: Faces "Massi" Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kynes Corner, LLC. The case is entitled as CARR MASSI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. George Papadopoulos and Kynes Corner, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-02617 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 11, 2017).[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783 9662 Facsimile: (646) 435 4376 E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends "Jansky" Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., remains pending, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. The Plaintiff appealed the denial of Class Certification, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the Motion for Class Certification on January 20, 2017. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology- enabled solutions. LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Confab in Sandusky Moved to September ----------------------------------------------------------------- At the request of the parties in the case, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:12-cv-02066 (D. Minn.), the settlement conference scheduled for April 28, 2017 has been rescheduled. The conference will now be held on Sept. 15, 2017 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6B (STP) before Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that on August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the District Court's denial of class certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings. On December 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology- enabled solutions. LABORATORY CORP: "Davis" Class Suit Still Pending in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the class action lawsuit by Patty Davis remains pending. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. On December 28, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology- enabled solutions. LABORATORY CORP: "Bloomquist" Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., remains pending, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The complaint alleges that Covance, Inc. violated the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance, Inc. in California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Motion to Remand the Case to State Court. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology- enabled solutions. LABORATORY CORP: MOU in Sequenom Suit Terminated ------------------------------------------------ The parties in the case captioned, In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., have agree that their memorandum of understanding has been terminated and are awaiting further direction from the Court as to how the litigation will proceed, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, between August 15, 2016 and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101-WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB- JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its Board of Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. In connection with the settlement, Sequenom agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders. On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On January 12, 2017 the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly the presumptive lead plaintiff, but denying Mr. Reilly's request for immediate approval as lead plaintiff. The Company is awaiting the Court's appointment of a permanent lead plaintiff. The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated and are awaiting further direction from the Court as to how the litigation will proceed. The Company provides diagnostic, drug development and technology- enabled solutions. MDL 1869: Class Certification Motion Underway --------------------------------------------- Parties in the case, In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869, await the court's ruling on the motion for class certification, BNSF Railway Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Beginning May 14, 2007, some 30 similar class action complaints were filed in six federal district courts around the country by rail shippers against BNSF Railway and other Class I railroads alleging that they have conspired to fix fuel surcharges with respect to unregulated freight transportation services in violation of the antitrust laws. The complaints seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble damages. These cases were consolidated and are currently pending in the federal District Court for the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1869). Consolidated amended class action complaints were filed against BNSF Railway and three other Class I railroads in April 2008. On June 21, 2012, the District Court certified the class sought by the plaintiffs. BNSF Railway and the other three Class I railroads appealed the class certification decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals. On August 9, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's class certification decision and remanded the case to permit the District Court to reconsider its decision in light of the United States Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. In September 2016, the District Court held a hearing to determine whether to certify a class, but no order has been issued. The Company continues to believe that these claims are without merit and continues to defend against the allegations vigorously. The Company does not believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. BNSF Railway operates one of the largest railroad systems in North America. MDL 2081: Johnson & Johnson Retains OCD Liability in Reagent Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson has retained any liability that may result from the case, In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation, Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017. In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho- Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2081. In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by the plaintiffs for class certification. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the class certification ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In October 2015, the District Court again granted the motion by the plaintiffs for class certification. In July 2016, OCD filed a motion for summary judgment. OCD was divested in 2014 and Johnson & Johnson retained any liability that may result from these cases. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. In 2012, Immucor settled the lawsuit and paid $22,000,000 for the benefit of a class of purchasers of Traditional Blood Reagents. The Court entered final approval of the Immucor settlement and dismissed Immucor as Defendant. The lawsuit continues against the non-settling Defendant, Ortho, on behalf of a class, or group of people. The continuing lawsuit affects persons and entities in the United States who purchased Traditional Blood Reagents directly from either Defendant between November 4, 2000 and October 19, 2015 (the "Litigation Class"). Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.bloodreagentsantitrustlitigation.com/ Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries (the "Company") have approximately 126,400 employees worldwide engaged in the research and development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of products in the health care field. Johnson & Johnson is a holding company, which has more than 230 operating companies conducting business in virtually all countries of the world. The Company's primary focus is products related to human health and well-being. Johnson & Johnson was incorporated in the State of New Jersey in 1887. MDL 2777: EcoDiesel Product Liability Case Moved to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep EcoDiesel Marketing, Sales practices and products Liability Litigation, was transferred to from Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation to the Northern District of California creating MDL No. 3:17-md-2777 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Edward M. Chen. FCA US LLC, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Jose Chavez, Benjamin Greenberg, Andrew Loescher, Miguel Fragoso, Mathue Fasching Thomas McGann, Jr., Joseph Neupert, Bryan Muckenfuss, Satyanam Singh, John Radziewicz Binh Quoc Tran, Christopher Walker, Luke Kitchel, Gregory Wilkerson, Joseph Moynihan, Mark Richards, Timothy Green Harold Blake, Travis Morgan, Jeff Parisi, Adam Burwell, Elmer Brinkman, Louis Bodie, Jamie Broom, Walter Swan, Craig McCully Aaron Carter, Daniel Brown, Nelson Delgado, Bobby Reichert, Christopher Mattingly, Micah Martin, Marius Bihorean, GN Systems, Inc., Leslie Ghrist, Jason Gaines, Nathan Friedenfels, Steven Elowitz, Jeffrey W. Griggs, Michael Johnson, Jeffrey Weaver Karl Calhoun, Josh Clafin, Joseph L. Weber, Auburn Carpenter, Gregory Giauque, Tom Gillespe, Lawrence Diener, Matt Ortman, Graham Bolkema, Kyle Heidlebaugh, George Milner, Joseph Bernardo Jesse Sandifer, Victor Feldman, Jose Licea, Heather Deerenberg, Sing Sun, Warren Carmichael, Dennis Overstreet, Casey Wheelock, Finlay Drake, Austin Hawthorn, Marco Silio, Russell Bloom, Samuel Price, Tad Leroy, Louis Barrie, James Deberry, and Michah Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: Jessica Thompson, Esq. Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: jessicat@hbsslaw.com shanas@hbsslaw.com steve@hbsslaw.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841 2200 Facsimile: (248) 652 2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994 1700 Facsimile: (973) 994 1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345 8291 Facsimile: (513) 345 8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Peter B. Fredman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN 125 University Ave., Suite 102 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 868 2626 Facsimile: (510) 868 2627 E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com - and - Sharon S Almonrode, Esq. 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841 2200 E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Derek William Loeser, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Ryan McDevitt, Esq. Lisa Faye Petak, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623 1900 E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com jlewis@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com lpetak@kellerrohrback.com - and - Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq. BAILEY AND GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-1386 Telephone: (304) 345 6555 Facsimile: (304) 342 1110 E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com - and - Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956 1000 Facsimile: (415) 956 1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com - and - James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254 8801 Facsimile: (615) 250 3937 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com - and - Joe P Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER STRANCH JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254 8801 Facsimile: (615) 255 5419 E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com - and - Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445 4003 Facsimile: (415) 445 4020 E-mail: Lweaver@bfalaw.com - and - Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 788 7210 Facsimile: (415) 788 0706 E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com - and - David Brian Fernandes, Esq. Mark P Pifko, Esq. Roland K. Tellis, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839 2333 Facsimile: (818) 986 9698 E-mail: dfernandes@baronbudd.com MPifko@baronbudd.com rtellis@baronbudd.com - and - David S Stellings, Esq. Kevin R. Budner, Esq. Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Esq. Wilson McClelland Dunlavey, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355 9500 E-mail: DSTELLINGS@lchb.com kbudner@lchb.com pgnguyen@lchb.com wdunlavey@lchb.com - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750 3000 Facsimile: (561) 750 3364 E-mail: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com - and - Robert Cecil Gilbert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISLEBERG GILBERT 2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1100 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 384 7270 Facsimile: (954) 525 4300 E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500 6800 Facsimile: (415) 395 9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com - and - Kristin J. Moody, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 3200 Facsimile: (415) 433 6382 E-mail: kmoody@bermandevalerio.com FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Robert Bosch GmbH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany; Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. are represented by: Kyle Allen Niemi, Esq. Darrell Scott Cafasso, Esq. Robert J. Giuffra , Jr., Esq. Sharon L Nelles, Esq. William B. Monahan, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: (650) 461 5600 E-mail: niemik@sullcrom.com cafassod@sullcrom.com giuffrar@sullcrom.com nelless@sullcrom.com MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Motion to Reconsider Order Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that one motion for reconsideration remains pending in an appeal in the Polyurethane Foam Litigation. Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company was named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases, as well as in two consolidated amended class action complaints on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products and on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, sought damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Any damages actually awarded at trial would have been subject to being tripled under US antitrust laws. On March 23 and April 30, 2015, the Company entered into agreements to settle all claims brought by the class of direct and indirect purchasers, and the trial court entered orders granting approval of the settlements on November 19, 2015 and January 27, 2016. Certain individual members of the indirect purchaser class sought to overturn the approval through an appeal to the Sixth Circuit of Appeals. As of June 21, 2016, all of these appeals have been dismissed, provided that one request to reconsider remains pending. The Company has also entered into settlement agreements resolving all of the claims brought on behalf of all of the consolidated individual lawsuits. Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces around the world. MORGAN STANLEY: Dismissal of Antitrust Claims Sought ---------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the case, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corporation et al., have filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On April 10, 2017, Non-Settling Defedants filed a Joint Motion to Partially Dismiss Plaintiffs' Antitrust Claims. The Motion was filed by BNP Paribas, HSBC Bank USA, N.A., ICAP Capital Markets, LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., UBS AG, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. On October 20, 2014, a purported class action complaint was filed against the Firm and other defendants styled Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation et al. in the SDNY. The action was later consolidated with four similar actions in SDNY under the lead case styled Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America Corporation et al. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 2, 2015 asserting claims for alleged violations of the Sherman Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and tortious interference with contract. The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in antitrust violations with regards to the process of setting ISDAfix, a financial benchmark and seeks treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and other relief. On March 28, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On February 7, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. MORGAN STANLEY: Demurrer Denied in Calif. Attorney General's Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court has denied the Firm's demurrer with respect to the amended complaint in the case, California v. Morgan Stanley, et al. On April 1, 2016, the California Attorney General's Office filed an action against the Firm in California state court styled California v. Morgan Stanley, et al., on behalf of California investors, including the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the California Teachers' Retirement System. The complaint alleges that the Firm made misrepresentations and omissions regarding residential mortgage-backed securities and notes issued by the Cheyne SIV, and asserts violations of the California False Claims Act and other state laws and seeks treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, and injunctive relief. On September 30, 2016, the court granted the Firm's demurrer, with leave to replead. On October 21, 2016, the California Attorney General filed an amended complaint. On January 25, 2017, the court denied the Firm's demurrer with respect to the amended complaint. MORGAN STANLEY: Finalizing Settlement of Forex Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that parties in the case, In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, are finalizing a settlement. The Firm, as well as other foreign exchange dealers, are defendants in In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint generally alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, maintain or make artificial prices for key benchmark rates, to manipulate bid/ask spreads, and, by their behavior in the over-the-counter market, to thereby cause corresponding manipulation in the foreign exchange futures market. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On December 16, 2016, the Firm and plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation with respect to the Firm. After it is finalized by the parties, the settlement will be subject to court approval. NABORS INDUSTRIES: Briefing on Class Action Appeal Concluded ------------------------------------------------------------ Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that briefing on a class action appeal has concluded, and no hearing date has been set. The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Nabors Red Lion Limited ("Red Lion"), along with C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger rescinded." "On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). "On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. Nabors and the C&J Energy defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was granted by the Chancellor on August 24, 2016, including a ruling that C&J Energy could recover on the bond that was posted to support the temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on September 22, 2016. A briefing was concluded, and no hearing date has been set. "On March 24, 2015, we completed the Merger of our Completion & Production Services business with C&J Energy." Nabors Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: NBR) was formed as a Bermuda exempted company on December 11, 2001. Nabors owns and operates the world's largest land-based drilling rig fleet and is a leading provider of offshore platform drilling rigs in the United States and multiple international markets. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Kalmenson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is styled as Josef Kalmenson, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01954 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 5, 2017), Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Held on Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has heard oral argument on several motions, including plaintiffs' motion on class certification, in the Natural Gas Litigation. GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the District Court. GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' decision and the Supreme Court granted the petition. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's holding that plaintiffs' state antitrust law claims are not field- preempted by the federal Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted on the basis of conflict preemption. The Supreme Court directed that the case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for further proceedings. On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class certification. Defendants filed their briefs in opposition to class plaintiffs' motions for class certification on June 24, 2016. On January 26, 2017, the court heard oral argument on several motions, including plaintiffs' motion on class certification. In May 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in one of the Kansas cases. Subsequently in December 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against certain losses relating to these lawsuits. In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which was handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five lawsuits. NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company built on the strength of the nation's largest and most diverse competitive electric generation portfolio and leading retail electricity platform. NRG aims to create a sustainable energy future by producing, selling and delivering electricity and related products and services in major competitive power markets in the U.S. in a manner that delivers value to all of NRG's stakeholders. The Company owns and operates approximately 47,000 MW of generation; engages in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services; and directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable products and services to retail customers under the names "NRG", "Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG. NRG was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29, 1992. NRG ENERGY: June Hearings on Class Cert. Bid in TCPA Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that class certification hearings are scheduled on June 5, 2017 and June 19, 2017 in the New Jersey and California Telephone Consumer Protection Act Purported Class Actions. Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG Residential Solar Solutions, LLC -- one in California and two in New Jersey. The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by the call agents and violations of the TCPA, claiming that the defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited calls to individuals on the "Do Not Call List." The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual damages and equitable relief. On July 8, 2016, NRG filed a Rule 11 Motion seeking dismissal of NRG from the California case. The Rule 11 Motion was denied on August 16, 2016. Class certification hearings are scheduled on June 5, 2017 and June 19, 2017 in the New Jersey and California cases respectively. NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company built on the strength of the nation's largest and most diverse competitive electric generation portfolio and leading retail electricity platform. NRG aims to create a sustainable energy future by producing, selling and delivering electricity and related products and services in major competitive power markets in the U.S. in a manner that delivers value to all of NRG's stakeholders. The Company owns and operates approximately 47,000 MW of generation; engages in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services; and directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable products and services to retail customers under the names "NRG", "Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG. NRG was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29, 1992. NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Opposition to Demurrer Due June 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' demurrer is due on June 15, 2017, in the case captioned, Braun v. NRG Yield, Inc. On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members of its board of directors individually, and other parties in California Superior Court in Kern County, CA. Plaintiffs allege various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C common stock offering. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, rescission, attorney's fees and costs. On August 3, 2016, the court approved a stipulation entered into by the parties. The stipulation provided that the plaintiffs would file an amended complaint by August 19, 2016, which they did on August 18, 2016. The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion challenging jurisdiction on October 18, 2016. On February 24, 2017, the court approved the parties' stipulation which provides the plaintiffs' opposition is due on June 15, 2017 and defendants' reply is due on August 14, 2017. NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company built on the strength of the nation's largest and most diverse competitive electric generation portfolio and leading retail electricity platform. NRG aims to create a sustainable energy future by producing, selling and delivering electricity and related products and services in major competitive power markets in the U.S. in a manner that delivers value to all of NRG's stakeholders. The Company owns and operates approximately 47,000 MW of generation; engages in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services; and directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable products and services to retail customers under the names "NRG", "Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG. NRG was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29, 1992. NRG ENERGY: June 20 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Ahmed" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that oral argument is scheduled for June 20, 2017, on the motion to dismiss the case captioned, Ahmed v. NRG Energy, Inc. and the NRG Yield Board of Directors. On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit against NRG Energy, Inc., the directors of NRG Yield, Inc., and other parties in the Delaware Chancery Court. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their respective fiduciary duties with regard to the recapitalization of NRG Yield, Inc. common stock in 2015. The plaintiffs generally seek economic damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on December 21, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their objection to the motion to dismiss on February 15, 2017. Oral argument is scheduled for June 20, 2017. NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated power company built on the strength of the nation's largest and most diverse competitive electric generation portfolio and leading retail electricity platform. NRG aims to create a sustainable energy future by producing, selling and delivering electricity and related products and services in major competitive power markets in the U.S. in a manner that delivers value to all of NRG's stakeholders. The Company owns and operates approximately 47,000 MW of generation; engages in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related products; transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services; and directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable products and services to retail customers under the names "NRG", "Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG. NRG was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on May 29, 1992. ON SEMICONDUCTOR: "Laidlaw" Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ ON Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiff in the case captioned, Cody Laidlaw v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., has voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. On December 16, 2015, a purported stockholder in the Company filed a complaint challenging the tender offer for Fairchild and the merger in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. The complaint was captioned Cody Laidlaw v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-289120. The complaint listed as defendants Fairchild, its board of directors, Goldman Sachs and unnamed representatives of Goldman Sachs. The complaint alleged that the board of directors of Fairchild breached its fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the price to be paid for Fairchild and that Fairchild and the board of directors of Fairchild failed to provide Fairchild's stockholders with all material information needed to make an informed decision whether to tender their shares of Fairchild common stock in the tender offer. The complaint further alleged that Goldman Sachs and its unnamed representatives aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty of Fairchild's board of directors. As relief, the complaint sought, among other things, an injunction against the tender offer and the merger of Fairchild with and into Merger Sub and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Fairchild filed a motion to dismiss on July 15, 2016, the plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss on September 16, 2016, and on December 8, 2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit. ON Semiconductor Corporation, which was incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware in 1999, together with its subsidiaries, is driving innovation in energy efficient electronics. Its extensive portfolio of sensors, power management, connectivity, custom and SoC, analog, logic, timing, and discrete devices helps customers efficiently solve their design challenges in advanced electronic systems and products. ORANGE COUNTY: Faces "Agrella" Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Orange County Courier. The case is captioned as Christopher Agrella, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Orange County Courier and Logistics LLLP and Subcontracting Concepts LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00689 (C.D. Cal., Apr. 11, 2017).[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Charleston" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Nicole Charleston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02190 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 11, 2017). PRA is a publicly traded debt buyer based in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Lane" Suit in District of Delaware -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is captioned as Diane Lane, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc., and Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00371-UNA (D. Del., Apr. 5, 2017). Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984 3889 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com SEMPRA ENERGY: 250 Lawsuits Filed over Aliso Canyon Leak -------------------------------------------------------- As of February 27, 2017, 250 lawsuits, including over 14,000 plaintiffs, have been filed against Southern California Gas Company, some of which have also named Sempra Energy, related to the Aliso Canyon leak, Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In October 2015, Southern California Gas Company discovered a leak at one of its injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is more than one mile away from and 1,200 feet above the closest homes. It is one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world's leading experts to stop the leak, and in February 2016, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), confirmed that the well was permanently sealed. As of February 27, 2017, 250 lawsuits, including over 14,000 plaintiffs, have been filed against SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy. These various lawsuits assert causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, strict liability, property damage, fraud, public and private nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, fraudulent concealment, unfair business practices and loss of consortium, among other things. A complaint alleging violations of Proposition 65 was also filed. Many of these complaints seek class action status, compensatory and punitive damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring and attorneys' fees. In addition to the lawsuits, a federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal securities laws has been filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and directors, and four shareholder derivative actions alleging breach of fiduciary duties have been filed against certain officers and directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas. Three complaints have also been filed by public entities, including the California Attorney General, the SCAQMD and the County of Los Angeles. These complaints seek various remedies, including injunctive relief, abatement of the public nuisance, civil penalties, payment of the cost of a longitudinal health study, and money damages, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. In February 2017, SoCalGas entered into a settlement agreement with the SCAQMD under which SoCalGas will pay $8.5 million and SCAQMD will dismiss its complaint and petition for dismissal of a stipulated abatement order issued by its Hearing Board. Separately, in February 2016, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas seeking penalties and other remedies for alleged failure to provide timely notice of the leak and for allegedly violating certain California Health and Safety Code provisions. On November 29, 2016, the court approved a settlement between SoCalGas and the District Attorney's Office whereby SoCalGas agreed to plead no contest to a misdemeanor for the alleged failure to provide timely notice of the leak and to spend approximately $4.3 million on reimbursement of government agency expenses, operational commitments, and fines and penalties, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts. Certain individuals residing near Aliso Canyon who objected to the settlement have filed a notice of appeal of the judgment, as well as a petition asking the Superior Court to set aside the November 29, 2016 order and grant them restitution. SMART ENERGY: Faces "Lemieux" Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smart Energy Solar, Inc. The case is titled as Kevin Lemieux, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Smart Energy Solar, Inc., doing business as Smart Energy USA, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00694-DMS-BLM (S.D. Cal., Apr. 5, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw. Smart Energy specializes in grid-tied Solar Power electric systems and installation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 940 1700 Facsimile: (323) 238 8095 E-mail: Nick@mblawapc.com SOLIMA PEOPLE: Faces "Van Buskirk" Suit in W.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solima People, LLC. The case is captioned as Jennifer Van Buskirk, Artis Dease, and Autumn Dease, And All Others Similarly Situated Under 29 USC 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. Solima People, LLC, doing business as: Eggspectation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00301-XR (W.D. Tex., Apr. 10, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Xavier Rodriguez.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 777 Main Street, Suite 600 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479 9229 Facsimile: (817) 887 1878 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com SQUARE INC: Fails to Reach Settlement of Caviar Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Square, Inc. failed to reach an agreement with the parties in the Caviar misclassification suits, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "We are involved in a class action lawsuit concerning independent contractors in connection with our Caviar business. On March 19, 2015, Jeffry Levin, on behalf of a putative nationwide class, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against our wholly owned subsidiary, Caviar, Inc., which, as amended, alleges that Caviar misclassified Mr. Levin and other similarly situated couriers as independent contractors and, in doing so, violated various provisions of the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by requiring them to pay various business expenses that should have been borne by Caviar." "The Court compelled arbitration of Mr. Levin's individual claims on November 16, 2015 and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice on May 2, 2016. On June 1, 2016, Mr. Levin filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's order compelling arbitration with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Levin filed his opening appellate brief regarding the order compelling arbitration of his individual claims on October 7, 2016. We filed our answering brief on December 7, 2016, and Mr. Levin filed his reply on December 21, 2016. The parties now await notice of a hearing date from the Ninth Circuit. "Mr. Levin also sought an award of penalties pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The parties stipulated that Mr. Levin would no longer pursue this PAGA claim but that it may instead be pursued by a different courier. Subsequently, couriers Nadezhda Rosen and La'Dell Brewster filed a new PAGA-only claim in California state court on November 7, 2016. Plaintiffs claim that Caviar misclassified its couriers as independent contractors resulting in numerous violations of the California Labor Code, pursuant to which plaintiffs seek statutory penalties for those violations. "The parties have stipulated to extend the time for Caviar to respond to the complaint until March 17, 2017. In February 2017, we participated in a mediation with the parties in these Caviar misclassification suits to explore resolution of the matters at hand; however, an agreement on all the material terms has not been reached." Square is a cohesive commerce ecosystem that helps sellers start, run, and grow their businesses. It combines sophisticated software with affordable hardware to enable sellers to turn mobile devices and computing devices into powerful payment and point-of- sale solutions. STEEL DYNAMICS: Accord with Indirect Purchasers Await Final OK -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, In re Steel Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-5214 (N.D. Ill.) (related to the Direct Purchaser Actions), the Honorable Manish S. Shah entered a final approval of the 2016 Settlement on February 26, 2017. Subsequently, Claim Forms for the 2016 Settlement were mailed on March 28, 2017. The deadline for submitting Claim Forms for the 2016 Settlement is May 31, 2017. Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in connection with the case captioned, Standard Iron Works v Arcelor Mittal, et al class action antitrust litigation originally involving two class action complaints (a so-called "direct purchaser" case and a so-called "indirect purchaser" case), alleging an antitrust conspiracy to limit steel output in the United States and pending since 2008 in federal court in Chicago, settlement agreements have been entered into in both cases, one of which (the direct case) has received final court approval, the other of which (the indirect case) is awaiting final court approval. The October 2016 direct purchaser settlement involved a November 2016 payment of $4.6 million with only two relatively small class members opting out of the settlement. The indirect purchaser case has been settled for $990,000, which has been paid into escrow in 2017, and is pending court approval. Until final settlement approval, the settlement remains preliminary. Steel Dynamics, Inc. is one of the largest domestic steel producers and metal recyclers in the United States based on current estimated steelmaking and coating capacity of 11 million tons and actual metals recycling volumes. The primary source of revenues are from the manufacture and sale of steel products, processing and sale of recycled ferrous and nonferrous metals, and fabrication and sale of steel joists and deck products. TC PIPELINES: Plaintiffs' Appeal Dismissed ------------------------------------------ TC PipeLines, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in the case, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al., the Delaware Supreme Court has found in the Defendant's favor and dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal. Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al. On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the General Partner, TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and the Partnership as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges direct and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015 GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95 million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries, disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner, TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees. The Partnership has moved to dismiss the complaint and intends to defend vigorously against the claims asserted. In April 2016, the Chancery Court granted the Partnership and other defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiff has appealed the decision to dismiss its claims. The appeal of this matter was heard by the Delaware Supreme Court in December, 2016. The court found in the Defendant's favor and dismissed the Plaintiff's motion. There are no further rights of appeal. TC PipeLines was formed by TransCanada Corporation and its subsidiaries (TransCanada) in 1998 to acquire, own and participate in the management of energy infrastructure businesses in North America. TENET HEALTHCARE: Consolidated Securities Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the case captioned In re Tenet Healthcare Corporation Securities Litigation, had until April 11, 2017 to file an amended and consolidated complaint, Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On October 7, 2016, a purported shareholder of the Company's common stock filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and several current and former executive officers in a matter captioned Pennington v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al. The plaintiff is seeking class certification on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's securities between February 28, 2012 and October 3, 2016. On October 10, 2016, a second purported shareholder filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) against the Company and two current executive officers in a matter captioned Yamany v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al. The plaintiff in this case is seeking class certification on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's securities between February 26, 2013 and September 30, 2016. Both complaints allege that false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's financial performance and compliance policies, specifically with respect to the Clinica de la Mama matters described above, caused the price of the Company's common stock to be artificially inflated. On February 10, 2017, the judge in the Yamany matter entered an order consolidating the cases in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) and appointing four lead plaintiffs. The case is now captioned In re Tenet Healthcare Corporation Securities Litigation. Plaintiffs had until April 11, 2017 to file an amended and consolidated complaint. Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a diversified healthcare services company. Tenet operates regionally focused, integrated healthcare delivery networks, primarily in large urban and suburban markets in the United States. TENET HEALTHCARE: Still Defends "Maderazo" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned, Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., remains pending, Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems, including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec.1 of the federal Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees. The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery. "We will continue to seek to defeat class certification and vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations. It remains impossible at this time to predict the outcome of these proceedings with any certainty; however, we believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations," the Company said. Tenet Healthcare Corporation is a diversified healthcare services company. Tenet operates regionally focused, integrated healthcare delivery networks, primarily in large urban and suburban markets in the United States. TEREX CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Terex Corporation's motions to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains pending, Terex said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits as follows: * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al. * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation. These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the Company's securities and in the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in its favor. The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the securities lawsuit. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit. Terex is a global manufacturer of lifting and material processing products and services that deliver lifecycle solutions to maximize customer return on investment. TIME INC: Appeal in "Coulter-Owens" Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- The appeal related to a class action lawsuit by Rose Coulter-Owens remains pending, Time, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc. violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class member or actual damages. On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that it failed to state claims for relief and because the named plaintiff lacked standing because she suffered no injury from the alleged conduct. On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in part, and denied, in part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the breach of contract claim but allowing the VRPA and unjust enrichment claims to proceed. On November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-Owens replaced Susan Fox as the named plaintiff. On March 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify a class consisting of all Michigan residents who between March 31, 2009 and November 15, 2013 purchased a subscription to TIME, Fortune or Real Simple magazines through any website other than Time.com, Fortune.com and RealSimple.com. On July 27, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify the class, which we estimate to comprise approximately 40,000 consumers. On August 31, 2015, Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and on October 1, 2015 both parties filed briefs in opposition to their adversaries' motions. On February 16, 2016, the court granted Time Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. On March 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice with the Circuit Court appealing the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims. On May 26, 2016, Time Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing to pursue her claims. On September 22, 2016, the Motions Part of the Circuit Court issued an order directing that Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss the appeal should be decided by the appellate panel that was assigned the plaintiff's appeal on the merits. On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed her appellate brief and on December 21, 2016, Time Inc. filed its opposition to Plaintiff's appeal and a cross-appeal to the District Court's order certifying the class. Plaintiff filed a reply and opposition to Time Inc.'s class certification appeal on February 6, 2017 and Time Inc. filed a sur-reply on February 20, 2017. Time Inc., is a multi-platform media and content company that engages over 150 million consumers every month through its portfolio of premium news and lifestyle brands across a diverse set of interest areas. The Company's influential brands include People, Time, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, InStyle, Real Simple, Southern Living, Entertainment Weekly, Food & Wine, Travel + Leisure and Essence, as well as approximately 50 diverse titles in the United Kingdom. TIME INC: Must Defend Against "Perlin" Suit ------------------------------------------- Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned, Perlin v. Time Inc., has been denied, Time said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On February 19, 2016, the same law firm representing Rose Coulter- Owens filed another class action, entitled Perlin v. Time Inc., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as a claim for unjust enrichment. This lawsuit was filed on behalf of Michigan residents who purchased subscriptions directly from Time Inc. On May 6, 2016 and May 31, 2016, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint. Perlin filed an opposition brief on June 27, 2016 and Time Inc. filed its reply brief on July 11, 2016. On February 15, 2017, the Court denied Time Inc.'s motion to dismiss. "We intend to vigorously defend against or prosecute the matters described above," the Company said. Time Inc., is a multi-platform media and content company that engages over 150 million consumers every month through its portfolio of premium news and lifestyle brands across a diverse set of interest areas. The Company's influential brands include People, Time, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, InStyle, Real Simple, Southern Living, Entertainment Weekly, Food & Wine, Travel + Leisure and Essence, as well as approximately 50 diverse titles in the United Kingdom. UMA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Cuellar" Suit in Cal. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Uma Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as William Cuellar, As an Individual and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Uma Enterprises, Inc., A California Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC657146 (Cal. Super. Ct., Apr. 10, 2017). UMA Enterprises engages in the import and wholesale of home decor, gift, and floral products in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 East Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument in Securities Litigation Begins ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that oral argument on class certification were scheduled to be held on March 3, 2017, in the case, In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities Litigation; formerly Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et al. On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiffs and, on June 9, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015, the plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint, which was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared Investments Inc. ("F-Squared"). The Consolidated Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. A motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed on behalf of the Company and the other defendants on October 21, 2015. On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss, narrowing Plaintiff's claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and dismissing one of the defendants from the suit. The remaining defendants' Answer to the Consolidated Complaint was filed on August 5, 2016. The parties are briefing Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and oral argument on class certification was scheduled to be held on March 3, 2017. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. Virtus is a provider of investment management and related services to individuals and institutions. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Oral Argument in "Youngers" Action Begins ------------------------------------------------------------ Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that oral argument on class certification were scheduled to be held on March 3, 2017, in the case, Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. et al. On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "District Court") by an individual who alleges he is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSector Funds. The complaint alleges claims against the Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff, and on July 27, 2015, the District Court appointed movants as lead plaintiff. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint which, among other things, added a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus Opportunities Trust. On October 19, 2015, the District Court entered an order transferring the action to the Southern District of New York (the "Court"). On January 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the Company and affiliated defendants on February 1, 2016. On July 1, 2016, the Court entered an opinion and order granting in part, and denying in part, the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed four causes of action entirely and a fifth cause of action with respect to a portion of the Class Period. The Court also dismissed all claims against ten defendants named in the Complaint. The Court held that the Plaintiffs may pursue certain securities claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. The remaining defendants filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on August 5, 2016. A Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal of the claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act was filed on September 15, 2016. The defendants filed a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal of the July 1, 2016 order to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on August 26, 2016. The motion was denied on January 6, 2017. The parties are briefing Plaintiff's motion for class certification, and oral argument on class certification was scheduled to be held on March 3, 2017. The Company believes that the suit has no basis in law or fact and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. Virtus is a provider of investment management and related services to individuals and institutions. WYNDHAM VACATION: "Boy" Suit Moved from Super. Court to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Veronica O Boy, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 30-02017-00907397-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-00653-JVS-JCG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge James V. Selna. Wyndham Vacation develops and markets flexible, points-based vacation ownership products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Malte L. Farnaes, Esq. Mitchell J. Murray, Esq. FARNAES AND LUCIO APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 210 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (760) 942 9430 Facsimile: (888) 849 2465 E-mail: malte@farnaeslaw.com - and - The Defendant is represented by: Francisco Lucas Paule, Esq. Sabrina L Shadi, Esq. Shareef Swamy Farag, Esq. BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 820 8800 Facsimile: (310) 820 8859 E-mail: fpaule@bakerlaw.com sshadi@bakerlaw.com sfarag@bakerlaw.com XPO LOGISTICS: Accrued Full Amount of "Mendoza" Case Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed settlement in the case captioned, Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc. One of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries is a party to a class action lawsuit (Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, Inc.) brought by Edwin Molina on August 19, 2013 and currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. Mr. Molina asserts that he should be classified as an employee, rather than an independent contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various California wage and hour laws on behalf of himself and all owner-operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August 19, 2009 to April 29, 2016. Certain of these potential claimants also may have Pending DLSE Claims. The Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation with the claimant. The Court has approved the settlement agreement, and it has been accepted by 520 members of the putative class. The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed settlement. The full amount of the settlement has been paid in 2016 and the matter will be dismissed by the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. * * * In September 2016, Matthew Bultman, writing for Law360, reported that a California federal judge approved a request to trim more than $1.5 million from Pacer Cartage Inc.'s $4.25 million settlement with a class of truckers who claimed they were misclassified as contractors and cheated on wages, after dozens of drivers opted out of the deal. U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns in a brief order granted a joint request from the two sides to reduce the settlement to $2.68 million. The judge also granted a reduction in class counsel's requested attorneys' fees. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Richard L. Kellner, Esq. Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com rlk@kbklawyers.com jhh@kbklawyers.com Attorneys for Defendant, Pacer Cartage, Inc.: Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq. E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & PEARY, LLP North Lake Avenue, Suite 460 Pasadena, CA 91101 Tel: (626) 795-4700 Fax: (626) 795-4790 - and - James H. Hanson, Esq. Angela S. Cash, Esq. Ryan W. Wright, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & PEARY, LLP 10 West Market Street, Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: (317) 637-1777 Fax: (317) 687-2414 E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com acash@scopelitis.com rwright@scopelitis.com XPO Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation together with its subsidiaries, is a top ten global provider of cutting-edge supply chain solutions to the most successful companies in the world. XPO LOGISTICS: "Cortez" Suit in Initial Pleading Stage ------------------------------------------------------ XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the case captioned, M. Cortez v. Pacer, is in the initial pleading stage. There are other putative class action litigation matters pending against the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries in which the plaintiffs claim they should have been classified as employees, rather than independent contractors, and seek damages for alleged violations of various California wage and hour laws. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses. However, these claims are all subject to arbitration provisions in the claimants' independent contractor agreements, and class action certification is therefore unlikely. These cases include the following matters filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles District: C. Arevalo v. XPO Port Services, Inc. filed in August 2015; M. Cortez v. Pacer filed in June 2016; and the following case filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: I. Hernandez v. Pacer filed in May 2016. One of these cases, Cortez, has filed a California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") claim, which is not subject to arbitration and therefore is subject to PAGA class action procedures. However, this matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the PAGA claim to proceed. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable relating to these claims. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims. XPO Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation together with its subsidiaries, is a top ten global provider of cutting-edge supply chain solutions to the most successful companies in the world. XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses. Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are pending in California (Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in May 2005, currently in the Federal District Court, Southern District of California; Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016 in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016 in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County; and Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016 in Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County); New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2015 in the Federal District Court, New Jersey); Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court, Pennsylvania); and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in November 2015 in the Federal District Court, Connecticut). The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims. XPO Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation together with its subsidiaries, is a top ten global provider of cutting-edge supply chain solutions to the most successful companies in the world. XPO LOGISTICS: "Leung" Last Mile TCPA Claims in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------------ XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is a party to a putative class action litigation (Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer call system used by a last mile logistics business that the Company acquired. This matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action. The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable relating to this matter. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of this matter given, among other reasons, that the Company is vigorously defending the matter and believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses and that it remains uncertain what evidence of their claims and damages, if any, plaintiffs will be able to present. XPO LOGISTICS: Settles Less-Than-Truckload Meal Break Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company has reached a deal to settle the case captioned, Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. The Company's LTL subsidiary is a party to several class action litigations alleging violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs allege failure to provide drivers with required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina case"). The Pina case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern District. The Company has reached an agreement to settle the Pina case, which has been tentatively approved by the court, and no interested parties have timely filed objections to the proposed settlement. The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed settlement. XPO Logistics, Inc., a Delaware corporation together with its subsidiaries, is a top ten global provider of cutting-edge supply chain solutions to the most successful companies in the world. ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Motions Pending in Symbol Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 27, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that there are certain discovery motions pending that could, if granted, reopen fact discovery in the class action lawsuit related to the acquisition of Symbol Technologies. In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions. A putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and the same former officers making substantially similar allegations (collectively, the New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April 26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiff alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures and seeks unspecified damages. The court has certified a class of investors that includes those that purchased Symbol common stock between March 12, 2004 and August 1, 2005. The parties have substantially completed fact and expert discovery. However, there are certain discovery motions pending that could, if granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held in abeyance all other deadlines, including the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial. The current lead Directors and Officers ("D&O") insurer continues to maintain its position of not agreeing to reimburse defense costs incurred by the Company in connection with this matter, and the Company disputes the position taken by the current D&O insurer. Zebra is a global leader in the Automatic Identification and Data Capture ("AIDC") market. The AIDC market consists of mobile computing, data capture, radio frequency identification devices ("RFID"), barcode printing, and other automation products and services. ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Settlement Payment Released from Escrow ------------------------------------------------------------- Zions Bancorporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that as of December 31, 2016, the Company considered the case captioned, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et. al., to be closed. The company said, "Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et al., a class action brought against us in 2010 and conditionally settled in the second quarter of 2016. The settlement was finally approved by the court and the settlement payment was released from escrow in December 2016. We had fully reserved for our obligations with respect to the settlement. A portion of the settlement was covered by our insurance policies and was funded by our insurers." Zions Bancorporation is a financial holding company organized under the laws of the State of Utah in 1955, and registered under the BHC Act, as amended. The Parent owns and operates a commercial bank with a total of 436 branches at year-end 2016. ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Stern" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates, P.C. The case is captioned as Aharon Stern, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Zwicker & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01964 (E.D.N.Y., Apr. 5, 2017). Zwicker & Associates is a law firm whose primary business function is debt collection.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395 3459 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com ********* 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 * * *