/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170717.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 17, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 139 Headlines ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Oct. 4 Final Hearing on "Anger" Case Settlement ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Says $13M Deal Subject to Documentation AEROVIAS DE MEXICO: Faces "Kindt" Suit Over Recorded Phone Calls AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Dismissed, No Appeal Filed ALTISOURCE ASSET: Denver Retirement Plan Appeals Case Dismissal ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Balks at Plaintiffs' Bid to Produce Docs AMERICAN RENAL: Motion to Dismiss "Esposito" Amended Suit Pending AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: $3.75 Million Settlement Pending ANZ SECURITIES: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Amended Complaint Due Aug. 7 in "Min" Suit AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Lammert Seeks to Certify Liability Class B COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit BAY WATCH: Accused by Johnson of Violating Wage and Hour Laws BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces Plains All American Securities Suit BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces St. Lucie County Securities Litigation BBVA COMPASS: "Hossfeld" Litigation Underway BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Dismiss Investor Suit Granted in Part BLACKROCK INC: Defending Against Former Employee Class Suit BLITT AND GAINES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI: Savoie Confident on Sewage Case Outcome CENTURYLINK: Billing Fraud Class Action Pile-On Opportunistic CENTURYLINK: Consumers Protest Amid Billing Class Action CHICAGO, IL: Water Dept. Faces Racial Discrimination Suit CU BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway CYAN INC: SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to State Court Jurisdiction DR. PEPPER: Faruqi Asks to be Appointed Interim Lead Counsel DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Class Action Over "Steak" Sandwich DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Reset to Sept. 11 DYNCORP AEROSPACE: Balcazar Appeals Ruling in "Quinteros" Suit ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Amended Suit filed in "Machado" Case ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Suit Remains in Early Stages ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Chawdry and Myers Suit Remains Pending EQUIDATA INC: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Certify Class EXAMWORKS GROUP: Hearing on $86.5M Settlement Set for Sept. 12 EXAR CORPORATION: Vladimir Trust Suit Dismissed FLUOR CORP: BakerHostetler Comments on Dismissal of Class Suit GC SERVICES: Court Terminates Class Cert. Bid in "Kausar" Suit GREE ELECTRIC: Appeals Ruling in Homesite Suit to Ninth Circuit HOME CAPITAL: Provides Update on Class Action Settlements HONGLI CLEAN: Lifshitz & Miller Expands Class Period HYPERION MEDICAL: Bid for Class Cert. Denied Without Prejudice INSYS THERAPEUTICS: July 28 Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Named Lead Counsel INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Still Faces Customer Suit in Connecticut JACOBS ENGINEERING: Accused by Kritch of Violating Labor Code JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with Large Talcum Powder Case Verdicts JOSEPH CORY: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Lupian" Suit to 3rd Cir. KINECTA ALTERNATIVE: Sued Over Labor Standards Act Violations LG CHEM: Settlement Available for Eligible Claimants LM FUNDING: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Records $23,500 of Settlement Obligation MASSACHUSETTS: Governor Sued Over Welfare Programs MASSAGE ENVY: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Shortened Massages MATTEL INC: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set for Aug. 28 MCDONALD'S USA: Sued Over Illegal Restriction of Hiring MODESTO JUNIOR: Sued Over Racial Discrimination NATIONWIDE LIFE: Small Plan Participant Seeks Big Class Action NAVY FEDERAL: Hit with Class Suit for Overcharging Overdraft Fees NEAL TRUCKING: Court Approved $195,000 "Poisson" Case Settlement NEW YORK: Class Action Against Port Authority Revived NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued by Santello for Not Paying Overtime NY LIFE SECURITIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Bouyea" Suit Alleges ONTARIO HOCKEY: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: HELCO's Motion to Dismiss Underway OVASCIENCE INC: Discovery Ongoing in Suffolk County Case OVASCIENCE INC: Massachusetts Class Suit Underway PACIFIC PERSONNEL: Accused by "Smith" Suit of Not Paying Overtime PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans Dismiss New York Suit PANDORA MEDIA: Ponderosa Twins Suit Remains Stayed PASADENA, CA: Suit Demands Refund For Parking Fees, Fines PAYLESS: Car Rental Customers File Class Action POINTBREAK MEDIA: "Molina" Suit Sues over Unauthorized Robo-calls POST HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on Motion for Immediate Appeal PREMIER COURIER: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class RAZZLE DAZZLE: Conditional Class Cert. Bid Granted in "Romero" RELAY DELIVERY: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Warren Police Suit Pending ROCKET FUEL: Oct. 11 Final Hearing on $3.15 Million Settlement SAN JOSE, CA: Asks Court to Decertify Firefighter Employees Class SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Class Action Pending in Calif. SEECO INC: Cambiano Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Circuit SERVICE KING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action SIENTRA INC: $10,900,000 Settlement Awaits Final Approval SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Action in New York Pending SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Action in California Pending SLATER & GORDON: Recapitalization Hinges on Settlement Approval SLATER & GORDON: Judge Has Courtroom in Stitches Over Class Action SPOKANE, WA: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Customers SQUARETRADE: Moves to Compel Arbitration in Protection Plans Suit SSM HOME: Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Can Proceed STAPLES ENERGY: Faces "Price" Class Suit in California Super. Ct. STEPTOE & JOHNSON: Discriminates Against Women, "Houck" Suit Says SUGAR FOODS: Removes "Lara" Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. SURFSTITCH GROUP: Provides Updates on Gadens Class Action TELE PAY USA: Hit With Employee Class Action Over Unfair Wages TOM'S MARINE: Hit With Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TOYOTA MOTOR: Hope Appeals Decision in "Warner" Suit to 9th Cir. TRANSPORT EXPRESS: Faces "Cabuyales" Class Suit in California U.S. RENAL: "Whitaker" Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Judge OK's Former SMU Inmate's Class Action UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations VITAMIN SHOPPE: Plaintiff Drops Weight Loss Supplement Suit WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Baker Hostetler Discusses Court Ruling WELLS FARGO: Meiners Appeals D. Minn. Judgment to Eighth Circuit WESTLAND, MI: Judge Dismisses Water/Sewer Fees Class Action WEYERHAEUSER: Container Board Case Edges Closer to Trial WV BUSINESS: Attorney's General Office May Take Legal Action YADKIN VALLEY: Settles Former Employees' WARN Act Class Action * Long-Term Care Providers Brace for Data Breach Class Actions * South Korea Seeks to Expand Current Class Action System ********* ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Oct. 4 Final Hearing on "Anger" Case Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Victoria A. Roberts on June 13, 2017, entered an order preliminarily approving a Class Action Settlement in the case, Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-12864 (E.D. Mich.). A Final Approval Hearing is set for Oct. 4, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. before Judge Roberts. The Status Conference on June 14 and the Settlement Conference on Sept. 12 are cancelled. R1 RCM Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have reached a settlement in principle and are preparing a motion for pre- approval and class settlement. The Company said, "On July 22, 2014, we were named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary allegations are that we attempted to collect debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those same statutes. On August 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss. An amended complaint was filed on November 30, 2015. Discovery is underway, but on July 15, 2016, the court postponed all deadlines in the case as the parties attempt to finalize a confidential agreement in principle to settle the case. On February 23, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle and are preparing a motion for pre- approval and class settlement. We believe that we have meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending ourselves against these claims, if the settlement in principle is not finalized." R1 RCM Inc. (the "Company") is a provider of revenue cycle management ("RCM") services and physician advisory services ("PAS") to healthcare providers. ADVERUM BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Says $13M Deal Subject to Documentation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adverum Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement of a class action lawsuit is subject to definitive documentation. The Company said, "In July 2015, three securities class action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, each on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits assert claims under the Exchange Act and Securities Act and allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omitted allegedly material information related to, among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs." "In December 2015, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us, our board of directors, underwriters of our January 13, 2015, follow-on public stock offering, and two of our institutional stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The complaint alleges that, in connection with our follow-on stock offering, the defendants violated the Securities Act in essentially the same manner alleged by the consolidated federal action: by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements and by allegedly omitting material information related to the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and the prospects of AVA-101. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. The plaintiff has dismissed the two institutional stockholder defendants. "On March 16, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle the asserted actions. The proposed aggregate amount of the settlement is $13 million, of which $1 million would be contributed by the Company to cover its indemnification obligations to the underwriters, and the remainder would be contributed by the Company's insurers. The settlement is subject to definitive documentation, shareholder notice and court approval. The Company and the defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the actions, and the settlement does not assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or liability as to any defendant. If final court approval is not obtained with respect to the settlement or the settlement otherwise does not become effective and litigation resumes, adverse outcomes in the actions could result in substantial damages. The Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The Company is a gene therapy company advancing novel medicines that can offer life-changing benefits to patients living with serious rare and ocular diseases. Since the Company's inception, it has devoted its efforts principally to performing research and development activities, including conducting preclinical studies and, early clinical trials, filing patent applications, obtaining regulatory agreements, hiring personnel, and raising capital to support these activities. AEROVIAS DE MEXICO: Faces "Kindt" Suit Over Recorded Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- MALINA KINDT and GEORGE PAPPAS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. AEROVIAS DE MEXICO, S.A. DE C.V.; GRUPO AEROMEXICO S.A.B. DE C.V.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 17CV312100 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., June 22, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' alleged policy and practice of recording and monitoring, without the consent of all parties, telephone calls made or routed to their toll-free customer service telephone numbers, including 800-237-6639 and 844-282-7095. Aerovias de Mexico is a foreign corporation with its principal executive offices in Houston, Texas. Grupo Aeromexico is a foreign corporation with headquarters in Mexico City, Mexico. Aeromexico is a foreign airline company with more than 80 destinations all around the world, including 45 destinations in Mexico, 16 in the United States, l6 in Latin America, four in Europe, three in Canada, and two in Asia. The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Rachael G. Jung, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543-1305 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com rjung@kellergrover.com - and - Scot Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 447-0100 Facsimile: (916) 933-5533 E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Dismissed, No Appeal Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff has not appealed the dismissal of of a securities class action lawsuit. The Company said, "In September 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed against us, including our Chief Executive Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, and members of our Board of Directors, in the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering, and purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among other things, making material misstatements or omissions concerning the Phase 2b clinical study of vadadustat. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of certain stock purchases, attorneys' fees, and costs." "In October 2015, we removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The plaintiff's motion to remand was granted in April 2016. "The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Suffolk County Superior Court on August 15, 2016, and we served our memorandum in support of our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 14, 2016. The motion to dismiss hearing was held on January 31, 2017. The Court granted our motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice on February 21, 2017. The plaintiff did not appeal." The Company is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and delivering novel therapeutics for patients based on hypoxia- inducible factor, or HIF, biology, and building its pipeline while leveraging its development and commercial expertise in renal disease. HIF is the primary regulator of the production of red blood cells, or RBCs, in the body, as well as other important metabolic functions. Pharmacologic modulation of the HIF pathway may have broad therapeutic applications. ALTISOURCE ASSET: Denver Retirement Plan Appeals Case Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00004 (D. Virgin Islands), Judge Harvey Bartle, III, on July 5, 2017, denied, with prejudice, a motion to amend complaint. On July 7, the Denver Employee Retirement Plan filed a notice of appeal as to the Order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim. Altisource Asset Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that in the case, City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., Plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On January 16, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of AAMC under the caption City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset Management Corp., et al., 15-cv-00004. The action names as defendants AAMC, our former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers of AAMC and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose material information to AAMC shareholders concerning alleged conflicts of interest held by Mr. Erbey with respect to AAMC's relationship and transactions with RESI, Altisource, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., Southwest Business Corporation, NewSource Reinsurance Company and Ocwen Financial Corporation, including allegations that the defendants failed to disclose (i) the nature of relationships between Mr. Erbey, AAMC and those entities; and (ii) that the transactions were the result of an allegedly unfair process from which Mr. Erbey failed to recuse himself. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. AAMC and Mr. Erbey are the only defendants who have been served with the complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Denver Employees Retirement Plan to be lead plaintiff. On May 15, 2015, the court entered a scheduling order requiring plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before June 19, 2015, and setting a briefing schedule for any motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2015. On July 20, 2015, AAMC and Mr. Erbey filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 3, 2015, and the Company is awaiting a decision from the court on the motion. On December 16, 2016, the case was reassigned to a new Judge, U.S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle, III, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 6, 2017, the Court issued an opinion and order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice with the court that it intended to file a first amended consolidated complaint in the matter no later than May 1, 2017. On May 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and, at the same time, filed a first amended consolidated complaint. "We believe the amended complaint is without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the Company said. ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Balks at Plaintiffs' Bid to Produce Docs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the case, Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00024 (D. Virgin Islands), is underway. Altisource Residential Corporation, Robin N Lowe, Kenneth D. Najour, Ashish Pandey, Rachel M. Ridley have objected to Lead Plaintiff's First Demand for Production of Documents. Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed on March 27, 2015, in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, our former Chairman, William C. Erbey, and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC, Ocwen Financial Corporation ("Ocwen") and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen's lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses. In May 2015, two of the Company's purported shareholders filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff. On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20, 2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016. On November 14, 2016, the Martin case was reassigned to Judge Anne E. Thompson of the Unites States District Court of New Jersey. In a hearing on December 19, 2016, the parties made oral arguments on the motion to dismiss, and on March 16, 2017 the Court issued an order that the motion to dismiss had been denied. On April 17, 2017, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for reconsideration was anticipated to be due on May 8, 2017. In addition, the defendants filed their answer and affirmative defenses by April 21, 2017. AMERICAN RENAL: Motion to Dismiss "Esposito" Amended Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc., et al., remains pending. On May 18, 2017, American Renal Associates Holdings filed a Memorandum in Support of Motion To Dismiss The Amended Class Action Complaint. On August 31, 2016 and September 2, 2016, putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, respectively, against the Company and certain officers and directors of the Company. Both complaints asserted federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC and in addition, the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserted claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaints alleged that the Company made material misstatements or omissions, including in connection with its initial public offering filings and other public filings. The complaints sought unspecified damages on behalf of the individuals or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities from April 20, 2016 to August 18, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the complaint filed in the Southern District of New York was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice. On November 30, 2016, Lead Plaintiff was appointed for the putative shareholder class action complaint pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, captioned Esposito, et al. v. American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-11797 (the "Esposito Action"). On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff in the Esposito Action filed an amended complaint against the Company, certain former and current officers and directors of the Company, Centerbridge Capital Partners L.P., and certain of the underwriters in our initial public offering. The amended complaint asserts federal securities laws claims under Securities Act sections 11 and 15, as well as Exchange Act sections 10(b), 20(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc. ("ARAH" or "the Company") owns 100% of the membership units of its subsidiary American Renal Holdings Intermediate Company, LLC, which itself has no assets other than 100% of the shares of capital stock of American Renal Holdings Inc. All of its operating activities are conducted through American Renal Holdings Inc. and its operating subsidiaries ("ARH"). The Company is a national provider of kidney dialysis services for patients suffering from chronic kidney failure, also known as end stage renal disease, or ESRD. As of March 31, 2017, the Company owned and operated 217 dialysis clinics treating 14,735 patients in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The Company's operating model is based on shared ownership of its facilities with physicians, known as nephrologists, who specialize in treating kidney-related diseases in the local market served by the clinic. Each clinic is maintained as a separate joint venture, or JV, in which the Company has a controlling interest and its local nephrologist partners have noncontrolling interests. AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: $3.75 Million Settlement Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Lead plaintiff and defendants have reached an agreement in principal to fully and finally settle all claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 14, 2017, Block & Leviton LLP filed for preliminary approval of a $3.75 million settlement in this case. That motion is currently pending before the Court. Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court for New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company related to the regulatory approval path for migalastat. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for purchasers of the Company's Common Stock during different periods, all of which fall between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with respect to similar matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as defendants. On May 26, 2016, the Court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 11, 2016. On August 25, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in response to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. This motion to dismiss was fully briefed on October 28, 2016. Lead plaintiff and defendants have reached an agreement in principal to fully and finally settle all claims asserted in the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. The settlement is immaterial to the Company's consolidated financial statements and is subject to court approval. The settlement amount is expected to be fully covered under insurance. Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Counsel for Defendants: Jay B. Kasner, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 4 Times Square New York, New York 10036 Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.amicussecuritieslitigation.com/ Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company") is a global patient- focused biotechnology company engaged in the discovery, development, and commercialization of a diverse set of novel treatments for patients living with devastating rare and orphan diseases. The lead product, migalastat HCl is a small molecule that can be used as a monotherapy and in combination with enzyme replacement of therapy ("ERT") for Fabry disease. ANZ SECURITIES: Skadden Arps Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Saltzstein, Esq. -- susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -- and Robert Fumerton, Esq. -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for Law360, wrote that in one of the first cases argued before new Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court in California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities Inc., No. 16-373, slip op. at 16-17 (June 26, 2017), decided on Jan. 26 that the filing of a putative class action does not toll Section 13's statute of repose for an individual plaintiff's Section 11 claims. Background The road to CalPERS began with the Supreme Court's 1974 decision in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, which established a class action tolling rule pursuant to which certain limitations periods are tolled for unnamed members of a putative class until class certification is decided. Since that decision, the federal circuit courts have been divided on whether the American Pipe tolling rule properly can be applied to toll statutes of repose or should instead be confined to statutes of limitations. Even those courts reaching the same conclusion on the issue have employed disparate reasoning, and recent decisions have only deepened the divide. Recognizing this circuit split, the Supreme Court first granted certiorari on the question following the Second Circuit's 2013 decision in Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS Inc. The writ of certiorari in that case was dismissed as improvidently granted, however, when the court learned of a pending settlement agreement before the district court. Thus, just a few years later, CalPERS provided the court with another opportunity to speak definitively on the reach of the American Pipe tolling rule. The dispute in CalPERS dates back to the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Before its bankruptcy, Lehman raised over $31 billion through debt offerings, and CalPERS allegedly bought millions of dollars of those securities between July 2007 and January 2008. In June 2008, another retirement fund that also purportedly purchased those securities filed a putative class action in the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged that the debt offerings' underwriters were liable for false and misleading statements made in the registration statements. The parties to the putative class action agreed to a settlement that same year, however, and CalPERS opted out to pursue an individual action when the district court certified a settlement class. CalPERS commenced its individual action in February 2011, more than three years after the debt offerings. Section 13 of the Securities Act provides that all claims under the act must be brought within one year of the "discovery of the untrue statement or the omission, or after such discovery should have been made by the exercise of reasonable diligence." Importantly, Section 13 also imposes a three-year time bar: "In no event shall any action be brought to enforce a liability created under [Section 11] . . . more than three years after the security" was offered to the public. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77m. Because the Lehman debt offerings were first offered to the public more than three years before CalPERS commenced its action, the district court concluded that the action was untimely under Section 13's three-year repose period. CalPERS appealed to the Second Circuit, and, on July 8, 2016, the panel unanimously affirmed the district court's order. The Second Circuit applied its reasoning from IndyMac to conclude that the prior filing of a securities class action does not toll Section 13's three-year limitations period, which it deemed a statute of repose. In affirming the district court, the Second Circuit highlighted the circuit split concerning the reach of the American Pipe tolling rule. Specifically, the court opined that the question "may be ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court" but "unless and until the Supreme Court informs us that our decision was erroneous, IndyMac continues to be the law of the Circuit and its reasoning controls the outcome of the case." The Supreme Court, as in IndyMac, accepted the Second Circuit's invitation. The Parties' Arguments In its briefing and at argument, CalPERS urged the court to adopt one of several rationales to conclude that its complaint was timely filed. The first and, according to CalPERS, easiest rationale (i.e., one not dependent upon tolling) was that the class complaint "brought" all of the individual class members' claims against the respondents. CalPERS' individual action was thus timely commenced upon the filing of the putative class action complaint. According to this argument, CalPERS' opt-out complaint ought not be viewed as a new "action" but rather the assertion of control over the individual plaintiff's claim first alleged by the class representative. The respondents chided CalPERS for asserting procedurally improper arguments given that the court expressly declined to grant certiorari on the question of whether a member of a timely filed putative class action may file an individual suit on the same causes of action before class certification is decided, even where the relevant time limitations have expired. E.g., Resp. br. at 39. Moreover, the respondents contended that CalPERS' rationale would not apply under the facts of the case because CalPERS opted out before class certification, negating its claim that the filing of the class action complaint initiated its individual "action." Id. at 45. CalPERS then offered two alternative arguments: (1) if the court determined that tolling principles were implicated, American Pipe tolling -- even if a form of equitable tolling -- applied because the timely filed class action complaint initiated its action, Pet. br. at 41-42; and (2) in any event, Section 13's three-year period is a statute of limitations rather than a statute of repose. Id. at 43-45. The respondents, in contrast, argued that (1) the American Pipe tolling rule is equitable in nature, and statutes of repose are not subject to equitable tolling, Resp. br. at 27-30, and (2) Section 13's text, structure and history show that its three-year period is a "classic statute of repose" meant to establish the outer limit of a defendant's liability under Section 13. Id. at 21. Specifically, the respondents emphasized Section 13's legislative history, use of categorical language, and "two-tiered" structure to assert that Congress intended Section 13's three-year bar to reflect a finite limit on Section 11 claims, balancing the interests of both plaintiffs and defendants. Id. at 18-26. At oral argument in April, Justice Gorsuch was vocal in staking out a "plain language" interpretation of the statute. When CalPERS pressed its first argument -- that the opt-out complaint was not a new "action" for purposes of the statute of repose -- Justice Gorsuch parsed the distinction between the terms "action" and "claim." Section 13 uses "action" and accordingly, Justice Gorsuch suggested, even if CalPERS brings "the same claims ... it's a different action." CalPERS attempted to resist Justice Gorsuch's text-driven position with policy arguments, but Justice Gorsuch reiterated his focus on the statute's text: "I mean, I don't like the policy consequences, but as a matter of plain language," he seemed unconvinced. And later, when CalPERS argued that the statute's "in no event" language contained an ambiguity, Justice Gorsuch pointedly asked: "Where is the ambiguity in 'in no event'?" Justice Gorsuch's focus on "plain language" marks an early trend in his Supreme Court jurisprudence. Indeed, Justice Gorsuch's first question as a Supreme Court justice, which came earlier on the same day in a case captioned Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, asked, "Where in the statute is that provided?" And when the lawyer replied by reciting the court's precedent, Justice Gorsuch asked him to "put[ ] aside" the decision and "look[ ] at the plain language of the statute." Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused primarily on the practical ramifications of ANZ's argument. She, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg all expressed concern about the potential for Section 13's repose period to clog the courts with duplicative litigation, unnecessary paperwork and less sophisticated plaintiffs pursuing individual actions. "This is a rule that's kind of guaranteed to create make-work for district courts," Justice Kagan said, "and for small investors to lose their claims." The Supreme Court's Decision In an opinion authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a 5-4 majority of the court concluded that Section 13's three-year time limit is a statute of repose not subject to American Pipe tolling. Justice Kennedy was joined by Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Gorsuch in affirming the Second Circuit's underlying decision. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The opinion, which marks a victory for defendants by holding that the statute of repose is not subject to equitable tolling, described Section 13 as a "complete defense to any suit after a certain period." (Op. at 9.) With respect to the petitioner's argument that tolling was not implicated because the timely filing of the class action complaint timely brought its individual "action," the court said it "defied ordinary understanding that [CalPERS'] filing -- in a separate forum, on a separate date, by a separate named party -- was the same action[.]" (Op. at 15.) The court instead applied a "straightforward analysis" and held that "[t]he 3-year time bar in Section 13 of the Securities Act is a statute of repose." (Op. at 16.) The majority concluded that the "statute displaces the traditional power of courts to modify statutory time limits in the name of equity." (Id.) Writing in dissent, Justice Ginsburg expressed concern that the court's opinion "disserves the investing public that Section 11 was designed to protect." (Op. at 4) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). "[T]he risk is high," Justice Ginsburg cautioned, "that class members failing to file a protective claim will be saddled with inadequate representation or an inadequate judgment." (Id.) Justice Ginsburg concluded her dissent with a warning: "The decision impels courts and class counsel to take a more active role in protecting class members' opt-out rights." (Id. at 5.) Although he did not write an opinion in this case, Justice Gorsuch also made his presence felt. In substance, the majority opinion corresponded closely with Justice Gorsuch's questioning at oral argument back in April: his insistence on reading the "plain language" of Section 13's "in no event" language, for example, can be seen in Justice Kennedy's statement that the statute "admits of no exception and on its face creates a fixed bar against future liability." (Op. at 5.) Justice Gorsuch's skepticism about CalPERS' "same action" argument was similarly echoed in the majority opinion. Going Forward: More Certainty for Defendants and Potential Limitations on Class Certification The decision represents a significant victory for securities class action defendants. Most directly, they now no longer face the threat of liability from opt-outs more than three years following an offering of securities. Once a class action has been filed, the decision effectively eliminates the ability of individual class members to opt out after the three-year cutoff unless they have first filed a protective claim on their own behalf within the three-year period. As Justice Kennedy noted, this kind of "certainty and reliability . . . are a necessity in a marketplace where stability and reliance are essential components of valuation and expectation for financial actors." (Op. at 16.) Defendants will now be able to calculate their exposure to opt-out actions and other liability stemming from a securities class action with much greater confidence and precision. This decision also has the potential to spur courts to go even further in limiting securities class actions. While on its face, the Supreme Court's holding does not prevent a class from being certified outside of the three-year repose period, there is an argument that this precedent could be applied to preclude putative class members from joining a class after that period of time. In other words, if putative class members -- as opposed to the named plaintiffs themselves -- are not deemed to have been part of an action until a class is certified, it is not clear why the three- year repose period would not bar claims by these individuals as well. While some may argue that this would be a harsh result, it bears emphasis that the advent of class actions and Rule 23 came well after Congress enacted the three-year repose period in the Securities Act. Moreover, given that class members can no longer opt out of a class that is certified after the three-year cutoff -- and, as the dissent here stressed, the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart held that opt-out rights are an essential element of due process in class actions -- courts could refuse to certify any class after the three-year cutoff on that basis as well. The effect of this type of ruling could potentially be even more devastating for securities plaintiffs, particularly where putative class actions are not commenced until a couple of years into the three-year repose period. In those situations, plaintiffs would have significant difficulties in getting through the pleading stage and moving for class certification before the three-year cut-off expired. [GN] ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Amended Complaint Due Aug. 7 in "Min" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Min v. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00880 (S.D.N.Y.), the Court on June 26, 2017, entered a Memo Endorsement regarding the letter filed by Aratana Investor Group. According to the Endorsement signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer: -- the amended complaint will be due August 7, 2017. -- Defendants' response to the amended complaint will be due October 6, 2017. -- If Defendants file a motion to dismiss, Lead Plaintiff's memorandum in opposition will be due November 6, 2017, and -- Defendants' reply memorandum will be due November 20, 2017. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company intends to vigorously defend all claims in the "Min" and "Dezi" class action lawsuits. On February 6, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its current officers, Yanbing Min v. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., et al. , Case No. 1:17-cv- 00880. On February 27, 2017, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its current officers, Dezi v. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., et al. , Case No. 1:17-cv-01446. Both lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non- disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of March 16, 2015 to February 3, 2017. The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., including its subsidiaries was incorporated on December 1, 2010 under the laws of the State of Delaware. The Company is a pet therapeutics company focused on licensing, developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics for dogs and cats. The Company has one operating segment: pet therapeutics. AUTO-OWNERS MUTUAL: Lammert Seeks to Certify Liability Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled GREGORY J. LAMMERT, JAMIE LAMMERT, LARRY REASONS, and SUSAN REASONS, the Plaintiffs, v. AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00819 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a liability class of: "all persons and legal entities, insured under an Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Company (Auto-Owners) Homeowners, Dwelling or property insurance policy form, and who received an "actual cash value" (ACV) payment from Auto-Owners for direct physical loss to a dwelling or other structure located in the State of Tennessee, and in which the cost of labor has been withheld in whole or in part (or as described by Auto-Owners as "depreciated") as reflected within an Xactimate estimate used by Auto-Owners to calculate the corresponding ACV payment. The proposed class excludes any person or entities whose applicable suit limitation clause for ACV claims within their respective Auto-Owners' policy had expired at the time of the filing of the Complaint in the instant action, but includes any person or entity so affected through the date of final disposition of this matter. The proposed class includes any policyholder who received no ACV payment from Auto-Owners solely because the withholding of labor depreciation caused the value of the claim to drop below the applicable deductible". The Plaintiffs further ask the Court that they each be appointed class representatives, and that their counsel be appointed as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k7vB0bpM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd A. Noteboom, Esq. Jeffrey G. Mason, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335 1894 E-mail: todd.noteboom@stinson.com jeffrey.mason@stinson.com - and - Zane A. Gilmer, Esq. STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP 6400 South Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1900 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Telephone: (303) 376 8416 E-mail: zane.gilmer@stinson.com - and - John S. Hicks, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 726 7337 E-mail: jhicks@bakerdonelson.com B COMMUNICATIONS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against B Communications Ltd. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-04937, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired B Communications securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased B Communications securities between November 7, 2013 and June 19, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until August 28, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. B Communications Ltd provides various communications services for business and private customers in Israel. The company offers fixed-line telephony, fixed-line broadband Internet infrastructure access, Internet service provider, cellular telephony, international telephony, international and domestic data transfer and network, information and communication technology, pay television, multi-channel television, television and radio broadcasts, satellite broadcasts, and customer call center services, as well as other communications infrastructures and services. B Communications is a subsidiary of Internet Gold-Golden Lines, itself a subsidiary of Eurocom Communications Ltd. ("Eurocom"), owned by Shaul Elovitch ("Elovitch"). At all relevant times, Bezeq The Israel Telecommunication Corporation Limited ("Bezeq") has existed as a subsidiary of B Communications. On or around June 24, 2015, Bezeq completed a merger with its subsidiary D.B.S., Satellite Services (1998) Ltd. ("DBS"), more commonly known by its trade name "YES", a satellite television operator (the "Bezeq-YES Merger"). Prior to the merger, Bezeq held a 49.8% stake in YES, while Eurocom held a 50.2% stake in the YES. Pursuant to the merger, Bezeq paid Eurocom NIS 680 million to acquire its holdings in YES. Through his ownership of Eurocom, at all relevant times Elovitch has exercised control over Eurocom, B Communications, and Bezeq, and has served at all relevant times as the Chairman of the Board of Directors at each of the three companies. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Elovitch had engaged in illegal conduct in connection with the Bezeq-YES Merger; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject B Communications and/or Bezeq to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, B Communications' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 20, 2017, The Times of Israel reported that the Israel Securities Authority ("ISA") had raided the offices of Bezeq and detained Elovitch. The ISA advised Bezeq that it was investigating "suspicions of violations of the securities law and the penal code relating to transactions connected to" Elovitch. The Israeli publication Globes reported that the ISA is investigating the Bezeq-Yes Merger, as well as payments the unit made to Eurocom under pressure from Elovitch. Following this news, B Communications' share price fell $1.00, or 4.65%, to close at $20.50 on June 20, 2017. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] BAY WATCH: Accused by Johnson of Violating Wage and Hour Laws ------------------------------------------------------------- CATHERINE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAY WATCH, INC. d/b/a CLUB ALEX'S ) and GEORGE F. ALEXOPOULOS, Case No. 17-0799 (Mass. Super. Ct., Norfolk Cty., June 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendants violate the Commonwealth's wage and hour laws and caused the Plaintiff and putative class members substantial harm. The purported class action is brought by Ms. Johnson individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees against her former employer, Bay Watch and its president and treasurer George F. Alexopoulos, for violation of state wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff and putative class members are exotic dancers for Club Alex's, who are allegedly misclassified as independent contractors. Bay Watch, Inc., is a domestic corporation with a principal place of business in Stoughton, Massachusetts. George F. Alexopoulos is President and Treasurer of Bay Watch. The Defendants own or operate Club Alex's, a nightclub providing adult entertainment featuring exotic dancers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tallulah Q. Knopp, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: tqk@mass-legal.com rm@mass-legal.com nfo@mass-legal.com BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces Plains All American Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that BBVA Securities Inc. continues to defend against the case, In re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Securities Litigation. In January 2016, BBVA Securities Inc. was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, In re Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. Securities Litigation, wherein the plaintiffs challenge statements made in registration materials and prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with eight securities offerings of stock and notes issued by Plains GP Holdings and Plains All American Pipeline and underwritten by BSI, among others. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA COMPASS: Still Faces St. Lucie County Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that BBVA Securities Inc. continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust. In October 2016, BSI was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwestern Energy Company, et al., wherein the plaintiffs allege that Southwestern Energy Company, its officers and directors, and the underwriting defendants (including BSI) made inaccurate and misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus related to a securities offering. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BBVA COMPASS: "Hossfeld" Litigation Underway -------------------------------------------- BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that BBVA Compass continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by Robert Hossfeld. In December 2016, BBVA Compass was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Robert Hossfeld, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BBVA Compass Bancshares, Inc. and MSR Group, LLC, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the context of customer satisfaction survey calls to the cell phones of individuals who have not given, or who have withdrawn, consent to receive calls on their cell phones. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary relief. The Company believes there are substantial defenses to these claims and intends to defend them vigorously. BLACKROCK INC: Bid to Dismiss Investor Suit Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------- BlackRock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the court has granted in part and in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing plaintiffs' amended class action complaint. On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its advisory affiliates, and the directors and certain officers of the iShares funds were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in California state court. The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares funds (the "Funds"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws, purportedly by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by the Funds the risks to Fund shareholders in the event of a "flash crash." Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. The Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on January 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing that complaint. On April 27, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part. The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. BlackRock, Inc. is a publicly traded investment management firm providing a broad range of investment and risk management services to institutional and retail clients worldwide. BLACKROCK INC: Defending Against Former Employee Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- BlackRock, Inc. is defending against a purported class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a former employee, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a former employee on behalf of all BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan (the "Plan") participants and beneficiaries in the Plan from April 5, 2011, to the present. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things, offering investment options that were overly expensive, underperformed peer funds, focused disproportionately on active versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated with investment options managed by BlackRock. While the complaint does not contain any specific amount in alleged damages, it claims that the purported underperformance and hidden fees cost Plan participants more than $60 million. The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. BlackRock, Inc. is a publicly traded investment management firm providing a broad range of investment and risk management services to institutional and retail clients worldwide. BLITT AND GAINES: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CHARLES LIVERMORE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BLITT AND GAINES, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00940 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed class, appointing himself as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sAOYPMRL The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI: Savoie Confident on Sewage Case Outcome ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Runkle, writing for The Oakland Press, reports that as a class-action lawsuit against Bloomfield Township alleging inflated water and sewer charges works its way through Oakland County Circuit Court, township Supervisor Leo Savoie is confident that the municipality will be cleared. Mr. Savoie says he's "100 percent" sure the lawsuit, which was filed last year, will be dismissed. "I'm very confident because we didn't do anything wrong," he said. Both sides are wrapping up the discovery phase, in which they obtain evidence from each other. Royal Oak law firm Kickham Hanley represents the plaintiffs in their fight with the township. If the plaintiffs prevail, the township will owe a refund to about 20,000 water and sewer customers. Kickham Hanley also has several cases pending against other area cities and townships, including Waterford, which offered to settle for $1.4 million in May. The township does not admit to any wrongdoing. The average payout per water and sewer customer won't be known until all the claims are in, said Greg Hanley of Kickham Hanley. Kickham Hanley is also handling lawsuits involving water and sewer charges against the following communities: -- Oak Park -- Westland -- Detroit -- Dearborn -- Brighton Township. The law firm has settled cases with these municipalities: -- Oakland Township -- Ferndale -- Royal Oak -- Birmingham.[GN] CENTURYLINK: Billing Fraud Class Action Pile-On Opportunistic ------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Gately, writing for Channel Partners, reports that class-action lawsuits are piling up against CenturyLink, with cases now filed in California, Colorado, Oregon, New York and Washington alleging massive billing fraud. The latest class-action suit was filed on June 26 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of Anthony Chavez, a former CenturyLink customer, alleging "fraudulent and unlawful addition of false charges to its customers' accounts." The complaint alleges CenturyLink has engaged in a "widespread and continuous practice of designating customers as having additional accounts that they had not requested or approved, charging customers more than the quoted price for contracts, charging termination fees for canceling contracts, and continuing to bill customers after they closed their accounts. As a result of these bogus charges, (CenturyLink) was able to add millions of dollars in charges to their customers' bills for services they did not request." This suit follows a lawsuit filed in Arizona by former employee Heidi Heiser, who said she was fired from her job as a CenturyLink customer service and sales agent days after notifying CEO Glen Post of the alleged billing scheme. Soon after, a class-action lawsuit seeking as much as $12 billion was filed in California by Geragos & Geragos, followed by class- action suits filed in Washington and Oregon. In addition, the Pomerantz Firm in New York has filed suit in New York on behalf of CenturyLink investors. Geragos & Geragos is working with law firms in each of the states where class-action suits have been filed involving CenturyLink customers. Ben Meiselas, co-lead counsel in the suits, tells Channel Partners they intend to file class actions in every state where there are CenturyLink customers. "This is an unprecedented revolt against their unlawful practices and consumers have banded together . . . coast to coast," he said. "The response by CenturyLink has been abysmal and a case study in how not to react to appropriate consumer outrage toward their corporate conduct. Their response has been blame the consumer, blame the customer." Mark Molzen, CenturyLink spokesman, said "unfortunately, these types of opportunistic follow-on claims are not unexpected." "The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful termination suit into a putative class-action lawsuit does not change our original position," he said. "Our employees know that if they have any concerns about ethics or compliance issues, we have an Integrity Line in place, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our former employee did not make a report to the Integrity Line and our leadership team was not aware of the alleged matter until the lawsuit was filed. The allegations made by our former employee are completely inconsistent with our company policies, culture and unifying principles, which include honesty and integrity. We take these allegations seriously and are diligently investigating this matter." [GN] CENTURYLINK: Consumers Protest Amid Billing Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Iboshi, writing for KGW, reports that dozens of frustrated consumers protested outside of a CenturyLink office in Northeast Portland on June 28 in response to the company's billing and sales practices. "They agree to a certain price and then when they bill you, it is like three times the price," said Portland resident Hap Wong. "Nothing was as it was represented to me," said Pauline Williams, another protester from Portland. The Oregon Consumer League organized the mid-day rally after receiving numerous complaints. "The door-to-door salespeople are promising deals," said Shamus Lynsky of Oregon Consumer League. "When they get their first bill, customers are discovering they are getting charged about twice as much as they were promised." A class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Oregon, accusing CenturyLink of defrauding customers. "Consumers should not be nickel and dimed and defrauded by billion-dollar corporations who come into communities and rip off consumers," said attorney Ben Meiselas of Geragos & Geragos. CenturyLink has quickly been expanding service in the Portland area, offering high-speed internet and cable TV. But with that explosive growth has come a spike in consumer complaints. A KGW investigation in February found dozens of customers upset about billing problems, poor customer service and aggressive sales tactics. The Oregon Department of Justice reported a jump in consumer complaints about CenturyLink from 95 in 2013 to 385 last year. In response to the protest, Mark Molzen of CenturyLink corporate communications provided the following response: "CenturyLink respects people's rights to peaceably assemble. As a customer-focused company, if a customer requests an account review, we are more than happy to do so. Additionally, if a problem is identified during a review, we will quickly work to resolve the matter. The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful termination lawsuit into a putative class action lawsuit and to organize demonstrations does not change our original position. We are taking these allegations seriously and are diligently conducting an investigation." [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Water Dept. Faces Racial Discrimination Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Hal Dardick and Ray Long, writing for Chicago Tribune, report that African-American employees of the Chicago water department routinely were denied promotions, subjected to racial slurs and sexually harassed because of their race, according to a lawsuit filed on June 29 that could further roil a department that's already left Mayor Rahm Emanuel's City Hall grappling with yet another racially charged controversy. The lawsuit, filed in federal district court, comes weeks after a leadership shakeup at the Department of Water Management as a months-long watchdog probe ferreted out racist and sexist emails shared among department supervisors. The suit was filed on behalf of seven current and former employees of the department. It seeks class-action status, which could expand its scope if granted. The employees alleged that because of their race, they were denied promotions and transfers, given less- desirable work assignments, harassed and wrongly fired in some cases. Derrick Edmond, a 57-year-old operating engineer who has worked in the department since 1985, alleged in the suit that he was not only subjected to the N-word and "you people" reference, but also to "undue disciplinary hearings in retaliation for speaking out" and being "violently attacked and intimidated ... because of his race." Another plaintiff, Adebola Fagbemi, 55, in 2010 was "illegally terminated in retaliation" after 22 years at the department, the suit states. While at the department, he was denied promotion "because of his race," despite holding a doctorate in environmental engineering, and "was subjected to racially insensitive email, cartoons and images," the filing adds. Department officials "have done nothing to remedy the hostile work environment," the lawsuit contends. It asks for a judge to rule that department officials violated federal fair labor laws, bar further discriminatory contact, and provide lost wages and back pay to the allegedly harmed employees. City Water Department emails reveal racial insensitivity, sexism In response to the lawsuit, Law Department spokesman Bill McCaffrey said the city "has no tolerance for discrimination of employees in any form, and while we cannot comment on this lawsuit specifically, the city does not take any allegations of this nature lightly." The new civil action echoes the issues raised by 62-year-old African-American Michael Outley in a 4-year-old federal discrimination lawsuit alleging he repeatedly was denied promotions in the water department because of his race. "Yes, I've heard the N-word repeatedly," Outley, an assistant chief operating engineer, told the Tribune. He said "racism is systemic in all parts" of the water department. Outley's lawsuit also named five other African-American assistant chief engineers who passed tests but did not get promotions. Calvita Frederick, Outley's attorney, referred to the recent shake-up and said the "unearthing of the culture of racism" gives credibility to his lawsuit. A day before the more recent suit was filed, Emanuel and the City Council were singing the praises of newly appointed water department Commissioner Randy Conner, an African-American man from the South Side who was promoted amid the shake-up and confirmed by aldermen on June 28. Conner was appointed by Emanuel to replace Barrett Murphy, a friend of the mayor's who resigned his post as the result of a city inspector general's investigation that turned up the racist and sexist emails. William Bresnahan, who was managing deputy commissioner, and Paul Hansen, who was a district superintendent, also resigned. Chicago water commissioner resigns amid IG probe into racist, sexist emails In addition, Thomas J. Durkin, the general foreman of plumbers, and John "Jack" Lee Jr., another district superintendent, later were placed on administrative leave pending disciplinary decisions as a result of the probe. The Tribune in early June first reported that Hansen sent to Murphy and Bresnahan emails in early 2014 that included anti- Islamic and racially insensitive language. Hansen also sent an email that included sexist language as he made fun of a colleague in response to a lengthy message that colleague sent to Hansen about a frozen water main. Hours after the city released the emails to the Tribune, Conner announced that all managers and supervisors in his department would be provided with additional training on federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations designed to prevent discrimination in the workplace. [GN] CU BANCORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on June 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of holders of CU Bancorp ("CU Bancorp") (NASDAQ:CUNB) common stock in connection with the proposed transaction pursuant to which CU Bancorp will be acquired by PacWest Bancorp ("PacWest"), announced on April 5, 2017 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against CU Bancorp, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and PacWest, is captioned Parshall v. CU Bancorp, Case No. 2:17-cv-04303 (C.D. Cal.). If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl- legal.com, or at http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/. On April 5, 2017, CU Bancorp entered into an agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with PacWest. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, shareholders of CU Bancorp will receive $12.00 per share in cash and 0.5308 of a share of PacWest common stock (the "Proposed Transaction"). Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a registration statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2017. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement, which recommends that CU Bancorp stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with respect to CU Bancorp's financial projections, PacWest's financial projections, the analyses performed by CU Bancorp's financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of CU Bancorp common stock. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 28, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com-- regularly prosecutes securities fraud, shareholder corporate, and shareholder derivative litigation on behalf of shareholders in state and federal courts throughout the United States. [GN] CV SCIENCES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------- CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that no hearing date has been set by the Court at this time with respect to the motions to dismiss the class action lawsuit by Tanya Sallustro. On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York (the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791. The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014 and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were restated to $1,082,375 -- reduction of $192,625) and restated goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero). Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the litigation. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve Schuck as lead plaintiff. Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a "consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. After requesting several extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016. The Company's reply brief was filed on April 25, 2016. Defendant Stuart Titus was served with the Summons & Complaint in the case and he has recently completed briefing his motion to dismiss, through separate counsel. No hearing date has been set by the Court at this time with respect to the motions to dismiss. Management intends to vigorously defend the allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at this time The Company operates two distinct business segments: a consumer product segment in manufacturing, marketing and selling plant- based Cannabidiol ("CBD") products to a range of market sectors; and, a specialty pharmaceutical segment focused on developing and commercializing novel therapeutics utilizing synthetic CBD. The specialty pharmaceutical segment began development activities during the second quarter of 2016. CYAN INC: SCOTUS to Hear Challenge to State Court Jurisdiction -------------------------------------------------------------- JD Supra reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) abolishes concurrent state court jurisdiction over class action lawsuits that allege only claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933 Act). The case is Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439. In 1995, prompted by concerns about "abusive and meritless" securities lawsuits, Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the PSLRA). The PSLRA imposed various reforms--including heightened pleading standards, mandatory disclosures by plaintiffs and an automatic stay of discovery pending resolution of any motions to dismiss--on most federal securities lawsuits. In response, many plaintiffs began filing securities claims (including 1933 Act claims) in state courts, where they contended that the PSLRA's procedural reforms did not apply. While ordinarily a federal claim can be removed to federal court, the 1933 Act is unusual in that it bars removal of claims filed in state court. In 1998, Congress responded to plaintiffs' efforts to evade the PSLRA's reforms by enacting SLUSA, which, as the House Report put it, sought to make "[f]ederal court the exclusive venue for most securities class action lawsuits. . . " Among other things, SLUSA amended the 1933 Act's removal bar to permit removal of certain securities class actions to federal court, and amended the 1933 Act's jurisdictional provision to eliminate concurrent state court jurisdiction as to certain securities class actions. The question before the Supreme Court in Cyan is whether SLUSA's amendment to the 1933 Act's jurisdictional provision, 15 U.S.C. SEC 77v(a) (originally enacted as SEC 22(a) of the 1933 Act), eliminated state court jurisdiction as to class actions that allege only claims under the 1933 Act. For more than 70 years prior to SLUSA's enactment, the 1933 Act had conferred concurrent jurisdiction on both the state and federal courts over cases alleging violation of the 1933 Act. The Cyan defendants argue that the amendment eliminated state court jurisdiction over 1933 Act class actions, and that this reading of the amendment is consistent with SLUSA's purpose of preventing evasion of the PSLRA's reforms and centralizing securities class action litigation in the federal courts. The Cyan plaintiffs argue that state courts have retained jurisdiction as to 1933 Act class actions because the amendment eliminates state court jurisdiction only as to certain state law class actions--namely (according to plaintiffs) only those class actions in which only claims under state law are asserted. This issue arises in two contexts. First, plaintiffs whose 1933 Act class actions are removed to federal court often seek to have their cases sent back (remanded) to state court, arguing that removal was improper because the state court has jurisdiction despite SLUSA, and that the 1933 Act therefore bars removal. As described below, the dozens of federal district court decisions in this context are divided as to whether there is state court jurisdiction, and no federal court of appeals has addressed the issue. (This is because orders granting remand are generally not reviewable and orders denying remand are non-final, appealable only after final judgment). Second, as in Cyan, defendants in state court class actions alleging 1933 Act claims sometimes challenge the state court's subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that state courts lack jurisdiction to hear 1933 Act class actions after SLUSA. Those decisions (Cyan is one of them) can be appealed through the state system. There are just a handful of state court decisions addressing this issue. The need for Supreme Court guidance on this issue has taken on increased urgency in recent years as the number of 1933 Act class actions brought in state court has significantly increased. The federal district courts across the country have issued conflicting decisions on whether state courts have jurisdiction to hear class actions asserting claims solely under the 1933 Act in light of SLUSA's jurisdictional amendment. The inconsistency is particularly noticeable in the two states where most securities class action litigation is conducted: California and New York. Federal district courts in California have generally held that such cases can be maintained in state court and cannot be removed, while federal judges in New York have largely ruled that SLUSA gives federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over such actions. (Recent decisions from federal judges in Delaware and Tennessee have followed the approach taken by these New York cases.) As a result of the California rulings, there has been a sharp uptick in 1933 Act class actions filed in California state court. According to Cornerstone Research, an average of three 1933 Act class action lawsuits were filed in the California state courts each year from 2010 through 2014. In 2015, however, 15 such cases were filed. And in 2016, 18 such cases were filed. Importantly, these state court cases are often in addition to federal actions asserting the same claims against the same defendants, leading to identical cases proceeding simultaneously in federal and state court, resulting in inefficiency and potentially inconsistent rulings. Moreover, these state court 1933 Act class actions largely proceed unconstrained by the procedural reforms of the PSLRA, which can have a real effect on the resolution of these cases. The Supreme Court's decision in the Cyan case could have a significant impact on the future of securities class action litigation, whichever way it rules on the issue presented. A ruling for the defendants would result in the vast majority of new 1933 Act class actions being filed in federal court, where they could be consolidated and managed under the PSLRA's procedural reforms. A ruling for the plaintiffs would likely speed the flow of 1933 Act class actions to state courts, where they would proceed outside of the procedural reforms of the PSLRA. In addition, the Acting Solicitor General of the United States has urged the Court to take an intermediate position--to use this case as a vehicle to opine on the scope of removal available under SLUSA, and to hold that 1933 Act cases like the Cyan litigation are now removable to federal court even if they are not subject to dismissal. The Court will receive briefing over the summer, hear argument in the fall, and likely render a decision in the Cyan case in early 2018. An amicus brief supporting the defendants' side would be due August 18, 2017, on the current schedule, but that time may be extended. [GN] DR. PEPPER: Faruqi Asks to be Appointed Interim Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------ John Revak, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that plaintiffs in a lawsuit against soft drink conglomerate Dr. Pepper Snapple Group have moved to appoint interim lead counsel for their class action lawsuit. The firm, Faruqi and Faruqi, is a prominent civil litigation and consumer class action law firm with offices in New York, California, Pennsylvania and Delaware. The motion, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division on June 20, provided numerous reasons for the firm's appointment and the appointment of lead interim counsel in general. A need for a unified class voice and efficiency were two of the main reasons cited. "(T)his cross motion is brought on the grounds that the appointment of lead interim class counsel will create one unified voice for plaintiffs and all putative class members, and will promote efficiency and conserve judicial resources," the document said. A desire to get the claim class certified and to protect divergent parties and interests were also discussed. "This cross motion is based on the reasoning that appointment of lead interim class counsel is necessary to protect the interests of the proposed classes and progress efficiently toward class certification and trial." Regarding Faruqi and Faruqi, the firm's handling of the claims involved up until the time the motion was filed was discussed heavily, with plaintiffs claiming that this better prepared them to conduct discovery. "The Faruqii Firm's prior thorough investigation into the claims will enable them to more than adequately handle this discovery and related motion practice," the motion said. The firm's extensive experience litigating consumer actions and class actions was also discussed. "The firm has over 20 years of experience litigating complex and class action cases involving antitrust, consumer, financial, corporate governance, and securities matters, and has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous high-profile class actions, which ultimately provided significant recoveries for investors, consumers and employees." The class action aims to combine two lawsuits related to the alleged quantity, or lack thereof, of ginger in the soft drink Canada Dry. The plaintiffs claim they were led to believe that the drink contained real ginger from the label "made with real ginger" that appeared on product packaging. However, they allege the drink contains no ginger and are now suing the parent company, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, for "common law fraud, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment." Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, which has motioned to dismiss the claim, stated in the suit that there was no fraud or false advertising as "a product made 'from' real ginger means that real ginger was involved at 'the starting point' of the process," Legal Newsline has previously reported. [GN] DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Class Action Over "Steak" Sandwich ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Bartiromo, writing for Fox News, reports that what exactly is "steak"? Is it a specific cut of beef? A product made from such cuts? Or is it more a measure of quality? Well, whatever it is, a New York resident claims there's none of it inside the Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich at Dunkin' Donuts. Chefun Chen, of Queens, has filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Dunkin Brands, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the company's Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich doesn't contain any actual steak. Instead, Ms. Chen argues that the "Steak" in Dunkin's sandwich refers to "an inferior product of minced meat which contains 'fillers and binders,'" and therefore is misleading to consumers, according to court documents. In advertising their product as steak, Ms. Chen alleges that Dunkin' implies the sandwich is "a superior product to its Classic sandwiches and wraps." Ms. Chen also feels that by marketing the item in this fashion, the chain has been able to charge a premium for the sandwich. In the lawsuit, Ms. Chen claims to have paid $3.99 for the sandwich at a Queens location on June 21, which is a full 50 cents more than the Egg and Cheese Bagel with bacon, ham or sausage. On June 24, Ms. Chen also purchased an Angus Egg Snack N' Go Wrap for $1.99, or 60 cents more than the classic version with ham, bacon or sausage. As evidence of Dunkin' Donuts' alleged misrepresentation, Ms. Chen's lawsuit points to the company's past ad campaigns, including a commercial called "Fellow-Steak-Lover Handshake," in which a voiceover claims "it's a big day for steak fans" and later encourages viewers to "celebrate with steak." Another ad cited in the lawsuit was Dunkin's "Angus Steak & Egg Sandwich TV Spot," in which the phrase "steak and eggs" is repeated several times: It's worth noting that at the end of the latter commercial, a voiceover can be heard explaining that "Dunkin's Steak and Egg Sandwich is oven-toasted and made with angus beef." The item's product page also describes the sandwich as containing "the irresistible flavors of Angus Steak, egg and American cheese, served on an oven-toasted bagel." "[The] products' ingredients deviate from the label and product description," the suit states. Per Dunkin' Donuts' website, the ingredients of the sandwich's "Beef Steak Patty" contain angus beef; a marinade made with beef flavor; yeast extract; hydrolized vegetable proteins; and over a dozen other ingredients. Ms. Chen's lawsuit, however, may call into question the semantics of the term "steak." As Food and Wine points out, a hamburger without its bun is also referred to as "Hamburg steak." And another popular dish -- Salisbury steak -- is made from ground meat that has been formed into patties and topped with gravy or meat sauce. But Ms. Chen likely isn't swayed by such arguments, seeing as Ms. Chen included the USDA's definition of "steak" in her suit. "By the USDA definition, the 'Steak' in the Dunkin' Donut product (Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich & Angus Steak and Egg Wrap) suggests that the 'product consists of a boneless slice or strip of poultry meat of the kind indicated.'" Ms. Chen is seeking unspecified monetary, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, as well as "disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Defendant's unlawful conduct," among other restitution and attorney fees. Dunkin' Donuts initially debuted their Angus Steak and Egg sandwich in March 2012, Brand Eating reported. [GN] DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Reset to Sept. 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Lourdes Mora, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv- 06714 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order withdrawing Plaintiff's motion to amend/correct and motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 10, 2017, the status hearing set for August 1 is stricken and re-set to September 11, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. If appropriate settlement documents are submitted on or before that date, no personal appearance is required. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cfJCcxMq DYNCORP AEROSPACE: Balcazar Appeals Ruling in "Quinteros" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Edgar Balcazar, John Salas Sanchez, Luciano Quevedo Jimenez, Rosa Esmilda Altamirano, Elvia Alvarez and Victor Mestanza Llanos filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Nestor Ermogenes Quinteros, et al. v. Dyncorp Aerospace Operations, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01042-RWR, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court last year ruled in favor of 19 Ecuadoreans, who claim that a U.S. company sprayed a toxic herbicide on them as part of a campaign to combat Colombian drug cartels. The 19 Ecuadorean "test" plaintiffs in the case say that DynCorp, which contracted with the U.S. State Department to carry out "Plan Colombia," sprayed them with glyphosate as part of an effort to eradicate cocaine and heroin poppy drug farms in Colombia. The appellate case is captioned as Nestor Ermogenes Quinteros, et al. v. Dyncorp Aerospace Operations, et al., Case No. 17-7093, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are Edgar Balcazar, John Salas Sanchez, Luciano Quevedo Jimenez, Rosa Esmilda Altamirano, Elvia Alvarez and Victor Mestanza Llanos. The Plaintiffs-Appellees are Nestor Ermogenes Arroyo Quinteros, La Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child; Dociteo Sandobal Quinteros, La Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child; Digna Aney Corozo Cortez, La Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child; Dolis Nimia Quintero Cortez, La Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child; Celina Eugenia Mideros Quintero, La Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child; Mayra Araceli Mancilla Baguis, La Comunidad de Mataje, Providence of Esmeraldas, Ecuador, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child; Maria Leydis Cortez Sevillano; Maria Luisa Cevallos Erazo; Silvia Mariana Cortez Quintero; Jaime Berney Bonilla Simisterra; Maria Paula Guanga; Carmen Llanos; Maria Yaquelin; Mildre Cortez; Daniela Maria Midero Quintero; Debora Ris; Julia Ruiz Midero; Margarita Quintero Cortez; Maria Clemencia Lastra; Maria Leticia Reasco Quintero; Aida Llanos Guanga; Carmen Alicia Quintero Cortez; Miriam Delgado; Lauri Quintero; Rosita Bastida Quintero; Monica Carola Montano Quintero; Vanesa Montano Quintero; Luz Maria Llanos Guanga; Sanchez Mendieta Emilia Asuncion; Province of Sucumbios, Republic of Ecuador; Venancio Aguasanta Arias, 01cv1908, husband, on behalf of himself, as guardian of his four minor children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Rosa Tanguila Andi, 01cv1908, wife, on behalf of herself, as guardian of their four minor children, and on behalf of all others simnilarly situated; Ester Inez Andi, 01cv1908, on behalf of herself, as legal guardian of her minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Santiago Domingo Tanguila Andi, 01cv1908, husband of Quechua nationality, on behalf of himself as legal guardian of his two minor children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Laura Saritama, 01cv1908, wife of Quechua nationality, on behalf of herself, as legal guardian of her two minor children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Deicy Lalangui, 01cv1908, wife, on behalf of herself as legal guardian of her four minor children, and on behalf of others similarly situated; Jose Castillo, 01cv1908, husband, on behalf of himself as legal guardian of his three minor children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Vidal Camacho, 01cv1908, husband on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of her four minor children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Bethy San Martin, 01cv1908, wife, on behalf of herself, as legal guardian of her three children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Jofre Jijon Alvarado, 01cv1908, husband, on behalf of himself, as legal guardian of his minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated; and Enma Pena, 01cv1908, wife, on behalf of herself, as legal guardian of her minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Appellants and the Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by: Terrence Collingsworth, Esq. INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES 621 Maryland Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 543-5811 Facsimile: (202) 594-4001 E-mail: tc@iradvocates.org Defendants-Appellees Dyncorp Aerospace Operations, LLC, a Delaware corporation; Dyncorp Techserv LLC, a Delaware corporation; Dyncorp International, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DynCorp, a Delaware corporation, are represented by: Joe G. Hollingsworth, Esq. HOLLINGSWORTH, LLP 1351 I St., SW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 898-5878 E-mail: jhollingsworth@hollingsworthllp.com ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: 3rd Amended Suit filed in "Machado" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- A Third Amended Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws against Tivanka Ellawala, Hari Ravichandran, Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., was filed by Christopher Machado, Michael Rubin on June 30 in the case, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-11775 (D. Mass.), Judge George A Otoole, Jr. oversees the case. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the Company's common stock, filed on May 4, 2015, a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and its chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO. In a second amended complaint, filed on March 18, 2016, the plaintiff alleged claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between February 25, 2014 and February 29, 2016. Those claims challenged as false or misleading certain of the Company's disclosures about its total number of subscribers, average revenue per subscriber, the number of customers paying over $500 per year for the Company's products and services, the average number of products sold per subscriber, and customer churn. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory damages and his costs and expenses of litigation. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 16, 2016, which remains pending. In August 2016, the parties in the Machado action and another potential claimant, who asserts that he purchased common stock in the Company's initial public offering, agreed to toll, as of July 1, 2016, the statutes of limitation and repose for all claims under the Securities Act of 1933 that the plaintiff and claimant might bring, individually or in a representative capacity, arising from alleged actions or omissions between September 9, 2013 and February 29, 2016. The Company and the individual defendants intend to deny any liability or wrongdoing and to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of the current proceeding or any additional claims if they are brought. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International Group, Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG, collectively form the "Company." The Company is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium- sized businesses succeed online. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Suit Remains in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the case, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al., remains in its early stages. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. This litigation remains in its early stages. The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company cannot, however, make any assurances as to the outcome of this proceeding. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International Group, Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG, collectively form the "Company." The Company is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium- sized businesses succeed online. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Chawdry and Myers Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the consolidated lawsuits by Irfan Chawdry and David V. Myers remain pending. On December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, and on December 21, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit relating to the acquisition captioned David V. Myers, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828 (together, the Complaints) were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, naming Constant Contact, each of Constant Contact's directors, Endurance and Paintbrush Acquisition Corporation as defendants. The Complaints generally alleged, among other things, that in connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints sought, among other things, to rescind the acquisition, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the action. The Complaints were consolidated on January 12, 2016. On December 5, 2016, plaintiff Myers filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), naming as defendants the former Constant Contact directors and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley"), Constant Contact's financial advisor for the acquisition. The Amended Complaint generally alleges breach of fiduciary duty by the former directors, and aiding and abetting the alleged breach by Morgan Stanley. The Constant Contact defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 15, 2016 and an opening brief in support of the motion to dismiss on March 17, 2017. The defendants believe the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. ("Holdings") is a Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International Group, Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG, collectively form the "Company." The Company is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium- sized businesses succeed online. EQUIDATA INC: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN HENSLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIDATA, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02606-JFW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 14, 2017, at 1:30 p.m., before the United States District Court, Central District of California for an order to certify a class consisting of: "all persons within the United States who received any telephone calls from Defendant or Defendant's agent/s and/or employee/s to said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint where said person had not previously consented to receive such calls". The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. The case alleges that Defendant violates violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DRH2OnVD The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 940 1700 Facsimile: (323) 238 8095 E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com Nick@mblawapc.com EXAMWORKS GROUP: Hearing on $86.5M Settlement Set for Sept. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH POLICE AND FIRE PENSION FUND, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, C.A. No. 12481-VCL Plaintiff, v. EXAMWORKS GROUP, INC., PETER B. BACH, PETER M. GRAHAM, RICHARD E. PERLMAN, J. THOMAS PRESBY, JAMES K. PRICE, WILLIAM A. SHUTZER, DAVID B. ZENOFF, WESLEY J. CAMPBELL, J. MIGUEL FERNANDEZ DE CASTRO, LEONARD GREEN & PARTNERS, L.P., GOLD PARENT, L.P., GOLD MERGER CO., INC., PAUL HASTINGS LLP, EVERCORE GROUP, L.L.C. and GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., Defendants. SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: All former record holders and beneficial owners of common stock of ExamWorks Group, Inc. ("ExamWorks") who owned such stock at any time during the period from April 26, 2016 through and including July 27, 2016, together with their legal representatives, heirs, successors in interest, transferees or assignees. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), that the above-captioned action (the "Action") has been previously certified as a non-opt- out class action on behalf of a Class as defined in an Order of the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") dated February 17, 2017 and proposed to be confirmed as described in the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"). The Action challenges the acquisition of ExamWorks by Leonard Green & Partners, L.P., Gold Parent, L.P. and Gold Merger, Co., Inc. (collectively, the "Leonard Green Defendants") for $35.05 per share (the "Merger" and "Merger Consideration"), which was announced on April 27, 2016 and consummated on July 27, 2016 (the "Closing"). Plaintiff asserted claims alleging that each member of the ExamWorks Board of Directors and certain ExamWorks executive officers breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class in connection with the Merger. Plaintiff also asserted claims against the Leonard Green Defendants, Evercore Group, L.L.C., Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Paul Hastings LLP for allegedly aiding and abetting the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement entered into by and among Plaintiff and Defendants on May 5, 2017 (the "Stipulation"). The proposed settlement provides for (i) a partial settlement for a cash payment of $40,000,000.00 by or on behalf of ExamWorks, the ExamWorks Board of Directors, and the Leonard Green Defendants, and (ii) a partial settlement for a cash payment of $46,500,000.00 by or on behalf of Paul Hastings LLP (each a "Partial Settlement" and together, the "Settlement") for a total cash payment of U.S. $86,500,000.00 for the benefit of the Class (the "Settlement Amount"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action as well as all claims that ExamWorks or its Board of Directors had or purportedly had against Paul Hastings LLP. Any award by the Court to Plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses (the "Fee and Expense Award") will be deducted from the Settlement Amount. The costs of administering the Settlement will likewise be deducted from the Settlement Amount (the "Net Settlement Amount"). The Settlement Amount, net of the Fee and Expense Award and Administrative Costs (as defined in the Stipulation and the Notice), will be distributed to members of the Class that owned ExamWorks common stock when the Merger closed on July 27, 2016 and received or were entitled to receive the Merger Consideration as prescribed in the Plan of Allocation that is further described in the Notice. A settlement hearing will be held on September 12, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, to determine, among other things, whether (i) the Court should finally confirm certification of the Action as a non- opt-out class action on behalf of the Class and confirm appointment of Plaintiff as Class Representative and Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel; (ii) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Class; (iii) the requirements of the rules of the Court and due process have been satisfied in connection with notice of the proposed Settlement; (iv) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice and the Released Claims specified and defined in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be released; (v) the proposed plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Amount should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (vi) Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at: ExamWorks Settlement Administration c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173037 Milwaukee, WI 53217 877-257-1113 info@ExamworksSecuritiesLitigation.com Any objections to the class determination, proposed Settlement, either Partial Settlement, Judgment to be entered in the Action, and/or Plaintiff's counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Register in Chancery and delivered to Plaintiff's counsel and a representative of Defendants' counsel such that they are received no later than August 29, 2017, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the following Plaintiff's counsel: Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr. PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A. 1310 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 DATED: JULY 14, 2017 BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE * * * Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that on September 19, 2016, Evercore Group L.L.C. ("EGL"), a registered broker-dealer in the U.S., was named as a defendant in the First Amended and Supplemented Verified Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint"), filed in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware in a case entitled City of Daytona Beach Police and Fire Pension Fund v. ExamWorks Group, Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 12481-VCL). The Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all ExamWorks common stockholders and purports to assert a claim against EGL for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties by ExamWorks officers and directors in connection with a merger transaction between ExamWorks and affiliates of Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. that was agreed to on April 26, 2016 and consummated on July 27, 2016. The Complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case prior to trial which would result in no liability to EGL. The settlement is subject to appropriate documentation and court approval. Evercore Partners Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") is an investment banking and investment management firm, incorporated in Delaware on July 21, 2005 and headquartered in New York, New York. The Company is a holding company which owns a controlling interest in Evercore LP, a Delaware limited partnership ("Evercore LP"). Subsequent to the Company's initial public offering, the Company became the sole general partner of Evercore LP. The Company operates from its offices and through its affiliates in North America, Europe, South America and Asia. EXAR CORPORATION: Vladimir Trust Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Susan Illston on June 12 entered a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Concerning Plaintiff's Voluntary Dismissal and Plaintiffs' Counsel's Anticipated Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses in the case, THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY REV. TRUST, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. EXAR CORPORATION, GARY MEYERS, RYAN A. BENTON, BEHROOZ ABDI, IZAK BENCUYA, PIERRE G. GUILBAULT, BRIAN HILTON, JEFFREY JACOBOWITZ, MAXLINEAR, INC., and EAGLE ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-2150-SI (N.D. Cal.). The parties agree that: 1. Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the Action with prejudice as to Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) and without prejudice as to other members of the putative class. 2. This Court retains jurisdiction over the parties in the Action solely for purposes of further proceedings related to the adjudication of Plaintiff's potential Fee Application. 3. If Plaintiff makes a Fee Application, the Fee Application will be made with the cooperation of, and also on behalf of, the plaintiff in the Related Action and his counsel. 4. If the parties are unable to resolve Plaintiff's counsel's claim for attorneys' fees and expenses, Plaintiff shall file any petition and supporting papers seeking such relief by no later than June 28, 2017, with the hearing to be noticed in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-2. No class has been certified in the Action. MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the claims brought by Richard E. Marshall and The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust with prejudice. The Company said, "Stockholder class action lawsuits has been filed against us, Exar, Exar's board of directors, and our merger subsidiary, Eagle Acquisition Corporation, challenging the acquisition, and an unfavorable judgment or ruling in these lawsuits could prevent or delay the consummation of the acquisition, result in substantial costs, or have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results." On April 18, 2017, The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust, which alleges that it owns 110 shares of common stock in Exar, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Exar, its board of directors, MaxLinear, and Eagle Acquisition Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of MaxLinear), captioned The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. Exar Corp. et al., No. 5:17-CV-2150-SI (N.D. Cal.). On April 25, 2017, Richard E. Marshall, who alleges that he owns 25 shares of common stock in Exar, filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Exar and its board of directors, captioned Marshall v. Exar Corp. et al., No. 3:17-CV-02334 (N.D. Cal.). MaxLinear and Eagle Acquisition Corp. are not named as defendants in the Marshall action. The complaints generally allege that the proposed merger with Exar offers inadequate consideration to Exar's shareholders and that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Exar in connection with the merger omits material information. The complaints purport to bring class claims for violation of sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14d-9. The complaints seek certification of a class; an injunction barring the merger or, if defendants enter into the merger, an order rescinding it or awarding rescissory damages; declaratory relief; and plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the future. On or about May 3, 2017, the parties to the above-referenced lawsuits reached an agreement in principle whereby plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss the claims brought by Mr. Marshall and The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust with prejudice (but without prejudice as to other members of the putative class), defendants will make certain supplemental disclosures, and the plaintiffs will seek a mootness fee from the Court. On May 3, 2017, Exar made the supplemental disclosures contemplated by this agreement in principle. Should the contemplated resolution of these lawsuits not become final, the defendants intend to vigorously defend against this and any subsequently filed similar actions. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of the Exar shareholder litigation. Any adverse determination in the Exar shareholder litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and operating results. MaxLinear is a provider of radio frequency, or RF, and mixed- signal integrated circuits for cable and satellite broadband communications and the connected home, and wired and wireless infrastructure markets. FLUOR CORP: BakerHostetler Comments on Dismissal of Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Mersol, Esq. -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that United States lawsuits involving the law of Afghanistan are uncommon, but it is common for employees to bring suit based on work done abroad generally, and not just in that one country. A recent case, however, illustrates that while the United States may be a more convenient forum, even a class action may founder if the law of the host country provides for no relief. In Allen v. Fluor Corp., Civil Action no. 3:16-CV-1219-D (N.D. Tex. June 15, 2017), the plaintiffs were United States citizens who worked for a contractor in Afghanistan that provided noncombat logistical services. Presumably, this is a euphemism for "not military." They contended that they worked overtime hours and were entitled to overtime pay based on Afghanistan's Labor Code, and sought to pursue their claims on a class-wide basis. The defendant moved to dismiss based primarily on the argument that (1) the dispute raised a "political question" that was beyond the court's jurisdiction; and (2) the contractors were not covered by Afghan law because they were considered foreigners without the requisite work permits. The thrust of the first argument was that Afghanistan is a theater of war and courts should not interfere in matters that might increase costs or discourage contractors from accepting engagements. The court rejected this argument for a multitude of reasons, including that the contractor's work was unrelated to policy, political or military decisions. As to Afghan law, the court understandably relied on translations of the Afghanistan Labor Code and related Afghani sources provided by the parties. After reviewing those materials and others, the court concluded that the Labor Code only applied to foreign workers who either had or later obtained Afghani work permits. Since the plaintiffs had not obtained such permits, they had no claim under Afghan law. While the plaintiffs were likely disappointed by the result, at least the court addressed this fatal flaw by way of a motion to dismiss rather than after what almost certainly would have been difficult and expensive discovery. At the end of the day, their claims failed because they had no rights under the laws they relied upon, and no amount of discovery would have changed that fact. The bottom line: Class actions arising in foreign countries may turn on difficult and fine points of the subject country's laws. [GN] GC SERVICES: Court Terminates Class Cert. Bid in "Kausar" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled RUKHSANA KAUSAR, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-06027-ES-JAD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order: 1. terminating Plaintiff's motion for class certification for administrative purposes only pending resolution of GC's motion to dismiss; 2. directing Plaintiff not re-file her Motion for Class Certification unless otherwise instructed by the Court; 3. directing Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry number 35. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tE0ksdoq GREE ELECTRIC: Appeals Ruling in Homesite Suit to Ninth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai, Gree USA, Inc., and Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales Ltd. filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Homesite Insurance Company, et al. v. Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-06769-ODW-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Homesite Insurance Company, et al. v. Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai, et al., Case No. 17-55887, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, four insurance companies filed a class action in Los Angeles, against the Chinese appliance-maker, claiming it sold 2.5 million fire- prone dehumidifiers in the United States, which could cause billions of dollars in damages. More than 2.2 million of the dangerous appliances made by Gree Electric Appliances Inc. of Zhuhai are still in U.S. homes, bearing prominent brand names including Frigidaire, GE and Kenmore, the insurers say in the lawsuit filed in September 8, 2016. Only Gree and its subsidiaries are named as defendants. Gree built the dehumidifiers with plastic parts that could not withstand the heat they put out, Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, et al., says in the lawsuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appellants Gree Electric Appliances, Inc. of Zhuhai, Gree USA, Inc. and Hong Kong Gree Electric Appliances Sales Ltd.'s opening brief is due on November 29, 2017; -- Appellees American Strategic Insurance Corporation, Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest, Meridian Security Insurance Company and Milbank Insurance Company's answering brief is due on December 29, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees HOMESITE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, AMERICAN STRATEGIC INSURANCE CORPORATION, MERIDIAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY and MILBANK INSURANCE COMPANY, on their own behalves and on behalf of all others similarly situated insurance companies which underwrite property insurance coverage in the United States, are represented by: Nathan Dooley, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 892-7900 Facsimile: (213) 892-7999 E-mail: ndooley@cozen.com Defendants-Appellants GREE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES, INC. OF ZHUHAI, HONG KONG GREE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES SALES LTD., and GREE USA, INC., are represented by: Elvin-Mathias Tabah, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 633 West 5th Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-2800 Facsimile: (213) 489-0552 E-mail: etabah@imwlaw.com HOME CAPITAL: Provides Update on Class Action Settlements --------------------------------------------------------- Home Capital Group Inc. ("The Company" TSX: HCG) disclosed that Justice Raikes of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order on June 28 certifying an action as against the Company and certain of its former officers as a class action for settlement purposes only. The class consists of all persons and entities wherever they may reside who acquired common shares of the Company from November 5, 2014 through to and including July 10, 2015. The Court ordered that any class member who wishes to exclude him, her or itself from this settlement, must do so by submitting an opt-out election on or before August 8, 2017 to the class action administrator, RicePoint Administration Inc. The settlement is part of a global settlement to resolve the action and related enforcement proceeding by Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC"). In order for the settlement to take effect, there must be final approval by the Court of the settlement of the class action and by the OSC of the settlement of the regulatory proceeding. The hearing to approve the OSC settlement is scheduled for August 9, 2017 and a hearing to approve the class action settlement is scheduled for August 21, 2017. More information about the class action settlement is available at http://www.siskinds.com/home-capital-group-inc/. About Home Capital Group Inc. Home Capital Group Inc. -- http://www.homecapital.com-- is a public company, traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (HCG), operating through its principal subsidiary, Home Trust Company. Home Trust is a federally regulated trust company offering residential and non-residential mortgage lending, securitization of insured residential mortgage products, consumer lending and credit card services. In addition, Home Trust offers deposits via brokers and financial planners, and through its direct to consumer deposit brand, Oaken Financial. Home Trust also conducts business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Home Bank. Licensed to conduct business across Canada, Home Trust has offices in Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Manitoba. [GN] HONGLI CLEAN: Lifshitz & Miller Expands Class Period ---------------------------------------------------- Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, disclosed that on June 28, 2017, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Hongli Clean Energy Technologies Corp. (NASDAQ: CETC) ("Hongli" or the "Company") between September 28, 2012 and April 7, 2017 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is related to the securities class action captioned Nasin v. Hongli Clean Energy Technologies Corp, et al., No. 2:17-cv-3244, previously filed on May 8, 2017. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Lifshitz & Miller. If you are a Hongli investor, and would like additional information about our investigation and complaint, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516) 493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational and financial results, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. In particular, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company did not properly record the impairment of its assets on its balance sheets and in its public filings; and (2) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The deadline for investors to file a motion, with the court, for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit is July 7, 2017. Lifshitz & Miller has extensive experience representing investors in the prosecution of securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation in state and federal courts across the country. [GN] HYPERION MEDICAL: Bid for Class Cert. Denied Without Prejudice -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Dr. William P. Gress, the Plaintiff, v. Hyperion Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04996 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Thomas M. Durkin entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice until a more appropriate time in the proceedings. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 10, 2017, Plaintiff's motion to continue is denied as moot. No appearance was required on July 12. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=InnuwDSh INSYS THERAPEUTICS: July 28 Oral Argument on Motion to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics Incorporated et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00302 (D. Ariz.), pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(f) of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Senior Judge Neil V Wake set oral argument on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for July 28, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 504, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case filed by Richard Di Donato remains pending. The Company said, "On or about February 2, 2016, a complaint (captioned Richard Di Donato v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 2:16-cv-00302-NVW) was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against us and certain of our current and former officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between March 3, 2015 and January 25, 2016. In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business, operations and compliance with laws during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock." "On June 3, 2016, the court appointed Clark Miller to serve as lead plaintiff. On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint naming a former employee of Insys Therapeutics, Inc. as an additional defendant and extending the class period. "On December 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, primarily to add allegations relating to an indictment of Michael L. Babich and certain of our former employees announced on December 8, 2016, and to extend the class period from August 12, 2014 through December 8, 2016. "On January 12, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend against this claim." Insys Therapeutics, Inc., which was incorporated in Delaware in June 1990, and its subsidiaries, maintain headquarters in Chandler, Arizona. Insys Therapeutics is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products. INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Named Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Currier v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01954 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Paul A Crotty has granted the Motion of Michael Robson for Consolidation Of The Actions, Appointment As Lead Plaintiff, And Approval Of His Selection Of Counsel. The motion of Michael Robson to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the Consolidated Action is granted. Pursuant to Section 21D(a)(3)(B)(v) of the PSLRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v), Mr. Robson has selected and retained the law firm of Levi & Korsinsky LLP to serve as Lead Counsel in the Consolidated Action. The Court approves Mr. Robson's selection of Lead Counsel. Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the complaints filed by Kayd Currier and Hans E. Erdmann. The Company said, "On or about March 17, 2017, a complaint (captioned Kayd Currier v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-01954-PAC) was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our officers. The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of our securities between February 23, 2016 and March 15, 2017." "In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our business and financial results during the class period, thereby artificially inflating the price of our securities. "On or about March 28, 2017, a second complaint making similar allegations (captioned Hans E. Erdmann v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case 1:17-cv-02225-PAC) was filed in the same Court. "The plaintiffs in both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims." Insys Therapeutics, Inc., which was incorporated in Delaware in June 1990, and its subsidiaries, maintain headquarters in Chandler, Arizona. Insys Therapeutics is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that develops and commercializes innovative supportive care products. INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Still Faces Customer Suit in Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit by a former individual customer, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. On February 19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint. On September 28, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissing the complaint in its entirety, and without providing plaintiff leave to amend. On October 5, 2016, the Court entered judgment in the Company's favor. On October 12, 2016, plaintiff filed motions for leave to file an amended complaint and to vacate or amend judgment, which the Company opposed. The Court has not yet ruled on these motions. The Company said, "We believe that the proposed amended complaint, like the original complaint, lacks merit. Further, even if the complaint ultimately were to survive a motion to dismiss, we do not believe that a purported class action is appropriate given the great differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action, any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in defending the case shall be fully pursued against the plaintiff." Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. ("IBG, Inc.") is a Delaware holding company whose primary asset is its ownership of approximately 16.6% of the membership interests of IBG LLC, which, in turn, owns operating subsidiaries (collectively, "IBG LLC"). IBG, Inc. together with IBG LLC and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "the Company"), is an automated global electronic broker and market maker specializing in executing and clearing trades in securities, futures, foreign exchange instruments, bonds and mutual funds on more than 120 electronic exchanges and market centers around the world and offering custody, prime brokerage, securities and margin lending services to customers. In the United States of America ("U.S."), the Company conducts its business primarily from its headquarters in Greenwich, Connecticut and from Chicago, Illinois. Abroad, the Company conducts its business through offices located in Canada, England, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, India, China (Hong Kong and Shanghai), Japan, and Australia. As of March 31, 2017, the Company had 1,211 employees worldwide. JACOBS ENGINEERING: Accused by Kritch of Violating Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES KRITCH, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC665997 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, June 22, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's alleged systematic, company-wide, unlawful treatment of the Plaintiff and hundreds of similarly situated employees in violation of numerous provisions of the California Labor Code and California's Unfair Compensation Law. The Defendant fails to pay non-exempt employees for travel time despite the fact that the employee is traveling for work related purposes, Mr. Kritch alleges. He adds that he and other non- exempt employees are not paid all the overtime wages they earned by virtue of the fact that if the travel hours were included on their time records or included on the day they actually travelled, they would work overtime hours, which should be reimbursed at the overtime rate. Jacobs Engineering is a Delaware corporation doing business in California. Jacobs Engineering provides technical, professional and construction services, including all aspects Of architecture, engineering and construction, operations and maintenance, as well as scientific and specialty consulting.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Morrison, Esq. Jessica S. Choi, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 394-0888 Facsimile: (310) 394-0811 E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com jchoi@akgllp.com - and - Michael R. Parker, Esq. M.R. PARKER LAW 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 2080 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 334-5711 E-mail: michael@mrparkerlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with Large Talcum Powder Case Verdicts ------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Smith, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that in the recent past, several juries have handed down very large verdicts against talcum powder (talc) defendants. Notable among them has been Johnson & Johnson, costing the company almost $200 million in 2016 alone. Key legal developments Three verdicts from 2016 occurred in St. Louis, Missouri, a jurisdiction known to be favorable to asbestos plaintiffs, and included considerable punitive damages for the plaintiffs. Those verdicts suggested that exposure from the talc in J&J's baby powder caused ovarian cancer in the plaintiffs. Juries have also found that talc powder is connected to mesothelioma, and can be contaminated with asbestos. More recently, though, J&J achieved a dismissal in New Jersey, and a trial win in Missouri. What's more, a couple of similar cases were thrown out of the New Jersey court for lack of scientific support of the plaintiffs allegations. Likely due to the recent more positive outcomes of the litigation, J&J has decided to appeal another verdict handed down in St. Louis in which a woman claimed talcum powder caused her to contract ovarian cancer, the verdict demanding a payment of more than $100,000 in punitive damages. Lay of the land There are two types of talc: industrial talc and cosmetic talc. In its natural form, some talc contains asbestos. According to the American Cancer Society, all talcum products that are manufactured for household use have been asbestos free since the 1970s. The talc that is allegedly at fault in the J&J cases is cosmetic talc, which is used to absorb moisture, soften or smooth other cosmetic products, and to prevent cosmetics from caking. While industrial talc has been blamed for asbestos exposure and resulting asbestoses for decades, cases alleging injury from talc are relatively new, as the recent uptick in J&J cases about cosmetic talc have shown. These allegations that women have contracted ovarian cancer because of cosmetic talc represents a new class of toxic product liability cases. Thousands of companies have used talc in their cosmetic products in the past several decades, including Maybelline, Dior, New York Color, LA Colors, Revlon, Almay, Clinique, Wet n' Wild, Johnson and Johnson, Dollar General, CVS, and Rite Aid. Because of this widespread use of talc in popular products, almost the entire population could claim exposure to talc. For the ovarian cancer cases, though, the talc has to be used to aid in feminine hygiene, so the exposure rate is much smaller than that for a potential asbestos talc claim. Popular, mainstream product Because of its widespread use, almost everyone can accurately claim that they have had exposure to cosmetic talc. It follows that the focus of the lawsuits is not the exposure itself, but instead the causal connection between talc exposure and the injury, which in these cases is ovarian cancer. While there have been some successful cases, recent decisions have shown doubt that talc and ovarian cancer are causally related. The research that has been done on talcum powder and its correlation to ovarian cancer has had mixed results. Some studies have reported that talc users have a slightly increased risk of ovarian cancer; others have reported no increased risk. Research in the area is ongoing, since cosmetic talc is widely used in many products and it is important to determine if an increased cancer risk is real for users. [GN] JOSEPH CORY: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Lupian" Suit to 3rd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Joseph Cory Holdings LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Alejandro Lupian, et al. v. Joseph Cory Holdings LLC, Case No. 2-16-cv-05172, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was filed under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. JOSEPH CORY HOLDINGS LLC is in the business of providing the delivery of appliances, furniture, and other merchandise to its customers. The appellate case is captioned as Alejandro Lupian, et al. v. Joseph Cory Holdings LLC, Case No. 17-2346, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees ALEJANDRO LUPIAN, JUAN LUPIAN, JOSE REYES, EFFRAIN LUCATERO and ISAIAS LUNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: apiazza@bm.net Defendant-Appellant JOSEPH CORY HOLDINGS LLC is represented by: Peter F. Berk, Esq. GENOVA BURNS 494 Broad Street Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 533-0777 Facsimile: (973) 533-1112 E-mail: pberk@genovaburns.com KINECTA ALTERNATIVE: Sued Over Labor Standards Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for North California Record, reports that a Los Angeles County woman alleges that a Manhattan Beach federal credit union failed to pay overtime wages. Jacqueline Sloan filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on June 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions Inc. alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was employed by the defendant from December 2010 to April 2016 as an appraiser. The plaintiff holds Kinecta Alternative Financial Solutions Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to pay for overtime work at the rate of time-and-one-half, failed to pay wages upon termination and failed to provide adequate rest and meal breaks to employees. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks all wages, injunctive relief, damages, liquidated damages, restitution, statutory penalties, interest, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by David A. Tashroudian, Esq. -- david@tashlawgroup.com -- and Mona Tashroudian, Esq. -- mona@tashlawgroup.com -- of Tashroudian Law Group APC in Woodland Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 2:17-cv-04490-FMO-SK [GN] LG CHEM: Settlement Available for Eligible Claimants ---------------------------------------------------- WRCB reports consumers that bought virtually any battery-powered device may able to join in an a class action suit. The devices must be power by what are calling lithium-ion batteries. The class action suit is part of an agreement between battery manufacturers and the feds as a result claims of price- fixing for the lithium-ion batteries for a 10-year period. The suit is a $44.95 million lithium-ion battery antitrust settlement. Those manufacturers are listed as LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell and NEC. Chances are good that you may have bought several devices powered by the batteries; laptop computers, smartphones, tablets, digital audio players, cameras, cordless power tools and camcorders are all included in the lawsuit. Also covered are replacement batteries. The items must have been purchased between January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2011. The good news for consumers is that no proof of purchase is required, although there's no information on how your claim may be verified. Claims will be paid electronically. All claims must either be submitted online by 11:59pm PT on November 29, 2017, or for mailed in claims, postmarked by November 29, 2017, in order to be considered valid. [GN] LM FUNDING: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates ------------------------------------------------------- WFTV9abc reports that a Winter Park woman claims a past-due homeowners association bill for $145 has turned into an astounding demand for $77,000. Ranya Hamza blames a debt collector that bought old association debts then, she claims, demanded homeowners pay sky-high fees. Action 9 investigates promotional bundle offers from AT&T Ms. Hamza said these are scary times and she fears a debt collector may try to take her home. "This is killing me," she said. "I can't sleep. I cannot do anything." She bought a Winter Park Villas condo in foreclosure but didn't know the previous homeowner owed $145 in association fees. Then, Ms. Hamza claims, out of the blue, LM Funding in Tampa sued to collect the debt that now totaled in the thousands. "They put a lien on my property just like that, just like that," she said. HOAs often hire attorneys to collect unpaid dues, but Ms. Hamza faces something new and far more threatening. The condo association had been struggling so, like many other HOAs, it signed an agreement with LM Funding, which is a debt collector. LM Funding advanced the association money to cover maintenance bills and in exchange it took over right's to collect delinquent dues, like Ms. Hamza's debt. But since she first disputed it, Ms. Hamza said LM Funding fees soared and now the company claims she owes $77,000. "And nobody is stopping them," Ms. Hamza said. Several condo associations are trying to block LM Funding through a recently certified class-action lawsuit. The suit accuses the company of deceptive trade and illegally high interest rates. HOA consumer advocates say the practice is way out of bounds. "The bill really adds up quickly believe me you can see it," Jan Bergman, with Cyber Citizens Justice, said. "Click, click, click, and it's up thousands of dollars." LM Funding told Action 9 that its fees are fully disclosed and denies the claims made in the class-action lawsuit. Ms. Hamza hired an attorney to fight her bill, which includes dues she's not allowed to pay until there is a settlement. LM Funding says its debt collection benefits all homeowners, who would otherwise be stuck covering unpaid dues. LM Funding released the following statement to Action 9: "I have attached a copy of the estimated safe harbor that the (home owners) associations and their residents are eating because of defaults by nonpaying unit owners, and the banks being able to literally walk away with very limited liability. This amounts to a tax of approximately $250 estimated for every condo and HOA owner in the state of Florida. At this point no one seems to be really representing these folks. This is all being left on the backs of the owners that pay. On the lady you mentioned, if she has paid we will make sure that all this is put behind her. What she is doing is impacting the folks that do pay. They are the ones nobody ever talks about. Thanks again for looking into these situations." [GN] MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Records $23,500 of Settlement Obligation ----------------------------------------------------------------- MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company recorded the $23,500 of the settlement obligation for the Class Action Litigation as accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The Company recorded $29,571 of the proceeds from the insurers as other receivables in the consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and as a deduction of the selling, general and administrative expenses in the consolidated statements of operations for the year ended December 31, 2015. The proceeds from the insurers of $29,571 were deposited into the Company's escrow account during the first quarter of 2016 and the Company reclassified the $29,571 deposits recorded in other receivables into restricted cash. During the third quarter of 2016, the Company disbursed the aggregate settlement payment of $23,500 after the court granted plaintiffs' renewed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2016. Upon the settlement payment, $6,114 of the insurance proceeds remained in the Company's escrow account. The Company said, "In January 2014, our Audit Committee commenced an independent investigation that resulted in the restatement of certain financial statements for prior periods. In March, 2014, we voluntarily reported to the SEC that our Audit Committee had determined that we incorrectly recognized revenue on certain transactions and as a result would restate our financial statements, and that our Audit Committee had commenced an independent investigation." "On December 10, 2015, we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to settle the Class Action Litigation for an aggregate settlement payment of $23.5 million. This settlement payment was fully funded by insurance proceeds that were received in the first quarter of 2016 and disbursed from the escrow account, previously recorded as restricted cash, in the third quarter of 2016. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation is a Korea-based designer and manufacturer of analog and mixed-signal semiconductor platform solutions for communications, Internet of Things ("IoT") applications, consumer, industrial and automotive applications. MASSACHUSETTS: Governor Sued Over Welfare Programs -------------------------------------------------- Catie Edmondson, writing for Boston Globe, reports that ahead of an imminent government shutdown, a nonprofit legal-aid group filed a federal lawsuit on June 29 against Maine Governor Paul LePage, seeking to force the state to continue operating welfare programs. State government appears headed for an almost certain shutdown, beginning on June 30 at 11:59 p.m., because of a budget impasse between LePage and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. At the center of the dispute is whether to maintain a 3 percent tax surcharge on earnings above $200,000 that voters approved last year. If state government shuts down, nearly 450,000 people who rely on public assistance programs -- including MaineCare, food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -- would be affected, argued Maine Equal Justice Partners, the organization suing the state. The lawsuit says Maine is bound by federal law to distribute benefits in a timely fashion. It seeks a temporary restraining order to ensure that eligible citizens continue to receive government assistance. "The failure to adhere to these unequivocal requirements places the Plaintiffs, who consist mostly of children, elderly, or disabled low-income individuals, at serious risk to their health and well-being," the motion said. The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of such plaintiffs. The governor designated a number of employees as "emergency personnel" on June 28, including the State Police, Capitol Police, first responders, and correctional, psychiatric, and state parks staff. They would be expected to work during a shutdown. But LePage's office did not address whether any efforts would be made to ensure that individuals applying for welfare benefits would get them. A number of agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, declined to comment on plans for a shutdown and directed all questions to LePage's office. Republican Senate leaders could not be reached for comment. The silence sparked a wave of anxiety in Maine, particularly among those who rely on safety-net programs. "We've been left in the dark," said Jack Comart, litigation director for Maine Equal Justice Partners. Public employees were also largely clueless about how a shutdown would affect them. The governor said in a memo that he was "unable to answer at this time" whether employees would be paid for the July 4 holiday. While members of the state health plan would not be denied service, LePage said it was possible they'd be required to pay part or all of the insurance premiums due. Some employees were told they would need to cancel previously approved vacations, said AFSCME union representative Jim Mackie. AFSCME's Maine office represents about 2,600 workers, many of whom have been designated emergency staff. "The way the governor has handled this has been absolutely despicable, all these employees -- we can't get a straight answer from anyone about what's going on," Mackie said. The last time the state government shut down following a budget battle was in 1991, when John McKernan, also a Republican, was governor. Courthouses, state parks, and beaches closed for 16 days, and Mainers in the process of applying for MaineCare and food stamps were forced to wait. [GN] MASSAGE ENVY: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Shortened Massages --------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Barnett, writing for Madison - St. Clair Record, reports that a class action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs in Missouri and Illinois accusing Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, of causing injury to its clients and using unfair and deceptive practices was dismissed in federal court on June 9. District Judge David R. Herndon dismissed the class action lawsuit brought by Kathy Haywood of East St. Louis and Lia Holt of Missouri. Ms. Holt and Ms. Haywood alleged that they and other customers of Massage Envy Franchising (MEF), a franchisor based in Scottsdale, Ariz., had been injured and deceived by the company because they received only 50 minutes of actual massage time during sessions advertised as one-hour. The plaintiffs allege that MEF franchises in O'Fallon, Ill., and Oakville, Mo., failed to properly notify customers that roughly 10 minutes of each one-hour session would be used for consultation and dressing. Judge Herndon found that the "MEF cannot be held liable for the actions of independent franchisee's employees." Additionally, Judge Herndon ruled that neither plaintiff could show that they suffered actual pecuniary loss or injury according to Illinois or Missouri statutes. Consequently, Judge Herndon dismissed the case with prejudice. Ms. Haywood claimed she visited the O'Fallon Massage Envy franchise on May 11, 2016, after receiving a $75 e-gift card from her daughter. According to the MEF website, the gift card was enough to pay for a one-hour massage session. Ms. Haywood reportedly only received 50 minutes of actual massage time. Afterward, Ms. Haywood booked a second appointment at the same franchise on Sept. 8, 2016, and experienced the same result. Although she said the gift card stated that each session included "time for consultation and dressing," Ms. Haywood claimed this information appeared only in fine print at the bottom of the email containing the gift card, and was not made publicly available by employees or signs posted onsite. Ms. Haywood subsequently filed a class action complaint against MEF on Sept. 27, 2016. Ms. Holt booked a one-hour massage appointment at the Oakville Massage Envy franchise sometime around April 2012. She also claimed she only received about 50 minutes of massage time. On Nov. 14, 2016, Ms. Holt and Ms. Haywood together filed an amended complaint on behalf of Missouri and Illinois consumers, alleging MEF violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) through the use of unfair and deceptive practices. MEF filed a motion to Dismiss and Strike on Dec. 15, 2016. On June 12, Judge Herndon granted MEF's motion for dismissal. While noting that MEF encouraged franchise employees to speak with customers about the time given to dressing and consultation in each massage session, Judge Herndon found that MEF could not be held liable for the failure of employees at individual franchises to do so. He also found that Haywood's "disappointment does not rise to the level of actual damages under the ICFA" and therefore, "her claim must be dismissed for failure to state an ICFA violation." Similarly, Judge Herndon dismissed Holt's claims, citing that she failed to prove according to the MMPA that "she received a value that was worth less than what she paid, and therefore, cannot show the existence of a substantial injury to herself or others." [GN] The case is KATHY HAYWOOD and LIA HOLT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01087-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated June 9, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/gZvEZ0 from Leagle.com. Kathy Haywood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning, Bruning Law Firm. Kathy Haywood, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Bruning Law Firm, Ryan L. Bruning, Bruning Law Firm & Richard S. Cornfeld, Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld. Lia Holt, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning, Bruning Law Firm & Richard S. Cornfeld, Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Defendant, represented by Luanne Sacks, Sacks, Ricketts & Case, Cynthia Ricketts, Sacks, Ricketts & Case, Joseph Edward Collins, Fox Rothschild, LLP & Nathan J. Kunz, Sacks, Ricketts & Case. MATTEL INC: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set for Aug. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against Mattel, Inc. for possible violations of federal securities laws between October 20, 2016 and April 20, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to the August 28, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian Lundin, Esq., of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Mattel made false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose adverse information, including that the Company's retail customers had high levels of unsold Mattel products, thus exposing it to the heightened risk that it would have to issue its retailers financial concessions to remove the excess inventory, and that it would experience slower sales growth in future periods. Upon the release of this news, shares of Mattel lowered in value materially, which caused investors harm according to the Complaint. Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. Brian Lundin, Esq. Lundin Law PC Telephone: 888-713-1033 Fax: 888-713-1125 E-mail: brian@lundinlawpc.com [GN] MCDONALD'S USA: Sued Over Illegal Restriction of Hiring ------------------------------------------------------- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, a Southern California employee and consumer law firm, has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against McDonald's USA, LLC and McDonald's Corporation in the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit alleges that McDonald's, which is a franchisor of thousands of independent restaurant stores, has both a written agreement and an unwritten policy that one franchise cannot hire current or former (for a 6- month period) employees of another franchise restaurant without that franchisee's consent. The lawsuit alleges that while McDonald's fosters healthy competition for sales between franchises, it has implemented this antitrust "no-poach" agreement to restrict wage competition and artificially suppress employees' wages. The Class Representative in the case, Leinani Deslandes, was a victim of this practice. She was employed as a mid-level manager in a Florida McDonald's franchise restaurant where she had not received promised promotions and raises for her valuable contribution to the success of the franchise. The lawsuit alleges that when she applied to another franchise that paid substantially more for the same position and had better promotion opportunities, she was told by the prospective franchise that they could not hire her unless she was "released" by her franchise owner, which was a condition of the McDonald's franchise agreement. Her franchise employer refused to "release" her to the better paying franchise and continued to deny her promised raises and promotions. Because the fast-food industry is based on knowledge of the product, and more importantly, knowledge of the unique organizational systems, the experience and skills developed while working for McDonald's do not transfer to other fast-food chains. As a result, after finally quitting her McDonald's franchise, Ms. Deslandes was forced to start over with an entry level position in another industry at a substantially lower wage. McCune Wright Arevalo partner, and lead attorney in the case, Richard McCune, states that this is an important case. "This practice of 'owning' an employee not only affected Ms. Deslandes and other employees where their franchise owner will not 'release' them, but it artificially holds down the wages of all of the McDonald's workers that are being paid less than their true market value and are struggling to make ends meet. Meanwhile, McDonald's stockholders, executives and franchise owners are getting rich off the backs of these workers. This is unfair, and a practice that should not be allowed to continue. We hope this lawsuit will stop this practice, which will in turn increase wages for tens of thousands of hard working McDonald's employees, helping them to earn a fair and living wage for their families." [GN] MODESTO JUNIOR: Sued Over Racial Discrimination ----------------------------------------------- Garth Stapley, writing for Modesto Bee, reports that librarians shushed some black students while giving a pass to white students, says a civil rights lawsuit against Modesto Junior College and the Yosemite Community College District. Upset, the black students paid a visit to a college dean and lodged written complaints. Instead of helping them, administrators barred them from the library and slapped them with formal discipline for "disruptive behavior," the lawsuit says. The action was filed in Fresno's federal court by Debra Berry, 57, a grandmother and former student who since has left MJC. She was disciplined along with others, most in their late teens and early 20s when the incidents occurred in the fall of 2015 at the east campus library, Berry said. A spokeswoman on June 28 said the district has not been served with legal notice of the lawsuit. Librarians and a security guard confronted black students for being too noisy and grouping in more than four people per table, the lawsuit says. School staff then took photographs of the black students and demanded school identification, Berry said. Some were on the verge of tears when she gathered them and walked them to the dean's office, she said. "They were only picking on certain kids" while ignoring similarly sized groups of white students, Berry said. "If these were my own children, would I step back and let it happen? I don't care if they were white children; what (staff) was doing was wrong." Eleven students filed complaints, several with descriptions of being bullied by librarians and security. One said a student library worker who is white told the black students she had been directed to keep an eye on them. Soon after, an associate dean sent Berry and others a notice requiring that they meet with him to discuss the matter. When they didn't, several received letters suspending their library privileges and placing them on one year of probation. The discipline was a clear "effort to intimidate plaintiffs and other students from following through with this civil rights complaint," Berry said in her lawsuit. "We were retaliated against," she said on June 26 in an interview. Some students were told that pursuing action against the school could jeopardize their participation in sports and cheerleading, Berry said. Photographs of black students were emailed to coaches, the lawsuit says. The document is structured as a class-action complaint to allow other plaintiffs to join the lawsuit. Berry, relying on help from a friend, filed it without consulting a lawyer. U.S. District Judge Michael Seng found several legal problems and dismissed irrelevant claims related to Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, Eighth Amendment inmate rights, and claims related to the photographs and sexual harassment. He also erased class-action potential. But Seng allowed Berry, at this point, to pursue claims related to the alleged race-based discrimination and retaliation. Berry, a former aircraft assembly line worker, said she's never been involved in activism. "I'm a peacemaker," she said. "In high school, I hated fights, gossip and trouble. But when there is wrongdoing, I'm going to speak up on it." [GN] NATIONWIDE LIFE: Small Plan Participant Seeks Big Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Nevin E. Adams, writing for NAPA Net, reports that a participant in a plan with 27 participants is seeking the return of the "excessive and unreasonable asset-based fees charged by Nationwide for recordkeeping and administrative services, and to prevent Nationwide from charging those excessive fees in the future." The suit (Schmitt v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., S.D. Ohio, No. 2:17-cv-00558, complaint filed 6/27/17), filed by one Alana Schmitt, "Individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Andrus Wagstaff, PC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and all other similarly situated individual account retirement plans," says that while small plans such as the AW plan have the same legal and regulatory obligations as Fortune 500 companies, they "lack the expertise to navigate the labyrinth of federal regulations governing employee benefit plans or the time and resources to seek out and employ expert financial and legal consultants to understand the complexities of the marketplace." The AW plan -- which at the end of 2015 had 27 participants and $1.1 million in plan assets -- contracted with Nationwide under Nationwide's Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program to provide recordkeeper and other services for a fee of 1% per year of the AW plan assets. However, citing a survey by NEPC, the suit claims claim that the median recordkeeping cost of 113 plans was $64 per plan participant in 2015. However, the suit claims that, "as a result of Nationwide's asset-based fees, in 2014 the AW Plan paid approximately $9,400 for recordkeeping services for a plan that had only 15 participants at the end of the year, amounting to $625 per participant." Those recordkeeping fees increased to $11,000 for 22 participants the next year, amounting to $500 per participant, according to the suit. Consequently, the plaintiff alleges that Nationwide's fees are "almost 10 times more than the reasonable amount of compensation that should have been charged to the AW Plan." Not mentioned in the suit is that the average plan size of the respondents to the NEPC survey was $1.1 billion and each plan had more than 12,000 participants. The suit claims that, based on information on the Nationwide website (37,000 retirement plans, 2.4 million participants and $114 billion in retirement plan assets in the Nationwide Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program) and the 1% fee charged to the AW plan, "Nationwide potentially earns over $1 billion a year in excessive compensation at the expense of the individual plan participants." The suit notes that while the AW plan fiduciaries may have breached their fiduciary duties to the AW plan by entering into the Nationwide contract, "the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear in Harris Trust and Savings Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 530 U.S. 238, 245 (2000), that 29 U.S.C. SEC 1132(a)(3) authorizes a civil action against a non-fiduciary who participates in a transaction prohibited by 29 U.S.C. SEC 1106(a)." Disclosure Dismissal The suit invokes a 2014 settlement of a class action against Nationwide for "failing to disclose indirect compensation received from mutual funds to retirement plans," but notes that "after settling that action in 2014, Nationwide continued to charge Plans unreasonable fees for recordkeeping and administration but now discloses its unreasonable fees" in 408(b)2 disclosures. "However, merely disclosing that a Plan is paying an unreasonable fee does not make the fee reasonable . . . ." 'Responsible' Recordkeepers' The plaintiff describes recordkeeping services for a qualified retirement plan as "essentially fixed and largely automated," and -- as other excessive fee litigation has alleged previously -- claims that the cost of recordkeeping and administrative services "depends on the number of participants, not the amount of assets in the participant's account." They note that "responsible recordkeepers charge recordkeeping fees for each plan participant rather than as a percentage of plan assets," because otherwise, "as plan assets increase through participant contributions or investment gains, the recordkeeping revenue increases without any change in the services provided." The suit claims that the Nationwide program "takes advantage of the lack of sophistication and bargaining power of the AW Plan and other similarly situated plans by unscrupulously adding 75 to 100 basis points (0.75% to 1.00%) to the cost of every investment option available to retirement plan investors in the AW Plan and the Plans." Moreover, the plaintiff alleges that where the Nationwide fee is less than 1%, Nationwide receives the balance of the 1% fee via revenue-sharing from the mutual fund provider. They note that Vanguard charges 9 basis points (0.09%) to manage and administer the Vanguard Short Term Bond Index Fund (Admiral Class) investments, but Nationwide charges 100 basis points (1%) to track a participant's investment in the Vanguard Short Term Bond Index Fund on the Nationwide platform. The suit claims that if Nationwide charged the median fee, the AW plan (and similarly situated plans) would pay $1,728 per year for recordkeeping services, rather than $11,000 per year, saving the plan participants 84 basis points (0.86%) per year -- and that the plaintiff would have paid $53 in fees in 2015 rather than $373, a savings of $320. Other Examples The suit claims that Nationwide has charged other Plans unreasonable fees to serve as the recordkeeper, citing the examples of the EXAL Corporation 401(k) plan, with 431 active participants and average assets of $20.4 million, which the suit says paid Nationwide $134,673 in direct and indirect compensation for recordkeeping in 2015, or $323 per participant. They note that: -- the Class of America, Inc. Employees' Savings Plan, with 310 active employees and $21 million in total assets, paid Nationwide $127,900 in direct compensation and undisclosed indirect compensation, or $414 per participant; -- the JMAC, Inc. 401(k) Plan, with $21 million in assets and 634 active participants, paid $142,448 in direct compensation for recordkeeping in 2015, or $224 per participant; and -- the Rocky Brands, Inc. 401(k) Plan, with 527 active participants and average assets of $25.8 million, paid Nationwide $60,056 in direct compensation and undisclosed indirect compensation, or $114 per participant. In what it describes as "an apparent attempt to hide the actual dollar amount of fees being paid by the AW Plan and the individual benefit plan investors," the suit claims that the 2014 and 2015 Form 5500s show that no administrative or other fees were paid by the AW plan. . . . to anyone. It goes on to claim that those reporting "failures" ". . . . appear deliberately intended to conceal the amount of Defendants' actual compensation for services provided to the Plan," and that those errors "suggest that Defendants have also failed to comply with the disclosure requirements" of 408(b)2. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio by Dyer Garofalo Mann & Schultz, seeks to represent a class of as many as 37,000 retirement plans and 2.4 million individual investors -- those invested in the Nationwide Retirement Flexible Advantage Retirement Plans Program. [GN] NAVY FEDERAL: Hit with Class Suit for Overcharging Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two California consumers have filed a class action lawsuit against financial institution, alleging breach of contract. Jenna Lloyd and Jamie Plemons filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, June 22 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Navy Federal Credit Union, alleging the defendant charged optional overdraft protection services (OOPFs) on the plaintiff's APPSN transactions. According to the complaint, Lloyd and Plemons sustained monetary damages as the result of being charged with OOPFs. The plaintiffs allege Navy Federal Credit Union allowed the APPSN transactions to incur OOPFs. Lloyd and Plemons seek trial by jury and seek restitution, disgorgement, actual damages, punitive and exemplary damages, interest, attorney fees and other relief the court deems just and proper. They are represented by attorney Jeffrey Kaliel of Tycko & Zavareei LLP in Washington. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California case number 3:17-cv-01280-BAS-RBB [GN] NEAL TRUCKING: Court Approved $195,000 "Poisson" Case Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Ronald Poisson, the Plaintiff, v. Neal Trucking Inc. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-02241-VAP- DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips entered an order granting Plaintiff's to approve a settlement agreement. The agreement provides $195,000 for the settlement fund, which includes (1) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees of $48,750 and $10,000 in litigation costs; (2) Simpluris Inc.'s settlement administrator costs of up to $5,000; (3) a class representative service award to Plaintiff Ronald Poisson of $1,000; and (4) a California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalty of $5,625. These deductions leave a total of $124,625 to be distributed, of which 81% is allocated to all class members and 19% is allocated to the 203 portion of the settlement for former employee class members. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately August 2006 to April 2013. Plaintiff alleges that he and other non-exempt truck drivers were not paid for all of the hours that they worked. Plaintiff's allegations against Defendants include the failure to pay overtime, provide uninterrupted meal periods, provide required rest periods, and pay wages that were due at the time of employee termination. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qp9ETnc9 NEW YORK: Class Action Against Port Authority Revived ----------------------------------------------------- Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade to overturn state abortion bans and the Watergate scandal was in full swing. Meanwhile, a case that attracted far less public attention began in the Southern District. A class action suit was filed on behalf of minority persons seeking training in jobs in the New York construction industry, which at the time had a well-documented history of racial discrimination. Not long after the plaintiffs, Albert Percy, Manuel Mejia and John Mercado, won their motion to represent the class, the case stalled and was closed administratively, but not finally disposed. The plaintiffs never got the relief they were looking for. But some four decades later, the case, Percy v. Brennan, 73-cv- 4279, has sprung back to life, and the firm representing the plaintiffs is fighting to consolidate the case with a lawsuit filed in 2015 in the Eastern District of New York against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. In the Port Authority case, a group of plaintiffs make claims similar to those that Percy made back in the days when O.J. Simpson was better known as a football player: that their financial livelihoods were negatively affected because they were deprived of opportunities to fully participate in the American economy. John Kernan of Kernan Professional Group said the case was closed administratively so that it could be "reactivated in the future if it becomes necessary," "Since relief never occurred, it has become necessary," Mr. Kernan said. The Percy case was "sidetracked," Mr. Kernan said, after the U.S. Department of Labor began to push a program in which certain percentages of minorities would be hired for public works projects. "That's when things went to sleep," he said. In the more-recent class action suit against the Port Authority, the plaintiffs say that the entity failed to comply with mandatory affirmative action requirements that it was required to undertake as a condition of receiving federal grants for such major facilities as LaGuardia Airport. The Port Authority's noncompliance, the plaintiffs argue, has contributed to disproportionate unemployment rates for young black men. Mr. Kernan said the class certified in Percy -- "all black and Spanish-surnamed persons who are capable of performing, or capable of learning to perform, construction work within" New York City -- is "identical" to the class in the Port Authority suit. In May, Southern District Judge Loretta Preska issued an order to return Percy to the docket. But in a letter entered on June 26, the Southern District U.S. Attorney's Office, which represents the DOL in the case, asked Southern District Judge P. Kevin Castel to order former closure of Percy. Citing documents recently obtained from the National Archives, Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Lee said the argument that the case was administratively closed is incorrect, and noted that late Southern District Judge Morris Lasker, who originally presided over Percy, said in a 1977 hearing that "there is no reason to continue the existence" of Percy. [GN] NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Sued by Santello for Not Paying Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SANTELLO; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL INVESTMENT SERVICES, LLC (DBA THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY), Case No. 17-1959 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 22, 2017), alleges that Northwestern Mutual fails to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated inside sales employees an hourly rate equal to one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all the hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours during multiple weeks of their employment. According to the complaint, Northwestern Mutual has a company-wide policy of not paying similarly situated sales employees regularly working from its offices, an hourly rate or salary. Northwestern Mutual only paid them commissions based on sales made. Northwestern Mutual Investment Services, LLC, doing business as The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, is a foreign limited liability corporation with a principal office located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Northwestern Mutual has call centers located throughout Massachusetts, including in Boston, Braintree, Wellesley and Woburn. Northwestern Mutual uses these offices to regularly sell insurance products to customers over the telephone.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Livingstone, Esq. John Regan, Esq. REGAN LANE LLP 43 Bowdoin Street, Suite A Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (857) 277-0902 Facsimile: (857) 233-5287 E-mail: jay@reganlane.com jregan@reganlane.com NY LIFE SECURITIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Bouyea" Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- APPOLLONIABLISS BOUYEA; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NY LIFE SECURITIES LLC (DBA NEW YORK) LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY), Case No. 17-1960 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendant had a company- wide policy of not paying inside sales employees an hourly rate equal to one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for all the hours that they worked in excess of 40 during multiple weeks of their employment. NY Life is a foreign limited liability corporation with a principal office located in New York City. NY Life has call centers located in Boston, Bridgewater, and Waltham, Massachusetts, that it uses to regularly sell insurance products to customers over the telephone. NY Life employed Ms. Bouyea as an inside sales employee from March 2016 until March 2017.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Livingstone, Esq. John Regan, Esq. REGAN LANE LLP 43 Bowdoin Street, Suite A Boston, MA 02114 Telephone: (857) 277-0902 Facsimile: (857) 233-5287 E-mail: jay@reganlane.com jregan@reganlane.com ONTARIO HOCKEY: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul Davis, Esq. -- pdavis@mccarthy.ca -- and Oksana Migitko, Esq., of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently certified a case that, as reported by some media, could change Canadian hockey forever. Two representative plaintiffs, Sam Berg, a former Niagara IceDogs forward, and Danial Pachis, a former member of the Oshawa Generals, will be allowed to pursue a lawsuit against the OHL and its clubs alleging that junior hockey players do not get what they are entitled to under the law, namely, minimum wages for their services on the basis that they are employees. The case demonstrates the difficulties of pursuing a cross-border class action where some members of the class reside in Canada and others reside in the United States. Students or employees? Berg and Pachis' case revolves around the "single profound question" of whether junior players are employees of their clubs and, if so, at what moment amateur athletes become professionals. The plaintiffs allege that major junior players are employees because their relationships with their respective teams are identical to those between an employer operating a commercial organization and its staff. The OHL and its teams claim, in contrast, that a player is not an employee but a participant in a multi-faceted development program that focuses on athletes' sports training, education, and character growth. The clubs' aim is to provide young players with educational opportunities to choose a right career path both inside and outside of hockey. The proposed class alleges that an average "allowance" or "expense reimbursement" for a junior hockey players is in the range of $50 to $600 for 45 to 65 (or more) hours of "work" per week. Although players receive benefits like access to trainers or equipment, they are not compensated for overtime, holidays, or vacations. Those who chose to reside with billet families get accommodation, as well as a compensation for groceries and living expenses. In addition, young players are provided with educational packages and some can get full scholarships covering all costs to attend colleges and universities. The Decision The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding on behalf of all players who played in those leagues commencing October 17, 2012 who were under the age of 18. Emotions ran high in a case involving an issue so close to the Canadian experience. As Justice Perell explained: Perhaps because of the novelty of their claim and the extraordinary importance that hockey has to Canadians, Messrs. Berg and Pachis excessively over-pleaded both their case and also their certification motion, and they engaged in an emotive public relations pitch to portray the players that formed the putative class as exploited workers of avaricious employers. The Defendants excessively responded to the certification motion with an emotive public relations pitch of their own. The Defendants portrayed themselves as magnanimous patrons and benefactors of their hockey players. The Defendants portrayed Messrs. Berg and Pachis as bitter, self-centered, and ungrateful also-rans, whose proposed class action would irreparably damage the enterprise that had been built for the players to advance their careers and their prospects to play in the professional hockey leagues. The Defendants' response to the certification motion, which is a procedural motion and neither a labour relations bargaining session nor a test of the merits of a claim, was a catalyst for still more evidentiary excesses and more propaganda by both sides building up to a hot-pitched certification motion that involved a contest about the truth of the teams' and the leagues' argument that Messrs. Berg's and Pachis' allegedly selfish class action would bring on the eve of destruction for hockey players. In addition to challenging the viability of a number of the claims pleaded, the defendant leagues and teams argued that the case should not be allowed to proceed against OHL teams based in the U.S. Because the dispute concerns relations between the team and its players, the parties agreed that U.S. law would govern any employment relationship involving those teams. The issue of forum arose in two parts of the certification decision. First, the defendants argued that the Ontario court had no jurisdiction over an action brought against foreign defendants and that an Ontario class action is not a convenient forum in which to litigate on these issues. Second, the defendants argued that even if the court could decide the issue, a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure in which to resolve questions of American law relating to American teams and players. Justice Perell resolved the jurisdiction questions against the defendant teams. In two sentences, he decided that he had jurisdiction over the claims given that the OHL contracts were governed by Canadian law and that Ontario was forum conveniens. However, Perell J. was not satisfied that a class proceeding in Ontario was the preferable procedure to resolve the claims based on statutory employment law of Michigan and Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs argued that the employment law regimes of the three jurisdictions (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ontario) were essentially the same respecting the question of whether an individual should be classified as an employee. Justice Perell rejected this position as "it begs the bigger question of whether the well-established common law tests for an employment relationship should be applied at all to classify the relationship between a sport's team owner and the amateur athletes that are team members." He observed that the players in Michigan and Pennsylvania had courts and administrative agencies available to them to decide the application of U.S. law, as opposed to an Ontario court. Justice Perell concluded: Given the importance of spectator sports to American and Canadian culture and society. . . I think it befits courts on either side of the border to at least pause to question whether they should decide an issue that their sovereign neighbor would prefer to decide for itself. This is a different question than asking whether, as an aspect of the conflicts of law, an American court would enforce an Ontario class action judgment and rather asks whether a Canadian court should respect the American court's jurisdiction to enforce its own law when it is ready to make it available. Justice Perell therefore certified the proceeding on behalf of only the Ontario players against the Ontario teams. Implications Berg demonstrates the difficulties of combining multi- jurisdictional classes in one class action, particularly international classes. The court's approach to the question highlights that defendants may resist certification both on traditional jurisdictional arguments and through showing the potential for complications in applying foreign law on novel legal questions. Although Justice Perell expressly refused to apply principles of comity, order, and fairness traditionally associated with the law of jurisdiction, those principles seem to guide the substance of his reasoning. Judges on certification motions will have to continue to grapple with the dividing line between jurisdiction and preferability in international class actions. [GN] ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: HELCO's Motion to Dismiss Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the HELCO motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is under consideration by the court. On August 5, 2016, George Douvris, Stephanie Douvris, Michael Hale, Cheryl Cacocci, Hillary E. Wilt and Christina Bryan, acting for themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated residents of the lower Puna District, filed a complaint in the Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaii seeking certification of a class action for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, consequential and punitive damages, attorney's fees and statutory interest against PGV and other presently unknown defendants. On December 12, 2016, the federal district court granted plaintiffs' motion for joinder of HELCO as a co-defendant, and the case, which had previously been removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, was remanded back to the Third Circuit Court. The amended complaint alleges that injuries and other damages in an undisclosed amount were caused to the plaintiffs as a result of an alleged toxic release by PGV in the wake of Hurricane Iselle in August 2014. On March 25, 2017, HELCO filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the Third Circuit Court against itself, on several grounds. Following briefing and oral arguments, the HELCO motion to dismiss is under consideration by the court. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law, and intends to defend itself vigorously. OVASCIENCE INC: Discovery Ongoing in Suffolk County Case -------------------------------------------------------- OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties are engaged in discovery in the class action lawsuit filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Company said, "On October 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against us, several of our officers and directors and certain of the underwriters from our January 2015 follow-on public offering of our common stock. The plaintiffs purport to represent those persons who purchased shares of our common stock pursuant or traceable to our January 2015 follow-on public offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in the Company's January 2015 Registration Statement and incorporated offering materials. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek, among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-and post- judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements." "On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of removal with the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to the Superior Court. Oral argument on the motion to remand was held on February 19, 2016. "On February 23, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the action to the Superior Court. On February 26, 2016, a second putative class action suit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against the Company, several of our officers and directors and certain of the underwriters from the January 2015 follow-on public offering. The complaint is substantially similar to the complaint filed in October 2015. "The two actions subsequently were consolidated and plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on June 17, 2016. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Those motions were denied by order dated December 22, 2016. The parties currently are engaged in discovery. "We believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit." OvaScience, Inc., incorporated on April 5, 2011 as a Delaware corporation, is a global fertility company developing proprietary potential treatments for female infertility based on scientific discoveries about the existence of egg precursor, or EggPCSM, cells. OVASCIENCE INC: Massachusetts Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- OvaScience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has yet to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in a class action lawsuit in Massachusetts. The Company said, "On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of our present and former officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court has yet to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. "We believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit." OvaScience, Inc., incorporated on April 5, 2011 as a Delaware corporation, is a global fertility company developing proprietary potential treatments for female infertility based on scientific discoveries about the existence of egg precursor, or EggPCSM, cells. PACIFIC PERSONNEL: Accused by "Smith" Suit of Not Paying Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER SMITH, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. PACIFIC PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC. a California Corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-03594 (N.D. Cal., June 22, 2017), accuses the Defendant of failure to pay overtime wages and to provide accurate itemized statements, among other violations of the California Labor Code. Pacific Personnel Services, Inc., is a California corporation that conducts substantial and regular business throughout the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawca.com kyle@bamlawca.com aj@bamlawca.com PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans Dismiss New York Suit ---------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Sheridans have voluntarily dismissed their class action in the Southern District of New York. On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court litigation is currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision. On December 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the Anti-SLAPP motion. On March 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions and a response from the California Supreme Court is pending. Between September 14, 2015 and October 19, 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan filed separate class action suits against the Company in the federal district courts for the Northern District of California, District of New Jersey and Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights of publicity arising from allegations that we owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972. Currently, the action in California is stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc., and the actions in New Jersey and Illinois are stayed or otherwise suspended pending the Second Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Sirius XM. On March 16, 2017, the Second Circuit issued the final mandate in Flo & Eddie et al. v. Sirius XM, and on April 6, 2017, the Sheridans voluntarily dismissed their action in the Southern District of New York. Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized experience for listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen to music -- whether through earbuds, car speakers or live on stage. PANDORA MEDIA: Ponderosa Twins Suit Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class suit by Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. remains stayed. On September 7, 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One et al. filed a class action suit against the Company alleging claims similar to that of Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc. The action is currently stayed in the Northern District of California pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc. Pandora is a music discovery platform, offering a personalized experience for listeners wherever and whenever they want to listen to music -- whether through earbuds, car speakers or live on stage. PASADENA, CA: Suit Demands Refund For Parking Fees, Fines --------------------------------------------------------- Jason Henry, writing for Pasadena Star News, reports that a class action lawsuit filed against Pasadena could require the city to refund millions in parking fees and fines paid by drivers who parked near electronic "Pay & Display" kiosks. The litigation, filed by the firm Abelson Herron Halpern on behalf of disgruntled drivers, alleges Pasadena improperly used the kiosks for years because the city's parking ordinance only allowed traditional parking meters until earlier this year. "Simply put, the City's 'Pay & Display' ticket kiosks were not authorized parking meters and, therefore, the City's collection of parking fees, issuance of citations and levying of fines were all unauthorized and improper," wrote Michael Abelson, the attorney representing the driver, in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the case include a Pasadena resident fined $48 for an expired meter and two South Pasadena residents who each paid $1 at the "Pay & Display" kiosks in December 2016 and January 2017, respectively. The litigation demands that Pasadena refund all fees and fines from January 2016 to January 2017 related to the use of the "Pay & Display" ticketing systems. Pasadena charges about $1.25 per hour at the kiosks, but an "expired meter" citation might cost more than $45. An investigation by this newspaper in 2015 found that few of the citations appealed in Pasadena are ever dismissed. It's unclear how much Pasadena brings in from fines and fees related specifically to the kiosks. Pasadena received about $1.5 million from all parking meters and about $5.8 million from parking tickets in Fiscal Year 2015-2016, according to the city. Abelson said there is already some precedent for the lawsuit -- his own against the city last year. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge sided with him last year when he presented the same argument during an appeal of his own parking ticket. The judge overturned Abelson's ticket, after the city denied his appeals twice, because Pasadena's definition for a parking meter hadn't been updated since 1993. About two weeks later, Abelson got another ticket in the same area. After going through the process a second time, he spoke with others who described similar experiences. "I was told time and time again how unfair the parking system is in Pasadena, how maddening it is, how vigorously they enforce it," he said. "Even when you're in the right, you can't get any remedy. No one will return your calls and they summarily deny everything." The City Council approved an update to Pasadena's parking ordinance incorporating the newer kiosks in February, about a month after the plaintiffs filed a claim with the city. Pasadena Spokesman William Boyer said staff initially began working on the changes in 2015 in an effort to keep the code up to date with new technologies. It was not related to any litigation, he said in an email. The city declined to comment specifically on the pending class action suit. A staff report from January 23, 2017 recommended modernizing the definition for parking meters after a "recent parking citation appeal resulted in the dismissal of a citation based on outdated language in the PMC." Abelson believes the report is referencing the personal ticket he got overturned in the superior court. Simply changing the language of the ordinance doesn't make it right, he argued. "If they were wrong to collect it, they need to give it back," he said. [GN] PAYLESS: Car Rental Customers File Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Michael Finney, writing for KGO, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit with plaintiffs from multiple states some Payless car rental customers were charged for services they said they declined, and then had difficulty money back or were still waiting for a refund. One of the customers came to us with a similar complaint. "I was going to go to Seattle, to visit my grandson and rent a car," Jeanne Mackie said. Ms. Mackie, of Gilroy, went online and reserved a car with Payless rental cars. However, she later found she could actually pay less with a different company. "Payless was $150 more," she said. Payless said she could cancel for a $50 fee, so Jeanne agreed. However, instead of removing charges, she said, payless added them. "Not only did they not refund my money with the cancelation, they charged me twice." Instead of no rentals, she was charged for two rentals at $468 each. She contacted Payless. "They said, 'we'll look into it.' That was on March 20th," said Ms. Mackie. Payless did remove one rental charge, but not the second one. "About once a week I continued to call them. Honestly I called them 15 times," Mackie told ABC7. Months later she still no refund. "So, a friend said call 7 On Your Side, and I did," Ms. Mackie said. KGO found Jeanne isn't the only one upset with Payless. The Better Business Bureau says it has received more than 800 complaints about Payless in the past three years and has given the company an F rating. In May, the BBB urged attorneys-general in four states -- California, Florida, New Jersey and Oklahoma to investigate Payless and its parent company, Avis Budget group for what the BBB calls a pattern of issues in sales practices, contracts, and billing with consumers. Also, it faces a proposed class action lawsuit which claims Payless and Avis "trick consumers into paying for insurance, roadside assistance, fuel options and other add-ons they specifically declined." The suit claims fees from those add-on products, not rentals, are the company's bread and butter. KGO reached out to Payless but a company attorney said it would not comment on pending litigation. However, Payless did help out in Jeanne's case, finally wiping out that extra $468 charge. The company issued a statement, saying "we were not aware of the second reservation until she contacted us again. Because the reservation was more than six months old, there was a delay in reviewing the case and processing the refund." Ms. Mackie was happy with the results. "7 On Your Side was amazing. You were fantastic, and I don't think you should ever stop doing this because it's such an aid to the consumer. You're great," Ms. Mackie said. [GN] POINTBREAK MEDIA: "Molina" Suit Sues over Unauthorized Robo-calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN MOLINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. POINTBREAK MEDIA LLC dba POINT BREAK MEDIA; JUSTIN RAMSEY; DUSTIN PILLONATO, the Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80794-DMM (S.D. Fla., July 4, 2017), seeks to secure redress because Defendants willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by causing unsolicited calls to be made to Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and/or pre-recorded or artificial voice message. This case alleges a scheme developed by an online marketing/Search Engine Optimization (SEO) company to market its services to consumers and businesses. Defendants' marketing efforts are achieved via aggressive telemarketing campaigns in plain violation of TCPA. All Defendants acted in concert to market SEO services to consumers through telemarketing efforts that include placing unauthorized "robo-calls" to consumers via ATDS and/or a pre- recorded or artificial voice. According to the complaint, the Defendants made one or more unauthorized calls to Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and/or prerecorded voice for the purpose of soliciting business from Plaintiffs. Point Break Media specializes in search engine optimization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq. DIEPPA MARTINEZ PLLC 14 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 1001 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 722 6977 Facsimile: (786) 870 4030 E-mail: ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law - and - John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507 7924 Facsimile: (310) 507 7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com POST HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on Motion for Immediate Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that there has been no ruling on defendants' motion to have denial of their summary judgment motions certified for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The case involves three plaintiff groups: (1) direct purchasers of eggs and egg products; (2) companies (primarily large grocery chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted out of any eventual class and brought their own separate actions against the defendants ("opt-out plaintiffs"); and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs. Motions related to class certification: In September of 2015, the court granted the motion of the direct purchaser plaintiffs to certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their motion to certify an egg-products subclass. Also in September of 2015, the court denied the motion of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs for class certification. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs have filed an alternative motion for certification of an injunctive class, and the denial of their original class-certification motion is subject to appeal. Motions for summary judgment: In September of 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss claims based on purchases of egg products, thereby limiting all claims to shell eggs. Certain of the egg products purchasers whose claims were dismissed have appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Also in September of 2016, the court denied individual motions for summary judgment made by Michael Foods and three other defendants that had sought the dismissal of all claims against them. All four defendants moved to have denial of their summary judgment motions certified for immediate appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; there has been no ruling on those motions. Settlements by Michael Foods: On December 8, 2016, Michael Foods reached an agreement to settle all class claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser plaintiffs for a payment of $75.0 million. The Company has paid such amount into escrow. This settlement is subject to approval by the court following notice to all class members. While the Company expects the settlement will receive the needed approval, there can be no assurance that the court will approve the agreement as proposed by the parties. On January 19, 2017, Michael Foods entered into a settlement, the details of which are confidential, with the opt-out plaintiffs (excluding those opt-out plaintiffs whose claims relate primarily or exclusively to egg products; several of those plaintiffs are now appealing the dismissal of the egg products claims). This settlement was paid by the Company as of March 31, 2017. Michael Foods has at all times denied liability in this matter, and neither settlement contains any admission of liability by Michael Foods. During the six months ended March 31, 2017, the Company expensed $74.5 million, included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, related to these settlements. No expense was recorded related to these settlements in the three and six months ended March 31, 2016. At September 30, 2016, the Company had accruals related to these settlements of $28.5 million that were included in "Other current liabilities" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Under current law, any settlement paid, including the settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the settlement with the opt-out plaintiffs, is deductible for federal income tax purposes. These settlements do not affect (a) the claims of the opt-out plaintiffs who are appealing the dismissal of egg-products claims from the case or (b) the claims of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs. While the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements, there is still a possibility of an adverse outcome in the remaining portions of the case. "At this time, however, we do not believe it is possible to estimate any loss in connection with these remaining portions of the egg antitrust litigation. Accordingly, we cannot predict what impact, if any, these remaining matters and any results from such matters could have on our future results of operations," the Company said. Post is a consumer packaged goods holding company operating in four reportable segments: Post Consumer Brands, Michael Foods Group, Active Nutrition and Private Brands. PREMIER COURIER: "Wright" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled BRANDON WRIGHT On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIER COURIER, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00420-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "all drivers who worked full time for Premier Courier, Inc. as "independent contractors" during the period three years preceding the commencement of this action to the present." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hTGlSu9j The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Superior Building 815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (440) 498 9100 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Thomas A. Downie, Esq. 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza No. 104 Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (440) 973 9000 E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com RAZZLE DAZZLE: Conditional Class Cert. Bid Granted in "Romero" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ROSA ROMERO and LUIS MATEO, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP, INC., RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP INC., MZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP MIDTOWN, LLC., RAZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOBE, INC., MZZLE DAZZLE BARBERSHOP SOMI, LLC, and ELENA LINARES, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-24873-AOR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. The Court held that: - Within 2 weeks of the date of the Order, the Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs the current or last known addresses of the individuals who worked at the Razzle Dazzle Barbershop locations for the 3-year period preceding the filing of the complaint. - Notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs will be initially limited to mailings to those addresses. - The form of the Notice and the Consent to Join into Lawsuit are approved for mailing subject to an update to reflect the undersigned's name as the presiding judge. - These rulings are additional notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, whether by site posting or email without prejudice to Plaintiffs seeking leave to provide communication, after the initial wave of responses is reviewed. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ateo4pcd RELAY DELIVERY: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Pay under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Rivera, Carlos Montiel, Alfonso Gonzalez, Rigoberto Salas, Luis Ramirez Herrera, Pedro Gonzalez, Carlos Munoz Hernandez, Antonio Vivar, Osman Samayoa, Sergio Juarez, Jesus Ortiz, Andres Fuentes, Jorge Ortiz, Noe Escamilla, Hugo Sapon, Jose Rivera, Gustavo Juarez, Irael Jiguan, Juan J. Lopez, Justino Cuenca, Aurelio Salas, Jorge Alcaraz And David Rojas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Relay Delivery, Inc., Alex Blum And Michael Chevett, in their individuals and professional capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05012 (S.D.N.Y., July 4, 2017), seeks to recover minimum and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have repeatedly deprived Plaintiffs of their lawfully earned wages as well as their overtime compensation. For the majority of the relevant time period, Plaintiffs were paid an amount of $6 per hour irrespective of the number of hours they worked.[BN] Relay Delivery provides delivery solutions for restaurants. The company offers software and delivery team. The company was incorporated in 2014. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lina Franco, Esq. LINA FRANCO LAW, PC 42 Broadway, Suite 12-126 New York, NY 10004 Telephone (800) 933 5620 E-mail: www.LinaFrancoLawPC.com REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Settlement in Warren Police Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court scheduled a Settlement Fairness Hearing on May 19, 2017. As of May 2015, the Company became subject to a securities class action complaint, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al, CIV 533635, which was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County, California against the Company and certain of its directors and executive officers at the time of the June 2014 follow-on public offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as the underwriters in the follow-on public offering. In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the then-present status of the RT001 topical clinical program and made false and misleading statements regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of its drug candidate, RT001 topical, for the treatment of crow's feet at the time of the follow-on public offering. The complaint has been brought as a purported class action on behalf of those who purchased common stock in the follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 6, 2016, the action was transferred to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara (the "Court") and assigned the following case number, 15-CV-287794. On October 31, 2016, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation"), pursuant to which, in exchange for a release of all claims by the plaintiff class, the Company has agreed to settle the litigation for $6.4 million in cash, of which the Company expects $5.9 million to be covered by its insurance policies. The Stipulation maintains that the defendants, including the Company, deny all wrongdoing and liability related to the litigation. On January 6, 2017, the Court issued an order (the "Order") preliminarily approving the settlement proposed in the Stipulation by and among the plaintiff class and all named defendants in the Action, including the Company (the "Settlement"), and directing that notice of the proposed settlement be given to all members of the plaintiff class (the "Class Members"). The Court scheduled a hearing ("Settlement Fairness Hearing") on May 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time at the Court, located at 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113, to, among other things, make a final determination whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the Court. The Order provides that Class Members may opt out of the Settlement and that they may object to the Settlement in advance of and/or at the Settlement Fairness Hearing. The Stipulation and the Settlement remain subject to final approval by the Court and certain other conditions. It is anticipated that the Settlement, if approved, would not have a material impact on the Company's business. The Company said, "This litigation, including the Settlement, remains subject to uncertainty, and the actual defense and disposition costs may depend upon many unknown factors. Therefore, there can be no assurance that this litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial position or cash flows." Revance Therapeutics, Inc., or the Company, was incorporated in Delaware on August 10, 1999 under the name Essentia Biosystems, Inc. The Company commenced operations in June 2002 and on April 19, 2005, changed its name to Revance Therapeutics, Inc. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on the development, manufacturing and commercialization of novel botulinum toxin products for multiple aesthetic and therapeutic indications. ROCKET FUEL: Oct. 11 Final Hearing on $3.15 Million Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re Rocket Fuel Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.: 4:14-cv-03998-PJH-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Court will hold a hearing at 9:00 a.m. on October 11, 2017 before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States Courthouse - Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. At this hearing the Court will consider whether the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and the Fee and Expense Application are fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will hear them. Any Class Member who has not previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class may appear and be heard, to the extent allowed by the Court, to state any objections. If the Court approves the Settlement, and after any objections and appeals are resolved, a claims administrator appointed by the Court will make the payments that the Settlement allows. About $3.15 million was paid on Rocket Fuel's behalf into an escrow account that is earning interest for the benefit of the Class. The balance of this fund, after payment of Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, taxes, and the costs of claims administration, including the costs of printing and mailing this Notice and the cost of publishing newspaper notice, will be divided among all Class Members who submit valid claim forms (also called Authorized Claimants). The Settlement Fund of $3.15 million, plus interest earned, minus the costs and expenses, will be distributed on a pro rata basis to Authorized Claimants. Depending on the number of Authorized Claimants, and the number of eligible shares purchased by Authorized Claimants and when those shares were purchased and sold, the average distribution is estimated to be $0.15 per damaged share before deduction of the costs and Court-approved payments. Lead Counsel, without further notice to the Class, will apply to the Court for payment of the Claims Administrator's fees and expenses incurred in sending this Notice, administering the Settlement and distributing the Settlement proceeds to the Authorized Claimants. These fees and expenses will be paid from the Settlement Fund and will reduce the amount available for distribution to Authorized Claimants. The same will be true of Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses to Lead Counsel. To be eligible to share in the distribution of the Settlement proceeds, a member of the Class must timely submit a timely and valid Claim Form, postmarked or received no later than October 12, 2017. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses may be mailed to the Court in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice and postmarked no later than September 12. Rocket Fuel Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing on plaintiffs' motion seeking preliminary approval of the class action settlement was scheduled for May 31, 2017. The company said, "On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014, respectively, two purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of California against us and certain of our officers and directors at the time. The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in the initial public offering on September 19, 2013, or the "IPO," and the secondary offering on February 5, 2014, or the "Secondary Offering," were also named as defendants." These actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint, In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation, was filed on February 27, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the ability of our technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and about our future prospects. The consolidated complaint also alleged that our registration statements and prospectuses for the IPO and the Secondary Offering contained false and misleading statements on these topics. The consolidated complaint purported to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 (the "Exchange Act claims"), and for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act (the "Securities Act claims"), on behalf of those who purchased the our common stock between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well as those who purchased common stock in the IPO, and a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering. The consolidated complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount. All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on December 23, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed the Securities Act claims and all but one of the statements on which the Exchange Act claims were based. The court also dismissed all claims against the outside directors and the underwriters of the public offerings. On February 24, 2017, the parties advised the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the case in its entirety. The agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit is subject to several conditions, including preliminary and final approval from the court, among other things. If the settlement is finalized and approved by the court, the settlement amount will be funded by the company's insurance carrier. On April 25, 2017, the parties executed a stipulation of settlement, and plaintiffs filed the executed stipulation of settlement along with a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing on that motion was scheduled for May 31, 2017. Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.rocketfuelsecuritieslitigation.com Rocket Fuel Inc. (the "Company") was incorporated as a Delaware corporation on March 25, 2008. The Company is a provider of artificial-intelligence digital advertising solutions headquartered in Redwood City, California. SAN JOSE, CA: Asks Court to Decertify Firefighter Employees Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DARREN WALLACE, KEITH HART, MARK LEEDS, and other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-04914-HRL (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court on August 15, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., for an order to decertify a conditionally certified collective action. The Defendant said, "This lawsuit arose because Lead Plaintiffs (erroneously) believe that the City misapplies a 'credit' against its overtime obligations in the unique situation where a firefighter employee works significant hours both below and above the FLSA-overtime threshold. Lead Plaintiffs have asked this Court to make their lawsuit into a collective action on behalf of all firefighter employees in the City, yet they cannot point to evidence that a single one of those employees (1) worked the combination of overtime resulting in the 'unique situation' they allege or (2) was underpaid overtime after March 2013 as a result. That failure in evidence alone precludes Lead Plaintiffs from proceeding with a collective action. That the opt-in class consists of employees with different job titles, work schedules, and duties further underscores the impropriety of collective action. The defense respectfully requests that the Court rule that Lead Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving they are similarly situated, and that the Court accordingly decertify their conditional collective action." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JmsAffNx The Defendant is represented by: Richard Doyle, Esq. Nora Frimann, Esq. Kathryn J. Zoglin, Esq. Matthew Pritchard, Esq. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 200 East Santa Clara Street, 16th Floor San Jose, CA 95113-1905 Telephone: (408) 535 1900 Facsimile: (408) 998 3131 E-mail: cao.main@sanjoseca.gov SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Securities Class Action Pending in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Safirstein Metcalf LLP updates investors in SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. ("SeaWorld" or the "Company") (NYSE:SEAS) with regard to the pending shareholder class action in California and the recent disclosure by the Company about the Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation regarding the impact of the "Blackfish" documentary. On June 23, 2017, SeaWorld disclosed that it had received subpoenas from both the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with investigations "concerning disclosures and public statements made by the Company and certain executives . . . including those regarding the impact of the 'Blackfish' documentary, and trading in the Company's securities." On this news, SeaWorld's stock has fallen in after-hours trading, causing tens of millions in losses to shareholders. If you purchased shares of SeaWorld and have questions about your legal rights, please call 1-800-221-0015, or email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com. On September 9, 2014, a shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against SeaWorld over alleged securities laws violations. The complaint alleges that SeaWorld failed to disclose in its IPO documents that it had improperly cared for and mistreated its Orca population which adversely impacted trainer and audience safety, that it continued to feature and breed an Orca that had killed and injured numerous trainers, and that material uncertainties and risks existing at the time of the IPO could adversely impact attendance at its family oriented parks. When details of the Company's alleged improper practices were revealed by the documentary film "Blackfish", SeaWorld misled investors by claiming the decrease in attendance at its parks was caused by the Easter holiday and other factors. The complaint alleges that the decline in attendance was really caused by the mounting negative publicity from the improper practices at SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. that were revealed by the "Blackfish" film. On February 27, 2015 an amended complaint was filed and on May 29, 2015 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the case. On March 31, 2016, the court granted the May 2015 defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims without prejudice. On May 31, 2016, a second amended consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock of SeaWorld between August 29, 2013 and August 12, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). On June 29, 2016 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. In or about September 2016, the court denied the June 2016 defendants' motion to dismiss the case. About Safirstein Metcalf LLP Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights. The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer protection. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection. [GN] SEECO INC: Cambiano Appeals Order in "Smith" Suit to 8th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Movants Kathleen Cambiano and James Huett filed an appeal from a court order dated June 2, 2017, relating to the lawsuit entitled CONNIE JEAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEECO, INC. n/k/a SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00435-BSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The appellate case is captioned as Connie Smith, et al. v. Kathleen Cambiano, et al., Case No. 17-2396, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 16, 2017, the Hon. Brian S. Miller entered an order in the lawsuit denying the Defendants' motion to disqualify class counsel, remove the class representative and decertify the class, and Defendant DeSoto Gathering Company's motion for a one-week continuance. On June 21, 2017, the Class Action Reporter reported that testimony in the lawsuit began on June 6 with two hours of questions for an educator from Nashville, Tenn., who sued Southwestern Energy Co. and three subsidiaries, alleging underpayment for the use of her land during the natural-gas boom in north-central Arkansas. The lawsuit is one of the biggest class-action lawsuits to emerge from Fayetteville Shale activity. Connie Jean Smith's case hinges on what a 12-person federal jury will decide is "reasonable" for SWN Production, formerly known as SEECO, to deduct from Ms. Smith's promised cut of the company's proceeds. Ms. Smith's case is class-action certified to represent about 12,000 Arkansas landowners whom Smith's attorneys say were cheated out of $98 million during years of royalty payments for the use of their land to produce natural gas. That averages out to more than $8,000 per lease. The docket in the Appellate Case stated that on the Appellate Court's own motion, the briefing schedule is temporarily held in abeyance.[BN] Movants-Appellants Kathleen Cambiano and James Huett are represented by: David A. Hodges, Sr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID HODGES 212 Center Street, Suite 500 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-2400 Toll Free: (800) 642-8082 Facsimile: (501) 374-8926 E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com Plaintiff-Appellee Connie Jean Smith, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ben H. Caruth, Esq. Edward Allen Gordon, Esq. GORDON, CARUTH & VIRDEN, PLC Post Office Box 558 105 S. Moose Street Morrilton, AR 72110-0558 Telephone: (501) 354-0125 E-mail: bcaruth@gcvlaw.com agordon@gcvlaw.com - and - Brian L. Cramer, Esq. Tanner W. Hicks, Esq. Jack A. Mattingly, Jr., Esq. MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS, PLLC 210 W. Oklahoma Avenue Guthrie, OK 70344 Telephone: (405) 603-222 E-mail: brian@mroklaw.com tanner@mroklaw.com jackjr@mroklaw.com - and - Erik P. Danielson, Esq. DANIELSON LAW FIRM, PLLC 909 Rolling Hills Drive Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 935-8060 E-mail: erik.danielson@danielsonlawfirm.com - and - Sean M. Handler, Esq. Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Melissa L. Troutner, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087-0000 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: shandler@ktmc.com gjarvis@ktmc.com kjustice@ktmc.com nlesser@ktmc.com jmeltzer@ktmc.com mtroutner@ktmc.com - and - Brad E. Seidel, Esq. SEIDEL LAW FIRM, PC 6 Hedge Lane Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 537-0903 E-mail: bradseidel@me.com - and - James Fitzgerald Valley, Esq. J F VALLEY, ESQ, P.A. 423 Rightor Street P.O. Box 451 Helena, AR 72342 Telephone: (870) 619-1750 Facsimile: (870) 619-1760 E-mail: james@jamesfvalley.com Defendants-Appellees SEECO, Inc., Now known as SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC; Desoto Gathering Company, LLC; Southwestern Energy Services Company and Southwestern Energy Company are represented by: Jess Askew, III, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 124 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-3000 E-mail: Jess.Askew@KutakRock.com - and - Thomas A. Daily, Esq. DAILY & WOODS, P.L.L.C. 58 S. Sixth Street P.O. Box 1446 Fort Smith, AR 72902-1446 Telephone: (479) 782-0361 E-mail: tdaily@dailywoods.com - and - Robert K. Ellis, Esq. R. Paul Yetter, Esq. YETTER & COLEMAN LLP 909 Fannin Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 632-8000 E-mail: rellis@yettercoleman.com pyetter@yettercoleman.com - and - Marc S. Tabolsky, Esq. SCHIFFER ODOM HICKS & JOHNSON PLLC 700 Louisiana Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 357-5150 Facsimile: (713) 357-5160 E-mail: mtabolsky@sohjlaw.com - and - Rex M. Terry, Esq. HARDIN & JESSON 5000 Rogers Avenue P.O. Box 10127 Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127 Telephone: (479) 452-2200 Facsimile: (479) 452-9097 E-mail: terry@hardinlaw.com SERVICE KING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Los Angeles labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against Service King Paint & Body, LLC for allegedly failing to provide their California workers with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods, off duty rest breaks and reimbursement for all business expenses incurred on the company's behalf. The Service King Paint & Body class action lawsuit, Case No. BC661567 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuit filed against Service King Paint & Body, LLC alleges that the Golden State employees working for the company were not provided timely thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth hour of work. The Complaint further alleges that as a result of their rigorous work schedules, the workers were not afforded the opportunity to take compliant off duty rest breaks either. California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods before the employee works five hours and off duty rest breaks. The lawsuit additionally alleges that Service King required employees to purchase uniforms with the company's logo and did not provide reimbursement for the necessary business expenses they incurred on the company's behalf. For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against Service King Paint & Body, LLC, please call Attorney Nicholas De Blouw at the firm Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik at (866) 771-7099. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a Los Angeles employment law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. [GN] SIENTRA INC: $10,900,000 Settlement Awaits Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the actions entitled John M. Flynn v. Sientra, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-07548-SJO-RAO, pending before the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Federal Action"), and Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System v. Sientra, Inc., et al., Master File No. CIV 536013, pending before the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, remains pending. The Settlement, if approved, will result in the creation of a cash settlement fund of $10,900,000. The Settlement Amount, plus accrued interest and minus the costs of this Notice and all costs associated with the administration of the Settlement, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses, as approved by the Courts, will be distributed to Class Members pursuant to the Plan of Allocation that is described in the Notice. A total of $9.65 million of the Settlement Amount will be allocated to the 1933 Act claims, and $1.25 million of the Settlement Amount will be allocated to the 1934 Act claims. The Federal Court appointed the law firms of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Pomerantz LLP and Wolf Popper LLP to represent Plaintiffs and the Class in the Federal Action, and the State Court appointed the law firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Johnson & Weaver, LLP, Kaufman, Coren & Ress, P.C. and Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP to represent Plaintiffs and the Class in the State Action. Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement a final approval hearing in the United States District Court for the Central District of California was scheduled for May 22, 2017, and a final approval hearing in the San Mateo Superior Court was scheduled for May 31, 2017. On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit names the Company and certain of our officers as defendants, or the Sientra Defendants, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to approve their selection of lead counsel. On December 10, 2015, the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and approving their selection of lead counsel. On February 19, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, which added claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act and named as defendants the underwriters associated with the Company's follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015, or the Underwriter Defendants. On March 21, 2016, the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed a motion to dismiss, or the Motions to Dismiss, the consolidated amended complaints. On April 20, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Motions to Dismiss, and the Sientra Defendants and Underwriter Defendants filed separate replies on May 5, 2016. On June 9, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part the Motions to Dismiss. On July 14, 2016, the Sientra Defendants moved the court to reconsider its June 9, 2016 order and grant the Motions to Dismiss in full. On August 4, 2016, lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration. On August 12, 2016, the court denied the motion for reconsideration, and the Sientra Defendants and the Underwriter Defendants each filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint. On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo. The lawsuits name the Company, certain of our officers and directors, and the underwriters associated with our follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of he Securities Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements in our offering documents associated with the follow-on offering concerning our business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On December 4, 2015, defendants removed all three lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior Court, or Motions to Remand. On January 19, 2016, defendants filed their opposition to the Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the Motions to Remand on January 26, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' Motions to Remand, and the San Mateo Superior Court received the remanded cases on May 27, 2016. On July 19, 2016, the San Mateo Superior Court consolidated the three lawsuits. On August 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint. On August 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to stay all proceedings in favor of the class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On September 13, 2016, the parties to the actions pending in the San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California signed a memorandum of understanding that sets forth the material deal points of a settlement that covers both actions and includes class-wide relief. On September 13, 2016, and September 20, 2016, respectively, the parties filed notices of settlement in both courts. On September 22, 2016, the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed that action pending the court's approval of a settlement. On September 23, 2016, the San Mateo Superior Court stayed that action as well as pending the court's approval of a settlement. On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs in the federal court action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On January 23, 2017, the United States District Court for the Central District of California preliminarily approved the settlement. A final approval hearing in that court was scheduled for May 22, 2017. On January 5, 2017, the plaintiffs in the state court action also filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. On February 7, 2017, the San Mateo Superior Court preliminarily approved the settlement. A final approval hearing in that court was scheduled for May 31, 2017. On April 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in the federal court action and the state court action each filed their motion for final approval of the class action settlement, approval of the proposed plan of allocation, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The settlement is contingent upon final approval by both the San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Company said, "As a result of these developments, we determined that a probable loss had been incurred and we recognized a net charge to earnings of approximately $1.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 within general and administrative expense which was comprised of the loss contingency of approximately $10.9 million, net of expected insurance proceeds of approximately $9.4 million." "In the first quarter of 2017, we received $9.3 million in insurance proceeds and paid the $10.9 million loss contingency. The remaining insurance proceeds receivable is classified as "insurance recovery receivable" on the accompanying condensed balance sheets. While it is possible that the Company may incur a loss greater than the amounts recognized in the accompanying financial statements, the Company is unable to determine a range of possible losses greater than the amount recognized." Additional information is available at: http://www.sientrashareholderlitigation.com/ Sientra is a medical aesthetics company committed to making a difference in patients' lives by enhancing their body image, growing their self-esteem and restoring their confidence. SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Action in New York Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Sierra Oncology, Inc. is defending against a securities action in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its executive officers. The lawsuit was brought by purported stockholders of the company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who purchased stock between July 15, 2015 and June 6, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Due to the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome. Sierra Oncology, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a clinical stage drug development company advancing next generation DNA Damage Response (DDR) therapeutics for the treatment of patients with cancer. Sierra Oncology's lead drug candidate is SRA737, a potent, highly selective, orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), a key regulator of important cell cycle checkpoints and central mediator of the DDR network. Sierra Oncology is also advancing SRA141, a potent, selective and orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of cell division cycle 7 kinase (Cdc7) undergoing preclinical development. SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Securities Action in California Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Oncology, Inc. is defending against a securities action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The company said, "On November 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against us, certain of our executive officers and directors, and the underwriters for our initial public offering of our common stock." "On February 9, 2017, a substantially identical putative class action suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class. The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of our company seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who purchased stock pursuant to and/or traceable to our Registration Statement on Form S-1. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that additional similar lawsuits could be filed. Due to the early stage of the litigation, we are unable to predict the outcome of these cases and are unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome." Sierra Oncology, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a clinical stage drug development company advancing next generation DNA Damage Response (DDR) therapeutics for the treatment of patients with cancer. Sierra Oncology's lead drug candidate is SRA737, a potent, highly selective, orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of Checkpoint kinase 1 (Chk1), a key regulator of important cell cycle checkpoints and central mediator of the DDR network. Sierra Oncology is also advancing SRA141, a potent, selective and orally bioavailable small molecule inhibitor of cell division cycle 7 kinase (Cdc7) undergoing preclinical development. SLATER & GORDON: Recapitalization Hinges on Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that Slater and Gordon boss Andrew Grech has quit and the board of the beseiged law firm will be cleaned out under a debt restructuring deal that passes almost full ownership of the company to its lenders. Lenders holding three quarters of Slater and Gordon's debt, led by private equity firm Anchorage Capital, will own 95 per cent of the company's shares under the recapitalisation deal announced on June 29. After months of negotiations with lenders, the current board has unanimously supported the deal that will oust them, and have pledged to vote all shares they control in support of the new arrangement. The recapitalisation deal is contingent on shareholder approval and the settlement of a class action brought by rival law firm, Maurice Blackburn, representing thousands of shareholders. Also among conditions for approval are an independent expert finding the law firm will remain solvent and that the deal is either "fair and reasonable" or "not fair but reasonable" to shareholders. "The recapitalisation is intended to provide the Company with a sustainable level of senior secured debt and a stable platform for its future operations in both Australia and the UK," the company said in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange. The lenders will set up loan facilities worth $35 million, with some existing debt placed in a $30 million facility and a new, $5 million facility established. Existing shareholders will control just five per cent of the company after the recapitalisation, which will later be diluted to four per cent by the issue of new shares to lenders in the $5 million facility. Managing director Mr Grech has quit his role immediately but will remain on the board, with all directors to resign as new board members are appointed. Chief executive Hayden Stephens will continue to lead the company in Australia, while Ken Fowlie will remain in his position as UK CEO. Slater and Gordon said it would continue mediation proceedings for the Maurice Blackburn-led class action and provide an update in coming days. Maurice Blackburn brought the class action in October, 2016, representing thousands of Slater and Gordon shareholders making claims over disclosure of financial information between March 2015 and February 2016. ACA Lawyers is also investigating a potential class action, while Slater and Gordon is facing separate legal action brought against it by organisation Babscay, which is acting on behalf of shareholders who acquired an interest in Slater and Gordon shares between August 24, 2012, and November 19, 2015. Slater and Gordon's market value has fallen from $2.8 billion in April 2015, to less than $31 million after a disastrous $1.2 billion acquisition of Quindell's professional services division in the UK. [GN] SLATER & GORDON: Judge Has Courtroom in Stitches Over Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Katie Walsh, writing for Financial Review, reports that the ongoing Slater + Gordon narrative has not tempered the fervour for class action claims. As Andrew Grech confirmed he would step down from leadership -- after 17 years at the wheel -- law firm Gadens issued its long- threatened class action claim on behalf of shareholders against Surfstitch Group and ex-head Justin Cameron, backed by funder International Litigation Partners. Filed in the Supreme Court of NSW and citing the fall in share price from "a peak of $2.13 to roughly 11 cents", the claim overlaps that brought by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan. The embattled surfwear company said in an ASX announcement on June 29 it was considering whether the Gadens claim was "an abuse of process and liable to be struck out", and it continued to "explore settlement" with the Quinn claim, led by former Maurice Blackburn partner Damian Scattini. Gadens had hinted at a possible claim in June 2016, but Quinn, backed by Vannin Capital, beat it to the punch -- filing in Queensland in May, among the first in the state's new class actions regime. The State of Origin-esque battle for claimants will be led on the Gadens side by Melbourne-based partner Glenn McGowan, QC (who was incidentally elected in April as president of the Australian Institute for Commercial Arbitration; his negotiation skills should come in handy given no shareholder class action has ever made it to judgment). Mafia Don... or just a solicitor In a court order, Queensland Supreme Court judge Peter Applegarth has forced Gadens to let group members know about the Quinn claim. In a note to members the firm says they can contact Scattini and Gadens' Patrick Walsh for information to allow them to "compare the different funding arrangements". Gadens had to foot the legal bill for the benefit of the tussle before the judge on the issue. In the hearing on June 19, before Gadens filed proceedings, Justice Applegarth neatly expressed why he was minded to order them to flag the Quinn matter with claimants: he didn't want anyone to be misled. "My concern is that group members -- or potential group members -- in this proceeding are not misled ... and if I'm concerned about that, I would, for similar reasons, be concerned about them receiving incomplete or misleading information from anyone, whether it was a solicitor or a Mafia Don, wouldn't I?" To which Gadens' counsel Lachlan Armstrong, QC, could only respond: "Yes, your honour." To date, about $1.3 billion in settlements have been reached in shareholder class actions claims, from which healthy legal fees are carved. Principles of proportionality, to ensure they are fair and reasonable, are applied by the court. So how much does that equate to? For Macpherson + Kelley Lawyers this month, after acting in the claim against Willmott Forests after the collapse of its managed investment schemes, it was $8.562 million. Despite an initial "fair degree of scepticism", Federal Court judge Bernard Murphy accepted the position; the second stab at a settlement after rejecting the first. To be fair, class action matters seem to involve quite a bit of effort. Jones Day partner John Emmerig, defending the Bank of Queensland in a class action brought over a failed scheme peddled by financial planner Bradley Sherwin, must dig through "a database containing over one million electronic documents, and 550 boxes of documents" produced by the plaintiffs; as set out in a ruling on security for costs by Federal Court judge David Yates which itself ran to 47 pages and referred to the millions likely generated in fees. In return, the bank has generated "in the order of 868 gigabytes of primary electronic records . . . . comprising an estimated 14 million" documents. On the question of costs, elsewhere Fairfax Media's Michaela Whitbourn, astutely watching the NSW Supreme Court battle between former Auburn deputy mayor property developer Salim Mehajer and creditors, tweeted this observation: "'How much are we charging for staples?' Supreme Court justice Paul Brereton quips when brief hands up unstapled documents. '$9' he adds." Vale Gordon Cooper Now, to another Don. The tax world has lost a titan, after Gordon Cooper -- practitioner, teacher, author, and ultimate boffin among boffins who was awarded an AM for services to the profession in 2003 -- passed away. Known for his charisma, whimsy and humility -- he would refer to himself and other former presidents of the Tax Institute (he held the title in 1999-2000) as "feather dusters" ("rooster one day, feather duster the next") -- he has left behind a saddened but grateful community. In a heartfelt vale, KPMG partner Lachlan Wolfers championed his first mentor. "Gordon will always be the most extraordinary tax professional I have ever worked with -- a mad professor type with an unparalleled breadth and depth of tax knowledge and commercial acumen, a true gentleman, and ethical to a fault." The kind of fault that is in sore demand. Bolt-on art While top Sydney lawyers slept a la concrete for the Vinnies CEO Sleepout, including NSW Bar Association president Arthur Moses, SC, who is tantalising close to his $22,000 fundraising target, the bench and bar tried to outbid one other to secure Indigenous art in the 3rd annual Environmental Defenders Office (NT) auction fundraiser. Among those with winning bids for one of the 127 pieces were Federal Court judge Melissa Perry, NSW Supreme Court justice Elizabeth Fullerton (four pieces) and Phillip Boulten, SC (also securing four). In all, the auction raised $146,384, including around $65,000 for the office. Susan Wanji Wanji's piece received the highest winning bid, of $13,000. Boulten has actively participated in previous art auctions. He admitted to Hearsay his interest in contemporary art leaves him with more pictures than wall space. [GN] SPOKANE, WA: Faces Class Action for Overcharging Customers ---------------------------------------------------------- Spokesman reported that a $30 million class-action lawsuit filed on June 29 claims the city of Spokane has for years overcharged thousands of water customers who live outside city limits. The city, meanwhile, maintains that its higher rates for out-of- city water consumption are not only legal but also common across the state. The class action is the second lawsuit to emerge from a long- standing dispute between the city and Fairways Golf Course on the West Plains, which recently had its water shut off over an outstanding bill of $40,740. A judge in early June ordered the city to restore water service to the golf course, which claims it was overcharged despite meeting conservation targets. Attorney Bob Dunn, Esq. -- bdunn@dunnandblack.com -- of Dunn & Black, PS is representing both the golf course and the plaintiffs in the class action. The lead plaintiffs in the class action are Fairways club professional Kris Kallem and two neighbors of the course, John Durgan and Tawndi Sargent. Durgan's family managed the course for 15 years before the current owner took over. Spokane currently has about 5,300 out-of-city water customers. For residential customers, out-of-city rates are 50 percent higher. Commercial rates are more complex but also about 50 percent higher. "For a long time the city has been getting half a point more for each unit we use," said Durgan, who's lived near the golf course for nearly two decades. In his complaint, Dunn calls those higher rates "discriminatory," "excessive" and "arbitrary and capricious." He also contends they amount to a "surcharge." And in an interview, he said the class action could benefit up to 6,000 water customers, including some who have moved from the city's service area. City spokeswoman Marlene Feist provided a written statement defending the rate disparity. "The city's citizens rightfully benefit from their long-term investment with inside-city rates," the statement says. "State law and court decisions support this approach, which has been in place in the city for more than 50 years and in cities around the state including Tacoma, Seattle and Kennewick. It would be unfair to ask city residents to pay more now to accommodate lower rates for outside developments." The cost of pumping water generally increases with the distance it must travel. Dunn notes in both lawsuits that the Fairways Golf Course and surrounding neighborhood, developed by Robert "Buster" Heitman, were responsible for installing their own pipes and infrastructure. Dunn also has asserted that some out-of-city customers have been improperly billed at double the rate of city residents. But Feist wrote in an email that there is no "sliding scale" for rates based on distance from the city. "However, in all cases, if you're using more water than your neighbor, your bill would be larger," she wrote. [GN] SQUARETRADE: Moves to Compel Arbitration in Protection Plans Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Revak, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that tech company SquareTrade recently moved to compel arbitration in a lawsuit claiming the company offered fraudulent protection plans to consumers on Amazon. The motion, filed May 18, cites the terms and conditions that consumers must consent to before purchasing a protection plan, which it claims forces litigants into arbitration and prohibit class action lawsuits. "The terms and conditions for the plan plaintiff purchased on Sept. 11, 2014 required arbitration of any dispute thereunder, and a waiver of the ability to bring claims as a class representative or participate in a class action against Square Trade," the motion said. The company says the plaintiff made six additional purchases over the next 15 months before bringing the lawsuit. Additionally, plaintiff was allotted a 30-day period to cancel the protection plan free of charge, but refrained from doing so and was emailed a link to the terms and conditions. Furthermore, the company argues that even if there is a dispute over the legitimacy of an arbitration clause, under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) this dispute must be resolved before an arbitrator and not before a court. "Under the FAA, an agreement to arbitrate under the rules of a particular provider whose rules so provide requires the arbitrator -- and not a court faced with the motion to compel arbitration -- to determine questions of arbitrability. . . . " the motion said. In addition to arbitration, the motion also demanded that the court "order the plaintiff's claims be arbitrated on an individual and not a class wide basis; and . . . . stay the instant litigation in favor of arbitration." The claim, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, was initially filed in December 2016 after plaintiff Adam Starke alleged that the company marketed its protection plans in a misleading fashion on Amazon.com. Starke claims that he suffered financial damage upon purchasing a plan that turned out to be different and less generous then what was advertised, according to Legal Newsline. He also claims that SquareTrade "sells protection plans for products on Amazon.com that are ineligible for coverage." [GN] SSM HOME: Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Regan, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that a lawsuit claiming that Midwestern home health care provider SSM Health at Home, formerly known as SSM Home Care, owes some of its caregivers unpaid overtime wages can move forward as a class action case, a district judge ruled. SSM Health at Home's parent company, SSM Health, is a health care system based in St. Louis that owns 18 hospitals, two nursing homes, a physician network and medical services such as home health and hospice. The system employs more than 33,000 people. Plaintiff Christina Mayberry alleged in a 2015 suit that she and other hourly home health care workers employed by SSM in Missouri, Illinois and Oklahoma worked "off the clock" without pay. Ms. Mayberry is seeking to recover those unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law. Judge Carol Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri approved the class action status on May 30, according to court documents. Under the ruling, the case can include "all current and former hourly-paid home health care workers employed at any time within the last three years at defendant's St. Louis and St. Louis West branch locations." The St. Louis Record, a Missouri legal publication, first reported on the lawsuit. Ms. Mayberry -- along with plaintiffs Cleo Mayfield, Janice Tainter and Rhonda McKinnon -- claimed that SSM paid them hourly as licensed practical nurses but did not compensate them for essential duties before and after their shifts. The plaintiffs routinely filled out charts and completed patient reports at home and off-the-clock, the lawsuit alleges. The plaintiffs also submitted paperwork corroborating their claims, according to the court document. A representative for SSM did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Many home health workers have pursued class action cases against their employers since overtime and minimum wage coverage protections went into effect in 2015. In April, a band of home health aides sought class certification in a similar unpaid labor case against Centegra Health System, a network of four hospitals, physician care locations and specialty services providers, including home health, based in Crystal Lake, Illinois. And employees at Humana in February sought class certification in Connecticut federal court on a claim they were wrongfully shorted overtime pay while working for one of the company's subsidiaries. Humana opposed the certification in that case, arguing the employees' case was built, in part, with flawed factual assumptions. [GN] STAPLES ENERGY: Faces "Price" Class Suit in California Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit styled Christina Price, Jorge Casas and all others similarly situated and the general public v. Staples Energy Services LLC and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 17CV002262 (Cal. Super. Ct., Monterey Cty., June 22, 2017), is brought against the Defendant in the California Superior Court. The case type is stated as other employment unlimited. Staples Energy designs and implements innovative savings solutions in the fields of energy and environmental design.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank J. Zeccola, Esq. ILG LEGAL OFFICE, PC 555 California Street, Suite 4925 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (888) 969-7404 E-mail: Fzeccola@ilglegal.com STEPTOE & JOHNSON: Discriminates Against Women, "Houck" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JI-IN HOUCK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP, Case No. 2:17-cv-04595-ODW-AFM (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2017), seeks all legal and equitable relief available pursuant to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the California Fair Pay Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions Code. Despite paying lip-service to diversity in its workforce, and even counseling the firm's own clients on policies to avoid pay discrimination, Steptoe subjects its female attorneys to unequal pay, the Plaintiff alleges. She seeks to remedy this disparity, at least at Steptoe. She, therefore, brings the lawsuit in her individual capacity and on behalf of similarly-situated women nationwide, to address the systemic gender pay discrimination at Steptoe. Steptoe & Johnson LLP, a law firm, employs nearly 500 attorneys in offices across the country and around the world. The Firm was founded more than a century ago by Phillip Steptoe, and headquartered in Washington, D.C., since 1945. Ms. Houck is a resident of Northridge, in the County of Los Angeles, California. She worked at Steptoe's office in Century City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori E. Andrus, Esq. Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Paul Laprairie, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com jennie@andrusanderson.com paul.laprairie@andrusanderson.com SUGAR FOODS: Removes "Lara" Suit From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit entitled Ricardo Lara v. Sugar Foods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC659797, was removed on June 22, 2017, from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04590-SVW-RAO to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.[BN] Plaintiff Ricardo Lara, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Paul Keith Haines, Esq. Andrew John Rowbotham, Esq. Fletcher W.H. Schmidt, Esq. Stephanie Alexis Kierig, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP APC 2274 East Maple Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com skierig@haineslawgroup.com Defendant Sugar Foods Corporation, a New York Corporation, is represented by: Kevin Dennis Sullivan, Esq. Michael S. Kun, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-8861 Facsimile: (310) 553-2165 E-mail: ksullivan@ebglaw.com mkun@ebglaw.com SURFSTITCH GROUP: Provides Updates on Gadens Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Surfstitch Group Ltd. provided updates on Gadens class action. The Gadens claim would cover same factual allegations and potential class members as class action proceedings currently on foot in supreme court. Surfstitch is considering whether Gadens claim against co is an abuse of process and liable to be struck out The company says the Gadens claim also names Justin Cameron as a defendant. It continues to explore settlement in respect of the Quinn Emanuel claim. [GN] TELE PAY USA: Hit With Employee Class Action Over Unfair Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a Florida phone-sex operator filed a class-action lawsuit against Tele Pay USA, claiming it pays its employees well below the national minimum wage while making hundreds of dollars per hour from their work. Anne Cannon of Orlando, Fla., filed a lawsuit on June 27 against Glendale-based Tele Pay USA in Los Angeles federal court, alleging failure to compensate off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime and failure to pay minimum wage. Cannon, who says she has worked for the company since 2008, sued on behalf of its primarily female workforce. The complaint, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claims that Tele Pay pays its workers at a rate that is as low as $4.20 per hour. Though the company offers incentives to earn more, Cannon says Tele Pay includes in her average call length prank calls, dropped calls and technical errors to pay employees wages that are below the national minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Cannon claims Tele Pay makes it almost impossible for employees to track their time and account accurately for how long they have worked. Workers are allegedly cajoled by a supervisor named "Don" to keep customers on the line for as long as possible, and the company demands that its workers answer calls on the first ring and conducts daily tests to make sure the employees are complying, Cannon claims. She alleges the company also spams its workers in emails with subject lines like: "Calls Coming in like Crazy! Log-In Now!" "Women are a core part of both the national and global economy. Unfortunately, the abuses and financial exploitation they experience often remain invisible," the 13-page complaint states. "This is especially true for workers in female-dominated sectors of the economy such as sex talk workers. They are hidden from the public eye." The lawsuit says that Tele Pay calls itself a booking agent for actors looking to provide "entertainment services" to the company. "Tele Pay's purported service is to 'negotiate and book engagements' for the actors, the engagement being a telephone call between the customer seeking telephone sex-talk services and the actors, the call being initiated by the customer in response to defendants' advertisements," the lawsuit states. In reality, Tele Pay does no negotiations and does not book work, Cannon says. The so-called engagement is just a sexually explicit call between the customer and phone sex operators, according to the complaint. Cannon says she works from home in Florida where the minimum wage is $8.10 per hour, using a landline telephone. The company requires her to stay home and within reach of her computer so that she can field dozens of calls each week, she says. Tele Pay pays Cannon 10 cents per minute when her calls average about six minutes long, according to the lawsuit. But calls are often less than six minutes in duration, dropping her hourly income to 7 cents per minute -- which means she receives $6 per hour at the high end but only $4.20 an hour on the low end, the complaint states. Tele Pay customers are charged $5 per minute, meaning the company can make up to $300 per hour based on one employee's work, Cannon claims. "Plaintiff's average hourly rate is below $6.00. The minimum wage for the state of Florida, the state in which she works, is $8.10 per hour. Anywhere in the nation, the average amount received by Ms. Cannon is far below the allowed national or state minimum wage," the lawsuit states. Cannon is represented by Brian Mahany,Esq. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Tele Pay USA could not be reached for comment. [GN] TOM'S MARINE: Hit With Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a painter and sand blaster has filed a class-action lawsuit against his former Lafitte employer over allegations that he was not paid at the correct rate for overtime work. Bismark Mairena-Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed a complaint on June 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Tom's Marine & Salvage LLC alleging that the shipyard operator violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that while working for the defendant from approximately October 2015 until February, plaintiff was not paid one-and-a-half times his regular hourly rate for all hours worked over of 40 hours a workweek. The plaintiff holds Tom's Marine & Salvage LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly willfully violated plaintiff's rights by recklessly disregarding the overtime provisions of the FLSA. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order certifying this case as a collective action, award for all unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and all other equitable relief as the court deems equitable. He is represented by Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. -- costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- William H. Beaumont, Esq. -- whbeaumont@gmail.com -- and Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. -- emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- of Beaumont Costales LLC in New Orleans. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana case number 2:17-cv-05823 [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Hope Appeals Decision in "Warner" Suit to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Cemil Hope filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Brian Warner, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02171-FMO-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. The appellate case is captioned as Brian Warner, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 17-55890, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by July 19, 2017; -- Transcript is due on October 17, 2017; -- Appellant Cemil Hope's opening brief is due on November 27, 2017; -- Appellees Ryan Burns, Dale Franquet, James Fuller, James Good, Kenneth MacLeod, Michael Meade, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Brian Warner and Michael Watson's answering brief is due on December 27, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Objector-Appellant CEMIL HOPE is represented by: Bradley David Salter, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BRADLEY D. SALTER 24 Malialani Place Lahaina, HI 96761 Telephone: (808) 298-7873 Plaintiffs-Appellees BRIAN WARNER, KENNETH MACLEOD, MICHAEL MEADE, MICHAEL WATSON, JAMES FULLER, DALE FRANQUET, RYAN BURNS and JAMES GOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One N. LaSalle Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 701 B Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com Defendant-Appellee TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation, is represented by: Galen D. Bellamy, Esq. WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP 370 Seventeenth Street, Suite # 4500 Denver, CO 80202-5647 Telephone: (303) 244-1800 Facsimile: (303) 244-1879 E-mail: bellamy@wtotrial.com - and - Raymond A. Cardozo, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-8700 Facsimile: (415) 391-8269 E-mail: rcardozo@reedsmith.com - and - John Peter Hooper, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 205-6125 Facsimile: (212) 521-5450 E-mail: jhooper@reedsmith.com - and - Peter W. Herzog, Jr., Esq. HERZOG CREBS LLP 100 N. Broadway, 14th Floor St. Louis, MO 63102-2728 Telephone: (314) 231-6700 Facsimile: (314) 231-4656 E-mail: pwh@herzogcrebs.com - and - Esther K. Ro, Esq. David L. Schrader, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-7434 Facsimile: (213) 312-2501 E-mail: ero@morganlewis.com david.schrader@morganlewis.com TRANSPORT EXPRESS: Faces "Cabuyales" Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Cabuyales, and on behalf of all unamed plaintiffs similarly situated v. TRANSPORT EXPRESS INC., doing business as Port Logistics Group; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC665998 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 22, 2017), alleges wage and hour violations arising out of the Defendant's alleged misclassification of employees, failure to pay wages and failure to provide meal and rest periods, among other violations. Transport Express Inc., doing business as Port Logistics Group, and the Doe Defendants are doing business in Los Angeles County, California. The Defendants provide various shipping services throughout California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvin M. Gomez, Esq. Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. GOMEZ LAW GROUP 2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (858) 552-0000 Facsimile: (760) 720-5217 E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com U.S. RENAL: "Whitaker" Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DAVID WHITAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. RENAL CARE, INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02661-R (GJSx) (C.D. Cal.), David Whitaker will move the Court on August 7, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., for an order granting a class certification. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5ua5BAw4 The Plaintiff is represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Ali S. Carlsen, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 6251 UNITED STATES: Judge OK's Former SMU Inmate's Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Amanda August, writing for Daily Item, reports that a U.S. magistrate judge is recommending a lawsuit filed by a former U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg inmate alleging dangerous conditions be allowed to proceed as a class-action suit. The report and recommendation released by U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson grants federal inmate Sebastian Richardson the right to represent all current and future inmates held at the prison's Special Management Unit (SMU) in his lawsuit that claims inmates are being held in unsafe conditions. The suit alleges inmates who refuse to bunk with hostile cellmates are placed in hard restraints and staff does not intervene when violence erupts between inmates in cells and recreation cages. Richardson, who was moved to another federal prison after he filed the suit in 2011, claimed he was held in hard restraints for one month when he refused to accept a cellmate out of fear for his own safety. He is represented by the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project in Philadelphia. Presiding over the lawsuit is U.S. Middle District Senior Judge William Nealon, who denied in 2013 the request to seek class action because Richardson was no longer an inmate at Lewisburg and the was suit too broad. In his report released on June 26, Carlson said "the prudent... path would be to grant the motion for class certification," adding "nothing in this report and recommendation should be construed as addressing in any fashion the ultimate merits of any putative class claims. That task must await another day." David Sprout, a paralegal with the inmate advocacy group, The Lewisburg Project, said the recommendation is a positive development in the case. "It's procedural, but it's what we wanted," he said of the class certification. Nealon does not have to accept the recommendation, but if he does, the defense may file an objection. [GN] UNITED PARCEL: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Crosby, writing for Law360, reports that the United Parcel Service was slapped with a proposed class action in Georgia federal court on June 28 by consumers alleging the mail carrier called to collect on a debt even after it was told to stop. Lead plaintiff Ana Cervantes says that years after she scrapped plans to open a business and closed her account with UPS, she began to receive prerecorded robocalls about the account, despite revoking her consent to be called. The account, which was "wrongfully" referred to a collections agency, listed her cellphone number, although Cervantes says she never gave the Georgia-based company permission to call her in the first place. "[UPS'] call forces [Cervantes] and class members to live without the utility of plaintiff's cell phone by forcing her to silence her cell phone and/or block incoming numbers," the complaint states. At the time Cervantes, who lives in Las Vegas, was mulling opening a distribution business in Nevada she opened a business account with UPS in 2012, according to the complaint. Sometime thereafter she stopped those plans and closed her UPS account. Years later, between October 2015 and May 2016, Cervantes says she received seven calls from an automatic dialing system, despite revoking her consent to be called, in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Cervantes says the calls incurred cell phone charges and lost time. She seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who received illegal robocalls from UPS in the past four years, but did not speculate as to the class size. Cervantes is asking the court for an injunction against the calls and for statutory damages. Counsel for Cervantes did not return a request for comment on June 29. UPS spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg said on June 29 the company was aware of the case and "will vigorously defend against the allegations." Counsel information for UPS was not immediately known. Cervantes is represented by Matthew Berry,Esq. and Adam Klein,Esq. of Berry & Associates PC. The case is Cervantes vs. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., case number 1:17-cv-02410 in U.S. District Court for Northern Georgia. [GN] VITAMIN SHOPPE: Plaintiff Drops Weight Loss Supplement Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy and Matthew Guarnaccia, writing for Law360, report that a California woman who launched a proposed class action against Vitamin Shoppe Inc. in May has dropped her claims that the company sold ineffective weight loss supplements that were misleadingly labeled, her lawyers said on June 26. In a one-sentence notice, Andrea Nathan, who filed her complaint on May 4, said she was voluntarily dismissing her individual and class claims without prejudice, but did not elaborate on the reason behind the decision. Ms. Nathan could not immediately be reached for comment on June 27 and Vitamin Shoppe declined comment. The complaint focused on Vitamin Shoppe's garcinia cambogia extract product, which the company says helps people manage their weight and suppress their appetites. Ms. Nathan, however, said that studies have shown that the supplement isn't any more effective than a placebo. She also said that research into the product's active ingredients -- hydroxycitric acid and chromium -- reached the same conclusion and that the product's labeling is misleading. She backed up her allegations with six studies she said proved that garcinia cambogia, hydroxycitric acid and chromium are ineffective as weight-loss or appetite-control supplements. One 1998 study, for example, observed no "selective fat-mobilizing effects" linked to the acid and reached a similar conclusion for garcinia cambogia as a whole, she said. Studies published by the Journal of Obesity the following year and in 2001 said the same, Ms. Nathan said. The most recent finding she cited was a 2011 study in Nutrition Journal, which said the supplement "failed to promote weight loss" or significantly change body fat percentage. As for chromium, at least two studies from 1996 and 2001 found that it had no effect on weight loss, muscle gain or appetite suppression, Ms. Nathan said. Ms. Nathan, a San Diego resident, said she bought a 180-count bottle of garcinia cambogia in February based on the benefits touted on its label. She said she wouldn't have purchased the product if she'd known the label was misleading. Prior to dropping her claims, she sought to represent a class of California consumers who bought the allegedly misleading product. She also wanted Vitamin Shoppe to pay restitution to affected class members and run a "corrective advertising campaign." She further sought a court order requiring the company to destroy all misleading advertising materials and product labels and to conduct a recall campaign. Ms. Nathan is represented by Paul K. Joseph of The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph PC. Vitamin Shoppe is represented by Amy B. Alderfer -- aalderfer@cozen.com -- and Brett Taylor -- btaylor@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor. The case is Nathan v. Vitamin Shoppe Inc., case number 3:17-cv- 00948, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN: Baker Hostetler Discusses Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory V. Mersol, Esq., of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that it's unusual to see an employment class action based on breach of contract by nonunionized employees. A recent case from the District of Columbia involving the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), reflects why, and highlights problems that occur when employees try to bring class- wide claims based on the employer's policy manuals. First, some background. The transit system in Washington, D.C., has drawn a great deal of unfavorable publicity over its expense, safety issues, frequent service interruptions and other issues. Despite ridership declines in the wake of several highly publicized safety issues and service problems, the Metro has approximately 12,500 employees, over 1,000 of whom make over $100,000 in base pay. The average pay for all Metro employees is $84,000 plus generous fringe benefits costing nearly $40,000 more. Most of these employees are unionized and WMATA pays over $100 million per year in overtime costs. So how do the supervisors fare? In Dawson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Civil Action No. 15-2092 (RBW) (D.D.C. June 23, 2017), the plaintiffs were supervisors for WMATA. They contended that WMATA's published salary policies promised that supervisors would make at least 5 percent more than their highest paid direct reports. They sought to represent a class of supervisors (including themselves) they claim were underpaid pursuant to this policy. While a class action, the court undertook the analysis one might expect in an individual handbook case. It examined the terms of the policy, much as a court would in an individual case based on an employee handbook, to determine whether they would constitute an enforceable contract. It found that the policy encouraged the 5 percent differential as part of its compensation philosophy and also to avoid salary compression. Significantly, however, the policy also made salary adjustments "subject to budgetary conditions" and gave WMATA's general manager "discretion to modify, change, or expand the salary structure" and to limit or cap salary adjustments if in WMATA's best interests. Faced with such language, the court unsurprisingly found that the policy did not constitute a contract and granted summary judgment in the employer's favor. The decision in Dawson is demonstrative of the problems nonunionized employees face in asserting class-wide breach of contract claims. Years ago, in Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit similarly rejected class-wide claims for retiree medical benefits by a class of salaried employees, even though it has freely found for unionized employees asserting similar claims involving a collective bargaining agreement. With most employers disclaiming handbooks and reserving discretion in their policy manuals, it is difficult for nonunion employees to establish the threshold agreement they need to assert a claim. The bottom line: Nonunion employees seeking to assert class action breach of contract claims may face fatal obstacles on the substantive merits of their claims. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Meiners Appeals D. Minn. Judgment to Eighth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff John Meiners filed an appeal from a court order and judgment, both dated May 26, 2017, in his lawsuit titled John Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-03981- DSD, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 2, 2017, Judge David S. Doty dismissed the case with prejudice. The lawsuit alleges (i) breach of the duties of loyalty and prudence under 29 U.S.C. Section 1104 against the Benefit Committee; (ii) breach of co-fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1105 against the Human Resources Committee, Hardison, and Thornton; and (iii) knowing participation in a breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). The Employee Retirement Income Security Act dispute arises out of John Meiners' participation in Wells Fargo's 401(k) retirement plan (Plan). The Plan is a defined-contribution plan in which employees may invest a certain percentage of their earnings on a pre-tax basis. During the class period, the Plan offered 26 to 27 investment options. Twelve of the options are Wells Fargo Dow Jones Target Date Funds, which are proprietary funds managed by a Wells Fargo subsidiary. Mr. Meiners, on behalf of a putative class, alleges that these funds both underperformed comparable Vanguard funds and were more expensive than comparable Vanguard and Fidelity funds. He claims that by continuing to keep these funds in the Plan, Wells Fargo breached its fiduciary duties. Further, Wells Fargo, in an effort to generate fees and seed the underperforming funds, allegedly breached its fiduciary duties by designating the Wells Fargo funds as the default for participants who enrolled in the Plan but did not select an investment option. The appellate case is captioned as John Meiners v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., Case No. 17-2397, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript is due on or before August 2, 2017; -- Appendix is due on August 14, 2017; -- BRIEF APPELLANT of John Meiners is due on August 14, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant John Meiners, on behalf of a class of all persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the Wells Fargo & Company 401(k) Plan, is represented by: Richard M. Elias, Esq. Greg Gutzler, Esq. Tamara M. Spicer, Esq. ELIAS GUTZLER SPICER LLC 130 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 302 Saint Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 637-6350 E-mail: relias@egslitigation.com ggutzler@egslitigation.com tspicer@egslitigation.com - and - Geoffrey A. Graber, Esq. Karen L. Handorf, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC West Tower, Suite 500 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3934 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: ggraber@cohenmilstein.com khandorf@cohenmilstein.com - and - Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com Defendants-Appellees Wells Fargo & Company, Human Resources Committee of the Wells Fargo Board of Directors, Wells Fargo Employee Benefits Review Committee, Hope Hardison, Justin Thornton, Patricia Callahan, Michael Heid, Timothy Sloan, Lloyd Dean, John Chen, Susan Engel, Donald James and Stephen Sanger are represented by: Nicholas J. Bullard, Esq. Andrew J. Holly, Esq. Stephen P. Lucke, Esq. Kirsten Schubert, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 50 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Telephone: (612) 340-2600 Facsimile: (612) 677-3103 E-mail: bullard.nick@dorsey.com holly.andrew@dorsey.com lucke.steve@dorsey.com schubert.kirsten@dorsey.com - and - Lindsey H. Chopin, Esq. Howard Shapiro, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1800 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 310-4085 Facsimile: (504) 310-2022 E-mail: lchopin@proskauer.com howshapiro@proskauer.com - and - Deidre A. Grossman, Esq. Russell Laurence Hirschhorn, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036-2899 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: dagrossman@proskauer.com rhirschhorn@proskauer.com WESTLAND, MI: Judge Dismisses Water/Sewer Fees Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- LeAnne Rogers, writing for Home Town Life, reports that a class- action lawsuit alleging Westland was charging excessive water/sewer rates has been dismissed. Filed in Wayne County Circuit Court, the lawsuit alleged Westland charged water/sewer fees in excess of what is needed to cover actual expenses, with the revenues used to fund general operations. That effectively creates a tax in violation of the Headlee Amendment, according to the lawsuit, which sought a refund for approximately 27,000 current water customers and that the city be enjoined from future overcharging. on June 29, Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Craig Strong issued an opinion dismissing the lawsuit. The original plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Westland were two condominium owners associations, Deerhurst and Woodview, but it was later certified as a class-action lawsuit. Royal Oak-based Kickham Hanley law firm filed the lawsuit and has been involved in similar litigation with several other area communities. A similar lawsuit against the City of Taylor was also recently dismissed. Representatives from the condo association and the law firm couldn't be reached for comment. The city had filed motions arguing the water/sewer rates were reasonable and appropriate to cover costs for the system. The opinion from Strong agreed with the city's position, as well as finding the city had not improperly transferred money from the water/sewer fund -- a self-supporting enterprise fund -- to the general fund to support general public services. "The City of Westland has, from the beginning, held the position that this lawsuit was frivolous," Mayor William Wild said. "This decision by Judge Strong proves that the city was right to oppose this lawsuit. We are happy with the outcome and will continue to provide Westland residents with services we hold to the highest of standards." For nearly two decades, rates have covered the city's costs, updates and other improvements to the system. The process, which has evolved over time, is an acceptable process that allows the City of Westland to prepare for a disaster while properly maintaining the water system, Wild said. Westland spends about $33 million annually operating and maintaining the local water/sewer systems. With water bills sent out every other month, the city carries an approximately $2-$3 million in receivables at any given time for the water/sewer fund. Along with water/sewer rate litigation, Kickham Hanley also filed lawsuits against several Oakland County communities challenging drainage district charges for storm water and sewage treatment. Those communities settled the dispute with the exception of Oak Park, which is appealing a ruling not to dismiss the lawsuit. [GN] WEYERHAEUSER: Container Board Case Edges Closer to Trial -------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that represented by Foley & Lardner and Eimer Stahl, the company is the biggest player in the market, especially since it bought two of the other companies it was accused of colluding with. Weyerhaeuser, represented in the antitrust suit by McDermott, Will & Emery, sold its containerboard business to International Paper for $6 billion in 2008. Temple-Inland Inc., represented here by Mayer Brown, was acquired by International Paper in 2012 for $4.5 billion. (Another defendant, Packaging Corp. of America, represented by Kirkland & Ellis, settled in 2014 for $17.6 million, and Cascades Canada ULC/Norampac Holdings U.S. Inc., represented by K&L Gates, settled for $4.8 million.) The acquisitions tend to reinforce the notion of coziness, which would have made the defense more challenging. Foley partner James McKeown -- jmckeown@foley.com -- a member of the firm's management committee and former chair of its antitrust practice, did not respond to a request for comment. The settlement contains a somewhat unusual provision. It allows International Paper to reduce its settlement payment if Georgia Pacific settles before trial. If so, depending on how much Georgia Pacific pays, International Paper could pay up to $118 million less. As the case moves forward, Georgia Pacific on its own can stress that even while other defendants may have reduced capacity, it did not. "GP added a fifth containerboard mill -- increasing its capacity - - during the class period," Wilkinson wrote in a motion for summary judgment. "GP was increasing its containerboard capacity during a time when Plaintiffs allege there was an 'across-the-board' conspiracy to reduce supply." As for the price increases, she argues, "There is no evidence that GP had advance knowledge of any competitor's price increases announcements -- much less an agreement with them to raise prices . . . For the most part, GP simply 'followed-the-leader' -- i.e., announced a price increase after one or more competitors was publicly reported to have done so." Like many antitrust cases, this one may turn on expert witnesses. On May 31, U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber released a lengthy Daubert opinion, where he allowed almost all the testimony. But he warned, "While the court has admitted most of the expert opinions at issue in the case, it cautions the parties that whether the evidence admitted is sufficient to carry the case to trial is another matter. The court will take up that issue when it rules on the pending motions for summary judgment." [GN] WV BUSINESS: Attorney's General Office May Take Legal Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jake Jarvis, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that the West Virginia Attorney General's office will take legal action against a for-profit community college if it doesn't stop trying to enroll students, according to a news release from the coordinating board that oversees all two-year colleges in the state. West Virginia Business College, which has campuses in Nutter Fort and Wheeling, lost its accreditation in April and its permit to legally operate in the state was set to be revoked June 30. Sarah Tucker, chancellor for the Community and Technical College System, said she received an email that was sent out to the college's students that suggested the school intends to continue operating, even after its permit is revoked. Brandy Woodland sent an email, which the Gazette-Mail obtained a copy of, to students on June 27. Ms. Woodland is listed in the email as the campus director of the Wheeling campus. Ms. Woodland wrote that students who already graduated will receive a copy of their transcripts with their diplomas. The rest of the students, she wrote, would need to attend a "orientation for summer quarter, as has always been procedure." A transcript of the classes a student attended is needed to transfer to another school. "It is unethical for them to withhold those transcripts or require students to attend any such orientation to receive them," Tucker said. Federal and state rules require the college to "teach out" its current students, which means the school needs to help transfer students currently completing a degree to another school -- one that is accredited and legally allowed to operate. Tucker and her staff asked the college for a list of students and their contact information to start the teach-out process, but that information hasn't been turned over yet. No state or federal law requires the school to turn over the information. A school official said the college would respond to the request by June 30, according to Ms. Tucker. The release did not say what kind of legal action the Attorney General might take, and a spokesman did not respond to a request for comment in time for this report. "West Virginia Business College is not authorized to continue offering classes in the state of West Virginia," Ms. Tucker said in the release. "Their recent actions not only violate their legal standing, but -- most disturbingly -- are irresponsible and harmful to students who are trying to move forward with their lives and education." The college appealed the loss of their permit to operate in the state, but the Council for Community and Technical College Education denied the appeal. At the time of that meeting, Tucker said a group of students who recently graduated from the college graduated with unaccredited degrees. A handful of students filed a lawsuit against the school in June. The students seek compensatory and punitive damages from the school. Charleston lawyer Rusty Webb, who is representing the students, wants a judge to certify the lawsuit as a class action, so other students may be covered by it, as well. The complaint came as the owners of the college apparently are distancing themselves from the operation. The owners retired May 31 and transferred operation of the college to a group of three past and current employees, according to a statement posted to the college's Facebook page on June 9. No representatives from the colleges responded to a request for comment in time for this report. [GN] YADKIN VALLEY: Settles Former Employees' WARN Act Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Seaman, writing for Triad Business Journal, reports that Yadkin Valley Community Hospital has agreed to pay more than $1 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleges the hospital failed to provide sufficient notice to employees before letting them go when the facility shut down two years ago. The settlement, which was approved by U.S. District Judge William Osteen on June 28, will give payments to 142 employees over a period of seven years. Employees in the lawsuit allege that they were not given sufficient notice, as required under the WARN Act, of the layoffs that occurred when Yadkin Valley Community Hospital closed in 2015. The WARN Act requires large employers to give written notice to employees at least 60 days ahead of a mass layoff or a business closing. "The settlement brings an end to a long and painful chapter for the former employees of the Yadkin Valley Community Hospital," said Michael Kornbluth, an attorney from Taibi Kornbluth Law Group. "We are pleased with the result as it provides the former employees with substantial compensation for the losses they experienced." Yadkin Valley Community Hospital, a 22-bed facility, was owned by Yadkin County and operated by HMC/CAH Consolidated of Kansas City. The hospital closed after the county and HMC/CAH were unable to negotiate the continued operation of the facility, and the county was unable to agree to a new lease with another company. John Doyle, an attorney representing CAH Acquisition Co., HMC/CAH Consolidated, and Rural Community Hospitals of America, declined to comment, referring to the court's order of the settlement. The order by Osteen said that members of the class action and the hospital operators disagree as to whether the latter had any obligation or liability under the WARN Act regarding the claims put forth in the lawsuit. The settlement reflects the recognition by both parties that "there are significant, complex issues regarding the application of the WARN Act and the various cases and regulations interpreting of the WARN Act as they relate to the facts of the case," Osteen wrote in the order. [GN] * Long-Term Care Providers Brace for Data Breach Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- James M. Berklan, writing for McKnight's, reports that federal HIPAA penalties have lurked in the wings for years, but now accused operators have state attorneys' general and plaintiff's attorneys to worry about. For example, insurer Anthem reached a $115 million settlement with consumers over a 2015 event where hackers stole private information on nearly 80 million people. Anthem admitted no wrongdoing, but was dinged by bad publicity and penetration of its data security. "I have no doubt that we'll be seeing more of these class-action suits and settlements as data breaches continue to proliferate," Eric Fader -- efader@daypitney.com -- a healthcare attorney with Day Pitney LLP in New York, told Bloomberg BNA. Long-term care providers have an added burden of securing records for an extended period -- and it's usually for information that remains valid well into the future, unlike credit cards numbers that can be changed, experts point out. Ransomware, employee blunders and disgruntled employee actions are among authorities' biggest concerns. In May, a Texas health system agreed to a $2.4 million HIPAA- related settlement after it appropriately named to authorities a patient who had used a fake I.D. card, but then the provider carelessly published her name publicly in a press release. That's why continuing staff training, monitoring, testing and investment in processes are vital for providers, experts emphasized. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights recently published a quick-response checklist for providers who might have been victim of digital skullduggery. [GN] * South Korea Seeks to Expand Current Class Action System --------------------------------------------------------- Yonhap reports that the head of South Korea's anti-trust regulator said on June 29 that he will push to expand the current class action system to better protect consumers. "We should put in place an institutional system to effectively remedy consumer damage," Kim Sang-jo, chairman of the Fair Trade Commission, said at a ceremony in Eumseong, about 130 kilometers southeast of Seoul. In 2005, South Korea introduced the class action system, but it is only limited to securities-related cases. A class action is a suit in which victims can enjoy the benefit from a court ruling, even if he or she does not directly participate in a legal battle. [GN] ********* 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *