/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170421.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 80 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: "Champion" Sues Over Contact Lens Price-Fixing 15 TAYLOR LLC: Faces "Garcia" Lawsuit Under Mass. Labor Law ADVANCEMED: Faces Class Action Over Improper Medicare Payments AM RETAIL: Faces "John" Suit Over Wilson's Leather Outerwear Ad AMAZON.COM: Faces "Cupolo" Class Suit for Copyright Infringement ANTICA POSTA: Faces "Jones" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ASAHI BEER: Faces "Shalikar" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California ASSET RECOVERY: "Califf" Sues Over FDCPA Violations ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sterling Merger BANDAS LAW: Edelson Class Action May Spark Flood of Countersuits BANK OF AMERICA: Settles NationsBank Hiring Discrimination Case BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Council OK's Detention Officers' Settlement BLACKROCK: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Retirement Funds BLUE CROSS: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Doctors' Class Action BLU PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Adups Spyware on Phone Products BROOMALL: Overtime Wage Class Action Not Subject to Arbitration BROOK'S HOMECARE: Faces "Chung" Suit Over FLSA, NYLL Violations CALAVO GROWERS: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suits in California CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: "Phao" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Commissioner Steps Down Amid Concussion Case CBS MEDICAL: Davis Neurology Alleges TCPA Violation CHARLES SCHWAB: Attorneys Seek Arbitration of ERISA Class Action CHARLESTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Class Action v. Matulis Can Proceed CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeal in Horsemens' Purses Suit Underway CLEAR MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morrison" Suit Says COCA-COLA CO: Secures Summary Judgment in Privacy Class Action COLONY STARWOOD: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Underway COMENITY BANK: Sued in Illinois Over Unauthorized Automated Calls CR ENGLAND: Files Motion to Certify Questions in Fraud Case CST BRANDS: Accord in Canadian Class Suit Awaits Court Approval DENNIS HEALY: May Face Defamation Class Action Over Comments DR. SANDHU: Faces "Jones" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations EAST COAST FORENSIC: Judge OK's Class Action Over Strip Searches ENERGY RECOVERY: Aug. 24 Hearing for Final Settlement Approval ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL: Coleman Sexual Harassment Settlement Pending EXPRESS INC: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over FLSA Violation FIAT CHRYSLER: Amended Securities Complaint Filed FIAT CHRYSLER: 2 Securities Lawsuits Pending in Michigan FMC CORPORATION: Still Faces Antitrust Action in Germany FMC CORPORATION: Antitrust Action Ongoing in Canada FNCB BANCORP: Settles "Antonik" and "Saxe" Suits for $750,000 FOODONI NY: Faces "Bonikos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GLOBAL BROKERAGE: 683 Capital Sues Over Securities Act Violation GOLD POINT: Antonio, et al. Allege Calif. Labor Law Violations GOLDMAN SACHS: Loses Bid to Narrow Gender Discrimination Suit GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Faces "Redmon" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation HEALTHY SPOT: Faces "Summers" Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations HOME DEPOT: Brings Class Action Removal Issue to Supreme Court ILLINOIS: State Police Faces Suit Over Unlawful Arrests INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: ERISA Suit Remains Pending in New York JOHNSON & BELL: Defamation Case Against Edelson PC Ongoing JPMORGAN CHASE: ERISA Plaintiffs' Request for Rehearing Denied JPMORGAN CHASE: Consumer, ERISA and Purchaser Suits Pending in NY JPMORGAN CHASE: Canadian Case Settlements Await Court Approval JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR, Other Benchmark Rate Suits Still Pending JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Madoff Litigation Underway KELLY SERVICES: April 25 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set KEMPHARM INC: Awaits Decision on Bid to Remand IPO-Related Suit KIRKLAND'S INC: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation LIBERTY MEDIA: 200 Consumers Opt Out of Class Action Settlement LIVE NATION: Faces "Egan" Suit for ADA Violation in Pa. LLOYDS BANKING: LIBOR-Related Suits Remain Pending in S.D.N.Y. MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Sues Over ACTH Drug Monopoly MANHASSET RESTAURANT: "Canales" Suit Asserts NY Labor Law Breach MARIAM INC: Faces "Boger" Suit Over TCPA Violations MATCH GROUP: Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway MEXICO FOODS: "Robledo" Suit Claims Employee Misclassification NORTH BATTLEFORD: Court Approves Class Action Over Tainted Water NORTHERN CHILDREN'S: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages NRG RESIDENTIAL: "Dobkin" Wants One Touch to Show Cause ONEOK PARTNERS: "Federman" Files Suit Opposing Proposed Merger ONEOK PARTNERS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action ONEWEST: Accused of Foreclosure Abuse by Homeowner Groups PAM TRANSPORT: Faces "Williams" Suit for FLSA Violations in Ark. PJT PARTNERS: Bid to Dismiss "Barrett" Suit in New York Underway PLY GEM: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Class Suit Still Pending in Massachusetts PLY GEM: Settles "Carrillo-Hueso" Employee Suit for $1 Million PLY GEM: Settles "Morgan" Overtime Violation Suit for $0.9-Mil. PLY GEM: Still Owes $1.4-Mil. in Vinyl Clad Settlement PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Suit Parties Finalizing Accord PURINA PETCARE: Resolves Class Action Over Beggin' Strips REMINGTON: Gun Owners Claim Proposed Settlement Not Enough REVOLUTION FIELD: Corral, et al. Allege Cal. Labor Law Violations ROBIN HOOD: National Flour Recall Expands to Additional Products ROYAL OAK: Water Customers' Claims Deadline Set for May 15 RYDER TRUCK: Glatt Western Files Suit Over "Illegal" Monthly Fees QUINSTREET INC: Faces "Debusk" Suit Over TCPA Violation SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Menzer" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma SANDOZ INC: Fraternal Order of Police Sues Over Amitriptyline SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Certify Class Pending in "Deka" SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Class Suit Underway SAVAGE FUELING: Faces "Parker" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Disabled Inmates' Suit Granted Class Status SILVER BAY: Faces "Dell'Osso" Suit Over Securities Act Breach SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION: April 24 Conference Set in "Whitestone" SIMONTON BUILDING: Minn. Judge Dismissed "Kiefer" Class Suit SIRIUS: Royalties Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Falero" Class Suit in California SUNIVA INC: Faces "Barron" Suit Over WARN Act Violation SYNERGIES3 TEC: Faces "Faulk" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Vigil Siblings Asks Court to Revive Suit TAMKO BUILDING: Petitions Supreme Court to Take Up Shingles Case TCP INT'L: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.2 Million TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Settles Age Discrimination Suit for $12MM TITAN SOLAR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Solicitation Calls TRADER JOE'S: Plaintiff Appeals Court Not to Dismiss Class Action TRIBE APP: Faces "Rattner" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA UBS GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of Madoff-Related Claim Pending UBS GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of ERISA Suit Pending UBS GROUP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in USD LIBOR Class Suit UBS GROUP: Bids to Nix Foreign Currency Purchasers Suit Pending UBS GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of FX Indirect Purchasers Suit UBS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss 2014 Puerto Rico Suit Denied in Part UBS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Precious Metals Pending UBS GROUP: Opposes Bid to Appeal Class Certification Denial UBS GROUP: Parties Await Final Approval of $141-Mil. Settlement UBS GROUP: Suit Alleging Manipulation of Government Bonds Pending UBS GROUP: Suit Over ISDAFIX Rates Manipulation Remains Pending UBS GROUP: 2015 Puerto Rico Suit Stayed Pending Appeal UNITED AIRLINES: Could Face Possible Suit for Ill-treatment UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiff VASCO DATA: Continues to Defend "Rossbach" Class Suit in Illinois VERIZON: Sued in Philadelphia for Leasing Extra Fios Set Tops VOLKSWAGEN: "Artola" Sues Over Defective Timing Chain Systems W.W. GRAINGER: Class Action Trial Set for February 2018 WAYFAIR INC: Still Defends "Zouzout" Class Suit WELEDA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fraudulent Claims WELLS FARGO: OCC Downgrades Rating Following Class Action YGRENE ENERGY: Sued for Failing to Disclose PACE Loan Risks * CFPB Faces 'Rock and a Hard Place' in Pushing Arbitration Rule * Class Certification Remains an Obstacle in Data Breach Cases * Mark Hartmere Joins JND as VP Operations, Class Action Services * Web Companies Bash Robo-Texting Law * What Would Class Action Reform Mean For Notice Programs? Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Object to Corporate Witness Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Owes Defense Costs for 206 Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Judgment on Double Billing ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on Regulatory Materials as Evidence ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow's Case Proceeds Against John Crane ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 18 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has 6,883 Asbestos Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has $912MM Asbestos Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smith AO Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Continues to Face Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $6.6MM Asbestos Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Faces 22 Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $166.3MM Net Loss, LAE Reserves ASBESTOS ALERT: Equity Lifestyle Under Probe Over Compliance ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $61MM A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had US$15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Had 3,313 Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 103 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Faces 2 Mesothelioma Suits at Dec.31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Facing 42 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners' Unit Has 57 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 229 Cases vs. Ceco Still Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $4.6MM Asbestos Charge ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,618 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh's Suit vs. Insurers Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has US$171MM Liability Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for This Summer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Units Still Face PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 103 PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Faces "Edwards" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Had 67,223 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Had US$441.1MM A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Trust to be Formed Under Oakfabco Plan ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geo V. Hamilton Files Chapter 11 Plan ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: "Champion" Sues Over Contact Lens Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Champion, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60696-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2017) seeks to recover damages, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief for violation of the Florida Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The complaint says Defendant's conduct causes significant anticompetitive effects including restraining or eliminating price competition by fixing, raising or maintaining the price of contact lenses sold online at artificially high levels. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. sells contact lenses and related products over the internet throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Kauffman, Esq. Bailey Glasser LP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: 202-463-2101 Fax: 202-463-2103 Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com 15 TAYLOR LLC: Faces "Garcia" Lawsuit Under Mass. Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------- EDISON GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 15 TAYLOR, LLC and AARON PAPOWITZ, Defendants, Case No. 17-1083C (Mass. Super., April 5, 2017), alleges that 15 Taylor habitually refuses to pay its employees overtime as required by law. Further, Garcia claims that 15 Taylor also refuses to compensate its employees for all travel time as required by 454 CMR 27.04(4) when they are assigned to travel to one of the properties 15 Taylor manages and/or operates. Garcia alleges that these habitual failures to comply with Massachusetts law constitute violations of the Massachusetts wage laws and regulations. Aaron Papowitz is the sole registered manager of 15 Taylor registered with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. McCullough, Esq. Briap P. McNiff, Esq. Michael C. Forrest, Esq. FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C. 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 Phone: (415) 579 -9481 E-mail: kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com Bmcniff@forrestlamothe. Com mforrest@forrestlamothe.com ADVANCEMED: Faces Class Action Over Improper Medicare Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Baxter, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that just before Thanksgiving in 2016, Rizaldy Villasenor got some unexpected news that would impact his home health care business and cause him to lay off employees and discharge many of the company's patients. A Medicare subcontractor slapped the Chicago- based agency, MedPro Health Providers, LLC, with an audit and determined improper payments had been made. That subcontractor, AdvanceMed, was an auditor known as a Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC). It alerted Mr. Villasenor, founder and CEO of MedPro, that his company would no longer receive Medicare reimbursements, and that the provider would have a chance to respond to the allegations of overpayments. In a twist of fate, the agency had been recognized as a top workplace by The Chicago Tribune roughly a week before Mr. Villasenor was notified that Medicare would suspend its payments. Months later, MedPro's Medicare reimbursements are still suspended and Mr. Villasenor has been forced to lay off workers and discharge hundreds of patients. Despite the blow, Mr. Villasenor isn't backing down; the business has filed suit against Secretary of the Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) Tom Price and AdvanceMed for not following Medicare's procedures related to the audit. MedPro is going after $300,000 it says it is owed in payments. In addition, the lawsuit could become a class action. The suit could have plenty of cheerleaders in the home health and general health care community. ZPICs are the most feared type of Medicare auditor, as their mandate specifically is to identify suspected fraud, and the federal government has given them sweeping powers to conduct investigations and refer those investigations for civil and/or criminal prosecution. CMS declined to comment for this story, and AdvanceMed did not respond to requests from Home Health Care News. A Lack of Due Process? When MedPro was informed their Medicare payments would be suspended, the agency responded quickly, submitting a roughly 100- page rebuttal statement, highlighting patients that were pulled out as examples by AdvanceMed and including more supplemental documents from doctors. Overnighting all the documents cost roughly $450, Mr. Villasenor told Home Health Care News. "They asked me to submit rebuttal statements, along with additional documentation to prove our case," Mr. Villasenor said. AdvanceMed's response, which MedPro received roughly two weeks later in December, was a "general boilerplate" response, and Ms. Villasenor questioned whether the ZPIC had reviewed the documents at all, given the short turnaround and lack of specificity in the response. AdvanceMed cited "reliable information" that overpayments had been made to MedPro. In a conference call in early January, officials told Mr. Villasenor they did not review his secondary documents, he told HHCN. In fact, officials said it was AdvanceMed's policy not to review additional documents, contrary to Medicare procedures, the lawsuit says. That response is important in the lawsuit, which claims AdvanceMed did not follow due process when conducting the audit by ignoring MedPro's rebuttal to the allegations and documents. The response, MedPro alleges, must be specific to justify suspension of Medicare payments. "The Secretary, through its ZPICs, has a plainly defined and nondiscretionary duty to properly and completely respond to MedPro's rebuttal statement, including but not limited to review additional documentation . . ." the lawsuit reads. "The Secretary has failed to carry out that duty." The lawsuit seeks class action status, inviting other home health agencies that have been subject to unfair audit practices by ZPICs to join. Ten other home health agencies are considering joining the case, while MedPro's lawyer estimates there could be as many as 40 others with similar experiences, Mr. Villasenor told HHCN. Some of these agencies have already closed up shop for good, he added. 'Gestapo Tactics' Mr. Villasenor describes this as a David and Goliath situation, with the home health provider taking on Tom Price in his capacity as secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, which is tasked with overseeing the Medicare program. The audit and subsequent suspension of payments has forced MedPro to adjust, including by laying off two-thirds of his care staff, Mr. Villansenor said. MedPro, which was founded in 2011, has grown rapidly over the past six years, totaling nearly 1,000 patients in 2016. Coming from a background with Dublin, Ohio-based health care products and services giant Cardinal Health, Mr. Villasenor sought to grow the business like any other corporation, before being hit with the devastating blow. "We have an extensive referral base, we are popular," he said. "We had a big marketing team, a marketing strategy. We are doing things the mainstream way that a business should be run in health care." Since the end of 2016, MedPro has discharged or transferred all its home health patients, but has kept the business running with managed care patients, which represented roughly 60% of the agency's patient mix when the audit began. "I'm not getting paid," he said. "The good thing is that part of my revenue is managed care." With the business operating on a "skeleton staff," Mr. Villasenor is pushing forward, and the case is an uphill battle against practices he considers unfair. "The ZPIC companies are not liable for lawsuits," he said. "That's why they use Gestapo techniques, because they think they are immune to lawsuits. . . . What we have found out is that they are only not liable if they follow the due process in the guidelines. That's why we have a case. Our lawsuit says they did not follow the process." At this point, Mr. Villasenor says, it's "my word against theirs." The next court appearance is scheduled for April 19, according to court documents dated April 11, 2017. "[With an audit], you feel a little scare or threatened," Mr. Villasenor said. "Right now, it's anger that I am feeling. We were once ranked the No. 1 workplace. The worst thing is letting the team go because of this. If I'm going to close the company, I say it won't be this way." AM RETAIL: Faces "John" Suit Over Wilson's Leather Outerwear Ad --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW JOHN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation, dba WILSONS LEATHER, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00727-JAH-BGS (S.D. Cal., April 11, 2017), accuses Defendants of false and misleading advertisement of deep discounts on its Wilson's Leather branded men's and women's outerwear and accessories sold in its retail outlet stores. The discounts offered by defendant on its Wilson's Leather branded products are allegedly fake sales -- the advertised discounts are not real. Defendant advertises, markets, distributes, and/or sells men and women's accessories, outerwear, and other items to hundreds of thousands of consumers in California and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.756.6994 Fax: 619.756.6991 E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: 412.322.9243 Fax: 412.231.0246 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com AMAZON.COM: Faces "Cupolo" Class Suit for Copyright Infringement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Cupolo and Brian Eich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Digital Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02145 (E.D. N.Y., April 8, 2017) seeks to recover damages for copyright infringement and underpayment of royalties. The Complaint says Defendants jointly engaged in a systematic process of infringement by (i) reproducing Plaintiff's and the Putative Class' recordings without first serving a Notice of Inquiry (NOI), (ii) deliberately deleting stream information to hide Defendants' systematic infringement; (iii) failing to serve any Monthly and Annual Statements of Account to conceal the infringements and (iv) failing to serve renewal NOIs two years after the original. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the Putative Publishing Royalty Class of royalties by: (i) not paying royalties on streamed recording; (ii) deliberately deleting stream date; (iii) deliberately deleting the run-time data for recordings over five minutes to avoid paying the royalty multiplier; (iv) failing to compensate artists for all streams under $50.00; (v) failing to provide accurate data to artists related to promotional streams and incomplete streams and (vii) failing to serve Monthly and Annual Statements of Account to conceal the stolen royalties. Defendants own and operate numerous music products subject to the Copyright Act.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard M. Garbarini, Esq. Garbarini Fitzgerald P.C. 250 Park Avenue 7th Floor New York, NY 10177 Tel: (212) 300-5358 Fax: (347) 218-9478 ANTICA POSTA: Faces "Jones" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- KASSONDRA JONES, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ANTICA POSTA RISTORANTE, INC., AND MARCO BETTI, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01304-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 11, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff and other servers a direct wage for all hours worked during their employment. Defendant, ANTICA POSTA RISTORANTE, INC., operates a restaurant in Atlanta, Georgia. Plaintiff worked for Defendants at their Antica Posta restaurant in Buckhead as server. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - J. Stephen Mixon, Esq. MILLAR & MIXON, LLC 1691 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30349 Phone: (770) 955-0100 Fax: (678) 999-5039 E-mail: steve@mixon-law.com ASAHI BEER: Faces "Shalikar" Class Suit in Cent. Dist. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc. The case is captioned Matin Shalikar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-02713-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2017). Based in Torrance, California, Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc. produces and supplies beers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara A. Rohr, Esq. Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com Bheikali@faruqilaw.com ASSET RECOVERY: "Califf" Sues Over FDCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------- Jerri Califf, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00322 (W.D. Mich., April 7, 2017) seeks to recover damages pursuant to Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Defendant violated FDCPA by using false, deceptive or misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any debt, including by misleading the consumer as to the identity of the current creditor, says the complaint. Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Panvini, Esq. Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Tel: (602) 388-8875 Fax: (866) 317-2674 Email: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sterling Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, RALPH F. PALLESCHI, MONTE N. REDMAN, JOHN R. CHRIN, JOHN J. CORRADO, ROBERT GIAMBRONE, GERARD C. KEEGAN, BRIAN M. LEENEY, PATRICIA M. NAZEMETZ, and STERLING BANCORP, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02165 (E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in relation to a transaction pursuant to which Astoria Financial Corporation will be acquired by Sterling Bancorp. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Astoria will receive 0.875 shares of Sterling common stock for each share of Astoria stock they own. The case alleges that a Form S-4 Registration Statement in connection with the Proposed Transaction omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. First, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding Astoria's financial projections and the financial analyses performed by Astoria's financial advisor, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P., says the complaint. Second, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding Sterling's financial projections and the financial analyses performed by Sterling's financial advisors, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Third, the Registration Statement omits material information regarding the process leading to the Proposed Transaction. Astoria Financial Corporation, with assets of $14.6 billion, is the holding company for Astoria Bank. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. MacFall, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 683-3516 - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 BANDAS LAW: Edelson Class Action May Spark Flood of Countersuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the courts could risk a flood of new litigation, which could chill efforts to object to future class action settlements, if a judge allows a prominent Chicago class action trial law firm to continue with a class action lawsuit accusing a rival firm of racketeering for acting as "professional objectors," bent on extorting payoffs, according to a motion filed by that rival firm. On April 10, attorneys for lawyer Christopher Bandas and his firm, the Bandas Law Firm P.C., of Corpus Christi, Texas, filed a motion in Chicago federal court, asking a judge to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Chicago firm Edelson P.C., arguing Edelson's suit attempts to transform a matter better left to litigation into "a federal crime" under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. "Despite Edelson's allegations . . . this Court should adopt the precedent that federal courts across the country have established: litigation activities cannot constitute a predicate act of racketeering activity," Bandas' counsel argued in a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss. "Moreover, allowing this case to proceed will open the floodgates to future litigants collaterally attacking civil litigation proceedings by filing RICO countersuits alleging frivolous or meritless litigation." The dismissal request comes as the latest step in the class action suit launched by Edelson late last year. In December, Edelson accused the Bandas firm, as well as other law firms and attorneys, of being "vexatious litigants" raising objections to class action settlements to simply secure payoffs from other lawyers attempting to complete those settlement deals. Other defendants named in the lawsuit included law firms Noonan Perillo & Thut, of Chicago, and the Darrell Palmer Law Offices, of Solana Beach, Calif. Individual defendants include lawyers Christopher Bandas, Darrell Palmer and C. Jeffery Thut. In the lawsuit, Edelson pointed to a recent attempt by Bandas, Thut and Palmer to extract payment from Edelson as the firm sought to finalize a $13.8 million deal to settle a class action lawsuit against Gannett Co. over alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- a frequent device used by Edelson and a number of other trial law firms in bringing class action lawsuits. The Gannett litigation alleged Gannett had used an autodial program to call people on their mobile phones without consent. Gannett denied the allegations, but agreed in September 2016 to pay $5 million to settle the lawsuit and avoid trial. Thut, allegedly in conjunction with Bandas and Palmer, objected to the settlement in October 2016 on behalf of a man identified as Gary Stewart. The objection was overruled, and settlement finalized. But Edelson said Thut threatened to appeal and "hold up final resolution of the case." During a mediation session that followed, Edelson alleged Bandas and his associates demanded $225,000-$445,000 as a "fee to go away." Edelson agreed and paid the fee, but then filed suit. The firm alleged the behavior was only a part of a campaign of "serial objections" to class action settlements. The lawsuit noted Bandas has filed at least 55 objections in the past 10 years, though Edelson said they believe "these 55 objections likely represent only a small fraction of the total number of objections in which Bandas has been involved." However, no matter the reason for the objections or how many were filed, Bandas argued in his motion to dismiss that the objections cannot form the basis of the kind of RICO complaint Edelson has brought in this case, as the courts have repeatedly held that lawsuits and legal actions -- even meritless or frivolous ones -- cannot be considered part of a pattern of racketeering. Bandas argued finding otherwise would harm the courts and future litigation by making the threat of a RICO-based countersuit potentially too great a risk. "If this Court enables parties to argue that prior litigation constituted a predicate act of racketeering activity, then this Court (and others) will have to second-guess prior proceedings in order to determine whether they were meritless or brought for improper purposes," Bandas' attorneys argued. "Any party that defends against frivolous or meritless litigation can seek redress either through the court in the underlying proceeding, or through a state tort action for malicious prosecution; there is no need to create a new, additional route of collaterally attacking final court decisions through federal RICO countersuits." Bandas is represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of Freeborn & Peters LLP, of Chicago. BANK OF AMERICA: Settles NationsBank Hiring Discrimination Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Labor has settled a case that arose from a 1993 compliance review of NationsBank, N.A., that found systematic hiring violations involving African-American applicants for entry- level jobs and led to more than two decades of litigation. NationsBank merged with the Bank of America, N.A. in 1998. The review by the department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs determined the bank had violated Executive Order 11246 by unlawfully discriminating against the applicants for clerical, teller and administrative positions at the Charlotte, North Carolina facility. In 2016, the department's Administrative Review Board issued a Final Decision and Order granting relief to the African-American applicants who were not hired in 1993. Bank of America initially challenged the order in U.S. District Court, and the bank does not admit liability. A settlement has been reached, though, and the bank has now agreed to resolve the case by paying $1 million in back wages and interest to 1,027 African-American applicants for the North Carolina jobs. A U.S. District Court judge in the District of Columbia has entered an order to stay the proceedings until Bank of America fully complies with the terms of the settlement agreement. "Although much time and effort has gone into this case by all parties, the department is pleased that the matter has been resolved. It is a win for the affected job applicants, for Bank of America and for the department," said Acting OFCCP Director Thomas M. Dowd. "It reinforces our nation's founding principles of fair treatment and level playing fields." OFCCP recently launched the Class Member Locator to help identify applicants and/or workers who have been impacted by its compliance evaluations and complaint investigations, and who may be entitled to monetary relief and/or consideration for job placement. If you are an African-American jobseeker who applied for an entry- level position at NationsBank's Charlotte facility in 1993 and were not hired, please visit our website at http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/CML/index.htm,where you can also find information about this and other recent OFCCP settlements, or call 855-216-0427. OFCCP seeks to ensure compliance with Executive Order 11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. These laws, as amended, make it illegal for contractors and subcontractors doing business with the federal government to discriminate in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran. In addition, contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees because they have inquired about, discussed, or disclosed their compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations. Bank of America, N.A. v. Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, United States Department of Labor, et al. Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-968; Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Bank of America, N.A., ARB Case No. 13-099; ALJ Case No. 1997-OFC-016. BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: Council OK's Detention Officers' Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Rindge, writing for Post and Courier, reports that Berkeley County is a step closer to settling a lawsuit stemming from an ongoing wage dispute. County Council on April 10 approved a $13,500 settlement offer. The class-action suit alleged the county violated the S.C. Payment of Wages Act when it failed to compensate some detention center employees for hours worked beyond their scheduled shifts. The suit was filed in state court in February 2016 by five former detention officers but was transferred to federal court a month later because the lack of overtime also violated federal wage laws, according to court documents. Berkeley County and former Sheriff Wayne DeWitt are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs are Candice Carroll, Thomas Mims, Dimitar Stoilov, Stephen Gaskins and Christopher Brasseaux. Staff shortages had required the employees to work 30 minutes to an hour of overtime without pay each shift at the Hill-Finklea Detention Center, the documents state. In 2014, Berkeley County agreed to pay officers time-and-a-half if they exceeded 40 hours in a work week. The change, which took effect in January 2015 for officers at the detention center, was the result of a similar lawsuit settlement from a previous class- action suit in federal court. After reviewing its policies, the defendants gave the plaintiffs a check for unpaid wages but it did not "fairly compensate" the employees, the lawsuit alleges. BLACKROCK: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Retirement Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Maynard, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against BlackRock -- the largest private money manager in the world -- over its management of employee retirement funds. The company has grown in prominence over the last 25 years and now holds $5.1 trillion in assets, but employee Charles Baird says that it violated ethics rules by putting employee investments in multi-layer company-run funds that have allowed it to rake in approximately $60 million in fees, according to Courthouse News. "Plan participants were subjected to higher hidden fees through excessive fund layering, where one BlackRock fund invests in a rabbit hole of other BlackRock funds. In this layering scheme, each BlackRock fund charges additional fees to employee investors and those unnecessary layers of fees cannibalize the returns of the employee," Mr. Baird stated in his complaint. Collecting fees Before filing the class action, Baird analyzed the BlackRock Retirement Savings Plan and found that it was underperforming funds when compared to other financial institutions like Vanguard. "For example, despite charging a 500 to 871 percent premium, BlackRock's Low Duration Bond Fund has underperformed Vanguard's alternative over ten, five, three, and one year horizons," Baird says in the complaint. He claims the motive behind this poor management was to allow the company to funnel employee investments through multiple internal fund layers and collect fees. "Each of the ten BlackRock LifePath Funds funnel employee retirement assets into 27 additional BlackRock proprietary funds, which results in 26 additional layers of fees," the complaint reads. Seeking relief Baird says that a responsible fiduciary would have recognized that the investments weren't suitable, but he claims BlackRock continued with the plan to maximize its own returns. The suit seeks to require BlackRock to establish a trust where all ill-gotten gains will be placed to the benefit of affected employees. It also attempts to put an end to BlackRock's practice of using its own funds as a part of retirement savings packages and seeks the termination of those responsible for implementing the program. Class members are being represented by Nina Wasow of Oakland-based Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow. BLUE CROSS: 11th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Doctors' Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that there was apparently little substantive disagreement among the three Eleventh Circuit judges who sided with Blue Cross and Blue Shield in a dispute with three doctors who had sought to join a class action against the insurers years after settling similar claims and agreeing to broad releases. Should the doctors be permitted to set aside those releases? No. In an unpublished, one-sentence ruling issued April 5 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Judges Gerald Tjoflat, Julie Carnes and Senior Judge Ronald Lee Gilman, sitting by appointment from the Sixth Circuit, affirmed the trial judge's "thorough and well-reasoned order" dismissing the case in 2013. But Judge Tjoflat had more to say, and his 18-page special concurrence prompted a dialectical detour into the objectives and limitations of declaratory judgment actions. Judge Tjoflat took issue with the doctors' use of a declaratory judgment action to essentially seek permission to violate the settlement agreement and injunction ending the earlier cases. "The Declaratory Judgment Act was not intended to provide a route for circumventing the enforcement of an already-granted injunction," wrote Judge Tjoflat, and to allow it for such a purpose "would significantly defang the injunction as a remedy" and "work a serious harm on the rule of law and the integrity of the judiciary." Judge Gilman disagreed, asserting in his own concurrence that "this court and its sister circuits have noted that declaratory- judgment actions are an appropriate means of determining the scope of a settlement agreement or consent decree." In the first place, Judge Gilman wrote, neither the parties nor trial court had ever questioned the propriety of a declaratory judgment action "as the proper vehicle for declaring the plaintiffs rights vis-a-vis the settlement agreements." Judge Tjoflat, Judge Gilman said, raised the issue sua sponte, and is in lonely territory when it comes to U.S. Supreme Court and district court precedent. Judge Gilman cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in MedImmune v. Genentech (549 U.S. 118, 137), which involved a company seeking to determine whether a patent was enforceable. In that case, the majority ruled, a party's "choice between abandoning his rights or risking prosecution is a dilemma that it was the very purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act to ameliorate." "The only jurists who appear vexed by the use of the declaratory- judgment action in this or a similar setting are Judge Tjoflat, in his concurring opinion in this case, and Justice Clarence Thomas, who was the sole dissenter in MedImmune," Judge Gilman wrote. Joseph Whatley Jr. -- jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- of WhatleyKallas, plaintiffs counsel in the pending class action with partner Edith Kallas, said his side was disappointed with the Eleventh Circuit's decision but called the debate over so-called DJ actions "intellectually interesting." There was no immediate response to queries made to several attorneys representing the Blue Cross defendants. The underlying case involves a multidistrict antitrust class action, Conway v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, filed in 2012 in Alabama's Northern District. The litigation accuses multiple Blue Cross entities of colluding to divide up the U.S. healthcare markets among themselves and fix prices in violation of the federal Sherman Act. Doctors Corey Musselman, Rick Love and Charles Shane want to join the litigation as plaintiffs or class representatives. But all three had been signatories to two earlier settlements with Blue Cross in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida relating to the insurers' compensation practices. As part of the settlements, which required the defendants to pay more than $384 million in cash and change their business practices, the plaintiffs were permanently enjoined from taking part in any subsequent legal action against any of the defendants based on the released claims. In 2013, the doctors filed a declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of Florida seeking a declaration that the antitrust claims in the Alabama suit fell outside the umbrella of the injunctions settling the earlier suit. BLU PRODUCTS: Faces Suit Over Adups Spyware on Phone Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Torres at Legal Newsline reports that two consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against mobile phone manufacturers, alleging invasion of privacy and unfair competition. Darren Martinez and Joe Mocnik filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, March 31 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Blu Products Inc., and Shanghai Adups Technology Co. Ltd., alleging they sell their mobile phones that are equipped with Adups Spyware that intercept private and personal activity and data. According to the complaint, Martinez and Mocnik bought a mobile phone found to have a software that could intercept their personal activities. The plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to inform consumers about the existence of the Adups spyware in their mobile phones. Martinez and Mocnik seek trial by jury, actual and compensatory damages including interest, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts, punitive damages, order the defendants to immediately cease its wrongful conduct, enjoin the defendants from selling products through false and misleading statements, attorney and expert fees, plus and all other and proper relief. They are represented by attorney Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- of the Rosen Law Firm PA in Los Angeles, and by Christopher Hinton -- chinton@rosenlegal.com -- of the Hinton Law Firm in New York. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:17-cv-02507-DSF-AGR [GN] BROOMALL: Overtime Wage Class Action Not Subject to Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Malfitano, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that a federal appeals court stated that a reputed class action filed against the operating companies of a senior care facility are not subject to arbitration, affirming the decision of the lower federal court. On April 10, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit judges Michael A. Chagares, Anthony J. Scirica and D. Michael Fisher ruled the case brought by Irene Novosad and Kathy Morris's case against Broomall Operating Company, L.P. and SavaSeniorCare, LLC dealing with overtime compensation did not need to be sent to arbitration. "Does an arbitration clause stating that it 'covers only claims by individuals and does not cover class or collective actions' nonetheless require that a putative class and collective action for overtime pay be sent to arbitration? The District Court thought not. We will affirm," Judge Fisher said. Judge Fisher explained the plaintiffs filed their putative class and collective action against the defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and comparable Pennsylvania wage and hour statutes. Judge Fisher added the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to pay proper overtime compensation. In response, the defendants moved to compel arbitration, pointing to an arbitration clause in an Employment Dispute Resolution Program book that plaintiffs agreed to as a condition of employment. "The clause makes arbitration 'the only means of resolving employment related disputes.' At the same time, however, the clause also states that it 'covers only claims by individuals and does not cover class or collective actions.' The District Court read this latter sentence as unambiguously carving out class and collective actions from mandatory arbitration and accordingly denied defendants' motion. This appeal followed," Judge Fisher said. "We agree with the District Court that the arbitration clause's plain language excludes class and collective actions from mandatory arbitration. Defendants' contrary argument renders that provision of the clause superfluous. makes little sense for the clause to state that it "covers only claims by individuals and does not cover class or collective actions" only to require arbitration of such suits," Judge Fisher said. "We recognize, of course, that there is a strong federal policy favoring arbitration. But that policy has its limits, and courts apply the presumption of arbitrability 'only where a validly formed and enforceable arbitration agreement is ambiguous about whether it covers the dispute at hand.' Here, the text of the arbitration clause controls. That clause, we hold, unmistakably provides that plaintiffs' class and collective actions need not be subject to arbitration," Judge Fisher added. The plaintiffs were represented by Timothy S. Seiler and Ari Risson Karpf of Karpf Karpf & Cerutti, in Bensalem. The defendants were represented by Ryan P. Newell -- rnewell@connollygallagher.com -- and Josiah Rodney Wolcott -- jwolcott@connollygallagher.com -- of Connolly Gallagher in Newark, Del., plus Henry M. Perlowski -- henry.perlowski@agg.com -- and Chesley S. McLeod -- chesley.mcleod@agg.com -- of Arnall Golden Gregory, in Atlanta. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 16-2089 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:15-cv-06252 BROOK'S HOMECARE: Faces "Chung" Suit Over FLSA, NYLL Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Marlon Chung, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Brook's Homecare LLC, Caring Partners LLC and Eric Johnson in his individual capacity, all jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02534 (S.D. N.Y., April 7, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of overtime wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a home health care aide. Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs for the time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. Defendants provide home health care services to elderly and/or infirm individuals through home health care aides.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq. Charny & Wheeler 9 West Market Street Rhinebeck, NY 12572 Tel: (845) 876-7500 Email: ncharny@charnywheeler.com CALAVO GROWERS: Defends Wage and Hour Class Suits in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Calavo Growers, Inc., is defending itself against two purported class action lawsuits alleging violations of California wage-and- hour laws, according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2017. The Company said: "We are currently a named defendant in two class action lawsuits filed in Superior state courts in California alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meal and rest periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages due at the time of termination or resignation, as well as statutory penalties for violation of the California Labor Code and Minimum Wage Order-2014." "We are still assessing the claims and assertions made by the plaintiffs. We intend to aggressively challenge the merits of each lawsuit. At this time, we are not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits." Calavo Growers, Inc., is a global leader in the avocado industry and an expanding provider of value-added fresh food. The Company procures avocados principally from California and Mexico. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE: "Phao" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- KATHY PHAO, an Individual on Behalf of Herself and All Other Similarly Situated Current and Former Employees, Plaintiffs, vs. CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 657072 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017), alleges that Defendants engaged in the illegal practice of requiring all non- exempt employees, including Plaintiff, Plaintiff Class, and other employees who worked as cashiers, window workers, and cage workers to work four or more hours without a full, uninterrupted, ten- minute rest period, in violation of the Industrial Wage Order, California Labor Code and other relevant laws, rules, orders, requirements and regulations. Defendants jointly own, manage and/or operate a Casino in the city of Commerce, County of Los Angeles, state of California. Plaintiff KATHY PHAO was a cashier and cage worker for Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. Shoham J. Solouki, Esq. SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: (213) 814-4940 E-mail: grant@soloukisavoy.com shoham@soloukisavov.com CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Commissioner Steps Down Amid Concussion Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Jeffrey Orridge has resigned as Canadian Football League commissioner, effective June 30. Mr. Orridge's tenure was a short but tumultuous one. On April 12, Mr. Orridge and the CFL's board of governors mutually agreed to part ways. The surprising news comes just over two years after Orridge was hired amid much fanfare as the first African-American chief executive of a major North American sports league. No official reason was given for the move. In a statement, Mr. Orridge said he and the board didn't agree on the league's future. Mr. Orridge succeeded Mark Cohon, who spent eight years on the job. The weight of expectation on Mr. Orridge's shoulders was immediate. On the day he was formally unveiled as commissioner, he had to deal with the Toronto Argonauts' muddled ownership issue. But interim commissioner Jim Lawson pretty much had negotiated the sale of the franchise in May 2015 to Larry Tanenbaum. Mr. Orridge did come under fire for the CFL's fallout with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport that led to the league not having drug testing for more than a year. Ultimately a new policy reached with the players' association was implemented in the collective bargaining agreement. Last November, Mr. Orridge drew widespread criticism when he denied the existence of a link between playing football and the development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Mr. Orridge's comments came months after Jeff Miller, the NFL's top health and safety officer, acknowledged a link between football- related head trauma and brain disease, the first time a senior league official conceded football's connection to CTE. Following Miller's admission, an American federal judge gave final approval to a $1 billion class-action lawsuit settlement between the NFL and thousands of former players. The CFL was named in a $200 million class-action lawsuit over concussions and brain trauma. But a judge dismissed former player Arland Bruce III's lawsuit against the league, Mr. Cohon, neuroscientist Dr. Charles Tator, the CFL Alumni Association and every team in the league. The case is on appeal. "In his time with the CFL, Jeffrey worked tirelessly to promote player health and safety, the integrity of the league on and off the field, and the values of diversity and inclusion," Mr. Lawson said. "Jeffrey played an important role in developing the league's strategic plan which has, in a short time, helped to elevate some key metrics that underpin the health of the league. "On behalf of the Board of Governors we wish Jeffrey continued success and thank him for his hard work and integrity during his tenure with the CFL." CBS MEDICAL: Davis Neurology Alleges TCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------- DAVIS NEUROLOGY, P.A., on behalf of itself and all other entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CBS MEDICAL, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, intending to refer to those persons, corporations or other legal entities that acted as agents, consultants, independent contractors or representatives, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00214-BRW (Ark. Circ., Pope County, April 7, 2017), alleges that Defendants sent non-compliant facsimile advertisements to advertise their products and services to hundreds, if not thousands, of telephone facsimile machines in Arkansas and, presumably, other states in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. CBS Medical Inc. is in the health and allied services business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex G. Streett, Esq. James a. Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Phone: (479) 968-2030 E-mail: Alex@SteettLaw.com James@SteettLaw.com - and - Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 227 2nd Avenue North, 4th Floor Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Attorneys Seek Arbitration of ERISA Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Moore, writing for Plan Sponsor, reports that attorneys have asked a court to compel arbitration of a class action Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit filed against Charles Schwab Corporation and its retirement plan fiduciaries alleging fiduciary breaches and prohibited transactions. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims plan fiduciaries engaged in the imprudent and disloyal exercise of their discretionary fiduciary authority over the plan to include Schwab's own affiliated investment products as investment options within the plan and sale of their own services to the plan. The complaint alleges that defendants "reaped significant fees and profits at the expense of the plan and its participants." In their motion, the attorneys note that the arbitration provisions in Schwab's retirement plan document and severance agreement clearly fall within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The plan document's arbitration provision broadly encompasses "[a]ny claim, dispute, or breach arising out of or in any way related to the Plan," and extends to the ERISA claims asserted, they say. The attorneys contend the arbitration provision of the plaintiff's severance of employment agreement likewise embraces the ERISA claims, insofar as it requires arbitration of "any dispute or breach arising out of or in any way related to [Severson's] employment . . . ." According to the motion, the fact that Christopher W. Severson's claims are brought pursuant to ERISA's civil enforcement provisions does not in any way impede or limit the application of the arbitration provisions contained in the plan document or severance agreement. "The mere fact that ERISA provides a federal court cause of action for alleged ERISA violations does not prevent parties from agreeing to adjudicate such claims in arbitration," the attorneys argue. In addition, the attorneys say the fact that Severson purports to bring his claims "on behalf of the Plan" under ERISA Section 502(a) does not alter the conclusion that his claims are arbitrable. Although Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA provides a cause of action for claims "on behalf of the plan," the plaintiff bringing the claim is the plan participant -- not the plan, they note. The attorneys say the court should likewise conclude that the claims asserted by Severson must be arbitrated on an individual basis because neither the plan document nor the severance agreement evinces an intent to engage in class or representative arbitration. To the contrary, the plan document expressly waives a participant's "right to commence, be a party to, or be an actual or putative class member of any class, collective or representative action arising out of or relating to the Plan." "The Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and this Court have repeatedly upheld this type of class waiver," they say. The motion says, based on a finding that the arbitration clauses should be enforced, the court would have two alternative forms of relief at its disposal: it "may either stay the action or dismiss it outright." "The court should compel individual arbitration of Severson's claims and, on that basis, dismiss the lawsuit, or stay the litigation pending the outcome of individual arbitration," the attorneys conclude. CHARLESTON GASTROENTEROLOGY: Class Action v. Matulis Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kate White, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a Kanawha County judge on April 11 refused to throw out a lawsuit against a Charleston gastroenterologist who has been accused in multiple lawsuits of sexually assaulting female patients under anesthesia. About 40 former patients of Dr. Steven Matulis filled Circuit Judge Joanna Tabit's courtroom on April 11 to hear arguments over motions asking the judge to dismiss the complaint. Lawyers with the Calwell Practice and P. Rodney Jackson, who filed the lawsuit, want Judge Tabit to grant the lawsuit class-action status on behalf of Matulis' female patients from the past six years who underwent a colonoscopy procedure. Judge Tabit ordered both sides to come up with a proposed scheduling order in the next two weeks. Before Judge Tabit decides whether to grant the lawsuit class-action status, a certification hearing must be held. The lawsuit filed in November against Matulis was also filed against Charleston Gastroenterology Associates and Day Surgery Center. Matulis practiced at both locations. Lawyers for the defendants argued that Judge Tabit should dismiss the medical malpractice lawsuit because the plaintiffs didn't allege a physical injury. The judge responded, however, that West Virginia law doesn't require a physical impairment to prove an injury has occurred. "Is there a more vulnerable population than those under anesthesia?" Judge Tabit said on April 11. "It's everybody's worst nightmare." The complaint states the women who were patients of the doctor don't know whether they are victims of sexual assault, after having a procedure by the doctor in which they were under anesthesia. The former patients also don't know if the colonoscopy procedure given by Matulis is reliable. Not knowing whether an assault occurred creates substantial concern and distress for the women, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges Matulis failed to comply with the time requirements for careful withdrawal of a colonoscope during colonoscopy procedures. The lawsuit wants those who received a colonoscopy that is not medically reliable to be given the option to have the procedure repeated by a competent physician at the expense of the defendants. Medical records of Matulis' patients also show that Matulis was reckless while performing colonoscopy procedures, lawyers said -- which means he could have misdiagnosed patients. "There's now a new fear," said lawyer Stuart Calwell on April 11. "Cancer." The defendants in the case hadn't yet responded to the lawsuit when they filed the motions to dismiss. Judge Tabit gave them 20 days from April 11 to respond. According to a separate lawsuit filed last year, Charleston police told at least two women, about a week after they underwent a procedure, that they had been the victims of sexual assault by Matulis. CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeal in Horsemens' Purses Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- An appeal related to the Louisiana Horsemens' Purses Class Action Suit remains pending, Churchill Downs Incorporated 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 April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008. The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, L.L.C. and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C. ("Fair Grounds") have collected certain monies through video draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse meets; while La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets. The petition requested that the Court declare that Fair Grounds violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission. By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the Judgment. The Louisiana Racing Commission requested and received memoranda from the parties in the case on the issue of whether plaintiffs have standing to pursue the claims against Fair Grounds. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue the case. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Appeal of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No Right of Action in the District Court seeking a reversal of the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff's filed their brief with the District Court and Fair Grounds filed its brief on August 12, 2016. A hearing was held at the District Court on September 15, 2016 and the District Court affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 7, 2016. Churchill Downs Incorporated is an industry-leading racing, gaming and online entertainment company anchored by the iconic flagship event -- The Kentucky Derby. CLEAR MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morrison" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Aimee Morrison, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Clear Management Solutions, Case No. 1:17-cv-00051-DBP (D. Ut., April 10, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Clear Management Solutions operates a medical billing services company located at 2790 Decker Lake Dr., West Valley City, UT 84119. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP 2633 E Indian School Rd Ste 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 900-1288 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com COCA-COLA CO: Secures Summary Judgment in Privacy Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Leigh Ann Benson, Esq. -- lbenson@cozen.com -- and Matthew J. Siegel, Esq. -- msiegel@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor, in an article for Lexology, wrote that Coca-Cola won big in March when it secured summary judgment in a privacy class action brought by a former bottling plant employee concerning compromised personal information. Hon. Joseph Leeson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that Coca-Cola was not under any contractual obligation to protect its employees' personal information. The issues arose when an ill-motived former IT employee disposed of old Coca-Cola laptops that were still storing employee information, including addresses, phone numbers and SSNs. The proposed class action was brought on behalf of the 74,000 employees whose information was compromised. The court rejected plaintiff's arguments that a handful of company policies, when woven together, impose a contractual duty on Coca- Cola to safeguard information for the benefit of employees. Coca- Cola argued that its detailed security policies create obligations to safeguard Company information to support business operations, but not to shield employees personally. The judge agreed, ruling the relevant policy provisions serve to protect the company, not the employees. Cited provisions came from Code of Conduct, the Protection Policy and the Acceptable Use Policy, and read, in part: "Computer hardware, software, and data must be safeguarded from damage, theft, fraudulent manipulation, and unauthorized access to and disclosure of Company information." Another provision stated that "[w]e all have an obligation to safeguard Company assets including exercising care in using Company equipment, vehicles, and bringing to the attention of high management any waste, misuse, destruction, or theft of Company property or illegal activity." It is also noteworthy that, despite not being contractually obligated to protect employee information, Coca-Cola was responsible and proactive in response to the incident. Coca-Cola informed employees of the lost laptops and provided one year of free credit monitoring and fraud restoration services. Ironically, plaintiff claimed that Coca-Cola should compensate him for wages lost because of the time required to submit the necessary information to obtain the protection services. The court explicitly rejected this as well. The case is Enslin v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 2:14-cv-06476, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. COLONY STARWOOD: Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Colony Starwood Homes is awaiting the court's ruling on a motion to dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit, the Company 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 October 30, 2015, a putative class action was filed by Plaintiff (i.e., one of our purported shareholders) against the Defendants (i.e., us, our trustees, the Manager, SWAY Holdco, LLC, Starwood Capital Group and CAH) challenging the Merger and the Internalization. The case is captioned South Miami Pension Plan v. Starwood Waypoint Residential Trust, et al., Circuit Court for Baltimore City, State of Maryland, Case No. 24C15005482. The complaint alleged, among other things, that some or all of our trustees breached their fiduciary duties by approving the Merger and the Internalization, and that the other defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint also challenged the adequacy of the public disclosures made in connection with the Merger and the Internalization. Plaintiff sought, among other relief, an injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on the Internalization or the Merger, rescission of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, and damages, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees." "On December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction preventing our shareholders from voting on whether to approve the Merger and the Internalization. On December 16, 2015, the day before the shareholder vote, the Court denied Plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion. Plaintiff thereafter notified the Defendants that it intended to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed its amended complaint on February 3, 2016, asserting substantially similar claims and seeking substantially similar relief as in its earlier complaint. In response, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 21, 2016, on which the Court held a hearing on June 1, 2016." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. "We believe that this action has no merit and intend to defend vigorously against it," the Company said. Colony is an internally managed Maryland real estate investment trust and commenced operations in March 2012 primarily to acquire, renovate, lease and manage residential assets in select markets throughout the United States. COMENITY BANK: Sued in Illinois Over Unauthorized Automated Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman has filed a class action lawsuit against Comenity Bank, citing alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes for calling her about an alleged debt using an automatic dialer. Lejune Brown filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging the financial institution called the plaintiff on her cellphone regarding a consumer debt. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in December 2016, she sustained damages from being charged for incoming calls. The plaintiff holds Comenity Bank responsible because it allegedly used an automatic telephone dialing system to call the plaintiff despite her request to stop calling her. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory damages of $500, statutory damages of $1,500, injunctive relief and any further relief the court grants. She is represented by Mark Ankcorn of Ankcorn Law Firm PLLC in Chicago. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case number 1:17-cv-01970 CR ENGLAND: Files Motion to Certify Questions in Fraud Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the nation's largest refrigerated trucking company, arguing that a federal court's recent order certifying a nationwide class of more than 14,000 truck drivers has left "unresolved several issues," now is turning to the Utah Supreme Court for direction. C.R. England Inc., along with defendants Opportunity Leasing Inc. and Horizon Truck Sales and Leasing LLC, filed a motion to certify questions to the state's high court March 27. C.R. England, which is headquartered in Salt Lake City, argues in its motion -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division -- that there are issues relating to provisions in the Utah Consumer Sales Practice Act, or UCSPA, that impact not only the plaintiffs' UCSPA claim but also their claims under the Utah Business Opportunity Disclosure Act, or UBODA, and the Utah Truth in Advertising Act, or UTIAA. The company asks that the federal court request certification of the following four questions to the Utah Supreme Court: - As a matter of state law, do Utah Code and the UCSPA mean that in a class action relating to a transaction governed by the UCSPA, class members cannot seek statutory or actual damages for violations of the UBODA or the UTIAA? -- As a matter of state law, do Utah Code and the UCSPA mean that in a class action relating to a transaction governed by the UCSPA, the class notice as to claims for violations of the UBODA and the UTIAA must advise class members that the court will exclude them from the class unless they request inclusion by a specific date? -- Under the UBODA, can information unrelated to selling or marketing services to third parties provided by a business to an independent contractor in order to help the independent contractor perform services for that same business qualify as "a sales program or marketing program" within the meaning of Utah Code? -- Under the UBODA, can payments from an independent contractor to a business for the purchase of goods or services pursuant to written agreements be considered "initial required consideration," when the written agreements specifically state that the independent contractor need not purchase the goods or services as a condition for earning income in the alleged assisted marketing plan? C.R. England argues in its motion that certification is required because the questions are "indisputably uncertain" in that no Utah court has ever addressed them and that the answers are "very significant" to its case and future cases turning on Utah state law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently denied the company's Rule 23(f) petition for permission to appeal the District of Utah's Jan. 31 class certification order. A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit, in its March 27 order, noted that the decision whether to grant such a petition is "purely discretionary." "Defendants-Petitioners have not established that the district court's class certification decision was based upon manifest error, nor have they established that permissive interlocutory review is necessary to address 'an unresolved issue of law relating to class actions that is likely to evade end-of-case review' or to avoid a 'death knell' situation," the Tenth Circuit concluded. The class action lawsuit, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in May 2011 but later transferred to the District of Utah in April 2012, alleges C.R. England and Horizon Truck engaged in a scheme to defraud class members out of money and labor via the lease driver program. Among other claims, the class action complaint alleges the companies used false income statements and failed to disclose the high failure/turnover rate to secure class members' agreement to become lease drivers. C.R. England also allegedly deceptively sought lease drivers by baiting the general public with advertisements for "guaranteed" employee company driver positions and then allegedly used fraudulent and manipulative techniques to switch candidates into the lease driver program. District Judge Robert J. Shelby, in his Jan. 31 order, granted class certification on certain claims. The judge said "considering the relevant factors," a class action is "superior" to other methods of adjudication. "The court finds that concentrating the claims of a nationwide class of drivers in a single forum is desirable, especially where Defendants are located in the forum state," he wrote. "Given the analysis above and the proposed trial plan, the court finds the benefits of the class action outweigh any difficulties that may be encountered in the course of this litigation." Shelby noted the class includes individuals of "insubstantial means." "Here, the cost and recovery of a single case would make it unlikely that thousands of individuals purportedly harmed would seek recovery outside a class action context," he explained. "On the claims and record presented, a class action not only promotes efficiency but also promotes the public interest, insofar as the class action enables both parties to efficiently test their respective claims and defenses, as well as the reach of consumer protection laws in the forum." T.J. England, C.R. England's chief legal officer, told the Commercial Carrier Journal in February that he was "deeply disappointed" by Shelby's certification ruling. He told CCJ that the company intended to "immediately appeal" the decision and fight the plaintiffs' "unfounded claims as long as is necessary." San Rafael, Calif., attorney Robert S. Boulter; Milwaukee-based firm Kravit Hovel & Krawczyk SC; and Salt Lake City-based firm Anderson & Karrenberg PC are representing the plaintiffs. CST BRANDS: Accord in Canadian Class Suit Awaits Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- CST Brands, 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 Ultramar and other defendants' settlement agreement is still subject to approval by the courts in Canada. Ultramar Ltd., Valero's principal Canadian subsidiary ("Ultramar"), four of its then current and former employees and several competitors were named as defendants in four class actions alleging that Ultramar and the other named competitors engaged in illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of Quebec. The cases were filed in June 2008 following an investigation by the Canadian Competition Bureau, which resulted in limited guilty pleas by Ultramar and two former employees and charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators. The guilty pleas followed an extensive government investigation and was confined to a limited time period and limited geographic area around Thetford Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec. As a result, four class actions were filed on the same day in the matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs. Ultramar et al in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/ Marcel Lafontaine vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Montreal. As required, pursuant to the civil procedure rules in effect, the first filed claim is given priority, and the others are suspended pending final judgment on the first filed claim. The plaintiffs' lawsuits alleged the existence of a conspiracy beyond the scope of the time and geographic regions of the guilty pleas. Hearings on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in November 2009 and the court allowed plaintiffs to assert claims for a time range of 2002 to 2006, but limited the geographic area of the claims to the four limited markets, which were the subject of the investigation by the Competition Bureau. Plaintiffs amended their claims to assert claims, which include claims for 2001 and claims for interest and attorneys fees. The Company said, "During the fourth quarter of 2012, we concluded a loss was probable and reasonably estimable and as such, we recorded an immaterial loss contingency liability for the amount we believe could be assessed against Ultramar. Ultramar and other defendants reached a tentative settlement agreement with plaintiffs on October 16, 2016, which is still subject to approval by the courts. We have recorded our portion of the settlement as of December 31, 2016." On June 10, 2011, Ultramar and several other defendants were served with a "new" amended motion to institute a class action in the matter of Daniel Thouin v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior Court of Quebec, District of Quebec. On September 6, 2012, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized the class action to be extended to 14 additional cities/regions of the Province of Quebec, which were beyond the scope of the Competition Bureau's investigation and the guilty pleas. CST does not believe that a loss for this claim is either probable or estimable at this time and intends to vigorously defend these claims. CST is one of the largest independent retailers of motor fuel and convenience merchandise in the U.S. and eastern Canada. DENNIS HEALY: May Face Defamation Class Action Over Comments ------------------------------------------------------------ Liam Heylin, writing for Irish Examiner, reports that a solicitor singled out, for special praise, a young woman from the Roma community for her intelligence, but a judge remarked the lawyer could have a class action for defamation on his hands. The particular web of words was woven during a case at Cork District Court relating to hair-braiding. Carmen Rosta, aged 22, pleaded guilty to three breaches of casual trading legislation by offering hair-braiding on St Patrick's Street, Cork. Inspector Brian O'Donovan said the accused was operating on July 22, 2015, without a casual trading licence, and in an area of the city where casual trading was not permitted. Solicitor Dennis Healy said Ms. Rosta was a young mother of three from the Roma community in Cork. "She was the one more intelligent than most of the others," he said. Judge Olann Kelleher interjected that Mr Healy could find himself facing a class action for defamation. Mr Healy continued: "She is very bright." Of all the members of the Roma community in Cork, she was the one Mr Healy believed would succeed through education. He knew her since she was a child and she was able to carry out all sorts of calculations. "But her family saw fit to have her married off at 16. She had three children and her husband is on the run," Mr Healy said. "She left school after her Junior Cert. She has become rooted in her community. Someone has to break through from this community at some stage. This is the girl I thought would do it." She was fined EUR200 on the casual trading breach, with two related counts taken into consideration. DR. SANDHU: Faces "Jones" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ AMY JONES, CRYSTAL ROBERTS and SHANNON WILDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the California general public, Plaintiffs, vs. DR. SANDHU ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC.; BALPAL S. SANDHU; DOE 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC656911 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs and the rest of the purported class worked overtime but were not paid overtime compensation for all the overtime hours they worked for Defendants and were not paid for all of the hours they worked; Defendants failed to provide PLAINTIFFS and the rest of the CLASS with meal and rest periods required by law; DEFENDANTS willfully failed to pay PLAINTIFFS and the rest of the CLASS who have separated from their employment all wages owed following their separation; and, DEFENDANTS failed to provide PLAINTIFFS and the rest of the CLASS with accurate itemized wage statements required by law. Dr. Sandhu Animal Hospital, Inc. practices veterinary medicine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Glick, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK 1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 387-3400 Fax: (213)387-7872 EAST COAST FORENSIC: Judge OK's Class Action Over Strip Searches ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chronicle Herald reports a Nova Scotia court has given class- action status to a case involving a batch of strip searches at East Coast Forensic Hospital. Justice Joel E. Fichaud of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeals rejected companion appeals from the defendants, the Capital District Health Authority and the Nova Scotia Attorney General. Mark Jason Murray of Halifax is the representative plaintiff on behalf of 33 patients who allege their rights were violated when they were strip-searched at the hospital on Oct. 16, 2012. "It was very shocking, to say the least," Murray told the Chronicle Herald in a February 2015 interview. "It was very traumatizing, and it was also very confusing and disorienting." In 2015, motions judge Justice Denise Boudreau of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court found the class plaintiffs belonged to a "marginalized and disadvantaged" group -- mentally ill individuals at odds with the criminal process -- who were unlikely to pursue individual claims for minor amounts of damages. ECFH cares for patients who have been found to be either unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible. The hospital has a rehabilitation side, with two units of 30 beds each, and a correctional/offender side. The class plaintiffs were housed on the rehabilitation side, as patients, not inmates. According to court documents, evidence suggests that on Oct. 16, 2012 forensic Capt. Todd Henwood and hospital health services manager Brenda Mate decided all 33 patients in the two rehabilitation units would be strip searched and their lockers examined. "The strip searches found nothing, though the locker examinations located some items," Justice Fichaud wrote. Murray said he still has flashbacks about being forced to take his clothes off in front of two correctional officers. He said he was never asked if he had anything in his possession nor told why they were searching him. "If you're in there, you are disabled at that point, or pretty much. It is not a very good thing to have happen to you." He was the first of 33 patients allegedly strip searched that day as part of a mass search for illicit drugs in the facility, according to court documents. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Health authority officials said earlier they will not comment while the case is before the courts. In her earlier decision, Judge Boudreau recounted evidence put forward by Brenda Mate, who oversees the rehabilitation side of the forensic hospital, including the two 30-bed units. Several events between June 2012 and Oct. 16, 2012, caused Mate to become increasingly concerned about illegal substances being brought into the facility, including some patients testing positive for illegal substances, the decision said. Mate denied she ordered the strip searches but said she left the decision up to an officer with the correctional services division who worked in the facility. However, correctional officers, who carried out the strip searches, indicated that they were carried out at the direction of Mate. Twenty-one of the 33 patients have also filed complaints with the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination on the basis of mental disability in connection with the incident, the earlier decision noted. The suit will proceed on issues under the Charter of Rights, including individual assessment of grounds to search each person and privacy. In a decision posted on April 13, Fichaud ordered Capital Health to pay Murray court costs of CAD3,000 for the appeal, and the attorney general to pay him CAD2,000. [GN] ENERGY RECOVERY: Aug. 24 Hearing for Final Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Edward M Chen will convene a hearing on August 24, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. to consider final approval of the parties' settlement. Cara Mannion, writing for Law360, reported in February 2017 that Energy Recovery Inc. agreed to pay almost $3.9 million in cash to end a putative shareholder class action alleging its former CEO inflated stock prices with misleading statements, including allegations that he marketed engineering prototypes as ready for sale. Lead counsel for the proposed investor class asked a California federal judge for a preliminary blessing on the deal, saying the two sides engaged in "arm's length and hard-fought negotiations" to settle the suit, which alleged that former CEO Thomas S. Rooney touted inoperable products as ready for customer purchase and reported that the company reached a "verbal agreement" with a major oil player despite the deal only being a promising sales pitch. Judge Chen granted preliminary settlement approval in an order dated April 11, 2017, and set the final approval hearing date. According to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, on January 20 and 27, 2015, two stockholder class action complaints were filed against the Company in the United States District Court of the Northern District of California, on behalf of Energy Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC, and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy Recovery, Inc, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00374 EMC. The complaints have now been consolidated under the caption, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based upon alleged public misrepresentations and seeks the recovery of unspecified monetary damages. On October 12, 2016, the Company and the attorneys representing the class reached an agreement in principle to settle all outstanding claims in the case. As part of the settlement agreement, the Company has agreed to pay the class an undisclosed sum, the entirety of which will be borne by the Company's insurer. Law360 reported that California-based Energy Recovery, which provides water desalination services and harvests power from high- pressure oil and gas industrial fluid flows, continued to deny the investors' allegations in the settlement. Levi & Korsinsky LLP, lead counsel for the shareholders, said it will request up to $962,500 in attorneys' fees. Energy Recovery, Inc., is an energy solutions provider to industrial fluid flow markets worldwide. The Company's core competencies are fluid dynamics and advanced material science. The Company's products make industrial processes more operational and capital expenditure efficient. ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FL: Coleman Sexual Harassment Settlement Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- WEAR reports that the Escambia County Corrections Director Tamyra Jarvis is battling allegations that she knew about sexual harassment issues at Coleman Federal Correctional Complex and did nothing to stop them. More than 500 female prison workers were involved in a class action lawsuit that led to a $20 million settlement that is still pending in federal court. A copy of the decision, dated April 2013, does not mention Ms. Jarvis or any specific warden at the prison. She was hired by Escambia County in February, but the sexual harassment case goes back more than a decade. Ms. Jarvis started working at Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in Central Florida in 2009. She told Channel 3's Jackalyn Kovac the class action got underway before she started. More than 500 female staffers said they were subjected to sexually-charged threats and abuse over the course of 16 years. Jarvis said during her time at the prison, any complaint she received was handled appropriately through the administration process that was available to her. She said she also put in new policies and procedures during her time at the prison. Escambia County Commissioners Jeff Bergosh (District 1) and Grover Robinson (District 4) told Ms. Kovac they were made aware of the lawsuit during the hiring process. Commissioners do not have hiring or fire power over county employees. An article printed in the USA Today, dated April 9, also mentions the bonuses Jarvis received during her time at Coleman. It listed her bonuses totaling around $35,500 in over two years. Commissioners say she will not be receiving any bonuses in Escambia County. However, they agree, during the short time she's been here, she's doing a great job. "If she obtained a bonus she clearly was accomplishing the goals set forth in things that she was doing. So if that's the case then we should feel very good about having somebody at the federal level that's coming down to a local level," said Robinson. "There is no cloud over her as far as I'm aware of and I would say, by all accounts, she's doing a great job here for us," Mr. Bergosh added. Ms. Jarvis is not facing any charges related to the class action lawsuit or any other case. Union officials however contend that top leaders at the prison, including those that took bonuses, were aware of the issues. EXPRESS INC: Faces Class Action in N.J. Over FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that Express Inc. has been hit with a putative class action by a former employee in New Jersey federal court alleging co-managers are misclassified as exempt employees and denied required overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours a week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Karla Reynosa worked as a salaried co-manager at Express stores in New York and New Jersey, the April 7 complaint says, a position that often required her to put in more than 40 hours per week. Though time and a half is the hourly overtime rate under the FLSA -- as well as New Jersey and New York state laws -- Ms. Reynosa and other co-managers were paid "supplemental" pay equal to one- half of an hourly rate calculated off her annual salary, the complaint says. "Defendant knowingly and willfully operated its business with a policy of not paying overtime premiums equal to one and a half times Plaintiff's regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek," the complaint says. Claims include failure to pay overtime in violation of the FLSA, violations of New Jersey's wage and hour laws for overtime and unpaid overtime wages, and a violation of New York state labor law for unpaid overtime wages. Ms. Reynosa seeks to represent an FLSA collective of anyone who worked as a salaried, exempt co-manager for Express who worked in excess of 40 hours per week during any workweek in the past three years. She also seeks to represent a class of those who were allegedly misclassified pursuant to the New Jersey and New York claims. Ms. Reynosa worked for Express from 1999 to 2013 at stores in Manhattan, the complaint says, and became a co-manager in 2012. She generally worked between 43 and 45 hours a week, but as many as 49 hours per week during the holiday seasons, the complaint says. Then Ms. Reynosa worked as a salaried co-manager at an Express in Jersey City from June 2015 to around September 2016, the complaint says, generally putting in around 42 hours a week. Despite her title, Ms. Reynosa didn't have duties that were meaningfully different than the hourly sales associates and wasn't involved in management, hiring or operational decisions at either store, the complaint says. "On a daily basis, Plaintiff primarily performed tasks including but not limited to: stocking and running merchandise, cleaning the store and the bathrooms, ringing the register, marking down the merchandise, store recovery, trash disposal, folding clothes, taking care of customer services, taking returns and exchanges, and other duties typically expected of hourly associates," the complaint says. Any weeks in which Ms. Reynosa worked over 40 hours were paid in "supplemental" hours, equal to one-half her regular rate, the complaint says. "Despite of being classified as exempt salaried employee, plaintiff was required to track the number of hours she worked and was paid the 'Supplemental' for the hours she worked over 40 at a rate of 0.5 times her regular hourly rate," the complaint says. The suit asks the court to determine whether Express misclassified co-managers as exempt from FLSA overtime protection, whether it failed to properly compensate the co-managers the required time and a half premium rate and whether its alleged violations of the FLSA were willful. A spokesperson for Express didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on April 11. Ms. Reynosa is represented by Keli Liu of Hang & Associates PLLC. Counsel information for Express Inc. wasn't immediately available. The case is Karla Reynosa v. Express Inc., case number 2:17-cv- 02424, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. FIAT CHRYSLER: Amended Securities Complaint Filed ------------------------------------------------- Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit in New York, Fiat said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said, "On September 11, 2015, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us alleging material misstatements regarding our compliance with regulatory requirements and that we failed to timely disclose certain expenses relating to our vehicle recall campaigns." On October 5, 2016, the district court dismissed the claims relating to the disclosure of vehicle recall campaign expenses but ruled that claims regarding the alleged misstatements regarding regulatory requirements would be allowed to proceed. On February 17, 2017, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege material misstatements regarding emissions compliance. "At this stage of the proceedings, we are unable to reliably evaluate the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or estimate a range of possible loss," the Company said. Fiat is an international automotive group engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, distributing and selling vehicles, components and production systems worldwide through 162 manufacturing facilities and 87 research and development centers. FIAT CHRYSLER: 2 Securities Lawsuits Pending in Michigan -------------------------------------------------------- Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company is aware "of two putative securities class action lawsuits pending against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging material misstatements with regard to our reporting of vehicle unit sales to end consumers in the U.S. At this early stage, we are unable to reliably evaluate the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or estimate a range of possible loss." Fiat is an international automotive group engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, distributing and selling vehicles, components and production systems worldwide through 162 manufacturing facilities and 87 research and development centers. FMC CORPORATION: Still Faces Antitrust Action in Germany -------------------------------------------------------- An antitrust lawsuit remains pending in Germany, FMC 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 Company said, "Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen peroxide who claim to have been harmed as a result of alleged violations of European competition law by hydrogen peroxide producers assigned their legal claims to a single entity formed by a law firm. The single entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against European producers, including our wholly-owned Spanish subsidiary, Foret. Initial defense briefs were filed in April 2010, and an initial hearing was held during the first quarter of 2011, at which time case management issues were discussed." "At a subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court indicated that it was considering seeking guidance from the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") as to whether the German courts have jurisdiction over these claims. After submission of written comments on this issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge announced that she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the ECJ, which she did on April 29, 2013. "On May 21, 2015, the ECJ issued its decision, upholding the jurisdiction of the German court. The case is now back before the German judge. "We filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings in September 2015. We do not anticipate a response by the court until March 2017. Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a cross-border "class action" which is not a recognized proceeding under EU or German law -- we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of our potential exposure of loss at this time. "We intend to vigorously defend this matter." FMC is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. FMC CORPORATION: Antitrust Action Ongoing in Canada --------------------------------------------------- FMC Corporation continues to defend against antitrust actions in Canada, FMC 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, "In 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted in no charges brought against us) and the filing of various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have all been settled, putative class actions against us and five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under the laws of Canada. The other five defendants have settled these claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million." "On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide from 1994 to 2005. Our motion for leave to appeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010. "The case was largely dormant while the Canadian Supreme Court considered, in different litigation, whether indirect purchasers may recover overcharges in antitrust actions. In October 2013 the Court ruled that such recovery is permissible. Thereafter, the plaintiffs' moved to dismiss certain downstream purchasers (those who purchased products that contain hydrogen peroxide or were made using hydrogen peroxide) from the case and to reduce the class period to November 1, 1998 through December 31, 2003 -- thereby eliminating six of the eleven years of the originally certified class period. The Court has approved this request. "Since the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect to the merits, we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of our potential exposure of loss at this time. We intend to vigorously defend these matters." FMC is a diversified chemical company serving agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. FNCB BANCORP: Settles "Antonik" and "Saxe" Suits for $750,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- FNCB Bancorp, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it entered into a $750,000 settlement agreement to resolve the class action lawsuits commenced by Steven Antonik, et al., and Charles Saxe, III. On February 16, 2017, FNCB and FNCB Bank entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") in the matters filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County to Steven Antonik, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells and Louise A. Howells, Summer Benjamin, and Joshua Silfee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. First National Community Bancorp, Inc. and First National Community Bank, Civil Action No. 2013-CV-4438 and Charles Saxe, III, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. First National Community Bank No. 2013-CV-5071 (collectively, the "Actions"). By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the parties to the Actions have resolved the claims made in the complaints to their mutual satisfaction. FNCB has not admitted to the validity of any claims or allegations and deny any liability in the claims made and the Plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or allegations lack merit or foundation. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to the following: 1) FNCB is to pay the Plaintiffs' class members the aggregate sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ($750,000)(an amount which FNCB recorded as a liability and corresponding expense in its 2015 operating results); 2) Plaintiffs shall release all claims against FNCB related to the Actions; 3) FNCB shall move to vacate or satisfy any judgments against any class members arising from the vehicle loans that are the subject of the Actions; 4) FNCB shall waive the deficiency balance of each class member and remove the trade lines on each class members' credit report associated with the subject vehicle loans that are at issue in the Actions for Experian, Equifax and Transunion. The Settlement Agreement provides for an Incentive Award for the representative Plaintiffs and an award to Plaintiffs' counsel of attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with their roles in these Actions, subject to Court Approval. The Settlement Agreement remains subject to approval by the Court after notice to the class members and a final settlement hearing. The hearing on the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement will be to determine whether 1) the terms and conditions of the settlement provided for in the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best interests of the class members; 2) the judgment dismissing the claims of the class members, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, shall be entered, and 3) the request of the representative Plaintiffs for the Incentive Award and the Plaintiffs' counsel for an award for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses shall be granted. As previously mentioned above and in connection with the primary terms of the tentative settlement agreement entered by Order of Court on December 17, 2015, FNCB recorded a liability and corresponding expense in the amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand ($750,000), which was included in FNCB's 2015 operating results. FNCB Bancorp, Inc., formerly First National Community Bancorp, Inc., incorporated in 1997, is a Pennsylvania business corporation and a registered bank holding company headquartered in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. FNCB Bancorp, Inc. became an active bank holding company on July 1, 1998 when it acquired 100% ownership of the former First National Community Bank, now known as FNCB Bank. FNCB's primary activity consists of owning and operating the Bank, which provides substantially all of FNCB's earnings as a result of its banking services. FOODONI NY: Faces "Bonikos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Yannis Bonikos, Dimitirios Oikonomopoulos, and Rigel Shaholli, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Foodoni NY 23 Corp. d/b/a E Taverna and Panos Seretis, Case No. 1:17-cv- 02162 (E.D.N.Y., April 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2619 23rd Ave, Astoria NY 11105-3124. [BN] Yannis Bonikos, Dimitirios Oikonomopoulos, and Rigel Shaholli are pro se plaintiffs. GLOBAL BROKERAGE: 683 Capital Sues Over Securities Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- 683 Capital Partners, LP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Global Brokerage, Inc. f/k/a FXCM Inc., Dror Niv and Robert Lande, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 02506 (S.D. N.Y., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act. According to the complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) between September 4, 2009 through at least 2014, FXCM's U.S. subsidiary engaged in false and misleading solicitations of its retail foreign exchange customers by concealing its relationship with its most important market maker and by misrepresenting that its "No Dealing Desk" platform as no conflicts of interest with its customers; (2) FXCM's U.S. subsidiary made false statements to the National Futures Association about its relationship with the market maker and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about FXCM's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Headquartered in New York, New York, Defendant FXCM provides online foreign exchange (FX) trading and related services to retail and institutional customers worldwide through its subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com GOLD POINT: Antonio, et al. Allege Calif. Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- REY B. ANTONIO, EDILBERTO BEDOYA, BRENDA R. BORESOFF, NIDELCO BORESOFF, CESARY CABUYALES, SALOMON F. GAMEZ, ESTUARDO GIORDANI, MIGUEL A. TEODOCIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL UNAMED PLAINTIFFS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. GOLD POINT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 656928 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles), is a Complaint against each Defendant for wage and hour violations arising out of Defendant's misclassification of employees, failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, unlawful deductions, and failure to reimburse drivers for business expenses. The case alleges violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial Wage Order No. 9-2001. Each Defendant provides various shipping services throughout California. Each Plaintiff is/was employed by Defendants as a driver.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alvin M. Gomez, Esq. GOMEZ LAW GROUP 2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (858) 552-0000 Fax: (760) 720-5217 Email: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Loses Bid to Narrow Gender Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge on April 12 rejected Goldman Sachs Group Inc's bid to dismiss two of the four female plaintiffs in a proposed class- action lawsuit accusing the bank of discriminating against women in pay and promotions. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in Manhattan said former vice president Mary De Luis' claims did not become moot when she resigned last May, after the bank allegedly retaliated for her role in the case by refusing to allow a transfer to Miami from Dallas unless she accepted a demotion. The judge also said another ex-employee, former vice president Allison Gamba, had standing to pursue her claims even after Goldman left her without a job in August 2014 when it "divested itself" of her department. Judge Torres said a judge who previously oversaw the 6-1/2-year- old lawsuit misinterpreted a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wal-Mart Stores Inc v. Dukes, in finding that former employees like De Luis and Gamba who sought "reinstatement" could not sue. In an email, Goldman said it was "examining the implications of the latest ruling and will continue to contest this matter vigorously." The plaintiffs accused Goldman of systematically paying women less than men, and giving them weaker performance reviews that impeded their career growth. Their lawsuit, which began in September 2010, also included allegations that Goldman maintained a "boys' club atmosphere." This included the use of sexual language, unwanted touching and subjecting women to the "double-edged sword" of being expected to socialize after work with colleagues to advance their careers, it said, but risk being labeled "party girls" if they did. The other named plaintiffs include former Goldman employees Cristina Chen-Oster and Shanna Orlich, who were a vice president and associate, respectively. A fifth plaintiff agreed to arbitration. Judge Torres "brought consistency to how the Southern District of New York interprets standing," Kelly Dermody, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an interview, referring to the Manhattan court. "This had been a big stopping point in the case and all four plaintiffs can seek class-action status." Class-action certification could let thousands of women sue together, raising the potential for larger awards without excessive legal costs. The case is Chen-Oster et al v. Goldman Sachs & Co et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 10-06950. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION: Faces "Redmon" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN REDMON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. d/b/a AMERICA'S ALLIANCE d/b/a AMERICA'S CHOICE GARAGE DOOR SERVICE, and INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv- 01102 (S.D. Tex., April 10, 2017), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Global employs "Technicians" to repair, replace, and service garage doors. Plaintiff Bryan Redmon was employed by Defendants as a Technician. The case alleges that the Technicians regularly work far more than 40 hours in a work week. However, Global classifies all the Technicians as 'independent contractors,' and thus does not pay them overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Global's classification of the Technicians is wrong; they are employees under the FLSA, not independent contractors. Accordingly, Global owes the Technicians overtime pay, liquidated damages and all other remedies available under the FLSA. GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC. is in the business of residential and commercial garage door repair, replacement, and service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Slobin, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net HEALTHY SPOT: Faces "Summers" Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACOB SUMMERS, and DAVID RASMUSSEN, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiff, vs. HEALTHY SPOT, LLC, a California limited liability company; ANDREW T. KIM, an individual; MARK BOONNARK, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 656995 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017), alleges that each year a large percentage of the people hired by Defendants in the position of "apprentice bather" wish to terminate their employment with Defendants within the first six months. Defendants prevent these individuals from terminating their employment through coercion, duress, and intimidation by threatening legal action to enforce the Apprenticeship Agreement and impose a debt of $4,000 upon these individuals if they refuse to continue working for Defendants. The case alleges involuntary servitude, human trafficking, violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code and Los Angeles City Municipal Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Healthy Spot LLC distributes dog care products. Defendants hired Plaintiff JACOB SUMMERS as an apprentice bather. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Hodgkins, Esq. CIVIL JUSTICE LAW, P.C. 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (213) 529-0003 Fax: (310)496-0533 E-mail: travis@civiljustice.com HOME DEPOT: Brings Class Action Removal Issue to Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Meisel and Jessica Corso, writing for Law360, report that Home Depot Inc. has told the U.S. Supreme Court that the Seventh Circuit wrongly remanded a proposed class action over in-home water treatment systems to Illinois state court on the grounds the retailer was not an original defendant that could remove the case. In its April 5 certiorari petition, Home Depot said the Seventh Circuit construed the Class Action Fairness Act too narrowly by forbidding removal by a newly added counterclaim defendant "in an otherwise removable class action." "CAFA's plain language does not compel that result, and the rule runs headlong into this court's instruction to liberally construe CAFA consistent 'with a strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a federal court,'" Home Depot wrote, citing the high court's 2014 opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. LLC v. Owens that a defendant's removal notice must include only a plausible allegation that the dollar amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold of $5 million. The case had originally been brought in Madison County court by retailer Tri-State Water Treatment Inc. against Illinois couple Stacy and Michael Bauer for allegedly not paying Tri-State for the in-home water system it had installed for them. The Bauers turned around and countersued Tri-State on behalf of consumers across six states whom Tri-State allegedly deceived during free in-home assessments into believing the systems detected contaminants when all they really did was identify the mineral content in drinking water. Home Depot was named as a counterdefendant in the Bauers' counterclaim and subsequently removed the case to Illinois federal court. But the Seventh Circuit said the retail giant was precluded from requesting a venue change under CAFA as the statute does not let counterdefendants take putative class actions federal. The appeals court noted that applies even though Home Depot was not an original party to the dispute. In its April 5 petition, Home Depot laid out what it said was the Supreme Court's responsibility to weigh in on this "wayward rule," as it will "affect class action defendants in those jurisdictions that most frequently see frivolous and abusive class actions -- including California, Illinois, and West Virginia." Home Depot pointed out that Madison County court, frequently seen as friendly to class actions, has been "recognized as a 'magnet jurisdiction' for abusive class actions," quoting congressional reasoning for passing CAFA in the first place in 2005. The Bauers' attorney, Michael Reese, told Law360 on April 6 that Home Depot's argument is void on arrival. "There is no reason for granting certiorari here," Mr. Reese said in an email. "There is no split amongst the circuits; indeed, all circuits that have had the issue have ruled the same way as the 7th Circuit. This is not surprising given the 7th Circuit's well- reasoned decision is based on the plain language of the statute and over 50 years of precedent." An attorney for Home Depot declined to comment on April 12. The Bauers are represented by Michael Reese of Reese LLP, Sean Cronin of Donovan Rose Nester PC and Troy Walton of Walton Telken Foster LLC. Home Depot is represented by S. Stewart Haskins, Merritt McAlister and Zheyao Li of King & Spalding LLP. The case is Home Depot USA Inc. v. Bauer et al., case number 16- 1205, in the Supreme Court of the United States. ILLINOIS: State Police Faces Suit Over Unlawful Arrests ------------------------------------------------------- Heather Schroering at Chicago Tribune reports three north suburban men who said they were targeted as suspects in the 2015 shooting of Fox Lake police Lt. Charles Joseph Gliniewicz before authorities declared his death a staged suicide, filed a federal class-action lawsuit on April 13 against several north suburban police departments, the FBI, Illinois State Police and the Lake County sheriff's office. Raymond Willoughby, Damien Ward and Dan Cooper say in their lawsuit they were unlawfully arrested based on Gliniewicz's vague description of two "male whites" and one "male black," whom he was fictitiously pursuing before his death. The lawsuit alleges the Fox Lake Police Department had "good reason to suspect from the very outset that Gliniewicz's death was a suicide." "Despite that, they allowed this manhunt for a fabricated cop killer," said Gregory E. Kulis, who represents the men. The men say officers handcuffed and held them in custody for up to 10 hours and attempted to enter Ward's homes without a warrant. Cooper also alleges in the lawsuit he "asked and tried to leave but was pushed around and told he couldn't leave." Kulis said law enforcement officers tested his clients for gunshot residue and pressured at least one of them into giving his DNA if he wanted to leave. Officers also used an ultraviolet light to inspect one client's pants and bike. Gliniewicz was found dead Sept. 1, 2015, shortly after he radioed that he was pursuing three suspicious individuals on foot. Authorities launched a widespread search of the area, using hundreds of officers with dogs and helicopters. For two months, Gliniewicz was portrayed as a hero shot down in the line down of duty. But in November 2015, authorities announced they had determined the officer committed suicide, staging the scene to make it look like a homicide to avoid possible consequences for years of alleged theft from the village's Explorer youth police training program. The lawsuit also seeks to represent anyone who was "stopped, questioned, arrested, or otherwise detained and deprived of their liberty as purported suspects in the nationally publicized murder" of Gliniewicz. Though the precise number is unknown, Kulis said he is aware of others who were targeted in the investigation. "The only information Gliniewicz conveyed with respect to his fictitious 'murderers' was their race," the lawsuit states. "Accordingly, the ensuing investigation proceeded without the benefit of any information regarding the suspects' location, destination, motivation, age ... or anything else that would distinguish the suspects from the estimated approximately 70.1 (percent) of Lake County residents fitting these threadbare descriptions." Defendants listed in the lawsuit include former Fox Lake police Chief Michael Behan and members of the Major Crime Task Force that investigated Gliniewicz's death, including the police departments of Fox Lake, Round Lake, Round Lake Beach and McHenry, the Illinois State Police and Lake County sheriff's office and several unnamed FBI agents, deputy sheriffs, state police agents and police officers in multiple municipalities. The Fox Lake Police Department could not be reached for comment. Kulis also represented two other men who filed a case in connection with the Gliniewicz investigation that was settled, he said. [GN] INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: ERISA Suit Remains Pending in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- International Business Machines 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 an ERISA class action lawsuit remains pending in New York court. In March 2015, putative class action litigation was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York related to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting its global commercial semiconductor technology business. The company and three of its officers were named as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In May 2015, a related putative class action was also commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on the same underlying facts, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). The company, management's Retirement Plans Committee, and three current or former IBM executives were named as defendants. On September 7, 2016, the Court granted the company's motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in both actions. On October 21, 2016, the ERISA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping the company as a defendant. The matter remains pending in the United States District Court. JOHNSON & BELL: Defamation Case Against Edelson PC Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Damon W. Silver, Esq., of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that an actual breach of client information could expose your law firm to legal and business risks is unsurprising. The risks posed by a potential breach, however, may be something your firm has not yet carefully considered -- but needs to. Law firms face a variety of cybersecurity-related risks. Firms have been targeted by cybercriminals with increased frequency in the past few years, and clients are growing concerned. In at least one instance -- and likely more to follow -- this concern has resulted in litigation between firm and client over the adequacy of the firm's cybersecurity safeguards. In April 2016, clients of a Chicago-based firm, Johnson & Bell, filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the firm failed to adequately safeguard their information. The case, which was subsequently moved to arbitration, is now back in the news. On March 28, 2017, Johnson & Bell sued Edelson PC, the firm representing the client class, for defamation. In its complaint, Johnson & Bell alleges that "[t]he Edelson defendants have engaged in numerous violations of their ethical duties, have illegally abused the process of the courts to further their own self- aggrandizement, and have engaged in a self-serving publicity tour spreading their lies and defamatory statements about J&B." Perhaps ominously, Edelson has announced that the Johnson & Bell case is just its opening salvo; it plans to assert similar claims on behalf of clients of 15 other firms. The Johnson & Bell Complaint, which was made public last December, is notable for a number of reasons. First, it homes in on several of the potential vulnerabilities firm systems may be subject to, such as the high incident of employees working remotely, or the fact that less well-protected systems, like those for timekeeping or email, can serve as gateways to systems holding more sensitive data. Second, the Complaint identifies categories of sensitive data that many firms are likely to maintain, such as financial records, trade secrets, sensitive communications, and personal information. Third, it contends that there's an "industry standard" level of data security that any firm charging and collecting market-rate attorneys' fees must provide. This is significant because there are indications that the "industry standard" (or "reasonable") level of protection that the law imposes on businesses is likely to become more expansive and onerous in coming years. And fourth, in addition to seeking damages and attorneys' fees, the Johnson & Bell Plaintiffs are seeking to compel a security audit by an outside auditor. This audit would, among other things, reveal whether the firm has conducted a thorough risk assessment, and whether it has developed a sufficiently robust data security plan that includes written policies and procedures, employee training, and vendor management processes. The prospect of client lawsuits provides a compelling reason to take prompt and committed action on the cybersecurity front -- even if your firm has not yet experienced a breach. For guidance on how firms can prevent and respond to cybersecurity incidents, please check out our past post on this topic. JPMORGAN CHASE: ERISA Plaintiffs' Request for Rehearing Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 request of Plaintiffs in the ERISA class action lawsuit for rehearing by the full appellate court has been denied. The Firm has been sued in a consolidated shareholder class action, and in a consolidated putative class action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), relating to 2012 losses in the synthetic credit portfolio formerly managed by the Firm's Chief Investment Office ("CIO"). A settlement of the shareholder class action, under which the Firm paid $150 million, has received full and final approval from the Court. The putative ERISA class action has been dismissed. That dismissal was affirmed by the appellate court, and a request by the plaintiffs for rehearing by the full appellate court was denied. JPMORGAN CHASE: Consumer, ERISA and Purchaser Suits Pending in NY ----------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 a consumer action, a second ERISA action and an indirect purchaser action remain pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Firm is one of a number of foreign exchange dealers defending a class action filed in the New York District Court by U.S.-based plaintiffs, principally alleging violations of federal antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates (the "U.S. class action"). In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of additional putative class actions were filed seeking damages for persons who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the "exchanged-based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign currencies at allegedly inflated rates (the "consumer action"), participants or beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans (the "ERISA actions"), and purported indirect purchasers of FX instruments (the "indirect purchaser action"). Since then, the Firm has entered into a revised settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, including the exchange-based actions, and that agreement has been preliminarily approved by the Court. The District Court has dismissed one of the ERISA actions, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal. JPMORGAN CHASE: Canadian Case Settlements Await Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 settlement of Canadian class action lawsuits against FX dealers remains subject to Court approval. In September 2015, two class actions were filed in Canada against the Firm as well as a number of other FX dealers, principally for alleged violations of the Canadian Competition Act based on an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of currency purchased in the FX market. The first action was filed in the province of Ontario, and seeks to represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX instrument. The second action was filed in the province of Quebec, and seeks authorization to represent only those persons in Quebec who engaged in FX transactions. In late 2016, the Firm settled the Canadian class actions; those settlements are subject to Court approval. JPMORGAN CHASE: LIBOR, Other Benchmark Rate Suits Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 firm remains a defendant in LIBOR and other benchmark rate litigation. The Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a series of individual and putative class actions filed in various United States District Courts. These actions have been filed, or consolidated for pre-trial purposes, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In these actions, plaintiffs make varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, Singapore Interbank Offered Rate ("SIBOR"), Singapore Swap Offer Rate ("SOR") and/or the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate ("BBSW") by submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, EURIBOR, SIBOR, SOR or BBSW and assert a variety of claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages. These matters are in various stages of litigation. In the U.S. dollar LIBOR-related actions, the District Court dismissed certain claims, including the antitrust claims, and permitted other claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and common law to proceed. In May 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the dismissal of the antitrust claims and remanded the case to the District Court to consider, among other things, whether the plaintiffs have standing to assert antitrust claims. In July 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants again moved in the District Court to dismiss the antitrust claims, and in December 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion, finding that certain plaintiffs lacked standing to assert antitrust claims. Separately, in October 2016, JPMorgan Chase and other defendants filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's decision that vacated the dismissal of plaintiffs' antitrust claims. That petition was denied. The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodity Exchange Act. In April 2016, the Firm settled the ISDAFIX litigation, along with certain other banks. Those settlements have been preliminarily approved by the Court. JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Madoff Litigation Underway ---------------------------------------------------- An appeal related to the Madoff class action litigation remains pending, JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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. A putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi scheme and were not included in a prior class action settlement. These plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities law, as well as other state and federal claims. A similar action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, although it was not styled as a class action, and included claims pursuant to Florida statutes. The Florida court granted the Firm's motion to dismiss the case, and in August 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The plaintiffs have filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. In addition, the same plaintiffs have re-filed their dismissed state claims in Florida state court, where the Firm's motion to dismiss is pending. The New Jersey court granted a transfer motion to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which granted the Firm's motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal of that dismissal. KELLY SERVICES: April 25 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, reports that did you buy fluoride tablets for you or your kids to chew and keep your teeth strong? A class action lawsuit is alleging some contain less than 50 percent fluoride. The settlement could mean money back. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals is one of the brands. If you bought it between Oct. 31, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2015, you could qualify. The deadline to file was April 17, 2017. The businesses claim no wrongdoing. The makers of the prescription drug Provigil settled a lawsuit over allegations they tried to delay the sale of a generic version. If you bought between June 24, 2006 and March 31, 2012, you could get part of the $35 million settlement. The deadline to file is close, April 13th, 2014. The company claimed no wrongdoing. And if you were employed by Kelly services as a temp worker check this out. A class action lawsuit claims they included a liability release for background checks they ran on workers. And that would be against the law. If you had a report run between July 18, 2012 and January 23rd, 2014, you could get up to $272 back. The company claims no wrongdoing. The deadline to file is April 25th, 2017. While these settlements can mean money for consumers, and hold businesses accountable, they could also be in jeopardy. Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions says a federal bill, HR 985 could make it "impossible to file a class action in some consumer cases." He says that's because same damages, names and addresses of all affected by the suit would have to be known. Mr. Hardy says that could be impossible if millions of people are affected. They likely paid different amounts, had different experiences -- even though the underlying issues was the same. The bill has already passed the house and is on the way to the Senate. It also includes wording about limiting what attorneys can get from the suits. So, let Senator's McCain and Flake know how you feel. And let me know. KEMPHARM INC: Awaits Decision on Bid to Remand IPO-Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- KemPharm, Inc., awaits ruling on the Plaintiff's motion to remand to the Iowa District Court a lawsuit arising from its initial public offering, the Company in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company said: "In December 2016, we received a class action suit filed against us by a stockholder in the Iowa District Court in Johnson county alleging that we, certain of our senior executives and directors who signed the registration statement in connection with our initial public offering, and each of the investment banks that acted as underwriters for the offering negligently issued untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts required to be stated in the registration statement and incorporated offering materials that we filed with the SEC in support of the offering. The plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in his complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the plaintiff seeks to recover damages and obtain other relief on behalf of himself and all other persons who purchased our common stock pursuant or traceable to the offering and the registration statement and who were allegedly damaged thereby." "In January 2017, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiff has since filed a motion to remand the case to the Iowa District Court, and that motion is still pending. The suit is still in a preliminary stage and has not yet been set for trial. As such, we are unable to predict the timing or outcome of this litigation as of the date of this report." KemPharm, Inc., is a clinical-stage specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the discovery and development of proprietary prodrugs that the Company believes will be improved versions of widely prescribed, approved drugs. The Company employs its Ligand Activated Therapy, or LAT, platform technology to create its prodrugs. The Company is building a pipeline of prodrug product candidates that target large market opportunities in pain, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, and central nervous system, or CNS, disorders. KIRKLAND'S INC: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Lynn Gennock and Jordan Budai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kirkland's Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00454-RCM (W.D. Penn., April 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Kirkland's Inc. operates a retail chain that sells home decor, specializing in furnishings, accessories and gifts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com LIBERTY MEDIA: 200 Consumers Opt Out of Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Media 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 approximately 200 consumers opted-out of a class action settlement. SIRIUS XM was a defendant in several purported class action suits that alleged that SIRIUS XM, or call center vendors acting on their behalf, made calls which violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). These purported class action cases were titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla). SIRIUS XM has entered into an agreement to settle these purported class action suits. The settlement was approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in December 2016. The settlement resolves the claims of consumers beginning in February 2008 relating to telemarketing calls to their mobile telephones. Approximately 200 consumers, or less than 0.002% of the consumers who received notice of the settlement, opted-out of this class action settlement. As part of this settlement, SIRIUS XM made a $35 million payment to a settlement fund during 2016 (from which notice, administration and other costs and attorneys' fees are being paid), and are offering participating class members the option of receiving three months of SIRIUS XM's Select service for no charge. Liberty Media Corporation owns interests in subsidiaries and other companies which are engaged in the media and entertainment industries. LIVE NATION: Faces "Egan" Suit for ADA Violation in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------- John Egan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00445-MRH (W.D. Pa., April 7, 2017) seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint says Defendant's policies and practices specifically violate the ADA by failing to provide Plaintiff and the class members an equal opportunity to purchase accessible seating during the same hours and same stages of ticket sales, though the same methods of distribution, in the same types and numbers of ticketing sales outlets and under the same terms and conditions as other tickets sold. Defendant owns and operates over one hundred entertainment venues, including Key Bank Pavilion, in Burgettstown, Washington County, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Kevin Abramowicz, Esq. Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com LLOYDS BANKING: LIBOR-Related Suits Remain Pending in S.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Purported class action lawsuits remain pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Lloyds Banking Group plc's March 10, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Certain Group companies, together with other panel banks, have also been named as defendants in private lawsuits, including purported class action suits, in the US in connection with their roles as panel banks contributing to the setting of US Dollar, Japanese Yen and Sterling LIBOR and the Australian BBSW Reference Rate. The lawsuits, which contain broadly similar allegations, allege violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Commodity Exchange Act, as well as various state statutes and common law doctrines. Certain of the plaintiffs' claims, including those asserted under US anti-trust laws, were dismissed by the US Federal Court for Southern District of New York (the District Court). In November 2015 OTC and exchange-based plaintiffs' claims against the Group were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. On December 20, 2016, the Federal Court for Southern District of New York dismissed all antitrust class action claims against LBG and its affiliates in the Multi District Litigation arising from the alleged manipulation of USD LIBOR. Further appeals in relation to the anti-trust claims remain possible. Lloyds Banking Group plc is a leading provider of financial services to individual and business customers in the U.K. Lloyds Banking Group's main business activities are retail and commercial banking and long-term savings, protection and investment. Services are offered through a number of well recognised brands, including Lloyds Bank, Halifax, Bank of Scotland and Scottish Widows, and through a range of distribution channels including the largest branch network and digital bank in the U.K. MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Sues Over ACTH Drug Monopoly --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned City of Rockford, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mallinckrodt Ard, Inc. formally known as Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mallinckrodt PLC and United Biosource Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 50107 (N.D. Ill., April 6, 2017) is brought by the Plaintiff on its own behalf and on behalf of all other government payors, as well as self-funded private payors similarly situated, to challenge an anti-competitive, unfair and deceptive scheme by Defendants, Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., formally known as Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Questcor) and its parent company, Mallinckrodt plc, along with Mallinckrodt's self-described agent, United BioSource Corporation (UBC), to enhance and maintain Mallinckrodt's monopoly power in the U.S. market for adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) drugs in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws. Mallinckrodt manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Acthar, NDC No. 63004871001. Acthar is the only therapeutic ACTH product sold in the United States. Mallinckrodt is the sole provider in the U.S. of approved ACTH drugs. The complaint, citing FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, said "Questcor took advantage of its monopoly to repeatedly raise the prices of Acthar, from $40 in 2001 (when it acquired the rights to sell Acthar for $100,000) to more than $34,000 per vial today -- an 85,000 percent increase." The suit seeks to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief, and to recover overcharges resulting from the illegal monopolization scheme, RICO violations, and unlawful conduct. Alternatively, the City seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and other appropriate relief under the statutory consumer fraud laws and the common law of Illinois and other states where similarly-situated purchasers of ACTH drugs may be found.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry F. Partridge, Esq. Interim Director, Legal Department 425 East State Street Rockford, IL 61104 Tel: (779) 348-7154 Fax: (815) 967-6949 Email: kerry.partridge@rockfordil.gov - and - Peter J. Flowers, Esq. Meyers & Flowers, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Tel: (630) 232-6333 Fax: (630) 845-8982 Email: pjf@meyers-flowers.com - and - Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq. William H. Platt, II, Esq. Haviland Hughes, Esq. 201 South Maple Avenue, Suite 110 Ambler, PA 19002 Tel: (215) 609-4661 Fax: (215) 392-4400 Email: haviland@havilandhughes.com platt@havilandhughes.com MANHASSET RESTAURANT: "Canales" Suit Asserts NY Labor Law Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- INGRID MARILU CANALES and BLANCA BONILLA, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), against MANHASSET RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a TOKU MODERN ASIAN, ROSLYN HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a HENDRICK'S TAVERN, MIRACLE MILE RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a CIPOLLINI, WHEATLEY RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a BAR FRITES, GOLD COAST RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a COOPER & BRYANT STEAK HOUSE, WOODBURY RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a MAJORS STEAK HOUSE, GILLIS POLL and GEORGE POLL, Defendant(s), INDEX NO. 603053/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau, April 7, 2017), alleges that prior to 2015, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees spread- of-hours pay for each day in which their spread of hours exceeded ten hours. The case alleges violations of the New York Labor Law. Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business and operate six family-owned restaurants in Nassau County, including, Toku Modern Asian, Hendrick's Tavern, Cipollini, Bar Frites, Bryant & Cooper Steak House and Majors Steak House. The Plaintiffs were hourly paid manual workers who performed non-exempt duties in Defendants' restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC 103 Cooper Street Babylon, NY 11702 Phone: (631) 257 5588 E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com MARIAM INC: Faces "Boger" Suit Over TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------- Dan Boger, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mariam, Inc. dba Darcars Automotive Group and Fresh Beginning, Inc. dba Eleadione, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00965- PX (D. Md., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover damages against the Defendants who made telemarketing calls to a cellular telephone number of Mr. Boger for the purpose of advertising their goods and services, using an automated dialing system in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Mariam, Inc. dba Darcars Automotive Group is automotive dealerships with locations in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C. and Florida. Fresh Beginning, Inc. dba Eleadione is a call center that is hired by its clients to place automated telemarketing calls.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen H. Ring, Esq. Stephen H. Ring, P.C. 9901 Belward Campus Drive, Suite 175 Rockville, Md 20850 Tel: 301-563-9249 Fax: 301-563-9249 Email: shr@ringlaw.us MATCH GROUP: Motions to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendants' motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in the Securities Class Action Litigation against Match Group remains pending, Match Group, 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. On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in November 2015. See David M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). The complaint alleged that the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering were materially false and misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU would decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely disclose material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint pleaded claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in, or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement, the prospectus, and related communications in violation of Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's alleged violations. The complaint sought among other relief class certification and damages in an unspecified amount. On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different named plaintiff. See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case. On April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group shareholders and their respective law firms filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative class. On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants' response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for determination. In accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L. On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel. On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving the parties' proposed schedule. On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The new pleading focuses solely on allegedly misleading statements or omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating business. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed replies to the oppositions on February 6, 2017. "We believe that the allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them," the Company said. Match Group, Inc. is a provider of dating products. MEXICO FOODS: "Robledo" Suit Claims Employee Misclassification -------------------------------------------------------------- NORMA ROBLEDO AND SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MEXICO FOODS, LLC, AND TAMAULIPAS FOODS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. DC-17-04164 (D. Tex., Dallas County, April 10, 2017), alleges that like Plaintiffs, other hourly employees of Defendants have been victimized by Defendants' unlawful practice of improperly misclassifying employees as exempt and not paying them at all while a work visa is pending. Plaintiffs both worked for Defendants in the Dallas/Fort Worth Area as "Food Service Managers." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Scott, Esq. Javier Perez, Esq. SCOTT PEREZ LLP Founders Square 900 Jackson Street, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75206 Phone: 214-965-9675 Fax: 214-965-9680 E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com NORTH BATTLEFORD: Court Approves Class Action Over Tainted Water ---------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports according to the law firm involved, the courts have approved a class action that will compensate young people who became sick in the 2001 North Battleford, Sask., tainted water scandal. People became sick with flu-like symptoms and gastrointestinal complaints when the parasite cryptosporidium turned up in their drinking water. The contamination occurred after a filtering mechanism in North Battleford's water treatment system failed during maintenance done in March 2001. Some 800 people who got sick had already been compensated in previous out-of-court settlements. However, a third court action was launched with the intention of having it approved as a class action. That was approved by the courts and according to the firm behind the effort, anyone who was under 18 at the time and became ill can now apply for compensation. [GN] NORTHERN CHILDREN'S: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres at Penn Record reports that an employee has filed a class action lawsuit against Northern Children's Services, a nonprofit children's therapy center, citing alleged unpaid wages, violation of applicable minimum wage law and violation of Workers' Compensation acts. Tanea Pratt, an hourly therapeutic staff support worker with the non-profit, filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the employer failed to properly compensate the plaintiff for her work. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she and others sustained damages from not being paid overtime for working more than 40 hours per week. The plaintiff holds Northern Children's Services responsible because it allegedly failed to pay the plaintiff for all the hours she worked during her employment, which began in 2013. The plaintiff seeks judgment against the defendant. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case number 2:17-cv-01433-NIQA [GN] NRG RESIDENTIAL: "Dobkin" Wants One Touch to Show Cause ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Dobkin and Erica Gennarini ask the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for an order requiring One Touch Calls, LLC to show cause for its failure to comply with subpoenas properly issued by Plaintiffs which were served within this judicial district. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek an Order (i) requiring One Touch to show cause as to why it should not be held in contempt of Court, (ii) imposing appropriate sanctions should it fail to do so, and (iii) granting any additional relief the Court deemsreasonable and just. This Motion is the culmination of a six month-long effort to obtain documents and information from One Touch that Plaintiffs Dobkin and Gennarini contend are relevant to their underlying cases captioned Dobkin v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC and Gennarini v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions, LLC, No. 3:15-cv- 05089 (D.N.J) (the Underlying Action), which have been consolidated into a single case that is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey before the Honorable Brian R. Martinotti. In the Underlying Action, Plaintiffs Dobkin and Gennarini allege that NRG Residential Solar Solutions, LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. One Touch is a call center hired by NRG to contact potential customers and is believed to be responsible for running one of the automated telephone dialing systems that made the calls at issue in the Underlying Action. To obtain discovery in the Underlying Action, Plaintiffs served One Touch with a Subpoena to Produce Documents on August 26, 2016, seeking documents regarding the number and manner of the phone calls at issue. Although One Touch made a partial production with documents showing that it indeed had relevant information in its possession, in the weeks that followed, it never completed its production. Moreover, although Plaintiffs' Counsel repeatedly attempted to follow up with One Touch's Vice President, Muhammad Mahmood who was originally cooperating with Plaintiffs' Counsel, he ceased responding entirely. Plaintiffs likewise issued and served a Subpoena to Testify at Deposition to One Touch, which commanded One Touch's corporate representative to appear for a deposition on February 15, 2017. Again, although Plaintiffs' Counsel made repeated attempts to contact One Touch, Plaintiffs' Counsel did not receive any objection or response and the witness did not appear at the deposition. Therefore, at this point, and because One Touch has refused to provide information critical to the advancement of the Underlying Action, Plaintiffs have no choice but to institute this action and seek a court order directing One Touch to appear and explain why it should not be held in contempt, and if it cannot do so, holding One Touch in contempt. NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC provides solar systems on lease for homeowners. It offers its services through dealers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Warner F. Young, III, Esq. Allred, Bacon, Halfhill & Young PC 11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 700 Fairfax, VA 22030 Tel: (703) 352-1300 Fax: (703) 352-1301 Email: wyoung@abhylaw.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq. Stewart R. Pollock, Esq. Edelson PC 123 Townsend, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: (415) 212-9300 Fax: (415) 373-9435 Email: rbalabanian@edelsom.com erapp@edelson.com spollock@edelson.com ONEOK PARTNERS: "Federman" Files Suit Opposing Proposed Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Max Federman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Oneok Partners, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-000183-JED-FHM (N.D. Okla., April 7, 2017) seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger of Oneok Partners with Oneok Inc. During the relevant period, Defendants disseminated false and misleading Registration Statements, which failed to disclose material facts about the merger, says the complaint. ONEOK Partners, L.P. is engaged in gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack L. Brown, Esq. Charles Michael Copeland, Esq. Jone, Gotcher & Bogan, P.C. 15 E. 5th Street, Suite 3800 Tulsa, OK 74103 Tel: 918-581-8200 - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. Weisslaw LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 ONEOK PARTNERS: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC on April 12 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for Northern District of Oklahoma, case no. 5:17-cv-00161-GKF-TLW, on behalf of unitholders of Oneok Partners, LP ("Oneok Partners" or the "Company") (OKS) who held Oneok Partners securities and have been harmed by Oneok Partners and its board of directors' (the "Board") for alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the sale of the Company to Oneok, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Oneok Partners unitholders will receive 0.985 of a share of Oneok, Inc. common stock for each share of Oneok Partners they own. The complaint alleges that this offer is inadequate and alleges that the Registration Statement in Form S-4 (the "Proxy") provides materially incomplete and misleading information about the Company's financials and the transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 12, 2017. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Click here for more information: www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations/m-a/ It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securities and consumer litigation law firm committed that has recovered millions of dollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. ONEWEST: Accused of Foreclosure Abuse by Homeowner Groups --------------------------------------------------------- Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that OneWest Bank, the mortgage servicer previously owned by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, has been accused by homeowner groups of a type of foreclosure abuse involving lender-placed, or force- placed, insurance. Mortgage servicers are able to force insurance policies on homeowners during a lapse in coverage, when premiums haven't been paid or the homeowner has no hazard insurance. Sometimes force- placed policies stem from changes in flood maps or other risks from catastrophic events. Numerous class actions accused mortgage servicers during the 2010 foreclosure crisis of forcing expensive LPI policies on homeowners, when those policies weren't necessary. Many banks entered into large-scale settlements for abusing LPI, sometimes worth billions of dollars. But OneWest, which was bought by CIT Group Inc., avoided prosecution and class action settlements. Documents obtained by Bloomberg BNA show that OneWest attempted to levy LPI policies costing more than $10,000 for coverage from "hurricane-wind" damage, over nine times the nationwide average for fire and homeowner's insurance, according to numbers from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. The lack of successful large-scale class actions against the bank involving lender-placed insurance is another example of OneWest regularly avoiding penalties for its actions during the foreclosure crisis. OneWest was accused of being a "foreclosure machine" by homeowner advocacy groups like the California Reinvestment Coalition for a wide range of activities including robo-signing documents, dual- tracking foreclosures, and backdating documents. Lender-Placed Insurance During the mortgage and foreclosure crisis, the number of force- placed insurance policies rose sharply, particularly in Florida. A 2015 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that LPI is used most often on borrowers without escrow accounts who have stopped paying insurance premiums, but is also common with mortgages that are delinquent or in foreclosure, as was the case for many homes during the crisis. Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney told Bloomberg BNA that "[LPI] is directly correlated with mortgage foreclosures" because mortgage contracts give the lender the right to force- place hazard insurance. "In short, lender-placed insurance became more prevalent during the 2007-2008 financial crisis because more people stopped paying their mortgages," he said. Overpriced Lender-Placed Insurance Birny Birnbaum, director for the advocacy group Center for Economic Justice, told Bloomberg BNA that the average loss from LPI policies is half that of homeowner's policies and therefore less risky, and the lower risks don't justify the high costs associated with those plans. But besides the lack of risk, Mr. Birnbaum added, LPI is also cheap for insurers to provide. "It's less comprehensive than homeowner's insurance and the insurers save on the lack of underwriting. For a homeowner's policy, the insurer needs to inspect the property, research prior claims and research the borrower's credit history. It's an expensive process," he told Bloomberg BNA by phone. According to Mr. Birnbaum, even in the midst of major catastrophic events in 2011 and Hurricane Sandy in 2012, loss ratios for LPI remained low for the period despite homeowner's insurance not covering flood damage. OneWest, LPI Cases Numerous banks and surplus-line insurance companies like QBE Insurance Group Ltd. and Assurant Inc. were found guilty of force- placing excessively expensive policies when they weren't necessary. Sometimes the policies cost ten or twenty times a normal policy, or backdating policies that would lead to more penalties. Banks and the insurance companies were simultaneously brought up on RICO charges for coordinating kickbacks related to the policies: mortgage servicers would coordinate levying lender- placed insurance on homeowners and the insurance companies would pay kickbacks to the servicer as commissions. JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., HSBC Holding PLC, Bank of America Corp. and U.S. Bank all entered into large-scale class action settlements involving various accusations, but OneWest, a major servicer, avoided class action prosecution. LPI Lawsuits Against OneWest In October 2011, the New York Department of Financial Services opened an investigation into collusion between insurers and mortgage servicers related to lender-placed insurance, after receiving complaints from consumer advocates that LPI loss ratios were significantly lower than loss ratios for borrower-purchased insurance. But the Department of Financial Services confirmed to Bloomberg BNA that OneWest was never part of the investigation. In 2013, the department reached settlements with the largest LPI insurers -- Assurant, QBE, and Balboa -- but no mortgage servicers were included in the settlement. All individual cases against OneWest were either dismissed or settled out of court. The bank has been part of hundreds of individual cases that were settled out of court but attempts to discover the details of the settlements have been limited by confidentiality requirements required of the plaintiffs, Sean Coffey, communications manager with the California Reinvestment Coalition, told Bloomberg BNA. The bank has been part of three separate class actions over abuse of force-placed insurance, and two of those have been dismissed. The third case, Wieck v. CIT Group, Inc., Haw. Dist. Ct., 1:16-cv- 00596, is ongoing in Hawaii district court. Sandy Jolley, a reverse mortgage suitability and abuse consultant who testified at the Mnuchin confirmation hearings, provided Bloomberg BNA with numerousexamplesof letters sent by OneWest's subsidiary, Financial Freedom, indicating that policies would be forced on homeowners sometimes at a cost of more than $10,000 a year for "hurricane-wind" protection. The Melodie Meyer v. OneWest Bank, FSB, et al, N.D. Cal., 15- 55596, 4/20/15 class action case was dismissed because OneWest claimed preemption from state regulations because it was a nationally chartered bank, according to Catherine Anderson, an attorney with Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP arguing the Wieck case. A representative from CIT Group, which acquired OneWest in August 2015, declined to comment. Elderly Borrowers, Lender-Placed Insurance Anderson added that there are numerous issues that make lender- placed insurance particularly confusing. She pointed to the Wieck case, in which the plaintiff claimed the bank backdated a policy for "windstorm-hurricane" insurance even though the plaintiff already had hazard insurance. "If a mortgage servicer backdates the policy, it's almost impossible to get insurance for a period that's already gone by," she said. "These are seniors they're dealing with. Their duty is to be as clear as possible." While preemption was used to dismiss the class action in California, "that opinion might not apply in a different district," Jeffrey Golant, lead attorney with the Law Offices of Jeffrey N. Golant, P.A., in Florida told Bloomberg BNA. Mr. Golant specializes in wrongful foreclosure and borrowers' rights. Mr. Golant added that force-placing insurance is part of a suite of abuses that continue to occur throughout Florida, like servicers demanding a certificate of occupancy from reverse mortgagees. If the resident neglects to return the certificate, mortgage servicers will send process servants to start the foreclosure process because the occupancy is not that of the borrower, according to Mr. Golant. "As part of the foreclosure process, the process servant may obtain a signature from the resident at the same location they are calling unoccupied," he said, showing that the foreclosure process was unwarranted. Post-Crisis Regulatory Changes Following the fallout from the foreclosure crisis, numerous agencies attempted to rein in the lender-placed insurance industry. In 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to prevent mortgage servicers from receiving commissions related to LPI policies. In 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau updated mortgage servicing rules, known as Regulation X, with provisions from Dodd- Frank to protect homeowners from LPI abuse. PAM TRANSPORT: Faces "Williams" Suit for FLSA Violations in Ark. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. P.A.M. Transport, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-05062-TLB (W.D. Ark., April 7, 2017) is brought against the Defendant for non-payment of minimum wage pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was a truck-driver for Defendant. Defendant provides on-demand and scheduled delivery services as both a common and contract carrier.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. Sanford Law Firm, PLLC 103 West Parkway, Suite C P.O. Box 39 Russellville, AR72811 Tel: (479) 880-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 Email: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PJT PARTNERS: Bid to Dismiss "Barrett" Suit in New York Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- PJT Partners Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended complaint filed in the class action lawsuit by Gregory G. Barrett remains pending, PJT 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 April 15, 2016, Plaintiff Gregory G. Barrett filed in the Southern District of New York a putative class action for violation of the federal securities laws against defendants PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew W. W. Caspersen in an action styled Gregory G. Barrett v. PJT Partners Inc. and Andrew W. W. Caspersen, No. 1:16-cv-02841-VEC (S.D.N.Y.). Generally, the complaint alleges that PJT Partners made misstatements about its business, operational and compliance policies and its compliance and fraud-prevention controls. These alleged misstatements allegedly caused members of the putative class, investors who purchased PJT Partners common stock during the class period, November 12, 2015 to March 28, 2016, to pay an inflated price for PJT Partners common stock. The complaint alleges claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against PJT Partners and Mr. Caspersen, and under 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Caspersen. On June 14, 2016, plaintiff Gregory G. Barrett filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval of Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel. On August 3, 2016, the motion was granted. On September 23, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. The amended complaint alleges claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act against PJT Partners, Paul J. Taubman, Helen T. Meates and Mr. Caspersen and under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Taubman and Ms. Meates. The Company, Mr. Taubman and Ms. Meates moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 21, 2016, PJT et al. filed a Reply Memorandum of Law in support of the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. "We believe that this shareholder action is without merit and will defend it vigorously. The Company cannot exclude the possibility of any future litigation and/or proceedings related to this matter, including claims against the Company by Mr. Caspersen's victims," the Company said. PJT Partners is a global advisory-focused investment bank. PLY GEM: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities litigation pending in New York, according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"). It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material information which was required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13, 2015, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 29, 2015, the District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but ruled that plaintiff could file an amended complaint. On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and on January 13, 2016, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss this amended complaint. On September 23, 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part this motion to dismiss. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013, entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter. Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013, between the Company and each of the directors and officers named in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of such directors and officers. The Company believes the purported federal securities class action is without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior building products in North America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors. These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors used in both the new construction market and the home repair and remodeling market in the United States and Canada. PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Class Suit Still Pending in Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit filed by Anthony Pagliaroni, et al., remains pending in Massachusetts, according to Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.'s March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck") and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. The hearing regarding plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held on March 10, 2015, and the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification on September 22, 2015. On October, 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and on April 12, 2016, the Court of Appeals denied this petition for appeal. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify MHE for certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and MHE. MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is, however, limited by the terms and limits of the indemnity as well as the strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change in the future. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior building products in North America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors. These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors used in both the new construction market and the home repair and remodeling market in the United States and Canada. PLY GEM: Settles "Carrillo-Hueso" Employee Suit for $1 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the lawsuit initiated by Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong in California settled the matter for approximately $1 million, Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the defendants' failure to provide (i) statutorily required meal breaks at the Sacramento, California facility, (ii) accurate wage statements to employees in California, and (iii) all wages due on termination in California. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On January 7, 2017, the parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $1.0 million, subject to certain conditions including approval by the Court. The Company has accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior building products in North America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors. These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors used in both the new construction market and the home repair and remodeling market in the United States and Canada. PLY GEM: Settles "Morgan" Overtime Violation Suit for $0.9-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the purported class action lawsuit filed by Tina Morgan agreed to settle the matter for approximately $0.9 million, according to Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.'s March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton Industries, Inc., a purported class action filed on December 11, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of, among other things, the defendants' failure at the Vacaville, California facility to (i) pay overtime wages, (ii) provide statutorily required meal breaks, (iii) provide accurate wage statements, and (iv) pay all wages owed upon termination. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On December 9, 2016, the parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $0.9 million, subject to certain conditions including approval by the Court. The Company has accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior building products in North America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors. These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors used in both the new construction market and the home repair and remodeling market in the United States and Canada. PLY GEM: Still Owes $1.4-Mil. in Vinyl Clad Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that approximately $1.4 million of its liability is currently outstanding in connection with the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement. In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the District Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. In April 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows. MW entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW vinyl clad windows. The period for submitting qualified claims is the later of: (i) May 28, 2016, or (ii) the last day of the warranty period for the applicable window. On December 29, 2014, the District Court granted final approval of this settlement, as well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $2.5 million. The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlements with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle these matters. As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company recognized a $5.0 million expense during the year ended December 31, 2014 within selling, general, and administrative expenses in the Company's consolidated statement of operations in the Windows and Doors segment. It is possible that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company currently expects that the total net cost will not exceed $5.0 million. As of December 31, 2016, approximately $1.4 million of this liability is currently outstanding, with $0.7 million as a current liability within accrued expenses and $0.7 million as a noncurrent liability within other long-term liabilities in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2016. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior building products in North America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors. These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors used in both the new construction market and the home repair and remodeling market in the United States and Canada. PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Haverhill Suit Parties Finalizing Accord ------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in the putative class action lawsuit initiated by Haverhill Retirement System are working to finalize and document their settlement, The Providence Service Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL. The complaint named Richard A. Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S. Rustand, Christopher Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and Coliseum Capital Management, LLC ("Coliseum Capital Management") as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint purported to allege that the dividend rate increase term originally in the Company's outstanding convertible preferred stock was an impermissibly coercive measure that impaired the voting rights of the Company's stockholders in connection with the vote on the removal of certain voting and conversion caps previously applicable to the preferred stock (the "Caps"), and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the dividend rate increase term and attempting to coerce the stockholder vote relating to the Company's preferred stock, and by failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow the Company's stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Caps. The complaint also purported to allege derivative claims alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by entering into the subordinated note and standby agreement with Coliseum Capital Management, and granting Coliseum Capital Management certain stock options. The complaint further alleged that Coliseum Capital Management aided and abetted the Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate increase, corporate governance reforms, unspecified damages and other relief. On August 31, 2015, after arms' length negotiations, the parties reached an agreement in principle and executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement of claims concerning the dividend rate increase term and stockholder vote and related disclosure. The MOU stated that the Defendants had entered into the partial settlement of the litigation solely to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense, and potential delay of further litigation involving claims that have been settled. Pursuant to the partial settlement, the Company agreed to supplement the disclosures in its definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "2015 Proxy Statement"), Coliseum Capital Management and certain of its affiliates and the Company entered into an amendment to that certain Series A Preferred Stock Exchange Agreement, by and among Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Coliseum Capital Co-Invest, L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, and The Providence Service Corporation dated as of February 11, 2015 described in the 2015 Proxy Statement, and the Board agreed to adopt a policy related to the Board's determination each quarter as to whether the Company should pay cash dividends or allow dividends to be paid in the form of PIK dividends on the preferred stock, as further described in the supplemental proxy disclosures. On September 2, 2015, Providence issued supplemental disclosures through a supplement to the 2015 Proxy Statement. On September 16, 2015, Providence stockholders approved the removal of the Caps. The Company provided notice of the proposed partial settlement to Providence's shareholders by December 11, 2015. At a hearing on February 9, 2016, the court denied approval of the settlement. The Court indicated that plaintiff's counsel could petition the Court for a mootness fee, and that defendants would have the opportunity to oppose any such application. On January 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified amended class action and derivative complaint (the "first amended complaint"). In addition to the defendants named in the earlier complaint, the first amended complaint named David Shackelton, Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, Coliseum Capital Co-Invest, L.P. (collectively, and together with Coliseum Capital Management, LLC, "Coliseum") and RBC Capital Markets, LLC ("RBC Capital Markets") as additional defendants. The first amended complaint purported to allege direct and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against some or all of the Individual Defendants and David Shackelton (collectively, the "Amended Individual Defendants") regarding the approval of the subordinated note, the rights offering, the standby agreement with Coliseum Capital Management, and the grant to Coliseum Capital Management of certain stock options. The first amended complaint also purported to allege an additional derivative claim for unjust enrichment against Coliseum and further alleged that Coliseum and RBC Capital Markets aided and abetted the Amended Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The first amended complaint sought, among other things, revision or rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and preferred stock, corporate governance reforms, unspecified damages and other relief. On May 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified second amended class action and derivative complaint (the "second amended complaint"). In addition to the defendants named in the earlier complaint, the second amended complaint named Paul Hastings LLP ("Paul Hastings") and Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA") as additional defendants. In addition to previously asserted claims, the second amended complaint purported to assert direct and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties against Coliseum Capital Management, in its capacity as the controlling stockholder of the Company, in connection with the subordinated note, the Company's rights offering of preferred stock and the standby purchase agreement with Coliseum Capital Management (the "Financing Transactions"). The second amended complaint also alleged that Paul Hastings breached their fiduciary duties as counsel to the Company in connection with the Financing Transactions and that BofA and Paul Hastings aided and abetted certain of the Amended Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the Financing Transactions. The second amended complaint sought, among other things, revision or rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and preferred stock, corporate governance reforms, disgorgement of fees paid to RBC Capital Markets, Paul Hastings and BofA for work relating to the Financing Transactions, unspecified damages and other relief. On May 20, 2016, the Court granted a six-month stay of the proceeding from the date of such order to allow a special litigation committee, created by the Board, sufficient time to investigate, review and evaluate the facts, circumstances and claims asserted in or relating to this action and determine the Company's response thereto. On October 10, 2016, the Court granted an extension of the stay of the proceeding from November 20, 2016 until January 20, 2017, to allow the special litigation committee additional time to complete its investigation and review, and to determine the Company's response thereto. On January 20, 2017, the special litigation committee advised the court that the parties to the litigation and the special litigation committee had reached an agreement in principle to settle all of the claims in the litigation. The parties are working to finalize and document the settlement, which will then be presented to the Court for approval. The Providence Service Corporation is a holding company, which owns interests in subsidiaries and other companies that are primarily engaged in the provision of healthcare and workforce development services for public and private sector entities seeking to control costs and promote positive outcomes. The subsidiaries and other companies in which the Company holds interests comprise these segments: Non-Emergency Transportation Services, Workforce Development Services and Matrix Investment. PURINA PETCARE: Resolves Class Action Over Beggin' Strips --------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, report that Purina has resolved a proposed class action claiming the company tricked customers into thinking that Beggin' bacon-flavored dog treats contain more bacon than they actually do, according to an April 11 filing in New York federal court. The one-paragraph order did not disclose any details about the resolution of the case, just that both sides had agreed to permanently dismiss the case. Neither side could be reached for further comment or an explanation on April 12. Paul Kacocha sued Nestle Purina Petcare Co. in July 2015, claiming that 12 types of Beggin' strips marketed with the word "bacon" didn't actually have as much bacon as consumers were led to believe. Specifically, he said Purina strongly insinuates that bacon is a prominent ingredient in the treat, since they're cut, shaped, colored and otherwise made to look and smell like real bacon. The product name, "Beggin'," is also designed to mirror the sound of "bacon" when spoken, he said. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas rejected most of Purina's motion to dismiss the case in August, finding that the company's television ads and other statements could cause a reasonable consumer to believe the products contained more bacon than they actually do. He did, however, dismiss claims related to an online ingredient list that said the products included bacon, which they do. Bacon is the 10th ingredient listed on Beggin' strips' packaging. Judge Karas said that he couldn't definitively say that a reasonable consumer would be tricked by the products' packaging and advertisements. The judge also listed in a footnote all of the bacon-related jokes he refrained from making in the body of the opinion. "In an act of judicial restraint, the court declines to invoke in this opinion the phrase, 'where's the beef?,' the expression 'when pigs fly,' or the works of seventeenth-century English jurist Sir Francis Bacon, although not for want of opportunity," Judge Karas wrote. Mr. Kacocha is represented by Jeffrey Carton -- jcarton@denleacarton.com -- of Denlea & Carton LLP. Purina is represented by Keri E. Borders -- kborders@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP. The case is Kacocha v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., case number 7:15-cv-05489, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. REMINGTON: Gun Owners Claim Proposed Settlement Not Enough ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott Cohn at CNBC News reports two owners of allegedly defective Remington Model 700 rifles say they will seek to block a landmark class action settlement approved by a federal judge last month, arguing the agreement does not go far enough. That means the fate of as many as 7.5 million allegedly unsafe guns is once again in question. The settlement covers the iconic Model 700 and a dozen other Remington models with similar designs. In 2010, CNBC investigated allegations Remington covered up a deadly design defect that allows the guns to fire without the trigger being pulled. Remington has steadfastly denied the allegations and maintains that the guns are safe, but said it was settling the class action case to avoid prolonged litigation. Remington has agreed to replace the triggers in millions of the guns free of charge, and provide product vouchers for models it says are too old to be retrofitted. But Lewis Frost, a deputy sheriff in Louisiana who owns three Model 700s, and Richard Denney, an Oklahoma attorney who also owns three 700s, have argued that the settlement's mechanism for notifying the public deliberately downplays the alleged risks the guns pose, and doesn't do enough to get word out about the replacement offer. Attorneys general in nine states and the District of Columbia made similar arguments in court. As of mid- February, only about 22,000 owners had filed claims to get their guns fixed. Last month, U.S. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith in Kansas City dismissed the arguments and approved the settlement. While Smith said he was "concerned" about the low claims rate, he concluded that Remington and plaintiffs' attorneys had made "reasonable" efforts to notify the public. On April 13, Frost and Denney said in a court filing that they are appealing the ruling to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The filing does not describe the specific grounds for an appeal. An attorney for the plaintiffs in the class action case, Mark Lanier, called the appeal "so sad," and said in an e-mail that it has "no chance of success." "In the meantime," Lanier wrote, "millions of guns will remain unfixed while these professional objectors try to hold up the process to make some money." As part of their appeal, Denney and Frost seek to block the USD12.5 million in fees Smith awarded to Lanier and his fellow plaintiff attorneys. In response, Lanier says the plaintiffs will now try to recover additional fees from Frost and Denney to cover the cost of litigating the appeal. Attorneys for Frost and Denney did not respond to requests for comment, nor did attorneys for Remington. The impact on owners who have filed claims or were considering filing claims is unclear. Lanier said the process would stop while the appeal is pending. But as of April 13 afternoon, a special web site containing settlement information and claim forms was still operating, with no mention of the appeal. The settlement covers Remington rifle models 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, 721, 722, 725, and the XP-100 pistol. [GN] REVOLUTION FIELD: Corral, et al. Allege Cal. Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- RENETTA CORRAL, NORMA CERDA, ROSA DIAZ, and OSCAR MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, PLAINTIFFS, VS. REVOLUTION FIELD STRATEGIES, LLC, a District of Columbia Limited Liability Company, BUZZARDS BAY STRATEGIES LLC, a District of Columbia Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-100, DEFENDANTS, Case No. BC 656930 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017), accuses Defendants of failing to pay California canvassers minimum wages for time spent in training, failing to pay overtime wages when canvassers worked in excess of eight hours per day, failing to reimburse necessary business expenses, failing to provide accurate itemized wages statements, failing to pay all wages due upon employment separation, and failing to provide access to employment records. RFS provides signature collection services in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rick Hicks, Esq., Eugenia Hicks, Esq. HICKS & HICKS 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (3l0) 274-2974 Fax: (877-493-0974 E-mail: eugenia.hicks@hickslaw.net rickhicksnavyseal@hickslaw.net - and - Michael Malk, Esq. MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Phone: (310) 203-0016 Fax: (310)499-5210 E-mail: MM@MALKLAWFIRM.COM ROBIN HOOD: National Flour Recall Expands to Additional Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Globe and Mail reports a national recall of flour due to E. coli contamination, which was first announced last month and is the subject of a class-action lawsuit, is being expanded to cover additional products. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency's recall on March 28 affected Robin Hood flour sold in four provinces in Western Canada and was later expanded across the country. The recall now covers products produced by Ardent Mills of Brampton, Ont. They include one-kilogram bags of Brodie self-raising cake and pastry flour; Creative Baker all-purpose flour in 20-kilogram bags; Creative Baker whole wheat flour in 10-kilogram packages; and Golden Temple Sooji creamy wheat in two-kilogram packages -- each with various best-before dates. The initial recall affected Robin Hood flour in 10-kilogram bags but the CFIA says the recall now includes Robin Hood flour in one- kilogram bags with best-before dates of April 14, 15 and 18, 2018. The CFIA says all recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store. The agency said after the initial recall there had been 26 cases of people being infected with E. coli in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador. No deaths have been reported, but at least six people have required hospital care. The CFIA says there are no reported illnesses associated with the products added to the expanded recall. Two Alberta law firms announced they were filing a class-action lawsuit on behalf of people who bought or consumed Robin Hood flour and became ill. Full details about the expanded recall are available at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website. [GN] ROYAL OAK: Water Customers' Claims Deadline Set for May 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike McConnel at Daily Tribune reports Royal Oak water customers have until the middle of next month to submit claims to get a portion of a USD2 million settlement the city has made in a class- action lawsuit over debt service charges on water bills. Nearby communities such as Ferndale and Birmingham settled similar class-action suits by the same law firm on the same issue more than two years ago, paying out USD4.2 million and USD2.8 million, respectively. Royal Oak and other communities have been sued for debt service fees on water bills to pay their share toward the George W. Kuhn Drain district treatment facility for storm and water sewage treatment. Royal Oak admits no wrongdoing in settling the case, said City Attorney Dave Gillam. The Kickham Hanley law firm of Royal Oak, which filed the lawsuit, mailed out claim forms to about 25,000 water and sewer customers in Royal Oak last week. The claims are legitimate and have to be mailed back with a postmark no later than May 15 for water customers to get a payment, said Gregory Hanley, an attorney with the firm. "We won't know what the settlement amounts are (for customers) until we know how many people file claims," Hanley said. "But it is certainly worth submitting a claim." People are eligible to file claims if they paid water bills in Royal Oak between February 2008 and Jan. 31 2007, he added. Gillam said Royal Oak officials cannot answer questions about the claims, which have to be handled completely by the Kickham Hanely law firm. There is a form and information on the firm's website at Kickhamhanley.com, which has an email address at -- khtemp@kickhamhanley.com The multiple-city lawsuit cases are complex and in Oakland County involve fees cities have had to pay toward the George W. Kuhn Drain District treatment facility for storm and sewage water treatment and debt service for upgrades to the facility. A key argument in all the cases by the plaintiffs is that debt service fees on water bills are essentially taxes not approved by voters. The plaintiffs charge that the fees are unfair forms of taxation under Michigan's Headlee Amendment. Royal Oak initially fought the suit and won a dismissal of the case in December 2015 in Oakland County Circuit Court. The lead plaintiff in the Royal Oak case, Andrew Schroeder, is represented by the Kickham Hanley law firm, and the case's dismissal was successfully appealed in Circuit Court. "It's a little frustrating knowing we have to settle any lawsuit, especially after believing for decades we billed everything the right way," Mayor Michael Fournier said last month when the City Commission voted to approve the settlement. In a worst case scenario, Gillam said earlier, Royal Oak stood to lose up to USD50 million if it continued to spend money on legal fees and ended up losing the case. The biggest payout of money in the water bill lawsuits goes to the Kickham Hanley law firm, which gets 30 percent of the settlement amount in the class-action suits. In the Ferndale settlement case, about USD1.25 million went to Kickham Hanley, with a smaller amount to lead plaintiff Laurence Wolf, a Ferndale businessman. The other USD3 million was to be disbursed to up to 10,000 Ferndale water customers who made claims to collect roughly USD300 each. Gillam explained that Royal Oak didn't overcharge water customers and that the fees for the drain system that were on water bills will have to be instituted as a separate charge elsewhere, most likely in the form of a property tax. "We have until July 2018 to adjust rates" and remove the drain system debt service charge from water bills, he said. Other cities that Kickham Hanley has sued over charges on water bills include Oak Park, Waterford Township, Dearborn and Bloomfield Township. Both sides in the Royal Oak lawsuit are scheduled to appear before Oakland County Circuit Judge Shalina Kumar on June 14 for final approval of the settlement agreement. Checks to water customers in Royal Oak are expected to be mailed out about a month the settlement's approval, Hanley said. "It the settlement is approved, the suit is essentially dismissed," Gillam said [GN] RYDER TRUCK: Glatt Western Files Suit Over "Illegal" Monthly Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- GLATT WESTERN KOSHER, INC., a California Corporation, suing individually on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., a Florida Corporation dba RYDER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; AND DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No. BC 656985 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 7, 2017), alleges that Defendants' committed unfair and fraudulent business practice by charging its customers monthly fees and mileage for commercial refrigerated vehicles not in their customers' possession and in possession of the Defendants. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants made no effort to resolve disputes relating to such phantom charges, preferring to initiate costly litigation against their customers. Defendants are engaged in the marketing and leasing of commercial motor vehicles to their customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Revere, Esq. REVERE & WALLACE 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: (213) 943-1333 Fax: (213) 403-4847 E-mail: frank@reverelawfirm.com QUINSTREET INC: Faces "Debusk" Suit Over TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Debusk, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Quinstreet, Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation d/b/a Insure.Com, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00608- GAP-GJK (M.D. Fla., April 6, 2017) seeks damages, and an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited telephone call activities which violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant calls their consumers using a pre-recorded message known as a robocall to initiate their solicitations, which is annoying and invasive for consumers but inexpensive for Defendant. Defendant is a corporation that uses mass telemarketing to sell insurance policies and products across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan A. Shaw, Esq. Eward H. Zebersky, Esq. Zebersky Payne, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 989-6333 Fax: (954) 989-7781 Email: jshaw@zpllp.com mperez@zpllp.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Menzer" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Kenneth Menzer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 9:17-cv- 80311 filed on March 10, 2017, was transferred on April 10, 2017 from the District of Florida Southern to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00409-HE to the proceeding. The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of digital consumer electronics, mobile products and wearables, wireless infrastructure, IT and home appliance products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Hill, Esq. MENZER & HILL, P.A. 2200 NW Corporate Blvd, Suite 406 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 327-7205 Facsimile: (561) 431-4611 E-mail: info@menzerhill.com - and - Gary Steven Menzer, Esq. MENZER & HILL, P.A. 7280 W. Palmetto Park Road, Suite # 301 N Boca Raton, FL 33433 Telephone: (561) 327-7207 Facsimile: (561) 431-4611 E-mail: info@menzerhill.com SANDOZ INC: Fraternal Order of Police Sues Over Amitriptyline ------------------------------------------------------------- Fraternal Order of Police, et al., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01569-CMR (E.D. Pa., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover damages and to obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs from Defendants' conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of generic amitriptyline hydrochloride tablets (10, 25, 50, 75, 100 and 150 mg strengths) ("Amitriptyline") in the United States during the period of June 1, 2014 through the present or the date on which the anticompetitive effects subside (the "Class Period"), and to allocate markets and customers for those products during the same time period. Sandoz, Inc., is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic pharmaceuticals and bio-similars. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP 35 East State Street Media, PA 19063 Tel: 610-891-9880 Email: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Motion to Certify Class Pending in "Deka" ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes in the case captioned, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains pending, Santander Consumer USA Holdings 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. On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the Kumar Lawsuit). Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint, and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied. On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes, and on February 17, 2017, the Company filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes. SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as, Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains pending, Santander Consumer USA Holdings 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. On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The amended class action complaint in the Parmelee Lawsuit alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, the Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior periods in, among other public disclosures, the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, and the Company's amended filings for prior reporting periods. The amended class action complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. SAVAGE FUELING: Faces "Parker" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------ JOHN PARKER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. SAVAGE FUELING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00397-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., April 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to pay its Fuel Technicians for all hours worked over forty in a workweek at the federal and state mandated overtime rate. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendant provides supply chain management solutions and industrial services. Plaintiff's employment with Defendant as a Fuel Technician began on or about January 2, 2014 and ended on or about October 5, 2016. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 621-2277 Fax: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net - and - Carlo A. C. de Oliveira, Esq. COOPER ERVING & SAVAGE LLP 39 North Pearl Street, Fourth Floor Albany, NY 12207 Phone: (518) 449-3900 Fax: (518) 432-3111 E-mail: Cdeoliveira@coopererving.com SHASTA COUNTY, CA: Disabled Inmates' Suit Granted Class Status -------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Solis, writing for Record Searchlights, reports that a federal judge granted class status to a lawsuit alleging Shasta County Jail discriminates against people with disabilities. Filed last year, the lawsuit says the jail does not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and does not have the necessary accommodations for people with disabilities, such as handle bars in showers. Some doorways are too narrow for wheelchairs and there is a lack of seating in classrooms for people in wheelchairs, according to court documents. The lawsuit says this restricts disabled inmates' ability to sleep, shower, worship, exercise and move around the facility on West Street in downtown Redding and is a form of discrimination. Filed in a U.S. District Court in Sacramento last year, a federal judge on April 5 granted the class status. Former inmate Everett Jewett filed a complaint in May 2013 and said he was housed without regard to his disability, a "chronic care issue with his spine." Mr. Jewett was placed in a second- floor cell on a top bunk, according to his complaint. He fell down stairs and sustained injuries while at the jail. The county and plaintiff's lawyers are scheduled to meet at a settlement conference in May. The Shasta County Sheriff's Office would not comment on the lawsuit, citing the pending litigation. The class-action lawsuit includes two other inmates and the San Francisco-based nonprofit Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Sheriff Tom Bosenko denied the allegations last year in a statement after the lawsuit was filed. In its response to the lawsuit, the county denied it violated Jewett's rights under federal or state law. It also denied many of the other claims, including the county had not completed a transition plan to come into ADA standards. It also pointed to a shower bar in the medical unit of the jail. The lawsuit says people with "mobility disabilities face myriad discriminatory conditions and physical barriers" in the jail. This excludes them from beneficial programs in the jail, including religious services. As part of the lawsuit, the jail was inspected by a consulting firm. It found the jail kept a document tracking areas that were not ADA compliant over a 10-year period. One part of the document estimated construction costs of $40,000, with over half of that to fix a concrete ramp connecting the public sidewalk with the public entrance to the jail. Another document from the county identified over 100 issues that needed to be addressed at the jail, but it did not include a schedule for construction. Steven Ragland from the law office of Keker, Van Nest & Peters said the class-action lawsuit is on behalf of all inmates with disabilities, past and present at the jail. Taylor Gooch, with the same law firm, said the two aspects of the lawsuit address the ADA standards in the jail and to cover Jewett's medical expenses from his time at the Shasta County Jail. "He had falls and had physical injuries as well (as) 23 hours being in a cell," said Mr. Gooch. "That should be reserved for the most severe, dangerous people." Maronel Barajas, co-counsel with the Disability Rights Legal Center, said this case focuses on a population that is common throughout correctional facilities and jails. "We believe people with disabilities deserve equal access," Mr. Barajas said. Jewett and the other plaintiffs deserve recognition for speaking up about the conditions in the jail, said Mr. Ragland. "Really, we have Mr. Jewett to thank for bringing this to our attention," Mr. Ragland said. Built in 1984, the jail was designed to house 237 inmates, but the county increased that population cap to 381. In 2011, jails across the state saw an increase in the number of long-term inmates after realignment (AB 109) sent some inmates that previously would have gone to state prison into county jails. Sheriff Bosenko said in a statement after the filing of the lawsuit that the long-term inmates have added more pressure on the jail when it comes to disability access. SILVER BAY: Faces "Dell'Osso" Suit Over Securities Act Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Dell'Osso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Silver Bay Realty Trust Corp., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00969-JKB (D.M.D., April 7, 2017) seeks damages and to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger of Silver Bay with Tricon Capital Group. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive and other equitable relief to prevent the irreparable injury that Company stockholders will continue to suffer absent judicial intervention. On February 27, 2017, Silver Bay and Tricon Capital Group, Inc. announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement ("Merger Agreement") under which Tricon will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Silver Bay in an all-cash transaction (the "Proposed Transaction"). If consummated, Silver Bay stockholders will receive $21.50 in cash for each share of Silver Bay common stock. The Proposed Transaction has an equity value of approximately $1.4 billion. On March 28, 2017, Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures in connection with the Propose Transaction, says the complaint. Silver Bay is a Maryland corporation focused on the acquisition, renovation, leasing, and management of single-family properties in select markets in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. Brian D. Stewart, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 333-2121 SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION: April 24 Conference Set in "Whitestone" --------------------------------------------------------------- A preliminary conference is set for April 24, 2017, in the case captioned WHITESTONE CONSTRUCTION CORP., on behalf of itself and all similarly situated Lien Law trust beneficiaries in connection with the improvement of various lands and premises, as described herein, Plaintiff, v. SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ANGELO SILVERI, Defendants, INDEX NO. 700130/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of Queens, January 5, 2017). The case alleges breach of contract against Silverite Construction Co., Inc. Defendant Silverite, as General Contractor, entered into an agreement with NYCSCA, as Project Owner, (the "PS 314 Prime Contract") whereby Silverite was to provide work, labor, materials and services for the construction of the PS 314 Project. Whitestone, as Subcontractor, entered into Contract No: 12605 (the "PS 314 Contract") with Silverite, as General Contractor, whereby Whitestone was to furnish and install aluminum curtainwalls, interior miscellaneous glass/glazing of HM doors and frames, interior glass partition walls, SS vestibule and stair walk-off mates, and window guards. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Carbone, Esq. Maxwell J. Rubin, Esq. GOETZ FITZPATRICK LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 3100 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 695-8100 SIMONTON BUILDING: Minn. Judge Dismissed "Kiefer" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Richard H Kyle of the Minnesota District Court on April 17, 2017, entered an order granting a motion to dismiss the case captioned, Kiefer et al v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-03540 (D. Minn.). Specifically, the Court dismissed Counts 1-7 and 10-11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint WITH PREJUDICE, and Counts 8 and 9 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., said in its March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that in Kiefer et al. v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., a purported class action filed on October 17, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the defective design and manufacture of certain Simonton windows containing two-pane insulating glass units. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive or other exemplary damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On December 23, 2016, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. A hearing on this motion was held on February 17, 2017, and the District Court has not yet ruled on this motion. The Company says the damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., is a leading manufacturer of exterior building products in North America, operating in two reportable segments: (i) Siding, Fencing, and Stone and (ii) Windows and Doors. These two segments produce a comprehensive product line of vinyl siding, designer accents, cellular PVC trim, vinyl fencing, vinyl railing, stone veneer, roofing, and vinyl windows and doors used in both the new construction market and the home repair and remodeling market in the United States and Canada. SIRIUS: Royalties Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that American satellite broadcaster Sirius has asked a judge to ignore an intervention from various US music industry trade bodies in relation to its settlement with Flo & Eddie et al over the payment of royalties on tracks released pre-1972. As much previously reported, in America sound recordings released before 1972 are protected by state rather than US-wide federal copyright law. That has resulted in all sorts of legal wrangling over whether or not online and satellite radio services -- which, unlike American AM/FM radio stations, are obliged to pay artists and labels royalties under federal law -- are likewise obliged to pay royalties when they play state-protected pre-1972 tracks. The debate over such royalties has been rumbling on for years. The key legal case has been that led by artists Flo & Eddie, who were in 1960s band The Turtles. They scored a big win in the Californian courts, on the back of which both Sirius and Pandora reached deals with the major record companies on this issue. Sirius subsequently reached a deal with Flo & Eddie as well. Their litigation had become a class action, so the deal -- which is dependent on the outcome of various outstanding appeals and hearings in various states -- is subject to court approval. Although that deal only directly affects artists who are members of the class, various organisations representing American labels and musicians, and collecting society SoundExchange, have raised concerns about the wording of some elements of the settlement agreement. They fear that Sirius is hoping to use the settlement to argue for lower royalties overall when the US Copyright Board next decides what rates the satellite broadcaster should pay the record industry on post-1972 recordings via its SoundExchange licence. Sirius, and many online radio services, rely on a compulsory licence available under American law to access sound recordings. That compulsory licence obliges labels to license satellite and online radio services at rates set by the statutory Copyright Royalty Board. Rather than just picking a random royalty rate out of the air, the CRB -- which is yet to set the royalties that Sirius should pay between 2018 and 2022 -- hears arguments from both sides as to what a fair market rate would be. You know, before it randomly picks a royalty rate out of the air. Some fear that the satellite broadcaster now plans to use its class action deal with Flo & Eddie et al to argue that the market rate for the record industry's content is lower than what it currently pays. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the line that is causing most concern in the Flo & Eddie settlement reads: "The parties agree that [the royalty rate] represents the rate that has been established by negotiations between a willing buyer and willing seller in a competitive market for pre-1972 sound recordings, and shall be precedential in all future and/or pending proceedings (including rate making proceedings and arbitrations) relating to sound recordings". Wary about the precedent that agreement could set, the trade groups and SoundExchange have filed an amicus brief to the judge considering the class action deal. In it they say: "[It] is clear from the settlement's face, as well as obvious marketplace facts, that the proposed royalty rate is well below the market rate for sound recordings, particularly classic sound recordings that are among the world's most valuable. Far from having anything to do with the settlement's economic terms, this language just gives Sirius fodder for future rate-setting proceedings -- at the expense of copyright owners and recording artists". Sirius has now disputed the claims made in the amicus brief, while also insisting that the trade groups behind it have no role in the case and shouldn't be allowed to intervene. The broadcaster said the authors of the amicus brief "are not class members and have no legitimate interest in this matter" and that their attempted intervention is neither "legitimate, relevant, or helpful" in helping the judge to decide whether to approve the settlement in the class action. Notably, the Sirius filing doesn't say that the satellite broadcaster won't present this settlement as evidence in the next CRB rates review, and those behind the amicus brief will likely feel that proves their point. It remains to be seen how the judge overseeing the Flo & Eddie case responds. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Falero" Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Southern California Pizza Company, LLC and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive. The case is captioned Elena Cassiano Falero, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Southern California Pizza Company, LLC and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC657077 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 10, 2017). Southern California Pizza Company, LLC owns and operates Pizza Hut and Wing Street restaurants in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com SUNIVA INC: Faces "Barron" Suit Over WARN Act Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Tracie Barron, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Suniva, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 11083-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2017) seeks to recover damages in the amount of 60 days' pay and benefits under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN). The complaint says Defendant provided Plaintiff and the putative Class less than 24 hours' notice that their employment was being terminated. Plaintiff's employment was terminated effective March 29, 2017, and benefits were canceled effective March 31, 2017. Plaintiff was not given a severance package upon termination of her employment, it adds. Plaintiff was employed as Module Operator. Suniva is a US manufacturer of high-efficiency crystalline silicon photovoltaic solar cells and high-power solar modules.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. The Miller Law Firm, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Tel: (248) 841-2200 Fax: (248) 652-2852 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. McCune Wright Arevalo LLP 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (610) 200-0580 Email: jgs@mccunewright.com mds@mccunewright.com SYNERGIES3 TEC: Faces "Faulk" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Derek Faulk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Synergies3 Tec Services, LLC, Benton Odom, Jr. and Eric Atchley, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv- 00982-N (N.D. Tex., April 7, 2017) seek to recover overtime compensation, damages, costs and attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants employed Plaintiff Derek Faulk as a technician. Defendants contract nationwide with satellite television and broadband communication service providers for the installation, maintenance, upgrade and repair of their equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dougas B. Welmaker, Esq. Dunham & Jones, P.C. 1800 Guadalupe Street Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 777-7777 Fax: (512) 340-4051 Email: doug@dunhamlaw.com - and - Scotty Jones, Esq. Dunham & Jones, P.C. 1110 E. Weatherford Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 Tel: (817) 339-1185 Fax: (817) 810-0050 Email: sjones@dunhamlaw.com TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Vigil Siblings Asks Court to Revive Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Davies at Media Post reports two Chicago siblings are asking a federal appellate court to revive their class-action lawsuit accusing Take-Two Interactive Software of violating an Illinois privacy law by collecting faceprints of video game players. Vanessa and Ricardo Vigil argue in papers filed that Take-Two's alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act caused the kind of concrete harm that justifies a lawsuit. "Take-Two's practices violate both the core object of [the biometric privacy law] and each of the statute's procedural requirements, compromising and creating material risk of harm to the privacy of the Vigils and the putative class members," they say in a brief filed with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The battle dates to October 2015, when the Vigils filed suit over the facial-scanning technology used in the game NBA 2K15. The Vigils alleged that game used their facial scans -- which were captured by the platform's camera -- in order to create avatars that resembled them. The Vigils claimed in a class-action complaint that Take-Two violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act -- a 2008 law that requires companies to obtain written releases from people before collecting biometric data like "face geometry," and obligates companies to notify people about biometric data collection and publish a schedule for destroying the information. Take-Two argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that the Vigils didn't suffer any concrete injury as a result of any alleged violations of the Illinois law. U.S. District Court Judge John Koeltl in New York agreed with the company. "There is no allegation that Take-Two has disseminated or sold the plaintiffs' biometric data to third parties, or that Take-Two has used the plaintiffs' biometric information in any way not contemplated," Koeltl wrote in a ruling issued earlier this year. He added that the Vigils agreed to the game's terms and conditions, and that the game's scanning feature worked as intended. The Vigils said they were at an "enhanced risk of harm" in the future because their faceprints were now in Take-Two's possession. But Koeltl said that possibility was too speculative to warrant a lawsuit. The consumers are now asking the 2nd Circuit to reverse that decision. Among other arguments, they say that they can proceed because the Illinois statute confers on residents a "concrete interest in maintaining privacy over this sensitive biometric data." The argument over whether the Vigils allegedly suffered a "concrete" injury stems from the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in a separate lawsuit brought by Virginia resident Thomas Robins against online data aggregator Spokeo. Robins alleged in that matter that Spokeo violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by displaying incorrect information about him. The Supreme Court said last year Robins could only proceed with his case if he could prove that any errors resulted in a "concrete" injury. Since that ruling came out, judges around the country have struggled to determine what kind of injury is "concrete." Rulings have been mixed, but some judges have said that consumers can still sue companies for allegedly violating laws regarding robocalling and robotexting. The Vigils call attention in their new legal papers to those decisions. "If the receipt of an unsolicited phone call is invasive enough to constitute a concrete harm, then having one's sensitive biological data taken without authorization surely is as well," they argue. Take-Two is expected to file its response by next month. Google and Facebook face separate lawsuit accusing them of also violating the Illinois biometrics privacy law. [GN] TAMKO BUILDING: Petitions Supreme Court to Take Up Shingles Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Ellison, writing for St. Louis Public Radio, reports that did Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard sponsor a bill to help a Joplin business avoid a costly lawsuit in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations? That's the suggestion being made by some lawmakers, and one member of Mr. Richard's own Senate Republican caucus says the matter deserves investigation. "Look, the facts are he received large contributions, he filed legislation that would dismiss a lawsuit against the people who made those large contributions," said Sen. Ryan Silvey, a Kansas City Republican, on KCUR's political podcast Statehouse Blend Missouri. Allegations of pay-for-play The questions about the relationship between Richard and David Humphreys have been raised most vocally by Rep. Mark Ellebracht, a Democrat from Liberty. Last month, Mr. Ellebracht sent an open letter to Richard, noting that a generous gift to Mr. Richard's campaign came the day after Richard pre-filed a bill that would significantly change consumer protection laws governing class-action lawsuits. "To be blunt, Senator, this appears to be a textbook example of pay-to-play politics," Mr. Ellebracht wrote. Mr. Humphreys owns Tamko Building Products, a company based in Richard's hometown of Joplin. In a 2014 case claiming the company's shingles were defective, a Jasper County court denied the company's motion seeking to send the case to binding arbitration. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. Tamko is now petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case. In December, Mr. Richard pre-filed Senate Bill 5, one of several tort reform proposals before the General Assembly this session. Richard's bill would substantially limit damages in merchandising and product liability cases. Legal experts say it would make class action lawsuits, like the one pending against Tamko, almost impossible to bring. The day after Mr. Richard pre-filed the bill, Humphreys donated $100,000 to Richard's campaign account. Richard is term-limited and has not announced a campaign for any other office but can use leftover campaign funds to build influence by supporting other candidates. A lawyer for Humphreys told The Kansas City Star that the pay-to- play accusations were "false and defamatory." Joe Rebein wrote that the date of the gift was coincidental, coming just before a change in campaign finance law that would limit large donations. He noted that Humphreys made numerous other donations to other Republicans the same day. Mr. Richard has declined to comment on the allegations in response to repeated inquiries. "Senator Richard has been very, very consistent for the past three months in saying 'No comment,'" said spokesperson Lauren Hieger. She added that the bill has numerous parts and that commenting on any of its details before it reaches its final form would be premature. Mr. Hieger also wouldn't comment on whether Richard was standing by what he told the Associated Press about Mr. Ellebracht's allegations: "Tell him to kiss my ass." For his part, Mr. Ellebracht is unapologetic. Asked on Statehouse Blend Missouri whether he was "suggesting that the Senate President Pro Tem has been bought for campaign contributions," Mr. Ellebracht responded, "I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it." "He's a crook," Mr. Ellebracht said. GOP Senator: Allegations 'worthy of investigation' Mr. Silvey has made no secret of his differences with Republican leadership in the Senate. He has publicly said previous disagreements -- including his vote against "right to work" legislation supported by leadership -- cost him the powerful chairmanship of the Senate appropriations committee. But his comments on Statehouse Blend were an unusual critique of his own party leader's conduct. "Now, it's not for me to determine motive. It's not for me to determine if that was a quid pro quo. If somebody wanted to look into it, I don't think anybody would be surprised," Mr. Silvey said. Mr. Silvey also suggested state and federal law enforcement agencies might have an interest. "I'm not willing to go so far as to say that Senator Richard violated the law, but I'm also not a law enforcement agency," Mr. Silvey said. "I would leave that up to them. Mr. Silvey also couched Richard's sponsorship of a bill that would seem to favor Humphreys' agenda in the broader context of Jefferson City politics. "I do think there's been a pattern of behavior with this leadership team that certainly would lead you to conclude that people who have made significant contributions got their legislation put to the front of the line," Mr. Silvey said. Mr. Silvey criticized the reassignment of "approximately 60 bills" to different committees than they were sent to last session, which he characterized as an attempt by leadership to ensure the desired outcome of committee process. "On this scale it's pretty unusual," Mr. Silvey said. "Sixty bills being referred to different committees? If you would look at the subject matter of those bills and who was on which side and how much money has been contributed, it certainly raises questions. What conclusion you draw is your own." The Senate Government Reform Committee held hearings and recommended passage of Senate Bill 5, and leaders have placed it on the Senate's "informal calendar." It is not currently slated for consideration but could be brought up at any time. TCP INT'L: Settles Securities Class Action for $7.2 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Kat Sieniuc, writing for Law360, reports that investors in lighting manufacturer TCP International Holdings told an Ohio federal judge on April 12 they've reached a $7.2 million class action settlement resolving a two-year-long securities dispute over allegations the company made false statements about certain products it sent to market as meeting Energy Star standards, among other Securities Act violations. In a motion asking the court to grant preliminary approval of the agreement, the investor plaintiffs called the multimillion-dollar cash settlement with TCP "an excellent result" that's "in the best interests of the class," which includes all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired TCP common stock between June 2014 and February 2015. "Lead plaintiff [the City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System] believes that the claims asserted in the litigation have merit and that the evidence developed to date supports its claims. However, lead plaintiff and its counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the litigation against defendants through trial and through appeals," the investors said, adding that they "also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in complex actions such as this litigation, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such litigation." The investors, led by the Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, said the settlement with TCP, which describes itself on its website as a global manufacturer and distributor of energy- efficient lighting technologies, was possible only after nearly two years of "hard-fought" litigation, which alleged the lighting company violated federal securities laws with false and misleading statements about the regulatory certification process for its products, including that the company bypassed the Energy Star certification process by putting noncompliant products on the market because of a corporate desire to increase production, lower costs and improve margins. The Energy Star program grants certification to consumer products and buildings that comply with certain voluntary standards for energy efficiency. The original March 2015 complaint also accused TCP's CEO of consistently overriding and disregarding internal company policies having to do with matters spanning capital expenditures, customer credit and operating expenditure approvals, new product development processes, and product design and safety certification, as well as the company's code of ethics for principal executive and senior financial officers. The other defendants in the suit include individuals Brian Catlett and Ellis Yan, as well as underwriter defendants Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., Canaccord Genuity Inc., and Cowen and Company, LLC. They, along with TCP, have denied and continue to deny liability under the Securities Exchange Act or Securities Act for any alleged misstatements or omissions made about their product practices, and say they've agreed to the deal merely to eliminate the burden and expense of future litigation. "Defendants also have denied, and continue to deny, among other allegations, the allegations that lead plaintiff or the class has suffered any damage, or that lead plaintiff or the class was harmed by the conduct alleged in the litigation or that could have been alleged as part of the litigation," the order said. The parties were not able to be immediately reached for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Ellen Gusikoff Stewart -- elleng@rgrdlaw.com -- Jack Reise -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- and Sabrina E. Tirabassi -- stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco Merriman LLC, and Thomas C. Michaud -- tmichaud@vmtlaw.com -- of Vanoverbeke Michaud & Timmony PC. The defendants are represented by Charles F. Smith -- charles.smith@skadden.com -- Marcella L. Lape -- marcella.lape@skadden.com -- and Gail E. Lee -- gail.lee@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Judy L. Woods -- jwoods@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff, and Adam S. Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- and Daniel C. Lewis -- daniel.lewis@shearman.com -- of Shearman & Sterling LLP. The case is Sohal v. Yan et al., case number 1:15-cv-00393, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Settles Age Discrimination Suit for $12MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Mark Iandolo at Legal Newsline reports the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced March 31 that Texas Roadhouse will pay USD12 million after allegations of discriminating against a class of job applicants due to their age. "I am pleased to see this matter come to a mutually agreed-upon resolution," said EEOC acting chair Victoria A. Lipnic. "As we mark the 50th anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) this year, it is as important as ever to recognize the very real consequences of age discrimination and the need for job opportunities for older workers." According to EEOC, Texas Roadhouse, a national restaurant chain, denied certain front-of-the-house positions to applicants older than 40, including server, host, server assistant and bartender roles. In addition to providing monetary relief to affected applicants and paying civil penalties, Texas Roadhouse is barred from future age-based discrimination. "During this landmark year for the ADEA, everyone should recognize how far we still have to go in eliminating age discrimination in the workplace," said Jeffrey Burstein, regional attorney for the New York District Office. "Identifying and resolving age discrimination in employment is critical for older Americans," said EEOC New York District director Kevin Berry. "The ability to find a new job should not be impeded because an employer considers someone the wrong age." [GN] TITAN SOLAR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Solicitation Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that an individual has filed a class-action lawsuit against Titan Solar Power and Does 1 through 10, online marketing company, citing alleged violation of telephone harassment statutes. Jonathan Payton filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on April 5, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the defendants alleging that they called the plaintiff to offer their services. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, in December 2016, he suffered damages from being charged for receiving unwanted calls. The plaintiff holds Titan Solar Power and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly kept on calling the plaintiff despite being registered to the National Do Not Call Registry. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory damages, $1,500 in treble damages, and any other relief as this court deems just. He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon and Meghan E. Geoge of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. in Woodland Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:17-cv-02619-RGK-MRW TRADER JOE'S: Plaintiff Appeals Court Not to Dismiss Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeanine Stewart at Under Currents reports consumers in a class action law suit against US retailer Trader Joe's for allegedly under filling tuna cans are urging a California judge not to toss out their case. The request, filed in district court on April 10, comes in response to Trader Joe's motion to dismiss the case, filed on March 21. Trader Joe's alleges in court documents, "While dressed as a false advertising action, fatally absent from the First Amended Class Action Complaint are the hallmarks of such. Plaintiffs identify no false or misleading representation made by Trader Joe's (this is because Trader Joe's has made none)". In response, lawyers representing consumers in the class action said in their counter-filing, "This is untrue", alleging Trader Joe's misrepresented the amount of tuna in their cans as being five ounces. Consumers in New York and California say they purchased the tuna after reading the labels said they contained five ounces, and that they would not have purchased it if they had known the cans were under filled and underweight. They also argue that "conspicuously absent from defendants' 23- page memorandum of law is any discussion of Hendricks v. StarKist," a case in which Starkist was accused of consistently under filling certain canned tuna products, or the Safeway tuna cases. Each of these cases is a rule 23 consumer class action based on allegations that the defendants under filled their five-ounce canned tuna, and these cases were allowed to move into discovery - - a period used to obtain evidence before trial, the plaintiffs' lawyers said. [GN] TRIBE APP: Faces "Rattner" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER M. RATTNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. TRIBE APP, INC., a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21344-UU (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2017), alleges that Defendant engages in deceptive and intrusive telemarketing. Specifically, Defendant tricks users of its mobile application into granting access to their contacts lists. Once in possession of users' contact numbers, Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing system, and without any notice or warning to its users, transmits generic telemarketing text messages to the users' contacts from spoofed1 telephone numbers. The case alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant is a mobile application developer and operator. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: efilings@sflinjuryattorneys.com UBS GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of Madoff-Related Claim Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the appeal filed by the Plaintiff in one of the dismissed Madoff-related claims remains pending in New York. In relation to the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS) investment fraud, UBS AG, UBS (Luxembourg) S.A. and certain other UBS subsidiaries have been subject to inquiries by a number of regulators, including the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) and the Luxembourg Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (CSSF). Those inquiries concerned two third- party funds established under Luxembourg law, substantially all assets of which were with BMIS, as well as certain funds established in offshore jurisdictions with either direct or indirect exposure to BMIS. These funds now face severe losses, and the Luxembourg funds are in liquidation. The last reported net asset value of the two Luxembourg funds before revelation of the Madoff scheme was approximately USD 1.7 billion in the aggregate although that figure likely includes fictitious profit reported by BMIS. The documentation establishing both funds identifies UBS entities in various roles, including custodian, administrator, manager, distributor and promoter, and indicates that UBS employees serve as board members. UBS (Luxembourg) S.A. and certain other UBS subsidiaries are responding to inquiries by Luxembourg investigating authorities, without, however, being named as parties in those investigations. In 2009 and 2010, the liquidators of the two Luxembourg funds filed claims on behalf of the funds against UBS entities, non-UBS entities and certain individuals, including current and former UBS employees. The amounts claimed are approximately EUR 890 million and EUR 305 million, respectively. The liquidators have filed supplementary claims for amounts that the funds may possibly be held liable to pay the BMIS Trustee. These amounts claimed by the liquidator are approximately EUR 564 million and EUR 370 million, respectively. In addition, a large number of alleged beneficiaries have filed claims against UBS entities (and non-UBS entities) for purported losses relating to the Madoff scheme. The majority of these cases are pending in Luxembourg, where appeals were filed by the claimants against the 2010 decisions of the court in which the claims in a number of test cases were held to be inadmissible. In 2014, the Luxembourg Court of Appeal dismissed one test case appeal in its entirety, which decision was appealed by the investor. In 2015, the Luxembourg Supreme Court found in favor of UBS and dismissed the investor's appeal. In June 2016, the Luxembourg Court of Appeal dismissed the remaining test cases in their entirety. In the US, the BMIS Trustee filed claims in 2010 against UBS entities, among others, in relation to the two Luxembourg funds and one of the offshore funds. The total amount claimed against all defendants in these actions was not less than USD 2 billion. Following a motion by UBS, in 2011, the SDNY dismissed all of the BMIS Trustee's claims other than claims for recovery of fraudulent conveyances and preference payments that were allegedly transferred to UBS on the ground that the BMIS Trustee lacks standing to bring such claims. In 2013, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision and, in 2014, the US Supreme Court denied the BMIS Trustee's petition seeking review of the Second Circuit ruling. In November 2016, the bankruptcy court issued an opinion dismissing the remaining claims for recovery of subsequent transfers of fraudulent conveyances and preference payments on the ground that the US Bankruptcy Code does not apply to transfers that occurred outside the US. The BMIS Trustee has indicated that he will appeal. In 2014, several claims, including a purported class action, were filed in the US by BMIS customers against UBS entities, asserting claims similar to the ones made by the BMIS Trustee, seeking unspecified damages. One claim was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff. In 2015, following a motion by UBS, the SDNY dismissed the two remaining claims on the basis that the New York courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against the UBS entities. The plaintiff in one of those claims has appealed the dismissal. In Germany, certain clients of UBS are exposed to Madoff-managed positions through third-party funds and funds administered by UBS entities in Germany. A small number of claims have been filed with respect to such funds. In 2015, a court of appeal ordered UBS to pay EUR 49 million, plus interest of approximately EUR 15.3 million. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Appeal From Dismissal of ERISA Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act remains pending, according to UBS Group AG and UBS AG's March 10, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. A putative class action has been filed in federal court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of participants, beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of plans qualified under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for whom a defendant bank provided foreign currency exchange transactional services, exercised discretionary authority or discretionary control over management of such ERISA plan, or authorized or permitted the execution of any foreign currency exchange transactional services involving such plan's assets. The complaint asserts claims under ERISA. The parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in USD LIBOR Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that they await approval of their agreement to settle with representatives of a class of bondholders to settle their USD LIBOR class action. A number of putative class actions and other actions are pending in the federal courts in New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of parties who transacted in certain interest rate benchmark-based derivatives. Also pending in the US and in other jurisdictions are actions asserting losses related to various products whose interest rates were linked to LIBOR and other benchmarks, including adjustable rate mortgages, preferred and debt securities, bonds pledged as collateral, loans, depository accounts, investments and other interest-bearing instruments. All of the complaints allege manipulation, through various means, of various benchmark interest rates, including USD LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, Yen LIBOR, EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR, USD ISDAFIX rates and other benchmark rates, and seek unspecified compensatory and other damages under varying legal theories. In 2013, the US district court in the USD LIBOR action dismissed the federal antitrust and racketeering claims of certain USD LIBOR plaintiffs and a portion of their claims brought under the CEA and state common law. Certain plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Second Circuit, which, in May 2016, vacated the district court's ruling finding no antitrust injury and remanded the case back to the district court for a further determination on whether plaintiffs have antitrust standing. In December 2016, the district court again dismissed plaintiffs' antitrust claims, this time for lack of personal jurisdiction over UBS and other foreign banks. In 2014, the court in one of the Euroyen TIBOR lawsuits dismissed certain of the plaintiff's claims, including federal antitrust claims. In 2015, the same court dismissed plaintiff's federal racketeering claims and affirmed its previous dismissal of plaintiff's antitrust claims. UBS and other defendants in other lawsuits including those related to EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR and SIBOR have filed motions to dismiss. UBS has entered into an agreement with representatives of a class of bondholders to settle their USD LIBOR class action. The agreement is subject to court approval. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Bids to Nix Foreign Currency Purchasers Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss a lawsuit brought on behalf of persons and businesses, who directly purchased foreign currency from the Defendants are pending, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In 2015, a putative class action was filed in federal court against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of a putative class of persons and businesses in the US who directly purchased foreign currency from the defendants and their co-conspirators for their own end use. That action has been transferred to federal court in New York. Motions to dismiss are pending. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: To Seek Dismissal of FX Indirect Purchasers Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that motions to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit initiated on behalf of those who had indirectly purchased FX instruments will be filed. In 2016, a putative class action was filed in federal court in New York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who had indirectly purchased FX instruments from a defendant or co-conspirator in the US. The complaint asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws. Motions to dismiss will be filed. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss 2014 Puerto Rico Suit Denied in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in the class action lawsuit commenced in Puerto Rico in 2014, according to UBS Group AG and UBS AG's March 10, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Declines since August 2013 in the market prices of Puerto Rico municipal bonds and of closed-end funds (the funds) that are sole- managed and co-managed by UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico and distributed by UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico (UBS PR) have led to multiple regulatory inquiries, as well as customer complaints and arbitrations with aggregate claimed damages of approximately USD 2.0 billion, of which claims with aggregate claimed damages of approximately USD 861 million have been resolved through settlements, arbitration or withdrawal of the claim. The claims are filed by clients in Puerto Rico who own the funds or Puerto Rico municipal bonds and / or who used their UBS account assets as collateral for UBS non-purpose loans; customer complaint and arbitration allegations include fraud, misrepresentation and unsuitability of the funds and of the loans. In 2014, a federal class action complaint was filed against various UBS entities, certain members of UBS PR senior management, and the co-manager of certain of the funds seeking damages for investor losses in the funds during the period from May 2008 through May 2014. Defendants had moved to dismiss that complaint, and in December 2016, defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Precious Metals Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- UBS's motion to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit relating to platinum and palladium remains pending, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In 2015, UBS was added to putative class actions pending against other banks in federal court in New York and other jurisdictions on behalf of putative classes of persons who had bought or sold physical precious metals and various precious metal products and derivatives. The complaints in these lawsuits assert claims under the antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act, and other claims. In October 2016, the court in New York granted UBS's motions to dismiss the putative class actions relating to gold and silver. Plaintiffs in those cases are seeking to amend their complaints to add new allegations about UBS. UBS's motion to dismiss the putative class action relating to platinum and palladium remains pending. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Opposes Bid to Appeal Class Certification Denial ----------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the consolidated class action lawsuit arising from UBS's sale of closed-end funds in 2008 and 2009 have filed an opposition to the Plaintiffs' petition to bring an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of their motion for class certification, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In 2013, an SEC Administrative Law Judge dismissed a case brought by the SEC against two UBS executives, finding no violations. The charges had stemmed from the SEC's investigation of UBS's sale of closed-end funds in 2008 and 2009, which UBS settled in 2012. Beginning in 2012, two federal class action complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, were filed against various UBS entities, certain of the funds, and certain members of UBS PR senior management, seeking damages for investor losses in the funds during the period from January 2008 through May 2012 based on allegations similar to those in the SEC action. In September 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In October 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition with the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit seeking permission to bring an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of their motion for class certification. Defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiffs' petition. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Parties Await Final Approval of $141-Mil. Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties are awaiting final court approval of the $141 million settlement in the consolidated lawsuit brought on behalf of persons, who engaged in foreign currency transactions, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Putative class actions have been filed since November 2013 in US federal courts and in other jurisdictions against UBS and other banks on behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in foreign currency transactions with any of the defendant banks. They allege collusion by the defendants and assert claims under the antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment. In 2015, additional putative class actions were filed in federal court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of a putative class of persons who entered into or held any foreign exchange futures contracts and options on foreign exchange futures contracts since 1 January 2003. The complaints assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the US antitrust laws. In 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of both putative classes of persons covered by the US federal court class actions. UBS has entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve all of these US federal court class actions. The agreement, which has been preliminarily approved by the court and is subject to final court approval, requires, among other things, that UBS pay an aggregate of USD 141 million and provide cooperation to the settlement classes. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Suit Alleging Manipulation of Government Bonds Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG and UBS AG disclosed in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the consolidated lawsuit alleging that the Defendants manipulated prices of U.S. Treasury securities remains pending in New York. Putative class actions have been filed in US federal courts against UBS and other banks on behalf of persons who participated in markets for US Treasury securities since 2007. The complaints generally allege that the banks colluded with respect to, and manipulated prices of, US Treasury securities sold at auction. They assert claims under the antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and for unjust enrichment. The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following filing of these complaints, UBS and reportedly other banks are responding to investigations and requests for information from various authorities regarding US Treasury securities and other government bond trading practices. As a result of its review to date, UBS has taken appropriate action. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: Suit Over ISDAFIX Rates Manipulation Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class action lawsuit alleging conspiracy to manipulate ISDAFIX rates remains pending, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Since September 2014, putative class actions have been filed in federal court in New York and New Jersey against UBS and other financial institutions, among others, on behalf of parties who entered into interest rate derivative transactions linked to ISDAFIX. The complaints, which have since been consolidated into an amended complaint, allege that the defendants conspired to manipulate ISDAFIX rates from 1 January 2006 through January 2014, in violation of US antitrust laws and certain state laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages, including treble damages. In March 2016, the court in the ISDAFIX action denied in substantial part defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs have stated Sherman Act, breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims against defendants, including UBS AG. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UBS GROUP: 2015 Puerto Rico Suit Stayed Pending Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has stayed a class action lawsuit filed in 2015 pending its review of the Defendants' appeal from that ruling, UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in its Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Declines since August 2013 in the market prices of Puerto Rico municipal bonds and of closed-end funds (the funds) that are sole- managed and co-managed by UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico and distributed by UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico (UBS PR) have led to multiple regulatory inquiries, as well as customer complaints and arbitrations with aggregate claimed damages of approximately USD 2.0 billion, of which claims with aggregate claimed damages of approximately USD 861 million have been resolved through settlements, arbitration or withdrawal of the claim. The claims are filed by clients in Puerto Rico who own the funds or Puerto Rico municipal bonds and / or who used their UBS account assets as collateral for UBS non-purpose loans; customer complaint and arbitration allegations include fraud, misrepresentation and unsuitability of the funds and of the loans. In 2015, a class action was filed in Puerto Rico state court against UBS PR seeking equitable relief in the form of a stay of any effort by UBS PR to collect on non-purpose loans it acquired from UBS Bank USA in December 2013 based on plaintiffs' allegation that the loans are not valid. The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the action based on a forum selection clause in the loan agreements; the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has stayed the action pending its review of defendants' appeal from that ruling. UBS Group AG is incorporated and domiciled in Switzerland. UBS Group is a holding company and UBS AG is a bank. UBS is a global financial services firm that houses the world's largest wealth manager, the number one bank in Switzerland, a specialized and successful investment bank and one of the world's largest asset managers. UNITED AIRLINES: Could Face Possible Suit for Ill-treatment ----------------------------------------------------------- Irina Ivanova at CBS News reports United Airlines (UAL) will likely face a lawsuit from David Dao, the doctor who was violently dragged off an overbooked flight on Sunday, Dao's attorneys said in a wide-ranging press conference in Chicago on April 12. "Will there be a lawsuit? Probably," said Thomas Demetrio, one of the two aviation lawyers representing Dao. He hinted there could be multiple defendants, saying "just because United is responsible, doesn't mean the city of Chicago isn't responsible." Video of Dao's violent removal went viral, sparking widespread criticism of the airline and its CEO's apparently tone- deaf attempts to explain himself. Demetrio said that the experience of being dragged off the plane was more traumatizing for Dao than fleeing Vietnam in 1975. He said his client suffered a severe concussion and a broken nose, and lost two front teeth. Dao spent several days in the hospital after the April 9 incident, according to his lawyers. The legal team offered few details on the timing or details of the likely suit, noting that it would likely come "much sooner" than the legal window of two years after an incident. Demetrios played down the possibility of a class-action suit, saying he believes what happened to Dao was exceptional. "Rudeness and bullying of customers has gone the next step now to injury," he said. Demetrio also said that he hadn't heard from the company's CEO, but United countered that claim in a statement shortly after the press conference. In the statement, United apologized to Dao and detailed changes it was making, including no longer using law enforcement officers to take passengers off a flight and reviewing policies and training programs. "We continue to express our sincerest apology to Dr. Dao. We cannot stress enough that we remain steadfast in our commitment to make this right," the statement said, in part. "This horrible situation has provided a harsh learning experience from which we will take immediate, concrete action. We have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what's broken so this never happens again." "United CEO Oscar Munoz and the company called Dr. Dao on numerous occasions to express our heartfelt and deepest apologies," the statement concluded. Dao, a 69-year-old doctor, is the father of five children, his lawyer said. One of them, Crystal Dao Pepper, gave a brief statement at the press conference in which she thanked the audience for its support. Read on for a play-by-play of how the conference unfolded April 12 morning (times are Eastern). It gets political 11:55 -- Demetrio indicates that President Donald Trump's bent toward deregulation is the wrong way to go, and says he supports pending legislation from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) to address airline overbooking. "The principal needs to take charge here of the student," Demetrio says. 11:52 -- Dao's team has asked for the names of the officers who took the doctor off the plane, Demetrio says. He says he doesn't know their names or the unions they belong to. 11:46 -- Demetrio declines to say where Dao is, saying he's in "a secure location." He reiterates the family's request for privacy. "Just leave this guy alone." Scant lawsuit details 11:44 -- Dao's legal team has two years to file a lawsuit, Demetrio says, but promises that the process won't take that long. He doesn't specify a time, and adds that it will be in state court. 11:42 -- United Airlines has not reached out to Dao's legal team, Demetrio says. "I have no quarrel with that." "I'm not looking for a telephone conversation with Mr. Munoz," he says, referring to United CEO Oscar Munoz. He adds that he would rather Munoz "change the culture" at the company. "His public apology to the family we accept, with gratitute." 11:36 -- There probably won't be a class-action suit, Demetrio tells the audience. "Class-action lawsuits are a different breed and I don't believe this will be" one, he says. Nonetheless, he references what he calls airlines' habitual bad treatment of customers. "I hope he becomes a poster child," he says, about Dao. "Someone ought to." "Staged" apology 11:33 -- Demetrio is not impressed with Munoz's apology. "I thought it was staged," he says, in response to an audience question. Suspect refunds? 11:31 -- Demetrio implies that United's move to refund passenger fares on Dao's flight is suspect. "One wonders why they would do that," he says. "But it's not going to keep these people quiet about what they observed." He added that the legal team had heard from other passengers on the flight who witnessed the incident and who, according to him, were disturbed by it. Who's responsible? 11:25 -- "There is a culture of rudeness on airlines," Demetrio says, adding that Sunday's incident "went beyond rudeness." "Rudeness and bullying of customers has gone the next step now to injury." 11:23 -- "Just because United is responsible, doesn't mean the city of Chicago isn't responsible," Demetrio says, appearing to foreshadow a lawsuit. "Stormtroopers" 11:19 -- Demetrio calls the officers who dragged the doctor off the flight "stormtroopers." According to Demetrio, Dao, who left Vietnam in 1975, was more traumatized by his forceable removal from the flight than fleeing his country at the height of the Vietnam War. "He said that being dragged down the aisle was more horrifying and harrowing than what he experienced in leaving Vietnam," Demetrio says, relaying a conversation with his client. 11:16 -- Dao was discharged from the hospital late Wednesday night, Demetrio says. He says Dao had "a serious broken nose, injury to the sinuses" and lost two front teeth, plus a "serious concussion." "He's shaken," Demetrio adds. 11:15 -- Demetrio downplays the role of race in the incident. "I think what happened to Dr. Dao could have happened to anyone" he says. He references an email whose sender called Dao "a modern-day Asian Rosa Parks," a heroine of the U.S. civil rights struggle in the 1960s, who refused to surrender her bus seat to a white passenger. But he disagrees with that characterization of Dao. 11:14 -- Dao's daughter, Crystal Dao Pepper, gives a brief statement. "What happened to my dad should never happen to any human being, regardless of circumstance," she says, and thanks the audience for their support. "Treated like cattle" 11:12 -- "We're going to be vocal about the whole subject of what we, as a society, say passengers are entitled to," Demetrio says. "Are we going to continue to be treated like cattle?" 11:09 -- "Will there be a lawsuit? Probably," Demetrio says. He notes there is a court hearing on the incident scheduled for Monday. Demetrio: "Airlines have bullied us" 11:06 -- "For a long time, airlines, United in particular, have bullied us," Demetrio says. "They have treated us less than maybe we deserve. I've concluded that based upon hundreds of tales of woe, of mistreatment, by United, is that, here's what we want as a society. We want fairness in how people treat us; we want respect and we want dignity." 11:03 -- Thomas Demetrio opens the conference. Crystal Dao Pepper, one of Dao's five children, will speak later, he says. Lawyers for the Kentucky doctor who was dragged off an overbooked United Airlines flight are speaking out publicly for the first time, a day after filing court papers that likely presage a lawsuit. Thomas Demetrio -- TAD@CorboyDemetrio.com -- of Corboy and Demetrio and Stephen Golan -- sgolan@gctlaw.com -- of Golan Christie Taglia, aviation lawyers who are representing David Dao, are set to hold a press conference at Chicago's Union League Club at 10 a.m. local time. Crystal Dao, one of Dao's five children, is also set to speak. On April 12, Dao's lawyers filed an emergency request with an Illinois state court to require United to preserve video recordings and other evidence related to the April 9 incident, in which Dao was forcefully dragged away from his seat on the overbooked flight to make room for crew members. The flight, which was supposed to depart from Chicago's O'Hare Airport, had been bound for Louisville, Kentucky. Citing the risk of "serious prejudice" to Dao, the filing asks that the airline and the City of Chicago, which runs the airport, to preserve surveillance videos, cockpit voice recordings, passenger and crew lists, and other materials related to United Flight 3411. The filing with the Cook County Circuit Court likely presages an eventual lawsuit against United, and possibly the City of Chicago, for the incident. In a video posted online, a United Airlines passenger is shown with a bloody face after he was forced off an overbooked flight on Sun., April 9, 2017, by officers at Chicago O'Hare airport. Dao's ordeal reached a global audience when a video of him being dragged off the flight went viral. United CEO Oscar Munoz on April 12 said the company would no longer use law enforcement officers to remove passengers from overbooked flights. The officer who dragged Dao away, and two other security officers, have since been placed on leave ; the aviation department said the officer's actions "are obviously not condoned." The backlash from the incident resonated globally, with social media users in the United States, China and Vietnam calling for boycotts of the No. 3 U.S. carrier by passenger traffic and an end to the practice of overbooking flights. Delta Air Lines (DAL) CEO Ed Bastian told Reuters that overbooking was "a valid business practice" and did not require additional oversight by the government. "It's not a question, in my opinion, as to whether you overbook," Bastian said during an April 12 earnings call. "It's how you manage an overbook situation." Footage from the incident shows Dao, bloodied and disheveled, returning to the cabin and repeating: "Just kill me. Kill me," and "I have to go home." [GN] UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Teamsters Funds Appointed as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, David Heed v. Universal Health Services Inc et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-09499 (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Philip S Gutierrez on April 17, 2017, granted the motion of Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund for appointment as lead plaintiff. The court also approved their selection of lead counsel. A competing request for appointment as Lead Plaintiff was filed by Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada. Labourers' Pension Fund also sought appointment of Rosen Law Firm as Lead counsel. Universal Health Services, 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 will defend itself against the case, Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc., et al. In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against UHS, and certain UHS officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws relating to the disclosures made in public filings associated with practices at our behavioral health facilities. "Although we have not been served with the complaint at this time, we deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter," the Company said. Universal Health's principal business is owning and operating, through our subsidiaries, acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities and behavioral health care facilities. VASCO DATA: Continues to Defend "Rossbach" Class Suit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- VASCO Data Security International, Inc., continues to defend itself against a securities lawsuit filed by Linda J. Rossbach in Illinois, according to the Company's March 10, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming VASCO and certain of its current and former executive officers as defendants and alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was purportedly filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased VASCO securities between April 28, 2015 and July 28, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. Pursuant to a September 1, 2015 scheduling order entered by the court, the lead plaintiff, once appointed, will have sixty days to file an amended complaint or notify the defendants that the lead plaintiff intends to rely on the current complaint. On January 30, 2017, the appointed lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in which the allegations regarding OFAC related matters were dropped and replaced with allegations regarding public disclosures made by the defendants in April 2015 as compared to public statements made in July 2015, generally regarding the strength of the Company's business and its future prospects. The defendants had until March 31, 2017 to answer or otherwise respond to the operative complaint. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against the action vigorously. VASCO Data Security International, Inc. was incorporated in the state of Delaware in 1997 and is the successor to VASCO Corp., a Delaware corporation. The Company's principal executive offices are located in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois, and its international headquarters in Europe is located in Glattbrugg, Switzerland. VASCO designs, develops and markets digital solutions for identity, security and business productivity that protect and facilitate transactions online, via mobile devices, and in-person. VERIZON: Sued in Philadelphia for Leasing Extra Fios Set Tops ------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Frankel, writing for FierceCable, reports that Verizon has been sued in Pennsylvania by customers who say the operator is leasing extra Fios set tops for $10 a month without telling subscribers that standard streaming devices could be used in the video service instead. The class-action suit was filed in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. A copy of the complaint was obtained and reported on by the Philadelphia Inquirer. The complaint centers on Verizon's high-end "Quantum" Fios video tier. Customers lease the service's primary gateway for $12 a month. But unlike competing pay-TV products, the Fios service can be accessed via home Wi-Fi in other rooms using OTT devices like Roku, Amazon Fire or Google Chromecast. The suit says that Verizon isn't telling customers this when it talks them into leasing extra-room set tops for $10 a month. Verizon "deceives and confuses its Quantum customers by remaining silent regarding the availability of set-top box alternatives," the suit said. "Instead, Verizon deceptively claims that a set- top box connection is required to view content on all its customers' television sets." The class action claims to represent 140,000 Pennsylvania customers who subscribed to Quantum TV and leased more than one set top from June 2015 to September 2016. Verizon said it won't comment on pending litigation. But in court papers, it claims the suit has no merit. Of course, the ability to replace leased pay-TV set tops with popular, inexpensive streaming devices like Apple TV and Roku was a key agenda item for recently departed FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. That agenda was dealt a fatal blow with the sudden and dramatic change in political wind, with the election of President Donald Trump moving Democrat Wheeler out of the chairman's seat. New FCC Chair Ajit Pai had been a staunch critic of Wheeler's set-top plan and has permanently shelved it. While critics of pay-TV's leased set-top business will find no recourse in the FCC, the courts hold limited promise. A class- action suit filed in 2004 against the erstwhile Cablevision recently resulted in customers receiving nominal service credits. VOLKSWAGEN: "Artola" Sues Over Defective Timing Chain Systems ------------------------------------------------------------- Lloyd Artola, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21296-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2017) seeks damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for defective timing chain systems. Defendants knowingly omitted, concealed and suppressed material facts regarding the defective Timing Chain System and its corresponding safety risk and misrepresented the standard, quality or grade of the Class Vehicles, which directly caused harm to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes, asserts the complaint. VWAG is one of the largest automobile manufacturers in the world, and is in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, and selling automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Prieto, Esq. John Gravante, Esq. Matthew P. Weinshal, Esq. Alissa Del Riego, Esq. Podhurst Orseck, P.A. Sun Trust International Center One S.E. 3rd Ave, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 358-2800 Fax: (305) 358-2382 Email: pprieto@podhurst.com jgravante@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com adelriego@podhurst.com W.W. GRAINGER: Class Action Trial Set for February 2018 ------------------------------------------------------- Trial is currently set for February 5, 2018, in a class action lawsuit, against W.W. Grainger, Inc., the Company 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 April 5, 2013, David Davies filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and sought certification of a class of persons who may have received one or more of approximately 400,000 faxes Grainger sent in connection with a 2009 marketing campaign. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), by sending fax advertisements that either were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. The TCPA provides for penalties of $500 to $1,500 for each noncompliant individual fax. On May 13, 2013, the Company removed the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "District Court"). On June 27, 2014, the District Court found that Davies was not an adequate class representative. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied Davies' petition for immediate review of the ruling. Davies subsequently moved the District Court for reconsideration of its ruling and his motion was denied on September 28, 2016. Davies may seek to pursue an appeal of the June 27, 2014, ruling at the conclusion of the District Court proceeding. On April 4, 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss Davies' individual claims and subsequently the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On November 21, 2016, the District Court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted, in part, Grainger's motion for summary judgment. The District Court entered judgment for Grainger on Davies' common law claim for conversion while granting partial summary judgment for Grainger on Davies' TCPA claim, finding that Grainger had an established business relationship with Davies and that Grainger properly obtained Davies' fax number from public directories. The District Court denied Grainger's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Davies lacks standing to bring his TCPA claim. The District Court further held that the issue of whether the opt-out notice Grainger used on the faxes is clear and conspicuous, as required by the TCPA, is a contested issue of fact to be resolved by a jury at trial. Trial is currently set for February 5, 2018. The Company believes it has strong legal and factual defenses and intends to continue defending itself vigorously in the pending lawsuit. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this proceeding, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. W.W. Grainger, Inc., incorporated in the State of Illinois in 1928, is a broad line distributor of maintenance, repair and operating (MRO) supplies and other related products and services used by businesses and institutions primarily in the United States (U.S.) and Canada, with a presence also in Europe, Asia and Latin America. WAYFAIR INC: Still Defends "Zouzout" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- Wayfair Inc. continues to defend against the class action lawsuit by Naomi Zouzout, Wayfair 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 September 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the province of Quebec (Naomi Zouzout v. Wayfair LLC, Case No. PQ 500-06-000809- 166) by an individual on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals alleging violations of various Canadian consumer protection statutes. Among other remedies, this lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive money damages, costs, and various fees. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. At this time, based on available information regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably assess the ultimate outcome of this case or determine an estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses. Wayfair is one of the world's largest online destinations for the home. WELEDA INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Fraudulent Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Torres at Legal Newsline reports a consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against a men's products business, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Russell Hughes filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, April 6 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Weleda, Inc. alleging it falsely used the term "certified natural" and "natural" on its products to deceive consumers into buying. According to the complaint, Hughes was misled into buying shower gel and toothpaste products and paying a premium for it due to its claims as being "natural." The plaintiff alleges Weleda used the term "natural" in its products despite containing synthetic ingredients. Hughes seeks trial by jury, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the defendant, monetary damages, treble damages, punitive damages, legal costs and expenses and all other just relief. He is represented by attorneys Jason P. Sultzer -- sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- Joseph Lipari -- liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- and Adam Gonnelli -- gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- of the Sultzer Law Group PC in Poughkeepsie, New York, and by Jeffrey Brown of Leeds Brown Law PC in Carle Place, New York. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case number 7:17-cv-02494-CS [GN] WELLS FARGO: OCC Downgrades Rating Following Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Dr. John E. Warren, writing for LA Sentinel, reports that following a series of high profile lawsuits and allegations of misconduct, the embattled Wells Fargo Bank just suffered another loss in the form of a rating downgrade. Late last month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency downgraded Wells Fargo's rating from an "Outstanding" to a "Needs to Improve" rating. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is an independent government agency within the U.S. Treasury Department that supervises all banks and federal savings associations. The downgrade comes on the heels of an agreement by Wells Fargo Bank to pay $110 million to settle a class action suit involving customers, who discovered that the bank opened fake accounts in their names. The amount might seem small compared to the revelation last September that the bank had opened over two million fake accounts in customers' names without their permission. In September 2016, Wells Fargo agreed to pay $185 million in fines and penalties and to refund customers $5 million. The latest settlement covers at least 10 other lawsuits. "These payouts are on top of the $3.2 million Wells Fargo has paid to customers on over 130,000 potentially unauthorized accounts or services," CNNMoney reported. "That works out to a refund of roughly $25 per account." The closer one looks at Wells Fargo's practices, the further back the bank's problems go. According to a September 2016 article by CNNMoney, "six former Wells Fargo employees filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the bank seeking $7.2 billion or more for workers who were fired or demoted after refusing to open fake accounts." CNNMoney article continued: "The federal class action suit accuses Wells Fargo of orchestrating a 'fraudulent scheme' to boost its stock price that forced employees to 'choose between keeping their jobs and opening unauthorized accounts.'" Some of the legal allegations arising from the case include: wrongful termination, violations involving the California labor code, and failure to pay wages and other charges. "The suit represents California employees who worked at Wells Fargo in the past 10 years or who continue to work there and were fired, demoted or forced to resign due to not meeting their sales quotas," CNNMoney reported. Another federal class action involving the beleaguered bank, alleged that Wells Fargo violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and a section of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers. That lawsuit also alleged that the bank violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act covering hours of work. These lawsuits paint a far different picture than the one Wells Fargo offered when it fired more than 5,000 employees, after the bank's own investigation into the fake accounts. The mass firings suggested that the employees who were terminated, opened the fake bank accounts on their own and without the bank's knowledge or participation. The class action lawsuits involving former bank employees shed light on a shadowy pattern of practices that can't be explained away as a handful of rogue tellers working on their own to defraud customers. In recent years, Wells Fargo has also received fines for misconduct in their mortgage lending division. On April 8, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a press release citing Wells Fargo's agreement to pay $1.2 billion for improper mortgage lending practices. According to the press release, Wells Fargo, "admitted, acknowledged and accepted responsibility for, among other things, certifying to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), during the period from May 2001 through December 2008, that certain residential home mortgage loans were eligible for FHA insurance when in fact they were not, resulting in the Government having to pay FHA insurance claims when some of those loans defaulted." The settlement was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 8, 2016. In the Justice Department's press release about Wells Fargo's $1.2 billion settlement, then-HUD Secretary Juli n Castro said that the Obama Administration was committed to holding lenders accountable for their lending practices. "The $1.2 billion settlement with Wells Fargo is the largest recovery for loan origination violations in FHA's history," said Castro. "Yet, this monetary figure can never truly make up for the countless families that lost homes as a result of poor lending practices." In the same press release, then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the Southern District of New York said that Wells Fargo took advantage of the FHA mortgage insurance program, that was designed to help millions of Americans realize the dream of home ownership, and wrote thousands and thousands of faulty loans. "Driven to maximize profits, Wells Fargo employed shoddy underwriting practices to drive up loan volume, at the expense of loan quality," Mr. Bharara said in the Justice Department's statement. Mr. Bharara continued: "Even though Wells Fargo identified through internal quality assurance reviews thousands of problematic loans, the bank decided not to report them to HUD. As a result, while Wells Fargo enjoyed huge profits from its FHA loan business, the government was left holding the bag when the bad loans went bust." MSN Money reported that "shares of Wells Fargo gained only 2.9 percent in the last two years, significantly underperforming" the 22.8 percent growth expected by some analysts. According to MSN Money, "the primary reason for this underperformance is the substantial plunge in shares following the September lawsuit settlement." YGRENE ENERGY: Sued for Failing to Disclose PACE Loan Risks ----------------------------------------------------------- Ron Hurtibise, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that a company that finances home improvement projects in South Florida with no credit checks and no money down is the subject of a federal court lawsuit charging it fails to adequately disclose important limitations of the loans to its consumers. The defendants, Ygrene Energy Fund and Ygrene Energy Fund Florida, are among the nation's leading providers of financing for Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) energy efficiency and hurricane- hardening upgrades, such as new roofs, solar energy systems, impact windows or water heaters. Over the past two years, Ygrene and other PACE programs have been approved by dozens of local governments in South Florida to seek repayment through assessments on borrowers' property tax bills. Ygrene has approved hundreds of loans in the region since 2015, including about 1,600 in Broward County, according to the county's official records. The suit, filed in the Northern District of California, where Ygrene Energy Fund is headquartered, accuses the company of fraudulent inducement, negligence, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of consumer protection laws in Florida and California. It seeks damages for the plaintiffs and prominent disclosure of risks the suit asserts are inadequately disclosed to borrowers, including that their loans are recorded as liens against their properties and that in nearly all cases must be repaid in full before a lender will approve a new loan on the home. Ygrene, through its public relations agency, issued a statement saying that it acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations but vowed to "vigorously defend ourselves as the suit lacks merit. "Complete transparency and a commitment to consumer disclosure, protection, and education are of utmost importance to Ygrene," the response states. "In partnership with more than 350 state and local governments, we hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards." The suit states that Ygrene incorrectly markets its loans as transferable with the house, and in marketing materials "goes so far as to say, 'It's as if your house is borrowing the money.'" Not only will almost all consumers be required to pay off their loans, some will be required to pay a 5 percent prepayment penalty while others will be charged a "pre-payment waiver fee" at closing to avoid the penalty, the suit charges. Prepayment will be necessary, the suit says, because conventional lenders refuse to provide loans on properties encumbered by Ygrene's PACE loans. The loans occupy "first lien" status -- meaning that if a foreclosure occurs, PACE lenders are in line to get paid off before mortgage lenders. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has made it clear that Fannie and Freddie will not back loans for properties with PACE liens, the suit states. Fannie, Freddie and other banks regulated by the FHFA backed nearly 60 percent of mortgages in 2013, according to a Reuters report. Another federal lender, the Federal Housing Authority, last year announced it would begin insuring properties with PACE assessments. But in an interview, Manuel Hiraldo, a Fort Lauderdale attorney serving as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said FHA loans, which typically come with higher interest rates and require the buyer to buy mortgage insurance, are more costly overall than FHFA loans.. Four initial plaintiffs in the case include a Hollywood couple, Grachian and Mary Jane Smith, who took out a PACE loan through Ygrene in late 2016 to replace 11 windows at their home. The other plaintiffs are a San Diego County couple, Alejandro and Felicia Marcey. The California law firm for the plaintiffs is Kasdan Lippsmith Weber and Turner LLP. The Smiths heard about the program -- and that they could get their windows replaced with no money down -- from a contractor who was repairing their roof, the suit states. They ultimately found a window replacement contractor and agreed to finance $16,778 to replace the 11 windows, the suit states. Disclosures in two documents signed by the couple were misleading because they state the "FHFA appears to have instructed [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] not to purchase residential loans where there is a superior lien" and that to refinance or sell the property, the borrower "may need to remove the assessment lien by prepaying the assessment obligation in full." The suit states the statement "is at pains to downplay the possibility that the PACE loan will definitely create an obstacle to sale." The suit also asserts that PACE loans are offered with less favorable conditions than conventional loans, including interest rates of 7 percent to 8.25 percent. The company charges $4,000 in fees for the average loan, the suit states, including an application fee, processing and underwriting fee, miscellaneous county costs, record and disbursement fees, escrow and title insurance, a closing fee, capitalized interest and in some cases, a pre-payment waiver fee. With fees, a 20-year term and a 7.11 percent interest rate, the Smiths will end up paying $31,946 -- "almost $3,000 per window," the suit states. Mr. Hiraldo said he found the Smiths after contacting fewer than 50 consumers listed with PACE liens in Broward County's official records database. The couple was among about 10 borrowers who responded to his inquiry of whether they were aware a PACE loan would result in a lien against their homes, he said. PACE programs, because they offer homeowners with equity an easy way to qualify for financing, have met with praise from local government leaders who view property improvements as a overall positive development for their communities. In a column posted on April 10 on the website Florida Politics, Pembroke Pines Mayor Frank Ortis praised PACE programs as "a great tool that empowers homeowners to invest in their homes in a way that makes them more prepared for the next storm and lowers their long-term energy costs." But a November news release by the Boston-based National Consumer Law Center warned that an absence of federal protections are leading to complaints that elderly and low-income property owners in California are being targeted by third-party PACE contractors for expensive improvements and being extended credit they cannot afford to pay. State and national political leaders are calling for expanded consumer protections. A state law enacted in California last year requires disclosures modeled after federal "Know Before You Owe" standards and gives consumers the right to cancel PACE loans within three days. A proposed law would require PACE providers to confirm all loan terms over the phone with borrowers. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas that would require PACE loan providers to adhere to federal Truth in Lending Act disclosure laws. A release by Cotton called residential PACE loans a "scam" that targets low-income and elderly Americans "with predatory home loans." * CFPB Faces 'Rock and a Hard Place' in Pushing Arbitration Rule ---------------------------------------------------------------- C. Ryan Barber at National Law Journal reports on a Tuesday in early November, representatives of American Express, Barclays and Discover met with 10 members of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau staff to discuss their concern about the agency's proposed rule to restrict corporate efforts to block class actions. The pitch from the credit card companies called for carving out a broad exception to a proposal that -- if finalized in its current form -- would ban forced arbitration agreements that prevent consumers from filing class actions. According to a summary of the meeting, the companies pushed for an exception for "certain matters where government intervention, a company's self-identification to the CFPB, or corrective actions have addressed alleged practices that are the subject of the class action." In other words, they wanted to be able to stave off any class actions arising from conduct that had already caught the eye of regulators. In the view of at least one of the companies, "there was no need for a class action if the subject of the class action is subject to a public enforcement or supervisory action," according to the meeting summary, which was posted online last month. (American Express, Barclays and Discover declined to comment.) The question hanging over the CFPB's arbitration rule -- a proposal that drew tens of thousands of comments from consumer and business advocates -- is less now about the finer points of the final rule than about whether the regulations will ever see the light of day at all. President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers are erasing a host of Obama-era rules through the Congressional Review Act -- a statutory tool that, before the Trump administration, had only been used once in its 21-year history to roll back a regulation. The law gives Congress a window of 60 legislative days -- after an agency has transmitted a new rule to Capitol Hill -- to enact a disapproval resolution. Since Trump's election, speculation has swirled about whether a push to publicly roll out the arbitration rule would galvanize the White House into taking the legally perilous step of firing the CFPB's director, Richard Cordray, before his five-year term expires in July 2018. A case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit confronts whether the president should have the power to remove the director at will, not just for cause. The arbitration rule presents a longer-term concern. If the rule is voided by the Congressional Review Act, the CFPB would be prevented from enacting a "substantially similar" regulation unless it is supported by a new statute. Such a setback would indefinitely handcuff the agency, stymieing its ability to limit forced-arbitration agreements -- often found in the fine print of consumer contracts -- that the bureau has described as "contract gotchas." "All the opponents of the rule need is a simple majority vote. Clearly they have that, and the president would be expected to sign it," said Buckley Sandler counsel Kathleen Ryan, a former deputy assistant director in the CFPB's office of regulations. "From the bureau's perspective, the real blow to the cause is, once a rule is struck down that way, it can't be reintroduced in a similar form ever unless there's new legislation." Ryan added: "That's the rock and the hard place that they're stuck between." For the CFPB, the threat of a congressional override is not abstract. In February, Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate proposed bills to tear up the CFPB's prepaid card rule -- the first set of sweeping federal regulations that target a fast-growing market that caters to millions of consumers, including many who have limited or no access to traditional bank accounts. The CFPB finalized the rule in October and has proposed delaying the effective date by six months -- from October 2017 to April 2018 -- citing industry concerns about complying in time. Clash on Capitol Hill Supporters of the CFPB's arbitration rule are already turning their attention to Capitol Hill. "We've shifted from talking to folks at the CFPB and are now focusing on preserving what we can by not having the [Congressional Review Act] challenge be successful," said Amanda Werner, a campaign manager for Public Citizen and Americans for Financial Reform. "We're trying to talk to lawmakers and make them realize this is something the American people are not going to tolerate." It remains unclear exactly when the CFPB will finalize the arbitration rule and face the risk of a congressional override. The CFPB was once expected to release the final rule in February 2017. In its most recent rulemaking agenda, the CFPB said it was still reviewing comments as it "considers development of a final rule for spring 2017." A CFPB spokesman said Thursday he had no update on the agency's timeline for finalizing the rule. Diane Thompson, a top official in the CFPB's office of regulations, said at a recent conference in New York City that it was "too speculative" to estimate when the agency would finalize the arbitration rule, according to a blog post by the law firm Ballard Spahr. Critics argue the CFPB's proposed ban on class-action waivers would eliminate arbitration agreements, depriving consumers of a less-expensive, expedited form of dispute resolution. Along with American Express, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has devoted significant resources toward rolling back the rule. In the last three months of 2016, the chamber's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness and Institute for Legal Reform spent a combined $170,000 on firms whose lobbying efforts included at least some work on the CFPB's arbitration rule. In a comment last year, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the CFPB to "go back to the drawing board." Tom Quaadman, executive vice president of the chamber's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, said he's seen the CFPB's urgency die down of late. Before the election, he said, the CFPB was "trying to drive toward a final rule and trying to do that fairly quickly." "I think they've been trying to, since Nov. 8, assess the landscape and figure out whether or not it's within the realm of possibility moving forward with a rule like that," Quaadman said. On the other hand, consumer advocacy groups have not backed down. The week Trump was sworn in, staff from Public Citizen, Americans for Financial Reform and Public Justice urged the CFPB to finalize the rule "as soon as possible," according to a readout of the Jan. 17 meeting. Paul Bland, executive director of Public Justice, said in a recent interview that the CFPB has "no good reason not to go forward with the rule." "As far as I'm concerned, they might as well do what's right," he said. Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the top Democrat on the Senate banking committee, has pledged to defend the arbitration rule against any efforts to undo it. "Consumers deserve the right to have their day in court when they've been wronged, but many don't realize they've lost that right through forced arbitration. The CFPB's proposal to ban this unjust and unfair practice is a major victory for consumers," he told the NLJ in a prepared statement. "I'll keep pushing the CFPB to finalize the rule as soon as possible, and will fight against efforts to weaken it."[GN] * Class Certification Remains an Obstacle in Data Breach Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- HealthIT Security reports that being able to prove fault in a healthcare data breach class action lawsuit is inherently difficult, but it is also important to understand the privacy expectations, according to a recent Corporate Clients Insight blog post. Data breach cases are not as simple for plaintiffs as it may seem, wrote LeClairRyan Partner Chad Mandell. It is hard to prove proper legal standing "and class certification remains an obstacle that has yet to be successfully overcome," he noted. Citing the Anthem data breach where approximately 80 million individuals' records were potentially compromised, Mr. Mandell -- chad.mandell@leclairryan.com -- stated that no court has yet certified a consumer data breach class. "The aforementioned Anthem case also highlights another question worth considering in these suits -- namely, whether plaintiffs are attempting to hold companies to standards of data-privacy protection that are realistic or fair in today's cybersecurity environment," Mr. Mandell explained. The question has been raised, what are reasonable privacy expectations in an increasingly digital age? Mr. Mandell noted that some internet users do not practice smart security and privacy practices. Lackluster passwords and failing to "opt out" of certain invasive requests could potentially also cause information to be compromised. "No organization, no matter how large and no matter what security protocols are in place, is immune from its systems being compromised," Mr. Mandell wrote. "Thus, it is reasonable to ask whether alleged damages in a data-breach case truly can be traced to a given hack of a particular company or whether they stem from a prior breach or multiple prior breaches of the plaintiff's own computer." Calling back to the Anthem case, Mr. Mandell explained how the court "framed an order that drastically limited the amount of information that could be culled from forensic examination of the plaintiffs' computers." Measures were also put in place to control who had access to the plaintiffs' information. "[Enough measures] so that one could safely state that the degree of protection afforded to these plaintiffs' personal information in the course of the forensic examination would actually have been greater than under most everyday circumstances," Mr. Mandell stated. Even so, it was not enough for all plaintiffs, he said. Therefore, companies -- such as Anthem and other healthcare providers -- may be held to impossible standards when it comes to keeping personal privacy protected. Earlier this year, the US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, dismissed a data breach lawsuit that alleged the William Jennings Bryan Dorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Dorn VAMC) had violated the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In that case, plaintiffs claimed that earlier reported Dorn VAMC data breaches created an "increased risk of future identity theft," and that there were costly measures to protect against it. The appeals court though agreed with the district court's ruling in that there was a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Similarly, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently dismissed claims in a healthcare data breach class action lawsuit in 2016. The superior court stated that the trial court needed to review the plaintiff's claim under the Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). Plaintiffs had filed a class action lawsuit against Keystone Mercy Health Plan and Amerihealth Mercy Health Plan for a missing USB flash drive that allegedly contained PHI. The plaintiffs claimed that the health plans had performed deceptive practices under UTPCPL. The judge explained though that justifiable reliance is necessary for deceptive practice claims under UTPCPL. "As stated previously, on December 9, 2014, a panel of this Court affirmed the trial court's denial of class certification on Appellant's negligence claims but vacated its decision to deny class certification on the UTPCPL deceptive conduct claim," the opinion stated. "In doing so, the panel noted the trial court had concluded that Appellant's UTPCPL claim did not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 1702(2) because a plaintiff who brings a private cause of action under the UTPCPL must show reliance . . ." * Mark Hartmere Joins JND as VP Operations, Class Action Services ----------------------------------------------------------------- JND Legal Administration, a premier legal management and administration company headquartered in Seattle, has appointed Mike Hartmere as vice president of operations for class action services. In this role, Mr. Hartmere oversees JND's class action operations in the firm's Denver office. Mr. Hartmere brings extensive legal experience from his successful legal career representing a broad range of corporations, financial institutions, educational institutions and individuals in all aspects of litigation from pre-suit investigation through trial. "As JND enters its second year of operations, our class action services division continues to be a key growth area for the company," comments Jennifer Keough, CEO and founder of JND Legal Administration. "Mike's strong legal background and hands-on expertise in the class action sector makes him an invaluable team member and a significant asset to JND's class action service line." Before joining JND, Mr. Hartmere served as counsel and senior associate in the commercial litigation department of the New York office of Venable LLP for ten years. Prior to that, he worked as a litigation associate in the New York office of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Earlier in his career, he served as a law clerk for the Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy in the Southern District of New York. Recognized five times as a New York Super Lawyers "Rising Star" (2011-2015), Mike is admitted to practice law in New York, Connecticut, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, and the Eastern District of Michigan. A member of the American Bar Association, he has published articles in numerous legal publications on a variety of topics. Mr. Hartmere received his Bachelor of Arts from Colgate University and his Juris Doctor from Fordham University School of Law. About JND Legal Administration JND Legal Administration -- http://www.jndla.com-- is a legal management and administration company led by a team of industry veterans who are passionate about providing superior service to clients. Armed with decades of expertise and a powerful set of tools, JND has deep experience expertly navigating the intricacies of multiple, intersecting service lines including class action settlements, corporate restructuring, eDiscovery, mass tort claims and government services. JND is trusted by law firms, government agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation. The company is backed by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Washington and Washington, D.C. * Web Companies Bash Robo-Texting Law ------------------------------------- Wendy Davis at Media Post reports tech companies are increasingly getting hit with class-action complaints for sending text messages to consumers, according to the trade group Internet Association. The organization, made up of Google, Facebook, eBay and other large Web companies, made that statement in a regulatory filing summarizing a recent meeting between Internet Association officials and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. The Silicon Valley trade group writes that it "fully supports" the intent behind the Telephone Consumer Protection Act -- a federal law that prohibits companies from using autodialers to send text messages to people's cell phones without their permission. "However," the Internet Association adds, its members "increasingly are subject to TCPA class action lawsuits in contexts where companies are sending wanted communications to consumers." That statement appears to refer to lawsuits brought on behalf of people who are using recycled phone numbers. In those cases, the person who first used the phone number may have welcomed the texts, but the current users of those phone numbers view the messages as a nuisance at best. For instance, Philadelphia resident Bill Dominguez allegedly received 27,000 text alerts from Yahoo -- all of which were meant for the phone's prior owner, who apparently had signed up for a former Yahoo service that converted emails to text messages and sent them to users' phones. Dominguez alleged in a lawsuit that he complained about the messages to Yahoo, but was informed that only the phone's former owner could arrange to stop the texts. Dominguez also said he doesn't know the former owner or how to contact that person. When Dominguez threatened to resort to litigation, a Yahoo supervisor allegedly replied, "So sue me." Facebook is currently facing a lawsuit by Washington, D.C. resident Christine Holt, who said she was bombarded with SMS messages from the company after obtaining a recycled phone number. Twitter was also hit with a class-action complaint for allegedly sending text messages to recycled phone numbers. Two years ago, the FCC tightened the robotexting law by issuing new regulations, including one that prohibits companies from sending more than one autodialed text (or make one robocall) to a reassigned number -- even if the original owner consented to receive texts. The debt collection association ACA International, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others have asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the new regulations. That request is backed by the Internet Association, which argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that the one-call limit for reassigned numbers isn't workable, given estimates that 100,000 cell phone numbers are reassigned to new users daily. "Companies who have received consent to communicate with their users or customers ... may potentially be racking up significant statutory liability without even knowing it," the Internet Association argued in its court papers. The group said that it "will seek to engage with the FCC on this important issue," if the appellate court reverses the recent regulations. [GN] * What Would Class Action Reform Mean For Notice Programs? ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeanne C. Finegan at Law 360 reports the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (H.R. 985) has drawn a firestorm of opposition. As the ACLU and 120 other signatory civil rights organizations note, "The bill would undermine the enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws and upend decades of settled class action law.[1]" If it were to become law, what impact would it have on class notice? Whether H.R. 985 becomes law or not, will it cause a greater emphasis to be placed on quantifiable media and notice performance that uses the correct tools and technology to select the appropriate media to deliver due process notice. In advertising you get what you pay for. Programs that are evaluated based on a "race to the price basement" have insufficient budgets, which simply cannot compete for quality advertising inventory. Importantly, these programs cannot deliver the appropriate amount of messages to class members. This can also damage the companies' brand by poor ad quality and placement. Of course, all parties have an interest in achieving due process notice. In the discharge of his or her fiduciary duties to the class, class counsel wants every class member to know about the settlement and have the opportunity to participate. This will be a factor in evaluating the merits of the settlement, adequacy of class counsel and the appropriateness of their fee application. Due process notice ensures that the settlement will not be subject to collateral attack and will be given res judicata effect. Finally, constitutional notice will dissuade or defeat objectors who will attack the adequacy of the settlement based upon inadequate notice. Effective due process notice in today's complex media environment requires greater emphasis on engaging notice programs that are media-relevant to the class at hand, which include an appropriate frequency of message delivery. This may sound simple, but to accomplish appropriate message delivery, notice programs must be specifically tailored to each case and they must use the correct tools and technology to select the right media and accurately report reach[2], while actively monitoring and reporting the results. Without the benefit of this complex analysis, outreach can be severely handicapped or exclude key audiences, adversely affecting due process. The method, means and manner of designing and executing a notice plan are anything but simple or straightforward in this complex media environment. Each notice plan must be individually designed by evaluating a multitude of factors, including but not limited to the company, the brand the company's advertising and marketing plan conducted in the ordinary course of business, the method and means of company's regular contact with class members, class size, demographics, factors that give rise to the litigation, class member behavior, and available media and cost. Of course, there is always a balance between cost and the desire to reach the largest possible audiences. Quality matters in media. Remington[3] and Motor Fuels provide chilling cautionary tales of what happens when the type, quality, nature, method and means of notice are not considered. An appropriate notice plan takes all of these factors into account, particularly in high-stakes matters. Quality, Nature, Method and Means of Notice A mix of media silos and screens is critical because many consumers use multiple media channels, sometimes concurrently. A recent Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and Nielsen study reports that in our current complex and distracted media environment, the combination of print, digital and mobile is necessary to provide the greatest awareness, and intent to take action and multiple exposures are required across multiple devices and platforms to achieve the greatest results. To this point, according to a 2014 Nielsen report[4], 84 percent of smartphone and tablet owners use the devices as second screens while watching television at the same time. Which screen will grab the individual's attention[5]? This is why a multidevice program is necessary on consumer matters[6] and why cross-device targeting has become the sine qua non of all digital advertising. This type of program recognizes the same consumer across multiple devices, whether on a laptop, tablet or smartphone. It also provides powerful insight as to how, when and where we provide the most effective advertising to class members. The creation of custom audiences will help zero-in on the consumer and the device they are using. Custom audiences can occur across social media or online. Custom audiences leverage unique and specialized media data modeling techniques for qualitative behavioral preferences for each person, such as when they tend to be online as well as their interests, political affiliation, products they purchase, where they shop, websites they visit, and the devices with which they most highly engage. These audiences can be deterministic[7] based on big data matches and online persistent identification[8]. Custom audiences have been used successfully in a number of high- profile court-approved matters including: Carter v. Forjas Taurus S.S., Taurus International Manufacturing Inc., Case No. 1:13-CV- 24583 PAS (S.D. Fl. 2016). To create a custom audience, we start with a statistical analysis of the core population's (e.g. in Carter, those who own handguns) behavioral characteristics. Key preferences are mined from our proprietary social media banks. This analysis provides insight into where, when and how the necessary impression volume and average frequency of message delivery should be delivered to that audience to convert to an actionable outcome -- visiting the website. Other notable cases also leveraged this type of approach, including Michael Allagas, et al., v. BP Solar International Inc., et al., BP Solar Panel Settlement, Case No. 3:14-cv-00560- SI (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div. 2016). In Re: TracFone Unlimited Service Plan Litigation, No. C-13-3440 EMC (N.D. Cal). In Re: Blue Buffalo Company Ltd., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 4:14-MD-2562 RWS (E.D. Mo. 2015). However, caution should be used if a notice provider relies exclusively on in-platform metrics from sources such as Facebook or from an online network. These metrics are only a subset of the larger population and not everyone uses Facebook. In most instances, only 50 to 60 percent or less of a population will use Facebook. And while a given population may report that they have Facebook accounts, some may not use it with significant frequency. The second round of notice in Remington is illustrative of this point. Here the primary outreach was employed through a custom audience[9] targeting over 4 million individuals with sport hunting interests among other characteristics. As a practical matter even precisely targeted custom audiences are not perfect matches to class members. For example custom audiences can be overly broad (not all sport hunters will be owners of the Remington rifles at issue) and custom audiences also can be overly specific (not all rifle owners are hunters), so impressions will not reach the entire target. But in Remington's case, the custom audience was less than half of what it should have been. In fact, when we apply our proprietary techniques, we see that there are over 10 million Facebook users who have engaged with Remington's Facebook page, product-specific pages, relevant groups, or checked in at events and mentioned Remington. Still, according to GfK Mediamark Research and Intelligence LLC (MRI), exclusively using Facebook is not enough. To put this into perspective, MRI data reports that only 57 percent of rifle owners visit Facebook within a 30-day period. A heavy reliance on Facebook for this target automatically excludes 43 percent of potential class members. This is why notice programs must use research to appropriately select media channels with an adequate mix of media. It also underscores the need to quantify the reach of a program with measurement from appropriate sources (comScore or Nielsen) and accurately report reach and frequency by using mixing tools such as Telmar or IMS. Simply citing an audience size, impression tonnage, clicks or total commercials across an entire network may sound impressive, but they do not reveal the total audience reached. Notice plans will need to focus on media that the class is using and how they are actually engaging with it. This has been a common downfall of many recent notice programs that rely too heavily on only one media channel, such as online or social, simply to save on costs. Without consideration as to why, how or if someone actually views that channel, media could be completely missing the target. An alarming example is found in Remington's second round of notice, where streaming radio, as part of the notice program, was used to reach an overwhelmingly older male target audience. However, as reported by MRI, streaming radio is used by a little over 4 percent of men 35 to 64 who own rifles. An in-depth analysis of Remington's second-round notice program, conducted by David L. Smith, an internationally recognized digital advertising and media expert and CEO of advertising agency, Mediasmith, states: "the [Remington] plan presented to the court should have been judged inadequate and the attempt to impress through over a hundred pages of data is not meaningful. It is doubtful that the combined [terrestrial and streaming] radio reached more than 20 percent of its target."[10] Digital and social media will continue to be important, but in certain instances video can play a role in effective notice. There's a reason why brands continue to allocate a majority of their budgets to television. It works. According to a study by Market Share[11], television and video are effective media channels to reach consumers. In fact the study reveals that given similar advertising budgets, television's 'lift[12], is consistently seven times that of paid search and three times that of online across the automotive, financial service, retail and consumer packaged goods segments. Further, television is a major driver of website visits and inbound calls. Contrary to common myth, it doesn't have to break the bank. Television, like digital media, is scalable, which means you can buy as much or as little as you need, particularly when it is mixed with other media. It has been used in recently filed high-profile matters, including The Rocky Flats Nuclear Waste Settlement Cook, et al. v. Rockwell International Corp. and Dow Chemical Co., No. 90-cv-00181-JLK (D.Colo.) an online video was employed in In re: Domestic Drywall Litigation E.D. Pa., MDL No. 2437 and 13-MD-02437. Further, video was successfully employed in Carter, through training videos posted on YouTube and embedded video in the multimedia press release. Adequate frequency is important. In a distracted world, reminders make all the difference in getting consumers attention. A one-time ad may not trigger much attention. This is one of the key factors hindering due process when online notice programs use a severe one-time or three-time campaign frequency cap. Consumers need to see the notice more than one time or in more than one location. For this reason, we often use a multifaceted approach so that there are several touch points to convey the message. Numerous research studies report on the frequency sweet spot for various audiences which is typically between three to 10 times. Don't turn a blind eye to bots. Ad fraud and bots are an ever- present reality in the digital environment. This nonhuman traffic silently steals your impressions. The bots are clicking on your ads and fleecing your outreach budget; most importantly, bots are depriving class members of an opportunity to see a notice. The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) reports that up to 33 percent of advertising inventory can be lost to bots. And buying premium inventory is no guarantee. Integral Ad Science (IAS) and the IAB report that up to 19 percent of inventory found on premium sites can be fraudulent. It takes active and aggressive management to mitigate this problem. There are two forms of fraud: impression fraud and click fraud, and there are multiple tools that provide varying forms of detection based on where the online provider is looking for the fraud[13], e.g., in-exchange, network-based, in-ad, etc. Industry tools such as Double Verify, Integral Ad Science, MOAT, Sizmek and others are all approved by the Media Ratings Counsel (MRC) to monitor fraud. But don't think you are covered simply because the network says that they offer a fraud monitoring service. Your notice provider has to specifically request it and then pay additional fees for this service when the campaign is placed. That said, these tools have limitations, and additional layers of monitoring are required to block and adjust to this type of nonhuman traffic. While a number of premium networks will say that they are virtually bot-free, with less than one to two percent fraudulent traffic, they are only free of named bots. However, the bad bots are dynamic. They can act like a human. They can look like a high-net-worth individual, a rifle owner, a mom, and they can fill out forms. It is one of the critical reasons why you cannot expect 100 percent of impressions to deliver the promised audience on a severely frequency-capped (one-time to three-time lifetime campaign cap) program. Severely frequency-capped programs lack the scale to make any kind of adjustment or compensation. In addition to active monitoring, certain strategies can mitigate exposure, such as day-parting [14](serving ads during the week), staying away from certain holidays, and maintaining consistent delivery throughout the campaign[15]. Conclusion Regardless of whether H.R. 985 becomes law, placing greater emphasis on quantifiable performance (using the correct tools and technology to select the appropriate media) versus focusing on price will result in notice programs that will ensure due process notice. In advertising you get what you pay for. Programs with insufficient budgets simply cannot compete for quality inventory and frequency capped programs cannot deliver the appropriate amount of message to class members. This can also damage companies' brands by poor ad quality and placement. Media plans are complex and need to consider all factors for appropriate design. Without the right combination of digital, print and social media, objectors may try to attack the settlement, and courts will scrutinize the settlement at final approval. Some cases will end up with multiple notice attempts like In re Fuel Temp Litigation or Remington at great cost. Appropriate plans must be measured against objective criteria to validate that the class received due process notice. An effective notice plan supported by objective metrics will be an asset for approval and to meet the parties' settlement objective. Conversely, proceed with caution as inadequate notice may result in a poor outcome for the parties and class. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Object to Corporate Witness Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, JEANNE EVANS, as Executor for the Estate of FREDERICK W. EVANS, and JEANNE EVANS, Individually, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190109/2015 (N.Y.), plaintiff Frederick W. Evans, as against defendant Burnham LLC, asserts that he came in contact with asbestos-containing products for which Burnham bears responsibility while he was employed as an HVAC mechanic by Vulcan Engineering. Burnham moves in limine to preclude plaintiff from mentioning, criticizing, or objecting to any testimony of its corporate witness, Roger Pepper, based on a lack of personal knowledge given that Mr. Pepper was not employed by Burnham until 1991. Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion. Judge Moulton held that Federal Rule 30 (b)(6) has no applicability to this case in New York state court. Even if it did apply here, the provision applies to the use of otherwise inadmissible documents for discovery purposes rather than for trial. Defendant has cited no state counterpart to Federal Rule 30 (b)(6), the judge said. CPLR Section 4518 does not support defendant's argument because that provision relates to introduction of business records, assuming proper foundation, and not to criticizing or objecting to testimony based on the lack of personal knowledge, according to the judge. Not only does Federal Rule 30 (b)(6) not apply, but New York state law is to the contrary. Thus, in Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., supra, the Court of Appeals found that the lower court properly precluded a defense witness from testifying as to certain issues "because he gained personal knowledge of Navy practices only once he started working on procurement for the Navy more than a decade after Dummitt's work on Crane's valves ended and several decades after the Navy bought the valves." Defendant cannot circumvent the requirement that a witness have personal knowledge merely because that witness testifies for a corporation, the judge said. As plaintiff points out, if a corporate witness gains his knowledge through other sources -- such as the review of unspecified historical documents or unspecified conversations with other employees, that testimony is hearsay, and defendant must identify an appropriate hearsay exception, Judge Moulton held. A full-text copy of the decision and order dated April 4, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/VN2PhF from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Owes Defense Costs for 206 Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff CNH Industrial America LLC filed a declaratory relief and breach of contract case against several insurance companies, including Travelers Indemnity Company. CNH's complaint alleges Travelers breached its duty to defend and indemnify CNH in underlying asbestos-related lawsuits. The Complex Commercial Litigation Division of the Superior Court of Delaware has issued numerous decisions in this case. Among these, the Court has held that: (1) Wisconsin law applied to the policies; (2) CNH was the policies' proper assignee under 1994 reorganization agreements; (3) Travelers has a duty to defend CNH; (4) Travelers's July 6, 2015, payments extinguished applicable policy limits on the policies; and (5) Travelers's conduct constituted a waiver on the issues of notice and cooperation, and that Travelers's duty to defend did not terminate until Travelers made the July 6, 2015 payment. After these decisions, one matter remained open -- the amounts Travelers may owe for defense costs incurred by CNH prior to July 6, 2015. Although "one matter," the question as to what Travelers may owe on defense costs involved hundreds of suits and a multitude of open issues (factual and legal). The parties are well-represented in this litigation. As such, the parties' counsel significantly narrowed the issues before the scheduled trial date. Moreover, the Court addressed some of the open matters at a pretrial conference conducted on November 14, 2016. By the date of trial, several issues still remained. First, while the parties had resolved a number of defense cost claims, CNH contends Travelers still owes it defense costs for 211 claims CNH has tendered to Travelers. Travelers disputes that it owes defense costs on the 211 claims, arguing that these claims do not meet the Court mandate for coverage. Second, Travelers claims that certain defenses costs sought by CNH are unsubstantiated costs. CNH disagrees and contends that it has sufficient information to support the costs. Third, the parties cannot agree on whether the invoices submitted by Moran Reeves & Conn PC are reimbursable defense costs. Fourth, Travelers seeks production of CNH's settlement with the CNA Defendants, a dismissed set of insurers in this case. Travelers wants access to the CNA Settlement in order to determine what CNA paid as defense costs in order to establish set-off rights and prevent CNH from obtaining what Travelers considers an impermissible double recovery. The Court held a one-day trial in this civil action on December 12, 2016. The Court then had the parties submit supplemental memoranda on equitable set-off under Wisconsin law. The Court received the final post-trial paper on December 20, 2016. Judge Eric M. Davis finds and holds: (a) Travelers owes defense costs for the 206 cases; (b) Travelers does not owe defense costs for the five cases; (c) CNH is entitled to recover all fees billed by Moran Reeves; (d) CNH is not entitled to recover for the $301,690 in unsubstantiated costs; and (e) Travelers request to produce the CNA Settlement is denied. In sum, 200 cases triggered Travelers's duty to defend because the underlying plaintiffs allege claims against Case; five cases triggered Travelers's duty to defend because CNH is listed as a defendant individually; one case triggered Travelers's duty to defend because it alleged claims against New Holland/CNH, and the Court could not discern from reviewing the four corners which entity the underlying plaintiff sued; and five cases are not covered because CNH has not met its burden of proof to show coverage was triggered. Travelers must reimburse CNH for 206 of the 211 claims. The case is CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N12C-07-108 EMD CCLD (Del.). A full-text copy of the Court's decision dated April 6, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/H4WmAO from Leagle.com. Brian M. Rostocki, Esq. -- brostocki@reedsmith.com -- and John C. Cordrey, Esq. -- jcordrey@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and James M. Davis, Esq. -- jdavis@reedsmith.com -- Thomas A. Marrinson, Esq. -- tmarrinson@reedsmith.com -- Evan T. Knott, Esq. -- eknott@reedsmith.com -- and Emily E. Garrison, Esq. -- egarrison@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, Illinois. Attorneys for CNH Industrial America LLC. Neal J. Levitsky, Esq. -- nlevitsky@foxrothschild.com -- and Seth A. Niederman, Esq. -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Richard L. McConnell, Esq. -- rmcconnell@wileyrein.com -- and Michael J. Gridley, Esq. - - mgridley@wileyrein.com -- Washington, DC. Attorneys for Travelers Indemnity Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Judgment on Double Billing ------------------------------------------------------------ IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to SIMPLEXGRINELL, LP, Plaintiff, v. P&M ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING, CORP., Defendants, Docket No. 161092/2015, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y. Sup.), is an action to collect monies purportedly owed to plaintiff from defendant under a job order contract entered into between plaintiff, defendant and the City of New York. Defendant moves, pursuant to CPLR Section 5015(a)(1), to vacate a judgment granted on default in plaintiff's favor on the issue of liability. Defendant argues that it had a reasonable excuse for its default, and has a meritorious defense to plaintiff's allegations. On or about June 8, 2010, plaintiff and defendant entered into a job order between themselves and the City of New York, whereby plaintiff was to perform certain work and provide materials with respect to upgrading the fire alarm system at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York. Under the contract, plaintiff was to perform its work, provide the materials required, and submit its paper work including requisitions for payment to defendant. Defendant in turn would forward the paperwork, including requisitions for payment of the approved work performed by plaintiff, along to the City for payment. The City paid defendant a flat percentage of the approved requisition work performed by plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that it fully performed the work required under the contract. Following the completion of plaintiff's work, the City issued a Substantial Completion Acceptance to Plaintiff, indicating that the job was substantially complete. Subsequently, the job was closed. Shortly thereafter, all final payments were made to all of the different trades, including retainage. On September 17, 2014, plaintiff sent defendant an email regarding purportedly unpaid services that it rendered. On November 3, 2014, defendant responded to plaintiff and stated that it appeared that the late and recently submitted invoice included labor that was already included in a previous invoice paid by the City. In response, plaintiff emailed defendant on the same day and stated that "in reviewing the documents you sent over, you are correct that the 116 hours are duplicative billing. What about the retainage?" Because the request for payment that is the subject matter of this lawsuit was submitted a year after substantial competition, defendant argues that the retainage was fully paid out and that there are no additional monies left to pay plaintiff for its services. As the money sought in this action includes double billing and retainage has been paid in full to plaintiff, defendant argues that there is no money owed by the City or defendant to plaintiff. In a decision and order dated April 6, 2017, Judge Peter J. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, ordered that defendant's motion is granted, and the default judgment is vacated. The parties are directed to contact court attorney, Hasa Kingo, at hkingo@nycourts.gov to discuss how best to proceed no later than April 29, 2017. In granting the defendant's motion, Judge Moulton held that, given New York courts' public policy favoring adjudication of cases on their merits, and given the lack of prejudice against plaintiff in light of the short duration that has elapsed between the judgment and the instant motion, this matter should be decided on its merits. Additionally, as set forth in its motion papers, defendant has demonstrated that his case has merit, and that it has a defense to the claims asserted in the complaint. Defendant has established that the money sought in this action includes at least some double billing and retainage was possibly paid in full. Plaintiff has allegations to the contrary, warranting a resolution of these issues on their respective merits. In light of these competing claims, coupled with New York's preference for adjudicating disputes on their merits and the lack of prejudice to plaintiff, this court finds that the judgment entered against defendant must be vacated, and the matter decided on its merits. A full-text copy of the decision and order dated April 7, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/F1l4G1 from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rules on Regulatory Materials as Evidence ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, relating to JEANNE EVANS, as Executor for the Estate of FREDERICK W. EVANS, and JEANNE EVANS, Individually, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al. Defendants, Docket No. 190109/2015, Motion Seq. 010 (N.Y. Sup.), involves Plaintiff Frederic W. Evans' alleged exposure to asbestos- containing products and equipment during residential renovations, while working as a cable puller for Western Electric from 1946 to 1948, as a groundsman and lineman for Queens Gas & Electric from 1948 to 1952, as an HVAC apprentice/mechanic for various employers throughout New York from 1952 to 1963, and as an HVAC mechanic and supervisor from 1965 to 1986 at residential and commercial sites throughout Vermont for Vermont Heating. Additionally, plaintiff has testified as to possible bystander asbestos exposure at worksites he visited while self-employed from 1987 to 2001 (1) as a roofer (1966), (2) as a maintenance repairman involving flooring, ceiling, door, and plaster work (1971-1977), and (3) as a carpenter personally handling and installing flooring and insulated doors while being present in boiler rooms where other trades were working in his immediate vicinity (1977-1990). Defendants submit a joint omnibus motion in limine to preclude certain evidence at trial. They seek to preclude: (1) improper specific causation testimony of plaintiffs' medical experts, the subject of which will be addressed in a separate motion to be heard on Wednesday April 5, 2017; (2) argument or evidence of government statements or regulations regarding asbestos hazards; (3) argument or evidence regarding knowledge or conduct post- dating plaintiff's last exposures; (4) plaintiff's purported expert witness Dr. Arnold Brody's testimony; (5) the testimony of any MAS and MVA employee and to exclude evidence of any MAS and MVA work practice studies; and (6) plaintiffs from arguing that defendants are liable for products they did not manufacture or supply. Defendants also seek to compel plaintiff to file all possible claims to bankruptcy trusts and or seeking to forever enjoin plaintiff from filing any claims to bankruptcy trusts. In a decision and order dated April 5, 2017, a full-text copy of which is available at https://is.gd/BLVduP from Leagle.com, Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, held that the motion in limine to preclude the submission of regulatory materials and public health announcements is decided in accordance with the following. To the extent that plaintiffs intend to introduce these documents into evidence, plaintiffs are directed to submit an exhibit list of these documents, and identify the relevant hearsay exception. To the extent that the regulatory materials and public health announcements will not be separately introduced at trial, but will form the basis for expert testimony, the court cannot determine on the submission whether the materials would be subject to the professional reliability exception, Judge Moulton said. Therefore, that aspect of the motion is denied, Judge Moulton concluded. The standards promulgated by regulatory agencies as protective measures are inadmissible to demonstrate causation, the judge said. However, studies that lead to regulatory action can be admissible (as opposed to standards promulgated by a regulatory agency as a matter of policy), the judge added. Defendants have not demonstrated that the material upon which plaintiffs' experts relied is based on outdated science such that it should be excluded. Further, defendants may submit their own scientific evidence at trial (assuming that the evidence is admissible). The parties are also instructed to work together on a jury instruction clarifying that evidence derived from regulatory materials and public health announcements is not relevant as to causation but is relevant as to notice, if charged. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow's Case Proceeds Against John Crane --------------------------------------------------------- Having been diagnosed with mesothelioma just three months earlier, Ronald Carroll died on July 23, 2015. Unquestionably, Carroll's long-term exposure to asbestos while working in the Navy and later at Wisconsin Power & Light contributed to his contracting mesothelioma, a debilitating, ultimately fatal, lung disease uniquely caused by asbestos. In a civil suit, however, plaintiff Patricia Carroll, Ronald Carroll's wife and the personal representative of his estate, bring claims against other defendants, manufacturers of asbestos products or of industrial equipment in which asbestos was used, alleging that their products were also causes of Ronald Carroll's death. Before the court are defendants' motions for summary judgment, arguing primarily that plaintiff cannot prove that any of defendants' products caused Ronald Carroll's injury and that defendants cannot be held liable for risks of harm introduced by third party manufacturers of asbestos products under the so-called "bare metal" defense. The Court will grant summary judgment to all defendants except John Crane Inc., the single manufacturer for which plaintiff has presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to infer that its products were a cause of Carroll's asbestos-related injury. The case is PATRICIA L. CARROLL, individually and as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF RONALD KENNETH CARROLL, deceased Plaintiff, v. ABB, INC., ATWOOD & MORRILL CO., INC., A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, CRANE CO., CROSBY VALVE, INC., FLOWSERVE US INC., INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY and JOHN CRANE INC., Defendants, No. 15-cv-373-wmc (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of the Opinion & Order dated April 12, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/efboY2 from Leagle.com. Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Scott Schulte , Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC. Estate of Ronald Kenneth Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by David Warren Henderson , Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig Ronald Steger , Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik. Patricia L. Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Scott Schulte , Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, David Warren Henderson , Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC & Craig Ronald Steger , Hale, Skemp, Hanson, Skemp & Sleik. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Smitha Chintamaneni , von Briesen & Roper. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. John Crane, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC, Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns, Daniel Raymond Griffin , O'Connell Tivin Miller & Burns LLC & Mark Ingram Tivin , O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 18 Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. has 18 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently has three pending silica cases and 18 pending asbestos cases. To date, 1,492 silica cases and 48 asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of AMCOL. Six new asbestos cases were filed in the period, including three new cases in the fourth quarter of 2016, and one additional case in the first quarter of 2017. No asbestos or silica cases were closed during the fourth quarter, however, as previously reported, twenty-seven silica cases and two asbestos cases were closed during 2016. Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time, management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. "The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 18 pending asbestos cases all except two allege liability based on products sold largely or entirely prior to the initial public offering, and for which the Company is therefore entitled to indemnification pursuant to such agreements. The two exceptions pertain to a pending asbestos case against American Colloid Company, and one for which no period of alleged exposure has been stated by plaintiffs. Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits." Minerals Technologies Inc. develops, produces, and markets various specialty mineral, mineral-based, and synthetic mineral products, and supporting systems and services worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has 6,883 Asbestos Claims at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp. has 6,883 pending asbestos claims at the end of December 31, 2016, 7,151 at the end of December 15, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Pending, new, total closed and closed without payment claims for asbestos and environmental exposures for the years ended December 31 are summarized at: https://is.gd/myoErl The Allstate Corporation is a publicly held personal lines property and casualty insurer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Has $912MM Asbestos Reserves at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corp.'s reserves for asbestos claims were $912 million and $960 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $444 million and $458 million, as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Reserves for environmental claims were $179 million and $179 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $40 million and $43 million, as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Approximately 57% of the total net asbestos and environmental reserves as of both December 31, 2016 and 2015 were for incurred but not reported estimated losses. Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding theories of liability; availability and collectability of recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up costs represent insured property damage. Further, insurers and claims administrators acting on behalf of insurers are increasingly pursuing evolving and expanding theories of reinsurance coverage for asbestos and environmental losses. Adjudication of reinsurance coverage is predominately decided in confidential arbitration proceedings which may have limited precedential or predictive value further complicating management's ability to estimate probable loss for reinsured asbestos and environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be required. To see Allstate Corp.'s financial results, visit: https://is.gd/myoErl The Allstate Corporation is a publicly held personal lines property and casualty insurer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Smith AO Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Smith A O Corp. is involved in various unresolved legal actions, administrative proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of our business involving product liability, property damage, insurance coverage, exposure to asbestos and other substances, patents and environmental matters, including the disposal of hazardous waste, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome of these unresolved legal actions or the range of possible loss or recovery, we believe, based on past experience, adequate reserves and insurance availability, that these unresolved legal actions will not have a material effect on our financial position or results of operations." A. O. Smith Corporation is a global manufacturer of residential and commercial water heaters and boiler. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemtura Continues to Face Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Chemtura Corp. faces product liability claims, including claims related to current and historic products and asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "We are routinely subject to other civil claims, litigation and arbitration, and regulatory investigations, arising in the ordinary course of our business, as well as in respect of our divested businesses. Some of these claims and litigations relate to product liability claims, including claims related to our current and historic products and asbestos-related claims concerning premises and historic products of our corporate affiliates and predecessors." Chemtura Corp. is a global specialty chemicals company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eaton Corp. Still Faces Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Eaton Corp. plc is subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Eaton is subject to a broad range of claims, administrative and legal proceedings such as lawsuits that relate to contractual allegations, tax audits, patent infringement, personal injuries, antitrust matters and employment-related matters. Eaton is also subject to asbestos claims from historic products which may have contained asbestos. Insurance may cover some of the costs associated with these claims. Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the outcome or cost of these matters, the Company believes they will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. During the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company was able to resolve several insurance matters. In total, the income from insurance matters was $68 million. Eaton Corporation plc operates as a power management company worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has $6.6MM Asbestos Reserve ---------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Group Inc.'s asbestos claims constituted 29% of the Company's $22.7 million net asbestos and environmental reserves at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "Our general liability, excess liability, and homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii) underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured exposures in municipal government, small non-manufacturing commercial risks, and homeowners policies. "The total carried net losses and loss expense reserves for these claims were $22.7 million as of December 31, 2016 and $23.2 million as of December 31, 2015. The emergence of these claims occurs over an extended period and is highly unpredictable. For example, within our Standard Commercial Lines book, certain landfill sites are included on the National Priorities List ("NPL") by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"). Once on the NPL, the USEPA determines an appropriate remediation plan for these sites. A landfill can remain on the NPL for many years until final approval for the removal of the site is granted from the USEPA. The USEPA has the authority to re-open previously closed sites and return them to the NPL. We currently have reserves for nine customers related to six sites on the NPL. "Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing materials. At December 31, 2016, asbestos claims constituted 29% of our $22.7 million net asbestos and environmental reserves, compared to 29% of our $23.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves at December 31, 2015. "Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in policies written for municipal governments, in their operation or maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of business related to claims for groundwater contamination from leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In 2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking underground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time, existing customers were offered a one-time opportunity to buy back oil tank liability coverage. The exclusion applies to all new homeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible for the buy-back option only if the tank meets specific eligibility criteria. "Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit. Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by- claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often improves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations of coverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly. "Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs, potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages, litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal legislative changes. Normal historically-based actuarial approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims because past loss history is not indicative of future potential loss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models can be applied, such models can produce significantly different results with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically, our asbestos and environmental claims have been significantly lower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty than many of our competitors in the commercial lines industry. Prior to the introduction of the absolute pollution exclusion endorsement in the mid-1980's, we were primarily a personal lines carrier and therefore do not have broad exposure to asbestos and environmental claims. Additionally, we are the primary insurance carrier on the majority of these exposures, which provides more certainty in our reserve position compared to others in the insurance marketplace." Selective Insurance Group, Inc. is a regional insurance holding company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Faces 22 Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- GATX Corp. and subsidiaries face 22 remaining asbestos-related cases as of January 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Several of our subsidiaries have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premises liability or, in the case of claims against the company's business unit American Steamship Company (ASC), the Jones Act, which provides limited remedies to certain maritime employees. In January 2017, GATX agreed to settle Jones Act cases originally filed against ASC in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio for an immaterial amount. During 2016, an additional 3 asbestos cases were dismissed without payment. As of January 31, 2017, there remains 22 asbestos-related cases pending against GATX and its subsidiaries, which includes 7 new asbestos cases filed during 2016. In addition, demand has been made against GATX for asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries. It is possible that the number of these cases or claims for indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases, including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the future." GATX Corporation is in the business of railcar leasing. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alleghany Has $166.3MM Net Loss, LAE Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- Alleghany Corp. has $166.3 million net loss and loss adjustment expenses (LAE) reserves for asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment liabilities as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "Our reinsurance and insurance subsidiaries' reserves for loss and LAE include amounts for risks relating to asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment. The reserves carried for such claims, including the incurred but not yet reported (IBNR) portion, are based upon known facts and current law at the respective balance sheet dates. However, significant uncertainty exists in determining the amount of ultimate liability for asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment losses, particularly for those occurring in 1985 and prior, which before TransRe's entry into the Commutation Agreement, represented the majority of TransRe's asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment reserves. This uncertainty is due to inconsistent and changing court resolutions and judicial interpretations with respect to underlying policy intent and coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of responsibility for resultant damages, among other reasons. Further, possible future changes in statutes, laws, regulations, theories of liability and other factors could have a material effect on these liabilities and, accordingly, future earnings. Although we are unable at this time to determine whether additional reserves, which could have a material adverse effect upon our results of operations, may be necessary in the future, we believe that our asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment reserves were adequate as of December 31, 2016. "On November 30, 2015, Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. (TransRe) entered into a commutation and release agreement with AIG Property Casualty, Inc., National Indemnity Company and Resolute Management, Inc. with respect to certain reinsurance contracts, or the "Commutation Agreement," including contracts covering asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment liabilities for 1986 and prior years, or the "Commuted A&E Liabilities." Pursuant to the Commutation Agreement, TransRe made a settlement payment of $400.0 million in 2015 to terminate certain liabilities and obligations, including for the Commuted A&E Liabilities, which eliminated the vast majority of its asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment loss and LAE reserves. As a result of the Commutation Agreement, TransRe incurred $38.2 million ($24.8 million after-tax) of unfavorable prior accident year loss reserve development in the fourth quarter of 2015. "As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, gross and net loss and LAE reserves for asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment liabilities were https://is.gd/6yjEBV "As of December 31, 2016, the reserves for asbestos-related illness liabilities were approximately nine times the average paid claims for the prior three year period, compared with eight times as of December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2016, the reserves for environmental impairment liabilities were approximately five times the average paid claims for the prior three year period, compared with five times as of December 31, 2015. "The reconciliation of the beginning and ending gross reserves for unpaid loss and LAE related to asbestos-related illness and environmental impairment claims of our reinsurance and insurance subsidiaries for the years 2014 through 2016." Alleghany Corporation is an insurance holding company. ASBESTOS ALERT: Equity Lifestyle Under Probe Over Compliance ------------------------------------------------------------ Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc. continues to assess the allegations and the underlying facts regarding an investigative subpoena by certain California District Attorneys seeking information relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with asbestos and hazardous waste regulations, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "In November 2014, we received a civil investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney for Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with asbestos and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005 primarily in connection with demolition and renovation projects performed by third-party contractors at our California Properties. We responded by providing the information required by the subpoena. "On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives of the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at which the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their investigation including, among other things, (i) alleged violations of asbestos and related regulations associated with approximately 200 historical demolition and renovation projects in California; (ii) potential exposure to civil penalties and unpaid fees; and (iii) next steps with respect to a negotiated resolution of the alleged violations. No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we are involved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys' offices. We continue to assess the allegations and the underlying facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the outcome of the investigation or reasonably estimate any possible loss." Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. owns or has controlling interest in nearly 400 communities and resorts. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Has $61MM A&E Reserves --------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. has $61.0 million, $57.7 million and $60.6 million of asbestos and environmental reserves as of December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "Although we attempt to limit our exposures to asbestos and environmental damage liability through specific policy exclusions, we have been and may continue to be subject to claims related to these exposures. Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct business written by our property and casualty companies related to asbestos and environmental damage liability were $9.9 million, $9.5 million and $10.1 million, net of reinsurance of $19.9 million, $20.5 million, and $21.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Activity for our asbestos and environmental reserves was not significant to our 2016, 2015 or 2014 financial results. In recent years, average asbestos and environmental payments have declined modestly. As a result of our historical direct underwriting mix of Commercial Lines policies toward smaller and middle market risks, past asbestos and environmental damage liability loss experience has remained minimal in relation to our total loss and LAE incurred experience. "In addition, we have established gross and net loss and LAE reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental damage liability of $31.2 million, $27.7 million and $29.1 million at December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These reserves relate to pools in which we have terminated our participation; however, we continue to be subject to claims related to years in which we were a participant. Results of operations from these pools are included in our Other segment. A significant part of our pool reserves relates to our participation in the ECRA voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in run- off. Our percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from 1% to 6% during these years. Our participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses of approximately $2 million annually over the past ten years. Our ECRA reserves were increased by $7.4 million based on an updated third-party actuarial study received in the fourth quarter. "We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are not known, current law and methodologies currently available. Although these outstanding claims are not significant, their existence gives rise to uncertainty and are discussed because of the possibility that they may become significant. We believe that, notwithstanding the evolution of case law expanding liability in asbestos and environmental claims, recorded reserves related to these claims are adequate. Nevertheless, the asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability reserves could be revised, and any such revisions could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for a particular quarterly or annual period or on our financial position." The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., based in Worcester, Mass., is the holding company for several property and casualty insurance companies. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBLI Had US$15.8MM Net Loss Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Global Indemnity Limited (NASDAQ: GBLI) had US$15.8 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Global Indemnity states, "The Company's environmental exposure arises from the sale of general liability and commercial multi- peril insurance. Currently, the Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental contamination claims. However, in some states, the Company is required, depending on the circumstances, to provide coverage for certain bodily injury claims, such as an individual's exposure to a release of chemicals. The Company has also issued policies that were intended to provide limited pollution and environmental coverage. These policies were specific to certain types of products underwritten by the Company. The Company has also received a number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of which are declined based on well-established exclusions. In establishing the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently known and the current state of the law and coverage litigations. Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and updated continually. "Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for individual claims, the increase in the volume of claims made by plaintiffs who claim exposure but who have no symptoms of asbestos-related disease, and an increase in claims subject to coverage under general liability policies that do not contain aggregate limits of liability. "The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses, inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects the Company's best estimates for future amounts needed to pay losses and related adjustment expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the financial statements herein in accordance with GAAP. As of December 31, 2016, the Company had US$15.8 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and US$14.1 million for environmental claims. The Company attempts to estimate the full impact of the A&E exposures by establishing specific case reserves on all known losses. "In addition to the factors, establishing reserves for A&E and other mass tort claims involves considerably more judgment than other types of claims due to, among other things, inconsistent court decisions, an increase in bankruptcy filings as a result of asbestos related liabilities, and judicial interpretations that often expand theories of recovery and broaden the scope of coverage. "The insurance industry continues to receive a substantial number of asbestos-related bodily injury claims, with an increasing focus being directed toward other parties, including installers of products containing asbestos rather than against asbestos manufacturers. This shift has resulted in significant insurance coverage litigation implicating applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including but not limited to, determinations as to whether or not an asbestos-related bodily injury claim is subject to aggregate limits of liability found in most comprehensive general liability policies. The Company continues to closely monitor its asbestos exposure and make adjustments where they are warranted. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2pkNakK Global Indemnity plc (Global Indemnity) is a holding company. Global Indemnity is a property and casualty insurers in the industry, provides its insurance products across a distribution network-binding authority, program, brokerage, and reinsurance. The Company manages the distribution of these products in two segments: Insurance Operations and Reinsurance Operations. The Company offers property and casualty insurance products in the excess and surplus lines marketplace through its Insurance Operations and provides third party treaty reinsurance for writers of excess and surplus and specialty lines of property and casualty insurance through its Reinsurance Operations. The Company's subsidiaries include United National Insurance Company, Penn- America Insurance Company and Penn-Star Insurance Company; Diamond State Insurance Company and United National Casualty Insurance Company; United National Specialty Insurance Company and Penn- Patriot Insurance Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Had 3,313 Cases Pending at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- There were 3,313 pending asbestos-related cases filed against Graybar Electric Company, Inc., as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "More specifically, with respect to asbestos litigation, as of December 31, 2016, 3,247 individual cases and 66 multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by us. Additional claims will likely be filed against us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Because any of these factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable, and it is possible that we may incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future periods." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2oCGYU2 Graybar Electric Company, Inc., distributes more than 1 million electrical, communications, and data networking products through a network of around 250 distribution facilities. Its diversified lineup includes a myriad of wire, cable, and lighting products from thousands of manufacturers and suppliers. It also offers supply chain management and logistics services. Affiliate Graybar Financial Services provides equipment leasing and financing. Graybar Electric sells to construction contractors, industrial plants, power utilities, and telecommunications providers, primarily in the US. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 103 Cases at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself against 103 asbestos cases, the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by us. There are 103 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,687 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re- opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. "Based on information available to us, including: * facts concerning historical operations, * the rate of new claims, * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and * our prior experience in the defense of these matters, we believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us. "In addition to the litigation, we and our affiliates are also involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage for environmental matters. "We currently believe the disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes, individually and in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals already provided." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2oM7Z7N ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Faces 2 Mesothelioma Suits at Dec.31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Two asbestos lawsuits against The Dixie Group, among other defendants, are still ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to two lawsuits, both filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Sandra D. Watts, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 and styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374. Each lawsuit entails a claim for damages to be determined in excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by the Company. Discovery in both matters is ongoing, and tentative trial dates have been set. We have denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2oiSPmH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Facing 42 Asbestos Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noble Corporation plc remains a defendant in 42 asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At December 31, 2016, there were 42 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2poEiru ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steel Partners' Unit Has 57 Claims at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- A unit of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. has 57 pending asbestos claims as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "(All monetary amounts used in this discussion are in thousands unless otherwise indicated.) BNS Sub has been named as a defendant in 1,371 alleged asbestos-related toxic-tort claims as of December 31, 2016. The claims were filed over a period beginning 1994 through December 31, 2016. In many cases these claims involved more than 100 defendants. Of the claims filed, 1,314 were dismissed, settled or granted summary judgment and closed as of December 31, 2016. Of the claims settled, the average settlement was less than US$3. There remained 57 pending asbestos claims as of December 31, 2016. There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims. "BNS Sub has insurance policies covering asbestos-related claims for years beginning 1974 through 1988 with estimated aggregate coverage limits of US$183,000, with US$1,543 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, in estimated remaining self-insurance retention (deductible). There is secondary evidence of coverage from 1970 to 1973 although there is no assurance that the insurers will recognize that the coverage was in place. Policies issued for BNS Sub beginning in 1989 contained exclusions related to asbestos. Under certain circumstances, some of the settled claims may be reopened. Also, there may be a significant delay in receipt of notification by BNS Sub of the entry of a dismissal or settlement of a claim or the filing of a new claim. BNS Sub believes it has significant defenses to any liability for toxic- tort claims on the merits. None of these toxic-tort claims has gone to trial and, therefore, there can be no assurance that these defenses will prevail. "BNS Sub annually receives retroactive billings or credits from its insurance carriers for any increase or decrease in claims accruals as claims are filed, settled or dismissed, or as estimates of the ultimate settlement and defense costs for the then-existing claims are revised. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, BNS Sub has accrued US$1,349 and US$1,422, respectively, relating to the open and active claims against BNS Sub. This accrual represents the Company's best estimate of the likely costs to defend against or settle these claims by BNS Sub beyond the amounts accrued by the insurance carriers and previously funded, through the retroactive billings by BNS Sub. "There can be no assurance that the number of future claims and the related costs of defense, settlements or judgments will be consistent with the experience to date of existing claims, and that BNS Sub will not need to increase significantly its estimated liability for the costs to settle these claims to an amount that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2oM2qGH ASBESTOS UPDATE: 229 Cases vs. Ceco Still Pending at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Ceco Environmental Corp. continues to defend itself against 229 pending cases as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002 began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through December 31, 2016 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$1.1 million which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses; US$1.0 million have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately US$30,000. "Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 229 cases pending against the Company as of December 31, 2016 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 221 cases that were pending as of January 1, 2016. During 2016, 75 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 63 cases and settled 4 cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2ojdDua ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Records $4.6MM Asbestos Charge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation (NYSE: AP) records US$4.6 million net charge associated primarily with revaluing the estimated liabilities and insurance receivables for asbestos litigation through 2026, according to the Company's news release attached with its Form 8-K filing dated March 14, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Loss from operations for the three months ended December 31, 2016, was US$39.8 million and included impairment losses of US$26.7 million, primarily from the impairment of goodwill in the Forged and Cast Engineered Products reporting unit ("Impairment Charge") and a US$4.6 million net charge associated primarily with revaluing the estimated liabilities and insurance receivables for asbestos litigation through 2026 ("Asbestos Charge"). This compares to income from operations in the prior year quarter of US$7.7 million, which included approximately US$14.0 million of proceeds received from an insurance carrier in rehabilitation and US$3.0 million in costs related to potential acquisitions. Loss from operations for the full year ended December 31, 2016, was US$54.5 million and included the aforementioned Impairment Charge, Asbestos Charge, and approximately US$7.5 million in acquisition-related costs and purchase accounting impacts. This compares to income from operations of US$5.0 million for the full year ended December 31, 2015, which included the aforementioned proceeds received from insurance carriers in rehabilitation and acquisition-related costs. "Sales for the Air and Liquid Processing segment increased nearly 5% for Q4 2016 compared to the prior year quarter as higher shipment volumes of centrifugal pumps more than offset softer shipments for custom air handlers and heat exchange coils. The segment's sales for full year 2016 decreased approximately 2% as lower demand for heat exchange coils in the coal-fired power generation market was only partly offset by the higher demand for centrifugal pumps. The segment's operating income for the quarter and full year ended December 31, 2016 declined compared to prior year due to the Asbestos Charge recorded in the current year compared to the insurance recoveries received in the prior year. Higher centrifugal pump shipment volumes, improved productivity, and cost reductions across the segment more than offset the impact of lower heat exchange coil volumes in underlying operations." A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://is.gd/Frx9og ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,618 Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,618 asbestos-related claims pending at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically used in some products of predecessors of Air & Liquid Systems Corporation ("Asbestos Liability"). Those subsidiaries, and in some cases the Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants, often in excess of 50) in cases filed in various state and federal courts. "The following table reflects approximate information about the claims for Asbestos Liability against the subsidiaries and the Corporation for the two years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015. 2016 2015 ---- ---- Total claims pending at the beginning of the period 6,212 8,457 New claims served 1,452 1,424 Claims dismissed (782) (3,339) Claims settled (264) (330) --------------------- Total claims pending at the end of the period* 6,618 6,212 --------------------- Gross settlement and defense costs (in 000's) US$17,960 US$19,199 --------------------- Average gross settlement and defense costs per claim resolved (in 000's) US$17.17 US$5.23 "*Included as "open claims" are approximately 444 and 430 claims in 2016 and 2015, respectively, classified in various jurisdictions as "inactive" or transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on multi-district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL. "A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs reflected in the table was reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate significantly from period to period." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2pmdhHT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh's Suit vs. Insurers Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals has issued an order on November 23, 2016, to dismiss, by agreement of all parties, an asbestos insurance case filed by Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation against certain insurers, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "The Corporation and its Air & Liquid Systems Corporation ("Air & Liquid") subsidiary are parties to a series of settlement agreements ("Settlement Agreements") with insurers that have coverage obligations for Asbestos Liability (the "Settling Insurers"). Under the Settlement Agreements, the Settling Insurers accept financial responsibility, subject to the terms and conditions of the respective agreements, including overall coverage limits, for pending and future claims for Asbestos Liability. The Settlement Agreements encompass the substantial majority of insurance policies that provide coverage for claims for Asbestos Liability. "The Settlement Agreements include acknowledgements that Howden North America, Inc. ("Howden") is entitled to coverage under policies covering Asbestos Liability for claims arising out of the historical products manufactured or distributed by Buffalo Forge, a former subsidiary of the Corporation (the "Products"). The Settlement Agreements do not provide for any prioritization on access to the applicable policies or any sublimits of liability as to Howden or the Corporation and Air & Liquid, and, accordingly, Howden may access the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers for any covered claim arising out of a Product. In general, access by Howden to the coverage afforded by the Settling Insurers for the Products will erode coverage under the Settlement Agreements available to the Corporation and Air & Liquid for Asbestos Liability. "On February 24, 2011, the Corporation and Air & Liquid filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against thirteen domestic insurance companies, certain underwriters at Lloyd's, London and certain London market insurance companies, and Howden. The lawsuit sought a declaratory judgment regarding the respective rights and obligations of the parties under excess insurance policies that were issued to the Corporation from 1981 through 1984 as respects claims against the Corporation and Air & Liquid for Asbestos Liability and as respects asbestos bodily-injury claims against Howden arising from the Products. "By September 2013, the Corporation and Air & Liquid had reached Settlement Agreements with all but two of the defendant insurers in the coverage action. Those Settlement Agreements specify the terms and conditions upon which the insurer parties are to contribute to defense and indemnity costs for claims for Asbestos Liability. One of the Settlement Agreements entered into by the Corporation and Air & Liquid also provided for the dismissal of claims, without prejudice, regarding two upper-level excess policies issued by one of the insurers. The Court entered Orders dismissing all claims in the action filed against each other by the Corporation and Air & Liquid, on the one hand, and by the settling insurers, on the other. "Howden also reached an agreement with eight domestic insurers addressing asbestos-related bodily injury claims arising from the Products, and claims as to those insurers and Howden were also dismissed. Various counterclaims, cross claims and third party claims had been filed in the litigation and remained pending as of September 27, 2013 although only two domestic insurers and Howden remained in the litigation as to the Corporation and Air & Liquid at that time. "On September 27, 2013, the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part cross motions for summary judgment filed by the Corporation and Air & Liquid, Howden, and the insurer parties still in the litigation. On February 26, 2015, the Court issued final judgment. One insurer filed a notice of appeal from the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Third Circuit; as a result, several other insurers, Howden, the Corporation, and Air & Liquid filed notices of appeal. "On November 2, 2016, the Corporation and Air & Liquid reached a settlement with one of the two insurer defendants that remained in the litigation as to them. Thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued an order of dismissal of the case on November 23, 2016 by agreement of all parties." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2pmdhHT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has US$171MM Liability Reserve ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has $171 million reserve at December 31, 2016, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2026, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted future claims for Asbestos Liability. Based on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated since that time. Most recently, the HR&A analysis was updated in 2016, and additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of December 31, 2016 for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2026. The methodology used by HR&A in its projection in 2016 of the operating subsidiaries' liability for pending and unasserted potential future claims for Asbestos Liability, which is substantially the same as the methodology employed by HR&A in prior estimates, relied upon and included the following factors: * HR&A's interpretation of a widely accepted forecast of the population likely to have been exposed to asbestos; * epidemiological studies estimating the number of people likely to develop asbestos-related diseases; * HR&A's analysis of the number of people likely to file an asbestos-related injury claim against the subsidiaries and the Corporation based on such epidemiological data and relevant claims history from January 1, 2014 to September 9, 2016; * an analysis of pending cases, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction where the claim is filed; * an analysis of claims resolution history from January 1, 2014 to September 9, 2016 to determine the average settlement value of claims, by type of injury claimed and jurisdiction of filing; and * an adjustment for inflation in the future average settlement value of claims, at an annual inflation rate based on the Congressional Budget Office's ten year forecast of inflation. "Using this information, HR&A estimated in 2016 the number of future claims for Asbestos Liability that would be filed through the year 2026, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted claims through 2026. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. "In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for its Asbestos Liabilities. In developing the estimate, the Corporation considered HR&A's projection for settlement or indemnity costs for Asbestos Liability and management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements then in effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. "In addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with a nationally-recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical insurance for Asbestos Liabilities. Based upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2026. Although the Corporation believes that the assumptions employed in the insurance valuation were reasonable and previously consulted with its outside legal counsel and insurance consultant regarding those assumptions, there are other assumptions that could have been employed that would have resulted in materially lower insurance recovery projections. "Based on the analyses, the Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2016 for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2026 was US$171 million of which approximately 70% was attributable to settlement costs for unasserted claims projected to be filed through 2026 and future defense costs. While it is reasonably possible that the Corporation will incur additional charges for Asbestos Liability and defense costs in excess of the amounts currently reserved, the Corporation believes that there is too much uncertainty to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims and the cost to resolve them beyond 2026. Accordingly, no reserve has been recorded for any costs that may be incurred after 2026. "The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2016 for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement Agreements in effect through December 31, 2016, and the probable payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability claims, was US$116 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2pmdhHT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for This Summer --------------------------------------------------------------- An asbestos-related lawsuit against a Vertex Energy, Inc., unit is set for trial in the summer of 2017, according to Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "E-Source, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a defendant (along with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth (60th) Judicial District, Jefferson County, Texas, on April 22, 2015. Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole Environmental, Inc. ("Whole"), made certain allegations against E-Source, and Motiva. The claims include Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit actions relating to asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed for defendants at Motiva's facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. The plaintiff alleges it is due monies earned. Defendants have denied any amounts due plaintiff. The suit seeks damages of approximately US$864,000, along with pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, the fair value of certain property alleged to be converted by defendants and reimbursement of legal fees. E-Source has asserted a counterclaim against Whole for the filing of a mechanic's lien in excess of any amount(s) actually due as well as a cross-claim against Motiva. Under the terms of E-Source's contract with Motiva, Motiva was to pay all sums due to any sub-contractors of E-Source. If any additional monies are owed to Whole, those monies should be paid by Motiva. E-Source seeks to recover the balance due under its contract with Motiva of approximately US$1,000,000. The case is set for trial in the summer of 2017. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the complaint. The Company has no basis of determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2ofB7kM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alcoa Units Still Face PI Suits at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Alcoa Corporation subsidiaries continue to be defendants in active personal injury lawsuits related to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Some of our subsidiaries as premises owners are defendants in active lawsuits filed on behalf of persons alleging injury as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos at various facilities. A former affiliate of a subsidiary has been named, along with a large common group of industrial companies, in a pattern complaint where our involvement is not evident. Since 1999, several thousand such complaints have been filed. To date, the former affiliate has been dismissed from almost every case that was actually placed in line for trial. Our subsidiaries and acquired companies, all have had numerous insurance policies over the years that provide coverage for asbestos based claims. Many of these policies provide layers of coverage for varying periods of time and for varying locations. We have significant insurance coverage and believes that its reserves are adequate for its known asbestos exposure related liabilities. The costs of defense and settlement have not been and are not expected to be material to the results of operations, cash flows, and financial position of Alcoa Corporation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2nRyRnX ASBESTOS UPDATE: Intricon Still Faces Suits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------ Intricon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Intricon states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. "Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company believes afford coverage for later years. "Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. "However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. "The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2oANQzH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Faces 103 PI Suits at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., remains a co-defendant in around 103 asbestos-related personal injury cases at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We were a co-defendant in approximately 103 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 199 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are six asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the six cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In three cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of US$3.0 million and US$10.0 million, respectively, for four separate causes of action, US$1.0 million for a fifth cause of action and US$3 million for a sixth cause of action. In the fourth and fifth cases, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0 million, for three and six separate causes of action, respectively and US$5.0 million compensatory for the fifth and seventh cause of actions, respectively. In the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$10.0 million for five counts, and US$5.0 million for a sixth cause of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos- containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. "Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2oAOA7P ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company continues to defend itself against lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos that may be in certain wire and cable, the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "We, along with many other defendants, have been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether we, in fact, distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. We maintain general liability insurance that, to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with these claims. In addition, we did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and we would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that we distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of our company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that we believe we could enforce if our insurance coverage proves inadequate." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2ogm8XR ASBESTOS UPDATE: Andrea Electronics Still Faces "Edwards" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Electronics Corporation continues to defend itself in the lawsuit filed by Audrey Edwards against more than 90 defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "In December 2010, Audrey Edwards, Executrix of the Estate of Leon Leroy Edwards, filed a law suit in the Superior Court of Providence County, Rhode Island, against 3M Company and over 90 other defendants, including the Company, alleging that the Company processed, manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, distributed, marketed or sold asbestos containing products that contributed to the death of Leon Leroy Edwards. The Company received service of process in April 2011. The Company has retained legal counsel and has filed a response to the compliant. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to that affect. Accordingly, the Company does not believe the lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2oNodxr ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Had 67,223 Pending Claims at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- There were 67,223 asbestos personal injury claims filed against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company also disclosed that there are 4,146 new claims in 2016. It also made settlement payments of US$50.2 million in the same year. The Company states, "Settlement payments represent payments made by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company during the year in connection with settlements made in that year and in prior years. Amounts do not include Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's attorneys' fees and expenses. "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. "Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2pqqzjO ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Had US$441.1MM A&E Reserves ---------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., had US$441.1 million reserves for asbestos and environmental liabilities at December 31, 2016 on a gross of reinsurance basis, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In terms of net reinsurance basis, the Company's A&E reserves were $274.4 million at December 31, 2016. The Company states, "The difficulty in estimating our reserves is significantly more challenging as it relates to reserving for potential asbestos and environmental ("A&E") liabilities. At December 31, 2016, 5.3% of our gross reserves were comprised of A&E reserves. A&E liabilities are especially hard to estimate for many reasons, including the long delays between exposure and manifestation of any bodily injury or property damage, difficulty in identifying the source of the asbestos or environmental contamination, long reporting delays and difficulty in properly allocating liability for the asbestos or environmental damage. Legal tactics and judicial and legislative developments affecting the scope of insurers' liability, which can be difficult to predict, also contribute to uncertainties in estimating reserves for A&E liabilities. "The Company continues to receive claims under expired insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting injuries and/or damages relating to or resulting from environmental pollution and hazardous substances, including asbestos. Environmental claims typically assert liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of environmental contamination or (b) bodily injury or property damage caused by the release of hazardous substances into the land, air or water. Asbestos claims typically assert liability for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos. "The Company's reserves include an estimate of the Company's ultimate liability for A&E claims. The Company's A&E liabilities emanate from direct insurance business and Everest Re's assumed reinsurance business. All of the contracts of insurance and reinsurance under which the Company has received claims during the past three years, expired more than 20 years ago. There are significant uncertainties surrounding the Company's reserves for its A&E losses. "A&E exposures represent a separate exposure group for monitoring and evaluating reserve adequacy." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at http://bit.ly/2pFX5h3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Trust to be Formed Under Oakfabco Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oakfabco, Inc., filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois a disclosure statement with respect to its plan of reorganization, dated March 31, 2017, which contemplates the formation of a Liquidating Trust which will assume responsibility for the asbestos personal injury claims against the Debtor. The Liquidating Trust will review, resolve, and, if appropriate, pay asbestos personal injury claims. The Plan also treats non-asbestos-related general unsecured claims against the Debtor by paying them a Pro Rata percentage of the General Unsecured Fund established under the Plan. Class 3 General Unsecured Claims consist of all Unsecured Claims against the Debtor's Estate. Most Class 3 claims are unpaid bills owed to law firms that had been defending the Debtor in asbestos- related litigation. The Debtor estimates that the Allowed Class 3 Claims total approximately $280,000. Estimated recovery for this class is still unknown. On the Effective Date, the Debtor will transfer the Trust Assets to the Liquidating Trust. The Trust Assets shall include, without limitation: Excess Cash; all rights under Approved Insurance Settlement Agreements; the Asbestos Insurance Rights; and the Qualified Settlement Fund. The assets in the Liquidating Trust shall be administered for the benefit of the Holders of Asbestos PI Claims. A full-text copy of the Disclosure Statement is available at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/ilnb15-27062-411.pdf About Oakfabco, Inc. Oakfabco, Inc, formerly known as Kewanee Boiler Corporation, has not manufactured boilers since 1988 when it sold its Kewanee boiler business in an 11 U.S.C. Section 363 sale to Coppus Engineering Corporation. In early 2009, it sold all of its remaining assets. The Debtor has no employees, and, Frederick W. Stein is the Debtor's sole officer and director. The Debtor's sole remaining asset is its insurance, and it has no known liabilities other than asbestos claims. In January 1970, Kewanee Boiler Corp, then a newly-formed Illinois Corporation, acquired the assets and debt of American Standard, Inc.'s commercial boiler manufacturing division known as "Kewanee Boiler." The boilers manufactured and sold by Kewanee Boiler were insulated with asbestos. Oakfabco sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 16-27062) on Aug. 7, 2015, to resolve its remaining asbestos claims. The petition was signed by Frederick W. Stein, president. Stephen T. Bobo, Esq., Aaron B. Chapin, Esq., Paul M. Singer, Esq., Luke A. Sizemore, Esq., and Joseph D. Filloy, Esq., at Reed Smith LLP, serves as counsel to the Debtor. The Debtor estimated $10 million to $50 million in assets and debt. The U.S. Trustee for Region 11 appointed four members to the Asbestos Claimants' Committee in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Oakfabco Inc.: Vince Holajn, William E. Gallet, Kristin Leigh Hart, and Michael Batchelor. The Asbestos Claimants' Committee is represented by Frances Gecker, Esq., at FrankGecker LLP. The Debtor tapped Logan & Company, Inc. as its claims and noticing agent, and Alan D. Lasko and Associates, P.C. as its tax accountant. The Asbestos Claimants' Committee retained Henry Booth and Colin Gray to provide insurance professional services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Geo V. Hamilton Files Chapter 11 Plan ------------------------------------------------------ Geo V. Hamilton, Inc., filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania a disclosure statement with respect to its plan of reorganization, dated March 31, 2017, a full-text copy of which is available for free at: http://bankrupt.com/misc/pawb15-23704-1053.pdf The Plan contemplates the formation of an Asbestos Trust to administer the assets to be contributed to the Asbestos Trust, to determine the amounts of Asbestos Claims through the use of the Asbestos Trust Distribution Procedures, and to make Distributions to holders of Asbestos Claims. Class 3, General Unsecured Claims, is impaired under the Plan. Each holder of an Allowed General Unsecured Claim will receive Cash in an amount equal to the Allowed amount of such Claim paid in two installments as follows: (i) 50% of the Allowed amount of such Claim will be paid on the later of (a) the Effective Date and (b) the date on which such Claim becomes Allowed, or, in each case, as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter; and (ii) 50% of the Allowed amount of such Claim will be paid on the date that is one year after the Effective Date. Class 4, Asbestos Claims, is impaired under the Plan. This class includes approximately 1,400 asserted Asbestos Claims, most of which have not been liquidated. On the Effective Date, all liability for Asbestos Claims against the Debtor will automatically, and without further act, deed, or court order, be channeled exclusively to and assumed by, the Asbestos Trust in accordance with, and to the extent set forth in the Plan, the Plan Documents, and the Confirmation Order. Each Asbestos Claim will be resolved in accordance with the terms, provisions, and procedures set forth in the Asbestos Trust Documents. The Asbestos Trust will be funded in accordance with the Plan. The sole recourse of the holder of an Asbestos Claim on account of such Asbestos Claim will be to the Asbestos Trust and each such holder will have no right whatsoever at any time to assert its Asbestos Claim against any Asbestos Protected Party. The Debtor will fund distributions to holders of Allowed Non- Asbestos Claims with cash on hand; cash generated from the Reorganized Debtor's operations; and the proceeds of the Exit Credit Agreement. The Hon. Gregory L. Taddonio of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania will hold on May 11, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. a hearing to consider the approval of the disclosure statement filed by Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc., on March 31, 2017, referring to the Debtor's Chapter 11 plan dated March 31, 2017. Objections to the Disclosure Statement must be filed by May 4, 2017. About Geo V. Hamilton, Inc. Formed in 1947, Geo. V. Hamilton, Inc. is based in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, its home of nearly seventy years. Hamilton is a distributor of insulation products and an insulation contractor serving a wide variety of industrial, energy and commercial facilities in the Pittsburgh area and elsewhere. Hamilton filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Case No. 15-23704) on Oct. 8, 2015, for the purpose of resolving all existing and future personal injury and wrongful death claims arising from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing product distributed or installed by Hamilton more than 40 years ago. Judge Gregory L. Taddonio is assigned to the case. The petition was signed by Joseph Linehan, the Company's general counsel. The Debtor has engaged Reed Smith LLP as counsel and Logan & Company, Inc., as claims and noticing agent. Schneider Downs & Co., Inc., as accounting consultant. On Oct. 23, 2015, the United States Trustee appointed the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants to represent the shared interests of holders of current asbestos-related claims for personal injury or wrongful death against the Debtor. The Committee is represented by Douglas A. Campbell, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, and Ann C. McMillan, Esq., Jeffrey A. Liesemer, Esq., and Kevin M. Davis, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered. On Dec. 8, 2015, the U.S. Trustee filed its statement that an unsecured creditors committee has not been appointed to represent the interests of unsecured creditors of the Debtor. On Dec. 23, 2015, the Court entered its order appointing Gary Philip Nelson as the Legal Representative of Holders of Future Asbestos Demands. The FCR is represented by Beverly A. Block, Esq., at Sherrard German & Kelly, PC. ********* 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 * * *