/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170725.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 25, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 145 Headlines AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Nov. 30 Final Hearing to Approve Accord AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: "Sham Contracting" Class Action May Expand AMERICAN AIRLINES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Robinson" Suit APPLE INC: Former Workers Want Court to Revive Class Action ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Suit by Sept 18 ARRIS INT'L: Oct. 25 Case Management Conference in Reyna Suit AUSTRALIA: Defense Dept. to Respond to Class Action in Aug. AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents File Class Suit v. Defense Department AUSTRALIA: IMF to Fund Class Action Against Defense Department B COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Company Reports B COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Class Action Over Bezeq Merger BERKSHIRE HILLS: Still Defends Class Suit by Depositor BUDGET AIR: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Morales" Suit Says CENTRUE FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Rader" Class Action CHAPIN SCHOOL: Singer Equipment Suit Sues over Bond Funds CITIZENS INC: Amended Complaint Due July 31 in "Gamboa" Case COCA COLA: Court Grants Stipulation to Dismiss "De LaRosa" CONAGRA BRANDS: Seeks Supreme Court Review of Class Action Ruling CONNECTICUT: Class Action Challenges Dog Death Penalty COVISINT CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action DAN HOSSEINI: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Suit v. Milk Processors Dismissed DELTA MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Farash Says DEVON ENERGY: Appeals Gas Royalty Class Action Certification DUN & BRADSTREET: Supplemental Briefing in O&R Suit Extended DUN & BRADSTREET: Ninth Circuit Appeal Terminated EZCORP INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas FIRST BANCORP: Still Defends Against "Torres" Class Suit FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Says Parties Negotiating Settlement FORMFACTOR INC: "Solak" Settlement Has Final Approval GALLAGHER BASSETT: First State Orthopaedics Sues over Workers Pay GERON CORPORATION: $6.25 Million Settlement Has Final Approval GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Employee Cases at Early Stage HC2 HOLDINGS: Still Defends DBMG Class Action IMPAX LABORATORIES: March 2018 Trial in Solodyn Antitrust Actions IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Suit IMPAX LABORATORIES: Generic Drugs Pricing Antitrust Case Ongoing IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motion to Dismiss AWP Litigation Underway IMPAX LABORATORIES: Class Suit by Family Medicine Underway IMPAX LABORATORIES: Medicine To Go's Suit Underway in Alabama IMPAX LABORATORIES: NY Hotel Trades Securities Action Underway INSIGHT GLOBAL: Objections to Discovery in "Barker" Overruled J2 GLOBAL: Court Granted Summary Judgment Dismissing Paldo Claims J2 GLOBAL: Awaits Approval of Free-Vychine Case Settlement J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Davis Neurology Suit Still Pending JM ROMICH: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Livaudais" Remanded to Missouri State Court JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Reppell" Remanded to Missouri State Court JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Swann" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court LANDEC CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in California Case LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff's Appeal Pending in 3rd Circuit LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Drops Securities Suit MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Still Defends Class Action in New York MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Class Certification Bid Due August 21 MDL 2371: Federal Circuit Appeal Remains Pending MERCK & CO: Working on Definitive Settlement with Direct Buyers MGM RESORTS: Appeal in Securities Litigation Fully Briefed MICHAEL FOODS: Nov. 6 Egg Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MIDLAND CREDIT: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Carieri" Class Suit MONSANTO COMPANY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Faces Securities Class Action OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Class Action Awaiting Court's Dismissal ORIGINAL W. HARGROVE: Settles Towing Class Action for $281,000 ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Document Discovery Underway in SEPTA Case PATHEON NV: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Suits over Line 901 Incident PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Misleading Opioids Label REGENCY CENTERS: Still Faces Merger Class Action REMINGTON: State AGs Seek Reversal of Gun Safety Settlement SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM & NRC Still Face Deepwater Oil Spill Claims SKULLCANDY INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Paprakis" Suit SLATER & GORDON: Settles Shareholders' Class Action for $36.5MM SOUTHERN GLAZER: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Stewart Appeals W.D. Okla. Order to 10th Cir. STATE FARM: Denied to Certify Question to Colorado Supreme Court STRAD ENERGY: Tristan Partners' Class Action Discontinued STRADMONT OAK: "Knight" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Sued in Arizona Over Proposed Knight Merger SYNGENTA AG: Settles Nebraska Farmer's Corn Suit Ahead of Trial TATA GROUP: Bombay High Court Wont' Hear Shareholder Class Action TAQUERIA HECHO: "Mateo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages TAURUS: 11th Circuit Affirms Pistol Class Action Settlement TD BANK: Judge Rejects Cellphone Users' Class Action TESORO CORPORATION: Stockholder Class Action Dismissed TG THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Securities Litigation Dismissed UBER TECH: Aug. 10 Deadline to Submit Email Test Design UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Improper Pay Practices UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Trial Court Ruling in "Bauserman" Flipped UNITED RENTALS: Bid to Junk S&S Construction's Suit Partly OK'd UNITED STATES: Settlement in "Lambert" Subclass I Gets Final Nod VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Basile" Status Conference on July 25 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Securities Suit VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Canadian Securities Class Suits Ongoing VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing on RICO Class Actions Completed VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn Case VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Ongoing in Contact Lens Suit VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Liability Case Underway VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Case Pending in Canada VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 19 Hearing in Afexa Case Appeal VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sprout Litigation in Discovery WALTER INVESTMENT: Proceedings in "Buckles" Stayed WALTER INVESTMENT: Lee Case Remains Pending in Nevada WALTER INVESTMENT: Bonomi and Petrovets Actions Dismissed WATTS WATER: Settlements of Connector Class Actions Approved WEIGHT WATCHERS: Appeal in "Roberts" Case Pending WEST CORPORATION: Faces "Katz" Suit Over Proposed Apollo Merger WOLVERINE STATE: Retiree Wants High Court to Revive Class Action WV AMERICAN: Judge Nixes Elk River Chemical Spill Settlement XOMA CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss "Markette" Case Still Pending YUM! BRANDS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Wage and Hour Actions ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Motion Pending in Class Action * CFPB Adopts Rule Prohibiting Class Action Arbitration * Issue Over Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Ongoing ********* AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Nov. 30 Final Hearing to Approve Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the case, KBC Asset Management NV, et al. v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10105-MLW (D. Mass.), was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 29, 2017. The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing for November 30, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. The settlement provides for the payment of $22,250,000 for the benefit of eligible Class Members. Lead Plaintiffs KBC Asset Management NV, Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund and Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund alleged that Defendants violated Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, issuing false and misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had been illegally marketing JUXTAPID beyond its FDA-approved label, Aegerion was experiencing a higher than expected drop-out rate for JUXTAPID and more patients than expected were not filling their JUXTAPID prescriptions, and, relatedly, issues existed concerning the performance and potential market for JUXTAPID that were not consistent with Defendants' public statements. The Class consists of all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Aegerion publicly traded common stock between April 30, 2013 and May 11, 2016, inclusive. Excluded from the Class are: Defendants, the officers and directors of Aegerion during the Class Period, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Also excluded from the Class is any Class Member that validly and timely requests exclusion in accordance with the requirements set by the Court. * * * Novelion 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 settlement of a Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit remains pending. In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Aegerion and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") alleging certain misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of JUXTAPID and Aegerion's financial performance in violation of the federal securities laws. The case is captioned KBC Asset Management NV et al. v. Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., No. 14-cv-10105-MLW. On March 11, 2015, the Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. Co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 1, 2015. Aegerion filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim on July 31, 2015. On August 21, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs filed a putative second amended complaint. On September 4, 2015, Aegerion moved to strike the second amended complaint for the co-lead plaintiffs' failure to seek leave of court to file a second amended pleading. Oral argument on the motion to strike was held on March 9, 2016. On March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend. Aegerion opposed this motion to amend, and following a hearing on April 29, 2016, the Court took defendants' motion to strike and plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend under advisement. On May 13, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion wherein the parties stipulated that co-lead plaintiffs could file a third amended pleading within 30 days of the motion, which the Court granted on May 18, 2016, thereby mooting defendants' pending motion to strike the second amended pleading and co-lead plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended pleading. The Court also entered a briefing schedule for defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs. A third amended complaint was filed on June 27, 2016. On July 22, 2016, co-lead plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion to stay the briefing schedule while they pursued mediation, which the Court granted on August 10, 2016. Through mediation, the co-lead plaintiffs and defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation on November 29, 2016. On January 17, 2017, the co-lead plaintiffs filed a stipulation of settlement with the Court that contained the settlement terms as agreed upon by the parties, including that Aegerion and its insurance carriers would contribute $22.3 million to a settlement fund for the putative class. The insurance carriers have agreed to cover $22.0 million of this amount, with Aegerion responsible for the remainder of $0.3 million. The proposed settlement is subject to a number of procedural steps and is subject to approval by the Court. Accordingly, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action or when it will be resolved. The Company has recorded a loss contingency of $22.3 million and an insurance proceeds receivable of $22.0 million at March 31, 2017. Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs: JACK REISE, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tel: 561/750-3000 Fax: 561/750-3364 - and - GREGG S. LEVIN, Esq. CHRISTOPHER F. MORIARTY, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Tel: 843/216-9000 Fax: 843/216-9450 Counsel for Defendant Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: RANDALL W. BODNER, Esq. MARK D. VAUGHN, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02199-3600 Tel: 617/951-7000 Fax: 617/951-7050 E-mail: randall.bodner@ropesgray.com mark.vaughn@ropesgray.com - and - NICHOLAS M. BERG, Esq. ROPES & GRAY LLP 191 North Wacker Drive, 32nd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Tel: 312/845-1200 Fax: 312/845-5500 E-mail: nicholas.berg@ropesgray.com Counsel for Defendant Marc D. Beer: CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP R.J. CINQUEGRANA, Esq. Two International Place Boston, MA 02110 Tel: 617/248-5000 Fax: 617/248-4000 E-mail: rcinquegrana@choate.com Counsel for Defendant Mark J. Fitzpatrick: IAN D. ROFFMAN, Esq. NUTTER MCCLENNEN & FISH LLP Seaport West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210 Tel: 617/439-2000 Fax: 617/310-9000 E-mail: iroffman@nutter.com Counsel for Defendant Craig Fraser: WILLIAM H. KETTLEWELL, Esq. GREGORY F. NOONAN, Esq. LAUREN A. GRABER, Esq. COLLORA LLP 100 High Street - 20th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Tel: 617/371-1000 Fax: 617/371-1037 E-mail: wkettle@collorallp.com gnoonan@collorallp.com lgraber@collorallp.com Additional information in the case is available at: http://www.aegerionsecuritieslitigation.com/ Novelion is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing new standards of care for individuals living with rare diseases. AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA: "Sham Contracting" Class Action May Expand ----------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Trask, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that a looming court battle involving Airservices Australia is set to expand to cover allegations of "sham contracting" and the use of outlawed "zombie agreements". In June, The Canberra Times revealed almost 80 employees had registered for a class action against the government entity, centred around a controversial redundancy process that slashed more than 500 jobs last year. At the time lawyers alleged that a number of staff members had been made redundant while employed on unlawful contracts, and could therefore be eligible to claim up to $130,000 in additional payouts. Rory Markham, the employment litigation director at the Canberra- based Chamberlains law firm, said the class action was now likely to expand to cover additional concerns. "We have multiple claimants that have raised concerns about sham contracting arrangements being undertaken at Airservices in the period of 2010 to date," he said. "In certain situations, people have been made redundant after between 10 and 30 years of employment with Airservices and then re-employed in a matter of weeks on the same or comparable duties under an independent contractor agreement." Impacted workers could be due additional compensation for the alleged use of such "strictly forbidden" practices, Mr Markham said. A further 10 individuals had come forward with allegations that the redundancy program was used to make them accept cheaper contracts while performing the same job, he added. Business AM Newsletter "We have received instructions from at least 10 individuals that the redundancy process was in fact no more than an option to take a pay cut of approximately $20,000 to do the same duties, or to be made redundant without further consultation." If true, such allegations showed the redundancy program was a cost-cutting exercise with little connection to whether jobs were actually needed or not, Mr Markham said. Lawyers were also investigating the alleged use of so-called "zombie" Australian Workplace Agreements, a form of individual contract discontinued by the Federal Government in 2008. "The only relevance for the existing AWAs appear to be to prevent employees becoming a part of the enterprise agreement and receiving higher redundancy benefits," he said. "It would be highly embarrassing to the Commonwealth to continue to engage people on AWAs in these circumstances." The total bill for the action, including corporate penalties, could sting Airservices as much as $12 million. To date 116 individuals had registered for the class action, with Chamberlains currently retained by 45 individuals. Mr Markham said he was currently engaged with representatives of Airservices in a bid to resolve the dispute before it went to the Federal Court. If no settlement was reached in these discussions, it was likely the class action would be filed in late July, he said. A spokeswoman for Airservices Australia said the entity was, and always had been, a responsible employer. "We have a total commitment to our duty of care for all Airservices employees," she said. "As The Canberra Times is fully aware, a number of issues have been foreshadowed as part of potential legal actions and these issues will be examined and determined as part of that process. "We are not aware of any additional claims of the nature you raise." AMERICAN AIRLINES: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Robinson" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Judith Robinson and Lynn Robinson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Robinson, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 5:17-CV-00426-F, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - Oklahoma City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit (Case No. CJ-2017-1562), was removed from the Oklahoma County District Court on April 13, 2017, to the District Court. The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions. American Airlines Inc. operates an airline company headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas. The appellate case is captioned as Robinson, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 17-6166, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Fee, transcript order form, and docketing statement are due on July 27, 2017, for Judith Robinson and Lynn Robinson; and -- Notice of appearance is due on July 27, 2017, for American Airlines, Inc., Judith Robinson and Lynn Robinson.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LYNN ROBINSON and JUDITH ROBINSON, and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey Allen Martin, Esq. JEFF MARTIN & ASSOCIATES 1611 South Utica Avenue, Suite 173 Tulsa, OK 74104 Telephone: (918) 583-4165 Facsimile: (918) 583-4166 E-mail: jm8069337@aol.com Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., DBA American Airlines, is represented by: Edward J. Main, Esq. James K. Secrest, II, Esq. SECREST HILL BUTLER & SECREST 7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 900 Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 494-5905 Facsimile: (918) 494-2847 E-mail: emain@secresthill.com jsecrest@secresthill.com - and - Mark Wayne Robertson, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036-6524 Telephone: (212) 763-7732 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061 E-mail: mrobertson@omm.com APPLE INC: Former Workers Want Court to Revive Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that former workers at Apple Inc. retail stores were set to ask a federal appeals court to revive their class action claiming that California law requires the technology giant to pay them for their time spent in security checks. The workers, represented by Kimberly Kralowec of the Kralowec Law Group, would try to convince the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at oral argument that the time spent in security checks is compensable under California law because they were under Apple's control during that time and the checks benefited the company. ARGOS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Suit by Sept 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JEFFREY MAURER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARGOS THERAPEUTICS INC., JEFFREY ABBEY, LORI HARRELSON and RICHARD KATZ, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-216 (M.D.N.C.), Judge Thomas D Schroeder on July 19, 2017, entered a scheduling order, providing that: 1. Lead Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or before September 18, 2017; 2. Defendants shall move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint within 60 days after Lead Plaintiffs file such complaint with the court; 3. Lead Plaintiffs shall file any opposition papers to any motion to dismiss filed by Defendants within 60 days after Defendants file their motion to dismiss; and 4. Defendants shall file any reply papers within 30 days after Lead Plaintiffs file their opposition papers to Defendants' motion to dismiss. 5. If a motion to dismiss is filed, discovery shall be stayed during the pendency of the motion. On June 23, 2017, the Hoey Trusts and the Argos Investor Group were appointed co-lead Plaintiffs for the class and the co-lead Plaintiffs selection of the law firms of Wolf Haldenstein and Levi & Korsinsky was approved. Argos 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 a securities class action lawsuit was commenced on March 14, 2017, in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming the Company and certain of the Company's officers as defendants, and alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants between February 7, 2014 and February 21, 2017 (the "Class Period"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the Class Period and seeks damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by the Court. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Janet Ward Black, Esq. Nancy Meyers, Esq. WARD BLACK LAW 208 West Wendover Avenue Greensboro, NC 27401-1307 Phone: 336-333-2244 Fax: 336-379-9415 E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com nmeyers@wardblacklaw.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq. LEVI & KORINSKY LLP 733 Summer Street, Suite 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: 203-992-4523 Fax: 212-363-7171 E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com sbartone@zlk.com Argos Therapeutics, Inc. (the "Company"), was incorporated in the State of Delaware on May 8, 1997. The Company is an immuno- oncology company focused on the development and commercialization of individualized immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer and infectious diseases based on its proprietary precision immunotherapy technology platform called Arcelis. ARRIS INT'L: Oct. 25 Case Management Conference in Reyna Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Carlos Reyna v. ARRIS International plc, Case No. 5:17-cv-01834 (N.D. Cal.), pending before Judge Lucy H Koh, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on July 21, 2017, against ARRIS International by Joseph Palma, Brian Alexander, John Matsayko, Greg Knowles, Carlos Reyna, Jon Walton, Wes Tilley, Marco Fernandez, Christopher Stevens, Matthew Penner, Andrew Prowant, Michael Person, Kaci Roar, Tony Romeo, Tom Kisha, David Eisen, Kelly Smith, Timothy Oefelein, Damien Probe, Paul Dubey, Callan Christensen, Michael Bresline, Christopher Bullard, Giovanni Murphy, William Haworth, Rodney Bryant, Yong Jae Lee, Larry Bavry, William Rosenberg, Jean Pierre Crespo, and Mike Alexander. On July 5, the Court entered a Case Management Order. A further Case Management Conference is set for Oct. 25 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. A Class Certification Hearing set for July 12, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. A Hearing on Dispositive Motions set for Jan. 17, 2019. A Final Pretrial Conference is set for March 14, 2019. A Jury Trial (6- day estimate) is set for April 1, 2019. ARRIS International PLC 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 case, Reyna v. ARRIS International plc, C.A. 5:17-cv-01834, Northern District of California. On March 31, 2017, Carlos Reyna, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated filed a putative class action lawsuit against ARRIS alleging that the SB6190 modem which includes the Intel Puma 6 chipset is defective. The plaintiff alleges violation of the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law. The Company says, "It is premature to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, ARRIS may be required to pay damages." ARRIS considers itself a leader in entertainment and communications technology. It is headquartered in Suwanee, Georgia and operates in two business segments: Customer Premises Equipment ("CPE") and Network & Cloud ("N&C"). AUSTRALIA: Defense Dept. to Respond to Class Action in Aug. ----------------------------------------------------------- Toby Mann, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reports that one of 450 people exposed to toxic firefighting foam in Queensland says a class action against the Department of Defence isn't a grab for cash but money needed to move his family to a safer home. Brad Hudson won't let his two girls play on their lawn at Oakey because he's forced to sprinkle it with bore water which he says contains chemicals leached from the foams used at a local army aviation base until last decade. It's estimated 4000 Oakey residents have been impacted by perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) but the federal government claims there's no consistent evidence the chemicals harm humans. Mr Hudson, the lead plaintiff in the Shine Lawyers' class action, however says he is under a "s***load of stress" worrying about what the chemicals could do to his family. "It's just the not knowing of having to endure a chemical everyday of your life and to hope like hell it doesn't have any long-term health effects on me or my family," he said. The Hudsons still use the potentially-dangerous bore water every day. "We certainly don't drink it anymore," he said. "We try to limit our exposure to it but unfortunately the government won't allow us to use town water outside which is just mind boggling. They're just penny pinching." The contamination also affected property prices in town, leaving locals unable to sell up and move, Shine Lawyers' special counsel Peter Shannon said. Mr Hudson would love to pack his family up and move but he is stuck in Oakey. "I definitely can't sell my property . . . no one's putting their hand up and making any offers," he said. "We've asked for a relocation thousands of times, it just falls on deaf ears." Despite a Senate inquiry recommending compensation three years ago and "extensive promises" coming from ministers and people assisting the prime minister, the residents of Oakey haven't received any money, Mr Shannon said. He said he was open to settling the matter with the federal government outside court. "But if they're taking refuge behind the court process, well then that's how we have to go," he said. Damages would be determined by the court after hearing expert evidence, but Mr Shannon estimated they would total about $200 million. The class action, which has been filed in the Federal Court in NSW, is expected to take about two years. The Department of Defence will lodge its response in the next few months. Australian stock exchange-listed litigation funder IMP Bentham is backing the Oakey case. [GN] AUSTRALIA: Oakey Residents File Class Suit v. Defense Department ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tara Miko, writing for The Chronicle, reports that Shine Lawyers special counsel Peter Shannon maintains the class action against the Department of Defence was filed with "considerable reluctance". Mr Shannon said filing the 70-page statement of claim sought compensation for Oakey residents "in relation to the contamination that was announced three years ago". Labelling the class action, to which more than 450 residents have signed up to, as a "definite path to a definite outcome", Mr Shannon said he was confident of an outcome and would welcome a settlement with the Department of Defence. "If Defence manage to do the right thing in the meantime, our door is open but if we've got to go, if they're taking refuge behind the court process, then that is how we have to go," he said. Oakey resident and father-of-three Brad Hudson is the lead plaintiff on the suit which seeks compensation for the loss of property values, as well as covering relocation costs. Mr Shannon said an exact figure would be determined by expert evidence likely to be called throughout the legal process. "We'll be seeking damage for compensation, that is the financial loss suffered by our clients," he said. "I can say from my experience I would be surprised if it was less than $200 million or something in that effect. "But I don't want to pre-empt the valuer." Litigation costs have been funded by IMF, a litigation funding firm with which an agreement was struck before the action was filed to ensure Oakey residents would not be liable for legal fees if the action fails. "We would not be taking this action if we weren't confident of the outcome, but there's no certainty in any litigation," Mr Shannon said. "If we lose, our litigation funder is severely out of pocket, our firm is severely out of pocket, but the clients have no exposure." Lawyers will recover about 70% of their charges from the litigation funder and carry the rest and recover it if the suit is successful. He said about 450 residents had signed up to the action but expected more to come on board now the official legal process had started. "Not all people want to relocate however most do and we would be saying that a proper compensation approach is the value of your property, the value of you relocating, the dislocation costs, the costs of moving, the cost of going into new schools, all those things," he said. "This is not a personal injuries claim because personal injuries claims of this nature is not suitable for a class action. "It's not like a product that has had a particular outcome, however the common questions that are determined in this will be of assistance for those kinds of claims. "There aren't 450 people suffering a direct medical condition but it's directly relevant to why people don't want to buy in Oakey so the health issues are vitally important." Lawyers have filed a class action suit against the Department of Defence over groundwater contamination in Oakey following decades of use of toxic firefighting foam chemicals. Shine Lawyers special counsel Peter Shannon on July 11 filed the suit launching the claim, representing hundreds of Oakey residents. In a statement to The Chronicle this morning, Shine said more than 4000 Oakey residents had been impacted by firefighting foam chemicals, classified as PFAS chemicals, leaching into groundwater supplies, impacting land, water and food sources, and residents' bloodstreams. More than 450 Oakey residents have signed up to be part of the class action. "While we believe this is the worst contamination site in Australia, there are more than 60 Defence bases around the country which have exposed locals to the same toxic chemicals," Mr Shannon said. "This action and the Williamstown action will pave the way to justice for those communities which have suffered. "In Oakey, hundreds of innocent families have been, and continue to be, exposed. "Many have invested everything they have into this town and now all their hard work means nothing. "They're effectively trapped and can't sell their properties or move their kids out of the contamination zone." Mr Shannon said filing the class action suit marked the "first step towards justice" for Oakey. The Chronicle has contacted the Department of Defence for comment. [GN] AUSTRALIA: IMF to Fund Class Action Against Defense Department -------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth McCosker, writing for Brisbane Times, reports that an investigation into the contamination of land and water around a Defence site at Oakey has escalated, with a class action lawsuit filed against the department. On July 11, global litigation funder IMF released a statement that said it would fund the lawsuit against the Department of Defence in connection to any land contamination alleged to have occurred from the use of firefighting foam. More than 4000 residents have been affected by contamination caused by the use of toxic firefighting foams at the Oakey army base, which had leached into the groundwater. Oakey residents have been found to have chemical levels 44 times the national average in their blood. Oakey resident Brad Hudson said it was a shame the situation had led to class action, but he had already endured three years of stress over the unknown effects of exposure to the chemicals PFOS and PFOA found within the toxic foams. "It's just the not knowings of having to endure a chemical everyday of your life and to hope like it hell it doesn't have any long term health affects on me or my family," Mr Hudson said. Advertisement "As a parent, that's pretty hard to endure. I just hope it doesn't upset my children's health down the path." Mr Hudson said the unknown meant he did not allow his two young daughters to play on the lawn because it had been watered with potentially contaminated water. "I don't think my children deserve to have to put up with chemicals caused by the Australian government," he said. "It's still scary, I'd hate for them to say in a couple of years time that there's definitely evidence out there this is going to affect you and we've just sat there in limbo fighting with the government to get a resolution." The class action has been filed to the Federal Court of Australia in New South Wales and is being conducted by Shine Lawyers in Queensland. Shine Lawyers special counsel Peter Shannon said he believed Oakey was the worst contamination site in Australia but he added that more than 60 Defence bases around the country had exposed residents to the same toxic chemicals. "This action and the Williamstown action will pave the way to justice for those communities which have suffered," Mr Shannon said. "In Oakey hundreds of innocent families have been, and continue to be, exposed. Many have invested everything they have into this town and now all their hard work means nothing. "They're effectively trapped and can't sell their properties or move their kids out of the contamination zone. "The community has suffered under this cloud of contamination for years with no end in sight until now. "Today marks the first step towards justice for the people of Oakey." 450 Oakey residents are involved in the class action. Mr Shannon said Shine Lawyers would be seeking damages for compensation. "That is the financial loss suffered by our clients," he said. "The amount of that I can't specify at the moment because it's actually expert evidence that determines that, so a valuer gets in the box and does an evaluation. "I can say that from my experience I would be surprised if it was less than $200 million -- something in that effect, but i don't want to pre-empt the valuer's domain." It was expected the Federal Court would call both parties to set down a plan for how the case would be heard and then the Department of Defence was expected to file its defence within months. Williamtown Class Action Steering Committee spokesman Linday Clout said the committee welcomed the class action Oakey residents had filed against the department. Williamtown residents filed class action against the department last year. "There is no question that this will continue to build as the scientific evidence about the dangers of PFOS and PFOA mounts," he said. "Rather than drag this on, defence needs to do the right thing and take action to help the families and businesses impacted by its contamination" A Defence spokesman said the department was aware IMF Bentham had issued a release to the ASX on July 11. "At this time, no formal documentation has been served on the Commonwealth and Defence is not aware of the details of the proceeding," the spokesman said. "Any claim will be handled in accordance with the Attorney- General's Legal Services Directions 2017. "It is inappropriate for Defence to make further public comment at this stage." [GN] B COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Company Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Lynne P. Maleeff, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. B Communications Ltd, Doron Turgeman, Itzik Tadmor, and Ehud Yahalom, Case No. 1:17-cv-04937 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and 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. B Communications Ltd provides various communications services for business and private customers in Israel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com B COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Class Action Over Bezeq Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on July 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against B Communications Ltd. ("B Communications" or the "Company") for possible violations of federal securities laws between November 7, 2013, and June 19, 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. 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, B Communications made false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose that: Shaul Elovitch, the controlling shareholder of Bezeq and B Communications, engaged in illegal conduct relating to the Bezeq-YES Merger; that discovery of this conduct would subject the Company and/or Bezeq to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and that as a result of the above, the Company's 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") raided the offices of Bezeq and detained Mr. Elovitch. The ISA stated that it was investigating "suspicions of violations of the securities law and the penal code relating to transactions connected to" Mr. 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 Mr. Elovitch. Upon release of this information, B Communications' share price lowered materially, which caused investors harm according to the Complaint. Lundin Law PC -- http://lundinlawpc.com/-- was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. BERKSHIRE HILLS: Still Defends Class Suit by Depositor ------------------------------------------------------ Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. continues to defend against a class action lawsuit by a depositor in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, 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 28, 2016, Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank were served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported class of Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder, among other matters. On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The complaint seeks, in part, compensatory, consequential, statutory, and punitive damages. Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank deny the allegations contained in the complaint and are vigorously defending this lawsuit. BUDGET AIR: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Morales" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Morales, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Budget Air Supply, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-01565-JDW-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 29, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Sales Representatives' overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Budget Air Supply, LLC is an air conditioning contractor in Haines City, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Henson, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, 14th Floor P.O Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 428-6241 Facsimile: (407) 245-3342 E-mail: jjhenson@forthepeople.com CENTRUE FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Rader" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Centrue Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Centrue, Midland, Merger Subsidiary and the individual members of the Centrue board of directors have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder of Centrue in the Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois: Rader v. Centrue Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 17L16 (filed February 3, 2017). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Centrue breached their fiduciary duties in connection with entering into the merger agreement and that Centrue, Midland and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that Centrue's board of directors failed to ensure that Centrue's shareholders would receive maximum value for their shares, utilized preclusive corporate and deal protection terms to inhibit an alternate transaction and failed to conduct an appropriate sale process, and that Centrue's largest shareholder and its representative on Centrue's board of directors exerted influence to force a sale of Centrue at an unfair price. The action seeks a variety of equitable and injunctive relief including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the merger, directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of Centrue shareholders and awarding plaintiff its costs and attorneys' fees. The defendants believe that the claims asserted in the litigation are wholly without merit and they intend to defend them vigorously. Other potential plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction. CHAPIN SCHOOL: Singer Equipment Suit Sues over Bond Funds --------------------------------------------------------- SINGER EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE CHAPIN SCHOOL, LTD., IBEX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC and ANDY FRANKL, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 654538/2017 (N.Y. Sup., Ct., 2017), is brought pursuant to the provisions of Lien Law on behalf of plaintiff and on behalf of all other Lien Law trust beneficiaries who may seek to be vouched in. The proposed class consists of all beneficiaries of Lien Law article 3-A trust funds received by Chapin and IBEX in connection with a Project. There are other subcontractors, architects, engineers, surveyors, laborers or material men who, like plaintiff, performed work on the Property constituting permanent improvements thereto and that their work was not paid for due, in whole or in part, to the unlawful trust fund diversions. Chapin and IBEX entered into an agreement on October 24, 2014, pursuant to which IBEX agreed to begin construction on a multi- phase renovation and construction project for Chapin. According to the complaint, the purpose of Lien Law is to make certain that laborers, materialmen, and subcontractors on an improvement are paid from project funds, and it is essential that these protected classes be fully aware of whether an owner or contractor has funds available to pay their claims as trust beneficiaries. The lawsuit seeks that Chapin be declared a trustee of Bond Funds aggregating at least $2,393,787, or so much as may be necessary to pay all of the claims of the Lien Law Trust Beneficiaries. Chapin School is a domestic not-for-profit education corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Allan Reeve, Esq. REEVE BROWN PLLC 3380 Monroe Avenue, Suite 200 Rochester, NY 14618 Telephone: (585) 310 1610 Facsimile: (585) 287 5272 E-mail: careeve@reevebrownlaw.com CITIZENS INC: Amended Complaint Due July 31 in "Gamboa" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Gamboa v. Citizens, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv- 00241 (W.D. Tex.), Judge Robert Pitman has ruled that a Consolidated Complaint must be filed by July 31, 2017; and Defendants must answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Consolidated Complaint by September 14. Citizens, 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 or about March 16, 2017, Juan Gamboa filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and five of its current and former directors and executive officers in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. The complaint seeks an award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 11, 2015 and March 8, 2017, inclusive. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend against all claims asserted. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the outcome of this litigation. Citizens, Inc. is an insurance holding company incorporated in Colorado serving the life insurance needs of individuals in the United States since 1969 and internationally since 1975. COCA COLA: Court Grants Stipulation to Dismiss "De LaRosa" ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the parties' stipulation to dismiss without prejudice the case captioned LUIS A. DE LAROSA, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE COCA COLA COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-CV- 02603-EMC (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on April 3, 2017, in the Superior Court for County of Napa. On May 5, 2017, the Defendant timely removed the action to this District Court on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Plaintiff intends to amend the complaint to add a cause of action for civil penalties under the Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). His intended PAGA cause of action is not a "class action" under CAFA. Given the anticipated amendment by the Plaintiff to add a PAGA cause of action, and for other procedural reasons, the Defendant has agreed that the claims may be properly litigated in state court. So that the Plaintiff may proceed to litigate his original and PAGA claims in state court, the parties mutually request that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice, with each party to bear its own respective costs and fees, with the statute of limitations on the Plaintiffs' claims to be tolled such that he may file a new complaint in state court without any change to the alleged liability period for his claims based on the April 3, 2017, filing date of his original complaint. Accordingly, the Court granted the parties' stipulation. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, order is available at https://is.gd/tJlhqD from Leagle.com. Luis A Delarosa, Plaintiff, represented by Emil Dastan. Luis A Delarosa, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory N. Karasik -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- Karasik Law Firm. Coca Cola Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer B. Robinson -- jenrobinson@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Maria R. Harrington -- mharrington@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Gayle Gonad -- ggonda@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson. CONAGRA BRANDS: Seeks Supreme Court Review of Class Action Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on June 30, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts disclosed an intriguing tidbit about how he reads briefs to hundreds of federal judges and appellate lawyers gathered at a federal judicial conference in Pennsylvania. According to Twitter posts by lawyers who were there, the chief justice said he reads reply briefs first, especially in complicated cases. And according to followup tweets from former Supreme Court clerks, the chief is not alone. Several lawyers said they write reply briefs assuming judges and justices will read them first. That's bad news for Conagra and other class action defendants. Here's why. Conagra, as you may recall, has asked the Supreme Court to grant review of a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that affirmed certification of a class of Wesson Oil purchasers claiming the product was falsely advertised as all natural. The 9th Circuit, like the 6th and 7th Circuits before it (and the 8th Circuit afterward), rejected Conagra's argument that plaintiffs must offer a "reliable and administratively feasible" method to identify class members, deepening a split among the federal circuits on the hot-button issue of whether the federal rules governing class actions contain an implied "ascertainability" requirement. The 3rd Circuit was the first to discern this implied requirement, but Conagra told the Supreme Court in its petition for review that the 2nd, 4th and 11th Circuits have endorsed the 3rd Circuit's interpretation of class action rules. Class action defendants, obviously, are eager for the Supreme Court to do the same, imposing a new and difficult obstacle for class certification, especially in low-dollar consumer cases. But first, defendants need to persuade the Supreme Court to grant review of the ascertainability issue -- which the justices have already twice declined to do, in the 7th Circuit case that initially created a split with the 3rd Circuit and the 6th Circuit case that deepened the divide. In their brief opposing Supreme Court review, the plaintiffs suing Conagra, represented by New York University professor Samuel Issacharoff, said the company had exaggerated the magnitude of the circuit split, which, they said, might well resolve itself under the Supreme Court's 2016 class action decision in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo. According to the plaintiffs, the 3rd Circuit is really the only appeals court on the other side of the divide, and it may come around without the Supreme Court getting involved. Conagra, represented at the Supreme Court by Jones Day, filed its reply brief on July 5. The brief skewered plaintiffs for suggesting the 3rd Circuit stands alone on ascertainability. There's also strong precedent from the 2nd Circuit, Conagra said, in 2015's Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, which held that plaintiffs have to propose an "objective" and "readily identifiable class" in order to be certified. Even if the 3rd Circuit were to backtrack on ascertainability, Conagra argued, the 2nd Circuit's Brecher precedent means "there would still be a split," the reply brief said. "This entrenched split isn't going away." But to the extent that Conagra relies on the 2nd Circuit's Brecher decision, it just did. On July 7, a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel used its decision in parallel securities class actions against the Brazilian energy company Petrobras to clarify the circuit's holding on ascertainability. And contrary to what Conagra argued at the beginning of its reply brief at the Supreme Court, the 2nd Circuit in Petrobras said its Brecher precedent did not create an independent ascertainability requirement. In fact, the 2nd Circuit said in Petrobras, it agrees with the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Circuits that courts should not impose the 3rd Circuit's ascertainability test. "With all due respect to our colleagues on the 3rd Circuit, we decline to adopt a heightened ascertainability theory that requires a showing of administrative feasibility at the class certification stage," wrote U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis of Brooklyn, sitting by designation on a panel that also included Judges Peter Hall and Debra Livingston. "The reasoning underlying our decision in Brecher does not suggest any such prerequisite, and creating one would upset the careful balance of competing interests codified in the explicit requirements of Rule 23." Moreover, the 2nd Circuit referred to "growing consensus" among the federal circuits that the 3rd Circuit misinterpreted the federal rules on class action procedures. That's a powerful endorsement of one of the arguments plaintiffs made in opposing Supreme Court review of ascertainability. It's a very good bet that plaintiffs will submit a brief to the Supreme Court, informing the justices of the essential flaw in Conagra's reply brief now that the 2nd Circuit has clarified what it really meant in the case Conagra cited. Supreme Court rules allow supplemental briefing "calling attention to new cases, new legislation or other intervening matter not available at the time of the party's last filing." In fairness to Conagra, the company quoted the 2nd Circuit's 2015 Brecher decision entirely accurately. In Brecher, the 2nd Circuit held that "a class is ascertainable when defined by objective criteria that are administratively feasible and when identifying its members would not require a mini-hearing on the merits of each case." You can see why Conagra, in its petition for Supreme Court review (and I, in recounting Conagra's argument), interpreted that language to require plaintiffs to provide an administratively feasible method of identifying class members, which is the 3rd Circuit's standard for ascertainability. But in Petrobras, the 2nd Circuit said that what it really meant in Brecher was only that judges must be sure "a class is defined using objective criteria that establish a membership with definite boundaries," the court said. "This modest threshold requirement will only preclude certification if a proposed class definition is indeterminate in some fundamental way." The appeals court said the two classes of Petrobras debt and equity investors certified to proceed with fraud claims against Petrobras met ascertainability requirements. It also said, however, that U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff of Manhattan committed legal error in certifying a class of noteholders to sue under the Securities Act. Only noteholders whose purchases have a tangible connection to the U.S. can bring claims in U.S. courts under the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank. The 2nd Circuit said Judge Rakoff hadn't taken sufficient account of whether noteholders could meet the Morrison test when he held that class issues predominate over individual inquiries. It remanded the case so the trial judge can reconsider that question. The Petrobras class is represented by Pomerantz. Petrobras has counsel from Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, and its underwriters are represented by Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom. To be clear, the 2nd Circuit's Petrobras opinion does not erase the split between the 3rd Circuit and the five other federal appellate courts that have now explicitly rejected its heightened ascertainability requirement. There's still a clear divide among the circuits, so if the Supreme Court now wants to take up this issue -- despite having passed up two previous opportunities -- it's well justified. Just not as well justified as it was on July 7. Conagra Supreme Court lawyer Shay Dvoretzky said in an email statement that the 2nd Circuit's Petrobras decision "recognizes and itself reflects the persistent circuit split regarding ascertainability and administrative feasibility at the class certification stage." Vacating Judge Rakoff's class certification in the Securities Act case, he said, contravenes the approach of the 9th Circuit, "which upheld certification in Conagra's case even though there is no way besides mini-trials to identify those who bought Wesson Oil in the past ten years." [GN] CONNECTICUT: Class Action Challenges Dog Death Penalty ------------------------------------------------------ Pat Eaton-Robb, writing for Associated Press, reports that a federal judge is being asked to decide whether Connecticut has violated the rights of dog owners by holding animals deemed dangerous for years on what amounts to a canine death row. There was a hearing in a lawsuit involving dogs from Waterbury, Manchester and Southington. But it seeks class-action status and an injunction that would prevent the destruction of any animal under a disposal order while the court decides if the state law is constitutional. Kim Miller hopes it will lead to a reprieve for her dogs, Kato and Kleo, Rottweilers who have been held since being ordered destroyed in October 2012. Ms. Miller said the pair, who were 1 and 2 years old at the time, got out of her Hamden yard and bit a neighbor only after they were attacked with sticks and bats. "My dogs were just puppies when they were taken," she said outside the courthouse. "The kennel they are in isn't set up for their long-term care. They are suffering." Attorney Thompson Page argued the state has no standards for determining when an animal should be euthanized, leaving it to the discretion of local animal control officers. He argues that is a violation of due process and an unreasonable seizure of property. Animal owners are given 14 days after a destruction order to ask for an appeal hearing before Animal Control Division of the state Department of Agriculture. The owner can seek additional appeals in court. But Mr. Page said it can take months just to schedule a hearing and the process forces the owner to prove their animal did nothing wrong, rather than force the state to prove the animal deserves to die. "In America, you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty," Ms. Miller said outside the courthouse. "When it comes to dogs, you are guilty until you can prove they are innocent." Steven Reviczky, the state's agriculture commissioner, testified the appeals process actually required the towns prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disposal order is necessary. He said his department provides extensive training to animal control officers, but acknowledge there are no specific standards that need to be met to determine if an animal deserves to die. He said he often sees evidence such as pictures of a victim's nose on the floor or chest torn open. "I think the standard in most cases is common sense," he said. But Mr. Reviczky also acknowledged that neither he nor his hearing officers are attorneys and that he supports legislation that would shift the decision in life or death appeals to the courts. A separate federal lawsuit on Kato and Kleo's individual case was dismissed on July 7. But Judge Thompson told Hamden's attorney he expects the dogs won't be euthanized at least for 10 days to give Mr. Page time to file a motion for an injunction. He did not indicate when he might rule in the larger case, which seeks to include a class of about 50 dog owners, such as Ms. Miller. COVISINT CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on July 10 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of current stockholders of Covisint Corporation("Covisint" or the "Company") in connection with the planned acquisition of the company by OpenText. On June 5, 2017, Covisint Corporation announced it had entered into an agreement in which OpenText, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Cypress Merger Sub, Inc., would acquire all outstanding shares of Covisint common stock for $2.45 per share. The lawsuit, entitled Keuning v. Covisint Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:17-cv-11958), alleges that defendants solicit stockholder votes in connection with the sale of the Company to OpenText through a proxy statement that omits material facts necessary to make the statements therein not false or misleading. Stockholders require this material information to make an informed vote. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 8, 2017. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Joseph E. Levi, at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, (212) 363-7500, or via e-mail at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com, or visit http://www.zlkdocs.com/COVS-Info-Request-Form-ma-5858. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A CLASS HAS NOT BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. DAN HOSSEINI: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers ------------------------------------------------------------ John Ralph, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Dan Hosseini d/b/a "HJ Enterprises, Inc.," Shane Casey d/b/a "D.O.S. Pizza, Inc.," North County Pizza, Inc., Pizzafella, LLC, Pizza Enterprises, Inc., Pizza Enterprises II, Inc., Pizza Enterprises III, Inc., Syriani & Seryani, Inc., Slammed Pizza, Inc., Slammed Pizza Jr., Inc. and Does 1-25, Case No. 3:17-cv- 01332-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., June 29, 2017), arises out of the flawed method the Defendants used to determine reimbursement rates that provides an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses the drivers incur that unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal and California minimum wage during some or all workweeks. The Defendants own and operate approximately 74 Domino's franchise stores in Southern California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Malcolm B. Roberts, Esq. John K. Landay, Esq. LANDAY ROBERTS LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-5712 E-mail: mroberts@landayroberts.com jlanday@landayroberts.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com DEAN FOODS: Tennessee Suit v. Milk Processors Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Dean Foods Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a class action lawsuit in Tennessee has been dismissed. On August 9, 2007, two plaintiffs filed a putative class action antitrust complaint against Dean Foods and other milk processors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The Company said, "Plaintiffs alleged generally that we, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers. Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants' conduct artificially inflated wholesale prices paid by direct milk purchasers." "On January 25, 2016, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. That petition was denied by the Sixth Circuit on June 14, 2016. Although the courts refused to certify the case as a class action, the two original plaintiffs decided to pursue their individual claims for damages. "The case was scheduled for trial on March 28, 2017. Prior to trial, the plaintiffs agreed with us to settle the lawsuit. We agreed to pay settlements to the plaintiffs and the parties resolved all outstanding claims in the litigation and agreed to voluntarily dismiss the litigation. The litigation was dismissed on March 21, 2017 with respect to one plaintiff, and on March 26, 2017 with respect to the other plaintiff. We have recorded a charge and a corresponding liability in connection with the settlements in the first quarter of 2017." Dean Foods is a food and beverage company and the largest processor and direct-to-store distributor of fresh fluid milk and other dairy and dairy case products in the United States, with a vision to be the most admired and trusted provider of wholesome, great-tasting dairy products at every occasion. DELTA MANAGEMENT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Farash Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Farash, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delta Management Associates, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Case No. 6:17-cv-06428-GWC (W.D.N.Y., July 4, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Headquartered in Chelsea, Massachusetts, Delta Management provides debt collection and recovery services for financial, educational, and governmental entities in the United States. The Company offers campus based collection services for Perkins collections, cohort defaults, nursing/health care profession loans, private loan collections, tuition collection services, and alternative loans; and guarantee agency services, including title IV FFELP collections, pre-claims assistance, and rehabilitation monitoring services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Jerome Douglas, Esq. GESUND AND PAILET LLC 11 Alger Dr. Rochester, NY 14624 Telephone: (585) 703-9783 Facsimile: (504) 265-9492 E-mail: alex@gp-nola.com DEVON ENERGY: Appeals Gas Royalty Class Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., Esq. -- tciarlone@krcl.com -- of Kane Russell Coleman Logan PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that increasingly, class actions are -- for all intents and purposes -- won or lost at the certification stage. After all, if a class is certified, especially under the heightened standards for class treatment that have been articulated by the United States Supreme Court in recent years, the exposure for defendants in the vast majority of cases is simply too great to risk a jury trial on the merits. This is, of course, why lucrative settlements often follow so closely on the heels of successful motions for class certification. By and large, class certification motions will rise or fall based on whether the representative plaintiffs can demonstrate "commonality" to the trial court's satisfaction. At the risk of oversimplifying what can sometimes be a highly nuanced concept, commonality exists when there is a critical mass of factual and legal issues that are generally constant across the entire class. Commonality is closely related to, and often confused with, the further requirement of "predominance," which turns on this slightly different question: even assuming there is a nucleus of common questions of law and fact shared by most class members, do they sufficiently outweigh the factual and legal wrinkles that are unique to individual members of the class? Both commonality and predominance are codified in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, without exception, in all of its state-law equivalents. All of these dynamics were recently on display when, according to an appeal filed by Devon Energy in the Fifth Circuit (Seeligson v. Devon Energy Production LP, No. 17-10320), a Texas federal judge ran afoul of the commonality and predominance requirements by certifying a class of natural gas royalty owners who alleged that the company had for many years shortchanged them on royalty payments by failing to obtain the best available market prices for their gas. According to Devon's appeal brief, "if it is allowed to stand, the certification order will compel [Devon] to face the fundamental unfairness of attempting to defend thousands of disparate individual claims in a single trial." On the surface, at least to a casual observer, it looked as though the trial court had done what it was obligated to do under the Supreme Court's seminal decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). Namely, District Judge Edward Kinkeade determined that the putative class representatives had isolated no fewer than two questions of classwide applicability. The problem, however, as was aptly observed by the Texas Oil and Gas Association in an amicus curiae brief, was that the court stopped its analysis too soon. In particular, it did "not take the additional step of comparing those classwide questions to the method by which, under Texas law, plaintiffs must prove breach of an implied covenant to market." Put another way, even crediting that the questions identified by the plaintiffs have classwide applicability, the answers to the questions would not nearly dispose of the class claims. The questions -- however "common" they might be -- are ultimately red herrings that do nothing to meaningfully advance the plaintiffs' burden of proof. Identifying a similar flaw in logic in another royalty underpayment case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014), reprimanded "the district court [for] plac[ing] an inordinate emphasis on the sheer number of uniform practices without considering whether those practices are relevant to assessing the defendants' ultimate liability." Id. at 366. The TXOGA's amicus brief perhaps put it best when it explained that: "In short, it is abundantly clear Rule 23 requires putative class representatives to do more than propose a classwide common question. They must also show that, under the applicable substantive law, the answer to that question will further their burden of proof. Because their common questions are irrelevant to their burden of proof under Texas law, the [class representatives] failed to meet this burden." The lesson learned here should be obvious: before engaging in a debate over whether a fact or a legal principle is "common" to the class, or whether it "predominates" over individual issues, be sure to first ask these fundamental threshold questions: "So what? Why do we care? Does this even matter?" If the answer is no, the class representatives need to move on to greener pastures, if there are any. As obvious as this may seem, it is surprising just how often capable defense counsel allow themselves to get drawn into commonality and predominance arguments about matters that are, in the final analysis, either irrelevant or ancillary to the core matters with respect to which the plaintiffs bear the burden of proof. [GN] DUN & BRADSTREET: Supplemental Briefing in O&R Suit Extended ------------------------------------------------------------ The Dun & Bradstreet 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 continues to defend against the case, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.). On July 21, Judge Thomas S. Zilly approved a Stipulation providing that: -- Deadline for parties to file a supplemental brief, revised proposed forms of notices to class members, a revised stipulation of settlement, and any proposed opt-out form is further extended to August 25, 2017; -- renoting the deferred portion of the plaintiffs' Third Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Second Amended Class Action Settlement; the Noting Date is August 25. On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC, Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and equitable relief. DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices allegations. The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motions and denied DBCC's motion but granted the Company's motion. Specifically, the Court dismissed the contract claim against the Company with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims against the Company without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder(R). As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and deceptive acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC filed a motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint venture or agency liability theory. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the defendants' motions. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the defendants based on a joint venture or agency liability theory. The Court denied the Company's motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington. On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed oppositions to the motions for class certification. On September 16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of the motions for class certification. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016 the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified the class for settlement and approved the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement's notice and administration provisions. Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. * * * On May 5, Judge Zilly entered an order directing that Case Nos. C12-2184, C14-855, C14-1021, C14-1288, and C14-1404 are consolidated into Case No. C12-2184. The Clerk closed Case Nos. C14-855, C14-1021, C14-1288, and C14-1404. All future filings shall bear the cause number C12-2184. -- Die-Mension v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)) On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die- Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent misrepresentation and concealment. On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court, Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder product. On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the amended complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on September 10, 2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non- monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified the class for settlement and approved the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement's notice and administration provisions. Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. -- Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv- 01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.)) On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation ("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in violation of Sec.17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation claims. On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions and DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non- monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiffs filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified the class for settlement and approved the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement's notice and administration provisions. Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. -- Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.)) On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order denying DBCC's motion to dismiss. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non- monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified the class for settlement and approved the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement's notice and administration provisions. Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. -- Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)) On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Altaflo filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff's renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court preliminarily certified the class for settlement and approved the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement's notice and administration provisions. Plaintiffs had until June 2, 2017 to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. DUN & BRADSTREET: Ninth Circuit Appeal Terminated ------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet 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 appeal in the case, Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., No. 2:15 cv 03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.), has been terminated. On April 28, 2015, Jeffrey A. Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed suit against DBCC in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227) because it placed telephone calls to Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). The TCPA generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell phone for non-emergency purposes and without the prior express written consent of the called party. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to $1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the TCPA. Plaintiff sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals who received calls on their cell phones from an ATDS. DBCC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April 30, 2015. On May 22, 2015, the Company made a statutory offer of judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer. DBCC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12, 2015, which the Court denied on August 5, 2015. DBCC filed an Answer and asserted its Affirmative Defenses on November 12, 2015. Discovery commenced and the Court issued a schedule for amended pleadings, discovery, the filing of any class certification motion and trial. During the discovery period, the parties agreed to attempt to settle the dispute through mediation. On June 2, 2016, the parties conducted one day of mediation, and shortly after the mediation, the parties reached an agreement to settle the dispute on a class- wide basis. Since that time the parties have finalized a written settlement agreement and all attendant documents. The Court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement on September 26, 2016 and, entered an Order conditionally certifying a settlement class, approving the class action settlement and approving the parties' plan to give notice to class members. After the close of the claims period, on February 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion seeking final approval of the class action settlement. On March 20, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court for a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for final approval. Shortly after the hearing, on March 22, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action settlement. On March 29, 2017, the Court entered a Final Judgement Order by which it dismissed the case with prejudice and without costs, except as provided for in the Court's Final Approval Order, and terminated the case from the Court's docket. On April 11, 2017, a class member filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the District Court's Orders that granted final approval, awarded counsel's fees and entered a final judgment in the case. On April 21, 2017, the class member filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted the class member's motion on May 1, 2017 thereby terminating the proceedings in the appellate court. The appeals deadline has passed. The District Court's Final Judgment Order is effective and there are no further Court-mandated deadlines or proceedings at this time. Additional information in the case is available at: http://www.credibilitytcpasettlement.com/ EZCORP INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas -------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on July 10 disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against EZCORP, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of EZCORP securities between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by EZCORP's officers and directors. EZCORP provides pawn loans in the United States, Mexico, and Canada. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/ezcorp-inc EZCORP Accused of Issuing Inaccurate Financial Statements According to the complaint, EZCORP emphasized positive financial results, strong performance, and solid foundation for growth in its public filings and press releases. On April 30, 2015, EZCORP announced that it would delay its earnings release for the second quarter of fiscal 2015 due to an ongoing review of certain elements of its Grupo Finmart loan portfolio. The announcement caused EZCORP's stock to drop over 8% to close at $8.41 per share on May 1, 2015. Then, on May 20, 2015, EZCORP revealed that management and the Audit Committee would likely conclude that the company had a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting and deficiencies in its disclosure controls and procedures, and that the company had received a deficiency notice from The Nasdaq Stock Market due to its failure to timely file its Form 10-Q. As a result, the company's stock declined further to close at $8.33 per share on May 21, 2015. On July 17, 2015, EZCORP announced that it would restate its financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and that the previously issued financial statements for those periods should no longer be relied upon. On this news, EZCORP's stock fell $0.26 per share, or nearly 4%, to close at $6.48 per share on July 17, 2015. EZCORP Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. FIRST BANCORP: Still Defends Against "Torres" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- First BanCorp. 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 case, Ramirez Torres, et al. v Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al. FirstBank Puerto Rico has been named a defendant in a class action complaint captioned Ramirez Torres, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, et al. The complaint seeks damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico and other financial institutions with insurance agency subsidiaries in Puerto Rico. Plaintiffs contend that in November 2015, Antilles Insurance Company obtained approval from the Puerto Rico Insurance Commissioner to market an endorsement that allowed its customers to obtain a reimbursement on their insurance premium for good experience, but that defendants failed to offer this product or disclose its existence to their customers, favoring other products instead, in violation of their fiduciary duties as insurance producers. Plaintiffs seek a determination that defendants unlawfully failed to comply with their fiduciary duty to disclose the existence of this new insurance benefit from this carrier, as well as double or treble damages (the latter subject to a determination that defendants engaged in anti-monopolistic practices in failing to offer this product). FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Says Parties Negotiating Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- First Commonwealth Financial 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 parties in a class action lawsuit are negotiating the terms of a definitive settlement agreement. First Commonwealth Financial Corporation and First Commonwealth Bank were named defendants in an action commenced August 27, 2015 by eight named plaintiffs that is pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Jefferson County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the Bank repossessed motor vehicles, sold the vehicles and sought to collect deficiency balances in a manner that did not comply with the notice requirements of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), charged inappropriate costs and fees, including storage costs for dates that a repossessed vehicle was not in storage, and wrongly filed forms with the Department of Motor Vehicles asserting that the Bank had complied with applicable laws relating to the repossession of the vehicles. The plaintiffs seek to pursue the action as a class action on behalf of the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated plaintiffs who had their automobiles repossessed and seek to recover damages under the UCC and the Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act. First Commonwealth and the Bank contest the plaintiffs' allegations and intend to oppose class certification. The Bank has also asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, set-off and recoupment against the plaintiffs, individually, and as representatives of the putative class. The Bank and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the litigation during the second quarter of 2016. The parties are negotiating the terms of a definitive settlement agreement which would be subject to court approval and other customary conditions. The estimated cost of the settlement to the Bank was recorded as a liability in the second quarter of 2016. FORMFACTOR INC: "Solak" Settlement Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------- FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the settlement of a class action lawsuit styled, Solak v. Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., has been granted final approval. On April 8, 2016, an individual plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Cascade Microtech, its directors and others, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition of Cascade Microtech by the Company. The lawsuit, captioned Solak v. Cascade Microtech, Inc., et al., was filed in Multnomah County Circuit Court in the State of Oregon. On March 17, 2017, the court entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and filed a General Judgment in the case which provided for a payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the dismissal with prejudice of all claims asserted in the action. In August 2013, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws and other claims on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009, onward. On March 14, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of the parties' stipulation under which the parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit, subject to court approvals and other conditions. The stipulation provides for payment by the Company of $1.5 million in settlement of the lawsuit. "As of April 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we have accrued in our Consolidated Financial Statements and Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, respectively, $1.5 million in respect of the potential payment under the stipulation of settlement," the Company said. on. On June 24, 2016, the Company completed the acquisition of Cascade Microtech Inc. ("Cascade Microtech"), headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon. GALLAGHER BASSETT: First State Orthopaedics Sues over Workers Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIRST STATE ORTHOPAEDICS, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 60781019 (Del. Super. Ct., June 27, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages (in the form of statutory interest under 19 Del. C. section 2322F), statutory interest, punitive damages and other relief arising from Gallagher Bassett Services' violations of the Delaware Workers' Compensation Act. According to the complaint, Gallagher Bassett routinely and wrongfully fails to pay statutory interest under 19 Del. C. section 2322F(h) on claims against which the interest is indisputably owed, either because Gallagher Bassett failed to contest a claim within 30 days of its receipt or because Gallagher Bassett resorted unsuccessfully to utilization review, thereby allowing the statutory 30-day deadline to pass. Gallagher Bassett provides risk management services to clients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Spadaro, Esq. JOHN SHEEHAN SPADARO, LLC 54 Liborio Lane Smyrna, DE 19977 Telephone: (302) 235 7745 GERON CORPORATION: $6.25 Million Settlement Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Charles R. Breyer, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, on July 21, 2017, granted final approval of the settlement reached in In re Geron Corp. Sec. Litig., No: 3:14-CV-01224-CRB. The settlement provides for a cash payment of $6.25 million in exchange for plaintiffs' release of all claims alleged in the action. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP served as sole Lead Counsel on behalf of the Class. This is an excellent recovery for the Class and constitutes a material percentage of the likely provable damages suffered by the Class, the firm said in a press release. A copy of the Court's order is available at https://is.gd/7YmA8w A copy of the Court's fee order is available at https://is.gd/KzsNpo Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that, "On March 14, 2014, the first of two substantially similar purported class action securities lawsuits, or the Class Action Lawsuits, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The second such lawsuit was filed on March 28, 2014. On June 6, 2014, a securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. This lawsuit was based on the same factual background as the Class Action Lawsuits." "On June 30, 2014, the Class Action Lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes into a single case, and on November 4, 2014, the securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court was transferred and also consolidated into the Class Action Lawsuits. The California District Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the Class Action Lawsuits on June 30, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his consolidated amended complaint which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us, including that we allegedly failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in the Phase 2 clinical trial of imetelstat in essential thrombocythemia, or the ET Trial, and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. We filed our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 18, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the California District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by us. On May 22, 2015, we filed our answer to the consolidated amended complaint. "On September 9, 2016, the California District Court signed an order temporarily staying the Class Action Lawsuits to enable the parties to seek to resolve the Class Action Lawsuits. On November 23, 2016, the parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding that set forth material deal points of resolving the Class Action Lawsuits. On December 13, 2016, the parties filed a notice of settlement, which the California District Court signed on December 16, 2016, staying the Class Action Lawsuits pending final approval of a settlement. "On March 2, 2017, the parties to the Class Action Lawsuits, through their respective counsel, executed a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, or the Stipulation, and related documents formalizing an agreement to settle the Class Action Lawsuits. Under the Stipulation, in exchange for the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants in connection with the Class Action Lawsuits, we agreed to settle the Class Action Lawsuits for $6.25 million in cash. We and our insurance providers have agreed that $6.0 million of the settlement amount will be paid by our insurance providers and the remaining $250,000 will be paid by us. The settlement does not constitute any admission of fault or wrongdoing by us or any of the individual defendants. "On March 2, 2017, plaintiff's counsel filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, and on April 7, 2017, the California District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement proposed in the Stipulation and directed that notice of the Settlement, or the Notice, be given to certain purchasers of our common stock during the period from December 10, 2012 through and including March 11, 2014, or the Class Members. The Notice includes, among other things, the general terms of the settlement, the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement amount, and the terms of the plaintiff's counsel fee application. In April 2017, following the preliminary approval by the California District Court of the settlement and in accordance with the Stipulation, we paid $250,000 and our insurance providers paid $6,000,000 to a settlement escrow account. These amounts will be held in escrow until finalization of the settlement. In accordance with the Stipulation, upon full payment of the settlement amount to the escrow account, we have no further liability or obligation to make any further payments related to the Stipulation or the Class Action Lawsuits. "The California District Court scheduled a settlement fairness hearing on July 21, 2017 to, among other things, make a final determination whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved by the California District Court. Class Members may opt out of the settlement and they may object to the settlement in advance of and/or at the settlement fairness hearing. The settlement and the Stipulation remain subject to final approval by the California District Court and certain other conditions. "The Class Action Lawsuits, including the settlement proposed in the Stipulation, remain subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs may depend upon many unknown factors. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the Class Action Lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on our business, cash flow, results of operations or financial position. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations will be made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming us and/or our officers and directors as defendants. Monitoring, initiating and defending against legal actions is time-consuming for our management, likely to be expensive and may detract from our ability to fully focus our internal resources on our business activities. In addition, despite the availability of insurance, we may incur substantial legal fees and costs in connection with litigation and such amounts could be material to our financial statements. We may expend significant resources in the settlement or defense of any additional lawsuits, and we may not prevail in such lawsuits. We have not established any reserve for any potential liability relating to any additional lawsuits. Lawsuits could result in judgments against us that require us to pay damages, enjoin us from certain activities, or otherwise negatively affect our legal or contractual rights, which could have a significant adverse effect on our business. In addition, the inherent uncertainty of such litigation could lead to increased volatility in our stock price and a decrease in the value of our stockholders' investment in our common stock." Geron Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company that currently supports the clinical stage development of a telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid malignancies, by Janssen Biotech, Inc., or Janssen. GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Employee Cases at Early Stage --------------------------------------------------- Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that two separate purported class action lawsuits are at an early stage in the proceedings. The company said, "In February and April 2017, several former employees filed two separate purported class action lawsuits against us in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals employed by us in the State of Nevada. The lawsuits allege we violated certain Nevada labor laws including payment of an hourly wage below the statutory minimum wage without providing a qualified health insurance plan and an associated failure to pay proper overtime compensation. The complaints seek, on behalf of the plaintiffs and members of the putative class, an unspecified amount of damages (including punitive damages), injunctive and equitable relief, and an award of attorneys' fees, interest and costs." "These cases are at an early stage in the proceedings, and we are therefore unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable loss or range of losses, if any, that might arise from these matters. Therefore, we have not recorded any amount for the claims as of the date of this filing. While legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable and no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, we believe that these proceedings should not have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." Golden Entertainment is a diversified group of gaming companies that focus on distributed gaming (including tavern gaming) and casino and resort operations. HC2 HOLDINGS: Still Defends DBMG Class Action --------------------------------------------- HC2 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 DBMG Class Action remains pending. On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBMG was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the completion of the tender offer. The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. On February 24, 2017, the parties agreed to a framework for the potential settlement of the litigation. On February 28, 2017, the Court entered an order vacating the current scheduling order and directing the parties to submit a stipulation of settlement or status report to the Court by April 21, 2017. In late March 2017, plaintiff's counsel took three depositions to assess the fairness of the potential settlement framework. On April 24, 2017, plaintiff's counsel submitted a status report to the Court indicating that they continued to analyze the potential settlement framework and would submit a stipulation of settlement or further status report to the Court by June 8, 2017. There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized or that the Court would approve such a settlement even if the parties were to enter into a settlement stipulation or agreement. The Company believes that the settlement under discussion would not have a material effect on the Company's financial condition or operating results. HC2 Holdings, Inc. is a diversified holding company which seeks to acquire and grow attractive businesses that we believe can generate long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns. While the Company generally intends to acquire controlling equity interests in its operating subsidiaries, the Company may invest to a limited extent in a variety of debt instruments or noncontrolling equity interest positions. The Company's shares of common stock trade on the NYSE MKT LLC under the symbol "HCHC". IMPAX LABORATORIES: March 2018 Trial in Solodyn Antitrust Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that trial is set for March 22, 2018, in the Solodyn(R) antitrust class actions. From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the other generic defendants. On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the other generic defendants. On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On February 11, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints. Discovery is ongoing. Trial is set for March 22, 2018. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Opana ER Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re- filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor (indirect) purchaser plaintiffs. On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the "Opt-Out Plaintiffs" (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.). On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be bound by the court's ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints. On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs have filed a second consolidated amended complaint and the Company has moved to dismiss certain state law claims. On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs' complaints, with leave to amend. The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended complaints and the Company has filed its answer. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Generic Drugs Pricing Antitrust Case Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, 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 is defending itself against the case, In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. From March 2016 to April 2017, 22 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products. From January 2017 to April 2017, three complaints were filed on behalf of indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products. On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 9, 2016. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff CÇsar Castillo Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug. On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed "In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation." On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class action complaints. With respect to doxycycline, the plaintiffs dropped their allegations against the Company. On March 28, 2017, the Company, separately and along with other defendants, filed motions to dismiss the digoxin class action complaint. Briefing has been taken off calendar by the court. On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated actions have been renamed In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. No schedule has been set. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Motion to Dismiss AWP Litigation Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that briefing has been completed on a motion to dismiss and no court decision has been received in the AWP Litigation. On December 30, 2015, Plumbers' Local Union No. 690 Health Plan and others similarly situated filed a class action against several generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs. The case has since been removed to federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. By virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the suit has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third party payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain generic drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under the laws of other states in addition to Pennsylvania. On May 17, 2016, this case was stayed. On January 18, 2017, the Company, along with the other defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. Briefing has been completed and no court decision has been received. On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory judgment. On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending resolution of the federal court action. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Class Suit by Family Medicine Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00053 (S.D. Ala.), Impax on July 21 filed a Response to Order to Show. Earlier this month, Judge William H. Steele an Order directing the parties to show cause by July 21 why this case should not be consolidated with Case No. 17-310 commenced by Medicine to Go Pharmacies, Inc. The Show Cause Order was entered July 7. Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC filed on January 31, 2017, a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against the Company alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act"). On March 27, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2017. In an Order dated April 11, Judge Steele found the Motion to Dismiss as moot, and directed Defendant's answer or Rule 12(b) motion in response to the Amended Complaint to be filed by April 25. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Medicine To Go's Suit Underway in Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MEDICINE TO GO PHARMACIES, INC. v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00310 (S.D. Ala.), Plaintiff on July 21 filed a Response to Order to Show Cause. Earlier this month, Judge Steele directed the parties to show cause by July 21 why this case should not be consolidated with Case No. 17-53 commenced by Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC. The Show Cause Order was entered July 7. On July 6, the case was transferred from the District of New Jersey (Case No. 3:17-cv-00986). Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Plaintiff Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc. filed on February 14, 2017, a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against the Company alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On April 17, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay this case in light of the Family Medicine Pharmacy case. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. IMPAX LABORATORIES: NY Hotel Trades Securities Action Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, 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 New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed on April 17, 2017, an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The Company's response to the amended complaint was due on June 1, 2017. Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and branded pharmaceutical products. INSIGHT GLOBAL: Objections to Discovery in "Barker" Overruled ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JOHN BARKER, Plaintiff, v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-07186-BLF (HRL)(N.D. Cal.), Judge Howard R. Lloyd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, ordered Insight to provide substantive responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5 and produce the information sought in Request for Production No. 71. Former employee Barker sues the Defendant, a staffing company, both for allegedly unpaid compensation as well as for a declaration that his employment agreement's restrictions on his mobility and activities after termination are unlawful and void. With respect to the latter claim, he seeks class action relief on behalf of other Insight employees who were subject to the same or similar agreements. Discovery has been proceeding apace even though the pleadings are not settled. In fact, Insight's motion to dismiss Barker's current complaint is set for hearing in September. However, in view of the presiding judge's admonition to promptly tee up class certification, the Plaintiff filed his class certification motion on June 20, 2017 and set it for hearing in November, less than 4 months from now. Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) #3 is about the Plaintiff's efforts to obtain class discovery. Barker propounded interrogatories and requests for production of documents to the Defendant back in March 2017. He seeks typical discovery on the size and scope of the putative class and documentation on common legal and factual issues. He also wants contact information on the putative class members. Insight objected to producing any class discovery because, it argued, Barker is not an adequate class representative, thus lacking standing. And, even if he had standing, the alleged class claims fail to measure up to what Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 requires. At this time, the Plaintiff is entitled to discovery on the class claims. As a fall back, in the event that the Court does conclude that contact information on the putative class members should be disclosed, Insight urges the Court to order implementation of a preliminary "opt-out" process. That is, the class members would be contacted and told that, unless they opted out, their contact information would be disclosed to the Plaintiff. Then, the Plaintiff would only get the information for those who did not say they wanted "out." This, argues the Defendant, would protect the privacy of the class members who did not want to get involved. Given the relative complexity in implementing such a procedure, as well as the substantial time it probably would consume, the Court will not require it. The Court ordered Insight to provide substantive responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1-5 and produce the information sought in Request for Production No. 71. Insight's objections are overruled. (Objections, if any, based on attorney- client privilege or the work product doctrine, are not overruled, subject to defendant producing an informative privilege log.) Responses and production will be made within 10 days from the date this order is filed. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/0GToXB from Leagle.com. John Barker, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin I. Fink, Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice. John Barker, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. Insight Global, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice. Insight Global, LLC 2013 Incentive Unit Plan, Defendant, represented by Christopher Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP, Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. Insight Global, LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Christopher Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice. John Barker, Counter-defendant, represented by Benjamin I. Fink, Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, Charles John Smith, III, Law Offices of Charles J. Smith III, Olga Savage, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. Insight Global, LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Christopher Carl Marquardt, Alston Bird LLP, Jeremy Matthew Mittman, Proskauer Rose LLP & Isabella Pei-Ying Lee, Alston and Bird LLP. John Barker, Counter-defendant, represented by Benjamin I. Fink, Berman Fink Van Horn P.C., pro hac vice, Charles John Smith, III, Law Offices of Charles J. Smith III, Olga Savage, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP & Tyler Mark Paetkau, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP. J2 GLOBAL: Court Granted Summary Judgment Dismissing Paldo Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, 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 District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has granted summary judgment dismissing all claims against the j2 Global affiliates in a class action lawsuit by Paldo Sign and Display Co. On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. filed an amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former employee as additional defendants in an existing putative class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of a j2 Global affiliate's systems to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc., was added. On March 7, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates moved for summary judgment. The Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment on March 10, 2017, dismissing all claims against the j2 Global affiliates. The time for appeal has not yet lapsed. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our voice and fax products. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and healthcare markets, reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space. J2 GLOBAL: Awaits Approval of Free-Vychine Case Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, 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 the case filed by Andre Free- Vychine awaits court approval of a settlement. On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles ("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint alleged two California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine sought, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate putative class action against the same j2 Global affiliates in Los Angeles Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleged three California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global affiliates' customers, including those with eVoice(R) and Onebox(R) accounts. LEO and IV Pit Stop sought, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court related and consolidated both cases for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in the case brought by LEO, which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff. On June 26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed pursuant to a settlement agreement. On October 7, 2015, the parties in the case brought by LEO and Dancel reached a tentative class-based settlement. On September 12, 2016, the Los Angeles Superior Court certified the class for settlement purposes only and provided its preliminary approved the settlement. The court was slated to consider final approval of the settlement in early 2017, according to the Company. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our voice and fax products. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and healthcare markets, reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space. J2 GLOBAL: Appeal in Davis Neurology Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Davis Neurology's appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending. On January 21, 2016, Davis Neurology, P.A. filed a putative class action against two j2 Global affiliates in the Circuit Court for the County of Pope, State of Arkansas (58-cv-2016-40), alleging violations of the TCPA. The case was ultimately removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (the "Eastern District of Arkansas") (No. 4:16-cv-00682). On June 6, 2016, the j2 Global affiliates filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On March 20, 2017, the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed all claims against the j2 Global affiliates. On April 17, 2017, Davis Neurology filed a noticed of appeal to the Federal Circuit (No. 17-1820). j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our voice and fax products. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and healthcare markets, reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space. JM ROMICH: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Crandall Wallace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.M. Romich Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Everdry Waterproofing of Upstate New York and all other entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by J.M. Romich Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-06424 (W.D.N.Y., June 29, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper minimum wages, overtime compensation and spread-of-hours compensation and failure to comply with wage notice and wage statement requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act. J.M. Romich Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Everdry Waterproofing of Upstate New York provides waterproofing services for residential properties in Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter O. Brian Dellinger, Esq. Elizabeth Koo, Esq. EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER 1 West Main Street, Suite 200 Rochester, NY 14614 Telephone: (585) 295-5728 Facsimile: (585) 454-2518 E-mail: pdellinger@empirejustice.org ekoo@empirejustice.org JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Livaudais" Remanded to Missouri State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case GLEN LIVAUDAIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-1851 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand case to state court. This case was originally filed on March 18, 2015, in Missouri state court. The 69 plaintiffs from 36 states -- including Missouri, New Jersey, and California -- claimed they, or a family member, were each injured as a result of their use of the Defendants' talc products. The Defendants, citizens of New Jersey, Delaware, and California, removed this action to this Court on June 29, 2017 based on diversity jurisdiction. The problem, however, is that the parties are not diverse on the face of the complaint. To address this issue, the Defendants argue that many of the out-of-state plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined. Further, they maintain that the court should address personal jurisdiction before addressing subject matter jurisdiction. Apparently, this group of Plaintiffs, like many others, were purposefully, but legally, created as a strategic means to avoid this Court's subject matter jurisdiction both under diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. On June 29, 2017 -- nearly two and a half years after this case was initially filed in state court -- the Defendants removed the action to this Court. They, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., contend that many of the Plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined and should be dismissed from the action, which would leave diverse parties, enabling this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Further, they maintain that removal is proper because the Plaintiffs engaged in bad faith by forum-shopping and securing a forum that plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them and more hostile to the out-of-state defendants like those in this action. The Plaintiffs move for remand, alleging, inter alia, that they have in no way, shape, or form engaged in bad faith giving the Defendants license to remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), well outside of a year after this case was filed. Although this Court is inclined to agree with the Defendants' arguments that personal jurisdiction should be addressed before subject matter jurisdiction in these types of cases, based on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., their removal fails based upon a plain reading of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1). This Court is required to remand this action to state court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1) because this action was commenced nearly two and a half years ago and the Defendants have not established bad faith on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand case to state court and ordered that all other motions are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/xqymbK from Leagle.com. Sharon Livaudais, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder -- onder@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Sharon Livaudais, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Quillin -- quillin@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados -- rados@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair -- blair@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Deborah Kay Adams, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Judy Addelston, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Mary Alzamora, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Stavroula Bennington, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Lucy Boyer, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Cindy Butterworth, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Christy Cain, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Sandra Clark, Plaintiff, represented by James G. Onder, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Michael J. Quillin, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C., Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer -- bbauer@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & David M. Bays -- dbays@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer, HEPLER BROOM & David M. Bays, HEPLER BROOM. Imerys Talc America, Inc., formerly known as Luzenac America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Prost -- mprost@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C.. Imerys Talc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Anne Mellow -- mmellow@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX & von GONTARD & Steven Thomas Walsh -- swalsh@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C.. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Reppell" Remanded to Missouri State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Easter District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand the case captioned BRENDA REPPELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-1858 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), to state court. This case was originally filed on Jan. 19, 2016 in Missouri state court. The 77 Plaintiffs from 31 states -- including Missouri, New Jersey, and California -- claimed they, or a family member, were each injured as a result of their use of the Defendants' talc products. The Defendants, citizens of New Jersey, Delaware, and California, removed this action to this Court on June 29, 2017 based on diversity jurisdiction. The problem, however, is that the parties are not diverse on the face of the complaint. To address this issue, the Defendants argue that many of the out-of- state Plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined. Further, they maintain that the Court should address personal jurisdiction before addressing subject matter jurisdiction. Apparently, this group of Plaintiffs, like many others, were purposefully, but legally, created as a strategic means to avoid this Court's subject matter jurisdiction both under diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. On June 29, 2017 -- nearly 17 months after this case was initially filed in state court -- the Defendants removed the action to this Court. They, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., contend that many of the Plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined and should be dismissed from the action, which would leave diverse parties, enabling this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Further, they maintain that removal is proper because the Plaintiffs engaged in bad faith by forum-shopping and securing a forum that the Plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them and more hostile to the out-of-state defendants like those in this action. The Plaintiffs move for remand, alleging, inter alia, that they have in no way, shape, or form engaged in bad faith giving the Defendants license to remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), well outside of a year after this case was filed. The removing Defendants oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to remand; alleging that this Court should address the issue of personal jurisdiction, in light of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California, before addressing subject matter jurisdiction. Although this Court is inclined to agree with the Defendants' arguments that personal jurisdiction should be addressed before subject matter jurisdiction in these types of cases, based on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., their removal fails based upon a plain reading of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1). This Court is required to remand this action to state court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1) because this action was commenced nearly 17 months ago and the Defendants have not established bad faith on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, this Court granted the Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand case to state court and ordered that all other motions are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/qVNj6q from Leagle.com. Brenda Reppell, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados -- rados@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Brenda Reppell, Plaintiff, represented by William Wylie Blair -- blair@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Diana Abbate, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Nancy Askew, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Gayle-Jean Angelo, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Juanita Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Sarah Elizabeth Bailey-Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Elizabeth Baxter, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Shanterria Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Donna Bianco, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer -- bbauer@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM & Thomas J. Magee -- tmagee@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer, HEPLER BROOM & Thomas J. Magee, HEPLER BROOM. Imerys Talc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Prost -- mprost@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C., Mary Anne Mellow -- mmellow@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX & von GONTARD & Steven Thomas Walsh -- swalsh@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C.. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Swann" Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case ROBERT SWANN, individually and on behalf of the Estate of VALERIE SWANN, deceased, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-CV-1845 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted he Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand case to state court. This case was originally filed on July 31, 2014 in Missouri state court. The 62 plaintiffs from 28 states -- including Missouri, New Jersey, and California -- claimed they, or a family member, were each injured as a result of their use of the Defendants' talc products. The Defendants, citizens of New Jersey, Delaware, and California, removed the action to federal court on Sept. 10, 2014, based on diversity jurisdiction. The problem, however, was that the parties were not diverse on the face of the complaint. To address this issue, the Defendants argued that many of the out-of- state plaintiffs were procedurally misjoined -- having no connections to the state of Missouri. Further, they maintained that the court should have addressed personal jurisdiction before addressing subject matter jurisdiction. Apparently, this group of Plaintiffs, like many others, were purposefully, but legally, created as a strategic means to avoid this Court's subject matter jurisdiction both under diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. Some two and a half years ago, this Court, citing the non- diversity of the parties and ruling against the Defendants' misjoinder arguments, remanded the action back to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Swann v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 4:14-CV-1546 CAS, 2014 WL 6850776 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 3, 2014). The Court ruled, as many have in this district, that subject matter jurisdiction was a straightforward legal issue as compared to the fact-intensive inquiry of personal jurisdiction. The parties then engaged in several contentious years of litigation in state court. On June 29, 2017 -- nearly three years after this case was initially filed in state court -- the Defendants again removed the action to this Court on substantially the same grounds as they did before. They, citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., contend that many of the plaintiffs are procedurally misjoined and should be dismissed from the action, which would leave diverse parties, enabling this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Further, they maintain that removal is proper because the Plaintiffs engaged in bad faith by forum-shopping and securing a forum that the Plaintiffs believe will be more favorable to them and more hostile to the out-of-state defendants like those in this action. The Plaintiffs moved for remand, alleging, inter alia, that they have in no way, shape, or form engaged in bad faith giving the Defendants license to remove pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a), nearly three years after this case was filed. Although this Court is inclined to agree with the Defendants' arguments that personal jurisdiction should be addressed before subject matter jurisdiction in these types of cases, based on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., their removal fails based upon a plain reading of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1). This Court is required to remand this action to state court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(c)(1) because this action was commenced nearly three years ago and the Defendants have not established bad faith on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' emergency motion to remand case to state court and ordered that all other motions are denied as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/BsJUkM from Leagle.com. Robert Swann, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados -- rados@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Robert Swann, Plaintiff, represented by William Wylie Blair -- blair@onderlaw.com -- ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Sheryl Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Brenda Jean Bartley, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Margarita Becerra, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Michael Blaes, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Shelia Perro Booker, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Claudine Brunson, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Lisa Marie Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Margie Carson, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie Lynn Rados, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C. & William Wylie Blair, ONDER AND SHELTON, L.L.C.. Johnson & Johnson, Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer -- bbauer@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM, Booker T. Shaw -- bshaw@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Gerard T. Noce -- gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth A. Bauer, HEPLER BROOM & Gerard T. Noce, HEPLER BROOM. Imerys Talc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Prost -- mprost@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C., Mary Anne Mellow -- mmellow@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX & von GONTARD & Steven Thomas Walsh -- swalsh@sandbergphoenix.com -- SANDBERG PHOENIX, P.C. LANDEC CORPORATION: Settlement Reached in California Case --------------------------------------------------------- Apio, Inc. ("Apio"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Landec Corporation ("the "Registrant"), reached an agreement in principle on March 27, 2017 to settle (a) discrimination and wrongful termination claims before California and Federal agencies and in individual arbitrations and (b) wage and hour claims as part of two Private Attorney General Act cases in state court and in individual arbitrations (collectively, the "Actions") made against Apio and its labor contractor. On May 5, 2017, the parties to these actions executed a Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") formalizing an agreement to settle the Actions, Landec said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission May 10. Landec said the settlement agreement will be filed with the Superior Court of California, Santa Barbara County, for preliminary approval. The deal was scheduled to heard on, or about, June 14, 2017. The Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of $5.91 million by the defendants in settlement of all claims by non-exempt employees who worked at Apio's Guadalupe, California facility at any time between September 30, 2011 and the date the Superior Court of California grants preliminary approval of the settlement. Under the Settlement Agreement, the plaintiffs are to be paid in three installments: $2.37 million by July 2017, $1.77 million in November 2017 or 10 days after final approval, whichever comes later, and $1.77 million in July 2018 or 10 days after final approval, whichever comes later. Apio is responsible for half of these payments with the labor contractor being responsible for the other half. The Settlement Agreement remains subject to final approval by the Superior Court and certain other conditions. LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff's Appeal Pending in 3rd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated 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's appeal in a securities litigation to the Third Circuit remains pending. In 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania alleging that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") assisted various breaches of fiduciary duties based on the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a development-stage pharmaceutical program from the Genaera Liquidating Trust in 2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of half of its interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in February 2015, which the Company moved to dismiss in March 2015. The district court granted the motion to dismiss on November 11, 2015. The plaintiff has appealed that ruling to the Third Circuit. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the claims against the Company and its CEO. The outcome of the matter is not presently determinable. Ligand is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical companies discover and develop medicines. LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Drops Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ John Trania, the Lead Plaintiff, filed on May 16 a notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of the case, Jie v. Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-02832 (S.D. Cal.). The Hon. Gonzalo P Curiel oversees the case. Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated 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 lawsuit was filed November 17, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against the Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between November 9, 2015 and November 14, 2016, inclusive. The complaint's allegations relate generally to the Company's November 2016 restatement of certain prior period financial statements. In March 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for lead plaintiff and the class. The lead plaintiff's amended complaint, or election to designate the previously filed complaint as the operative complaint, was due May 15, 2017, and the Company's response to the complaint was due thereafter. No trial date has been set. Ligand Pharmaceuticals is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and acquiring technologies that help pharmaceutical companies discover and develop medicines. MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Still Defends Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- magicJack VocalTec Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Defendants believe that the Plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to defend against those claims vigorously. On March 11, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its then Chief Executive Officer, Gerald Vento, and its Chief Financial Officer, Jose Gordo (together, "the Defendants"), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, on August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and Mr. Gordo made false and misleading statements regarding the financial performance and guidance during the alleged class period of November 12, 2013 to March 12, 2014. The Plaintiff asserted claims that (i) the Company and Mr. Gordo violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5; and (ii) that Mr. Vento and Mr. Gordo violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over the Company. For himself and for the class, the Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable/injunctive relief or such other relief as the court deems proper. The Defendants answered the Amended Complaint on December 23, 2016. The Defendants believe that the Plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to defend against those claims vigorously. The Company cannot estimate the likelihood of liability or the amount of potential damages, if any. magicJack VocalTec Ltd. and its subsidiaries (the "Company") is a cloud communications leader that is the inventor of the magicJack devices and other magicJack products and services. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL: Class Certification Bid Due August 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- Masonite International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the court has set the deadline for the plaintiff to file his motion for class certification for August 21, 2017. The Company said, "In November 2015, Derrick Byrd, a former hourly employee in California, filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in California Superior Court alleging violations of California wage and hour laws with respect to meal periods and rest breaks and other technical wage and hour issues." "In January 2016, we removed the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and on February 25, 2016, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. "On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which we moved to dismiss, and we moved to strike several of the plaintiff's causes of action. On July 7, 2016, the court dismissed several of the plaintiff's causes of action and gave the plaintiff leave to amend. On July 29, 2016, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint containing a narrower version of nine of the eleven original claims. "We answered this amended complaint on August 12, 2016, and amended our answer on September 14, 2016. On November 28, 2016, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint to add an additional individual as a plaintiff. On December 19, 2016, we answered this amended complaint. The plaintiffs continue to allege violations with respect to overtime pay, meal periods, rest breaks, minimum wage, timely pay, wage statement detail and reimbursement of business expenses. The lawsuit seeks damages, penalties, attorney's fees and an award under the California Private Attorney General Act. Discovery is underway. "The court has set the deadline for the plaintiff to file his motion for class certification for August 21, 2017, and the trial date has been set for November 28, 2017, although those dates may be extended. The parties have engaged in preliminary settlement negotiations and a mediation session was scheduled to be held in May 2017. "While we intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will not have a material, adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations." Masonite International Corporation is one of the largest manufacturers of doors in the world, with significant market share in both interior and exterior door products. Masonite operates 65 manufacturing locations in 8 countries and sells doors to customers throughout the world, including the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. MDL 2371: Federal Circuit Appeal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------ j2 Global, 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 appeal in a multi-district litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois is pending. On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of defendants. While claims against some defendants have been settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14- 1611). The appeal is pending. j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries ("j2 Global" or the "Company"), is a provider of Internet services. Through its Business Cloud Services Division, the Company provides cloud services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to enterprises, and licenses its intellectual property ("IP") to third parties. In addition, the Business Cloud Services Division includes j2 Cloud Connect, which primarily focuses on our voice and fax products. The Digital Media Division specializes in the technology, gaming, lifestyle markets and healthcare markets, reaching in-market buyers and influencers in both the consumer and business-to-business space. MERCK & CO: Working on Definitive Settlement with Direct Buyers --------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 and Upsher-Smith are working with the class of direct purchasers on a definitive settlement agreement of its claims. In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation (Schering-Plough) settled patent litigation with Upsher-Smith, Inc. (Upsher-Smith) and ESI Lederle, Inc. (Lederle), respectively, relating to generic versions of Schering-Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs). Following the commencement of an administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission in 2001 alleging anti-competitive effects from those settlements (which was resolved in Schering-Plough's favor), putative class and non-class action suits were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. These suits claimed violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other state statutory and common law causes of action, and sought unspecified damages. In April 2008, the indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their case. In February 2016, the District Court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers' claims concerning the settlement with Upsher-Smith and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment relating to all of the direct purchasers' claims concerning the settlement with Lederle. In anticipation of trial, the parties filed motions to exclude certain expert opinions and other evidence, and defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In February 2017, Merck and Upsher-Smith reached a settlement in principle with the class of direct purchasers and the opt-outs to the class. Merck will contribute approximately $80 million in the aggregate towards the overall settlement. On April 5, 2017, the claims of the opt-outs were dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a written settlement agreement with those parties. Merck and Upsher- Smith are working with the class of direct purchasers on a definitive settlement agreement of its claims, which will be subject to approval by the District Court. MGM RESORTS: Appeal in Securities Litigation Fully Briefed ---------------------------------------------------------- MGM Resorts International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the appeal in the MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation has been fully briefed and is awaiting an order from the court of appeals. In 2009 various shareholders filed six lawsuits in Nevada federal and state court against the Company and various of its former and current directors and officers alleging federal securities laws violations and/or related breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period August 2007 through the date of such lawsuit filings in 2009 (the "class period"). In general, the lawsuits asserted the same or similar allegations, including that during the relevant period defendants artificially inflated the Company's common stock price by knowingly making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to the investing public about the Company's financial statements and condition, operations, CityCenter, and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock; that these alleged misstatements and omissions thereby enabled certain Company insiders to derive personal profit from the sale of Company common stock to the public; that defendants caused plaintiffs and other shareholders to purchase Company common stock at artificially inflated prices; and that defendants imprudently implemented a share repurchase program to the detriment of the Company. The lawsuits sought unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement of alleged profits and/or attorneys' fees and costs in amounts to be proven at trial, as well as injunctive relief related to corporate governance. The state and federal court derivative actions were dismissed pursuant to defendants' motions. In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada consolidated the remaining cases Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-RJJ, filed October 19, 2009) putative class actions under the caption In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-GMN-LRL. The consolidated case names the Company and certain former and current directors and officers as defendants and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009, the Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In July 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants agreed in principle to settle the securities class actions. In August 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"). Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claims against the Company and the named former and current directors and officers will be dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $75 million cash payment by the Company's directors and officers liability insurers. On March 1, 2016, the court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice (the "Final Judgment") of the two cases consolidated under In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation. Of the thousands of putative class members, only one objected to the adequacy of the settlement. The court entered the Final Judgment over his objection, finding that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate to the settlement class in all respects, and dismissed the actions and all released claims with prejudice as to all defendants, and expressly provided that neither the settlement nor associated negotiations and proceedings constitute an admission or evidence of liability, fault or omission by the defendants. On March 25, 2016, the sole objector to the adequacy of the settlement filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Final Judgment and related orders entered by the court concerning the plan of settlement distribution and award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the lead plaintiffs' counsel. The appeal has been fully briefed and is awaiting an order from the court of appeals. If the Final Judgment is reversed on appeal, the case would be remanded and the Company and all other defendants plan to continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in these securities cases. MICHAEL FOODS: Nov. 6 Egg Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- If you purchased Shell Eggs or Egg Products produced in the United States directly from any producer, you could be a Class Member in a proposed class action settlement The following statement is being issued by Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC; regarding the In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation. Legal Notice This legal notice is to announce certification of a Litigation Class; to provide information regarding a new settlement with Michael Foods, Inc. ("MFI"); and to provide information for submitting claims in connection with previously-approved settlements with National Food Corporation ("NFC"), Midwest Poultry Services, L.P. ("Midwest"), United Egg Producers and United States Egg Marketers ("UEP/USEM"), NuCal Foods, Inc. ("NuCal"), and Hillandale Farms of Pa., Inc. and Hillandale- Gettysburg, L.P. ("Hillandale") in In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litig., No. 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.). What is this lawsuit about? Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to decrease the supply of eggs which caused the price of eggs to artificially increase and direct purchasers to pay more for Shell Eggs and Egg Products than they would have otherwise paid. Defendants have denied all liability for this conduct and asserted that their conduct was lawful and/or exempt from the antitrust laws, among other defenses. Who is included in the Litigation Class? The Litigation Class includes individuals/entities that purchased Shell Eggs in the U.S. directly from Defendants from 9/24/2004 through 12/31/2008. If you exclude yourself, you will not be entitled to share in any future distributions if Plaintiffs obtain money from a trial or future settlements. The deadline to exclude yourself is October 9, 2017. Who/what is included in the MFI Settlement? The MFI Settlement Class includes individuals/entities that purchased Shell Eggs in the U.S. directly from Defendants from 9/24/2004 through 12/31/2008. MFI will provide the Class with $75 million and cooperation. Plaintiffs will release all claims against MFI. The deadline to submit a claim, submit an objection, or submit an exclusion is October 9, 2017. Who may submit a claim in connection with the NFC, Midwest, UEP/USEM, NuCal & Hillandale Settlements? If you did not previously exclude yourself from these Settlements, and you purchased Shell Eggs and/or Egg Products in the U.S. from 1/1/2000 through 12/19/2014 directly from any Producer, you may be entitled to submit a claim form postmarked no later than October 9, 2017. Who represents you? The Court appointed Stanley Bernstein (Bernstein Liebhard LLP); Michael Hausfeld (Hausfeld LLP); Mindee Reuben (Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC), and Stephen Susman (Susman Godfrey LLP) as Class Counsel. You do not have to pay them to participate. You may hire your own attorney at your expense. When will the Court decide whether to approve the MFI Settlement? A hearing to determine the fairness and adequacy of the MFI Settlement is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on November 6, 2017 at the U.S. District Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797. The Court will also consider a motion for attorneys' fees and costs and any objections. The Court may change the date/time of the hearing without notice. Check www.eggproductssettlement.com for updates and more information. This notice is a summary only. MIDLAND CREDIT: 3rd Circuit Appeal Filed in "Carieri" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Vincent Carieri filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Vincent Carieri v. Midland Credit Management Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-0009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The appellate case is captioned as Vincent Carieri v. Midland Credit Management Inc., Case No. 17-2504, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant VINCENT CARIERI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. JONES WOLF & KAPASI LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com bwolf@legaljones.com Defendant-Appellee MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC. is represented by: Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2765 Facsimile: (215) 575-0856 E-mail: amschwartz@mdwcg.comm MONSANTO COMPANY: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Perez-Perez and Armando Nieves, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-50188 (N.D. Ill., June 29, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the legal minimum wage and to comply with the disclosure, record-keeping, wage statement, wage payment, and working arrangement requirements of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act. Monsanto Company operates an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation in Springfield, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest HWY Ste. 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 701-5290 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal - and - Teresa Hendricks, Esq. MICHIGAN MIGRANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROJECT INC. 1104 Fuller Ave. NE Grand Rapids, MI 49503-1371 Telephone: (616) 454-5055 E-mail: thenricks@migrantlegalaid.com - and - Patricia Kakalec, Esq. KAKALEC & SCHLANGER, LLP 85 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 Facsimile: (646) 612-7996 E-mail: pkakalec@kakalec-schlanger.com OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Faces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, on July 10 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. ("Ocular" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: OCUL) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between May 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm prior to the September 5, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. You can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713- 1033, or you can 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 choose to do nothing and be an absent class member as well. According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Ocular made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's management has been misleading investors about DEXTENZA manufacturing issues, including that more than 50% of lots manufactured by Ocular contain bad product; that such manufacturing issues could endanger the approval of DEXTENZA by the FDA; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Upon release of this news, shares of Ocular fell 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. OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Class Action Awaiting Court's Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International 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 "Ba" class action lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice and the "White" class action lawsuit is awaiting the Court's dismissal. On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms. All of these lawsuits were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. A class has not been certified in either remaining suit. Those two remaining suits seeking unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments were settled with an agreement to make nominal payments. Ba has been dismissed with prejudice and White is awaiting the Court's dismissal. ORIGINAL W. HARGROVE: Settles Towing Class Action for $281,000 -------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a city firm has agreed to pay $281,000 to resolve claims in a class-action lawsuit over vehicles towed here during a two-year period. The proposed payment by The Original W. Hargrove Demolition Co. includes $66,000 for eligible motorists and $15,000 for a Cherry Hill man whose dispute over a bill led to the federal lawsuit. Hargrove, the operator of Camden Towing Inc., also would pay up to $200,000 to the law firm representing the motorists, court records show. The plan would not take effect, however, until it receives final approval from U.S. District Judge Renee M. Bumb in Camden. She has scheduled an Oct. 17 hearing. The suit accuses Hargrove of overcharging motorists between October 2013 and November 2015 under a contract to remove and store "abandoned, disabled or impounded vehicles" from city streets. The suit also contends Camden officials failed to monitor the Cramer Hill firm's activities, allowing the alleged overbilling to continue. Both the company and the city deny any wrongdoing, the proposed settlement says. According to a court filing, the city contract allowed a charge of only $89 for most tows. Hargrove could charge $160 if flatbed trucks were needed -- but only for vehicles involved in accidents, according to the filing by Lisa Rodriguez, a Cherry Hill attorney for the motorists. The suit was filed in November 2015 after the Cherry Hill man, Troy Oglesby Sr., was twice charged $160 for flatbed tows. Oglesby's vehicle had not been in an accident before either tow, according to Ms. Rodriguez's filing. Oglesby paid $160 after the first tow in May 2015, but balked at the charge when his vehicle was towed again in July. "Hargrove refused to release his car," the filing notes. "After attempts to resolve the dispute failed, this litigation followed." The settlement would offer money to motorists towed by Hargrove in Camden between Oct. 15, 2013, and Nov. 4, 2015, and "whose tow was not required because of an accident, and who were charged for a flatbed tow in excess of $89." According to the proposal, the payment would be $78.10 per motorist -- or the difference between the $160 charged by Hargrove and $89, plus 10 percent. The proposed deal would fund reimbursements for around 845 motorists. Hargrove would identify affected motorists through its records, the proposed settlement says. In her filing, Rodriguez alleged Hargrove failed to file required monthly reports to the city. It says the city "as a result was unaware that Hargrove was systematically overcharging for towed vehicles that were not in an accident." Under the proposed settlement, Camden will "incorporate standard inspection and reporting requirements across all of its contracts." The city would not have to contribute to payments under the plan, which received preliminary approval from the judge on June 5. Ms. Rodriguez and Richard F. Klineburger III, an attorney for Hargrove, could not be reached for immediate comment. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Document Discovery Underway in SEPTA Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that document discovery has begun in the SEPTA case and is ongoing. On May 25, 2012, SEPTA filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S- 3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and he intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012. Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order, SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013. Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to address discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013. On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint expanded the list of defendants in the action to include the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extended the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014. The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss. On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the United States Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act, as amended, or the Exchange Act. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint. On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint were essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleged that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day. On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22, 2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016 Order stayed all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact- finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the SEC. As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the SEC resolving the investigation of accounting and related matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of the settlement of the SEC's administrative proceedings and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the SEC. The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1,000,000. The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the settlement agreement with the SEC, the Company also agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder. On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the Company believes are the most salient terms of the neither-admit-nor-deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support dismissal of the second amended complaint. On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act section 20(a) claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly. On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order establishing the schedule for the litigation. The Case Management Order, among other things, set the following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on November 3, 2017, and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day; expert merits discovery closes March 30, 2018; summary judgment motions are due by April 27, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and settlement conference is set for September 11, 2018; and trial is scheduled for the month of October 2018. Document discovery has begun in the case and is ongoing. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims. It is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. The Company, headquartered in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, is a one-bank holding company that has elected status as a financial holding company. The consolidated financial information presented herein reflects the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Bank and Wheatland. At March 31, 2017, the Company had total assets of $1,453,946,000, total liabilities of $1,316,477,000 and total shareholders' equity of $137,469,000. PATHEON NV: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on July 10 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, case no. 1:17-cv-04604, on behalf of shareholders of Patheon N.V. ("Patheon" or the "Company") (NYSE:PTHN) who held Patheon securities and have been harmed by Patheon's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 14d-9 in connection with the proposed acquisition ("Proposed Transaction") of the Company by Thermo Fisher (CN) Luxembourg S.a r.l. On May 31, 2017, Thermo Fisher (CN) Luxembourg S.a r.l., a wholly- owned subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., commenced a tender offer for Patheon shares scheduled to expire on August 10, 2017. If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/PTHNnotice. Pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Board, Patheon shareholders stand to receive $35.00 per share in cash for each share they own. The complaint claims that this offer is inadequate given Patheon's recent financial performance and strong growth prospects and alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "14D-9") provides materially incomplete and misleading information concerning Patheon's financial projections and the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, in violation of Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Take Action Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 10, 2017. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel.: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Still Defends Suits over Line 901 Incident --------------------------------------------------------------- Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that suits related to the Line 901 Incident remains pending. The Company said, "In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release from our Las Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County, California. A portion of the released crude oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a drainage culvert. Following the release, we shut down the pipeline and initiated our emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which includes the United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be complete, and the Unified Command has been dissolved. Our estimate of the amount of oil spilled, based on relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,934 barrels; of this amount, we estimate that 598 barrels reached the Pacific Ocean." "Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a number of claims through the claims line and we are processing those claims for payment as we receive them. In addition, we have also had nine class action lawsuits filed against us, six of which have been administratively consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have allegedly been damaged by the release, including potential classes such as commercial fishermen who landed fish in certain specified fishing blocks in the waters adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from persons or businesses who resold commercial seafood landed in such areas, retail businesses located in and around Santa Barbara, certain owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release. To date, only the commercial fisherman and seafood reseller class has been certified by the court. We are also defending a separate class action lawsuit proceeding in the United States District Court for the Central District of California brought on behalf of the Line 901 and Line 903 easement holders seeking injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages. "There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their respective officers, directors and underwriters. Both of these lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities through false and misleading statements, omission of material facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill. The plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants. The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, denied the allegations in, and moved to dismiss these lawsuits. On March 29, 2017, the Court ruled in our favor dismissing all claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs may appeal or refile. Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements we previously entered into with such underwriters." Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. ("PAA") is a Delaware limited partnership formed in 1998. It owns and operates midstream energy infrastructure and provide logistics services for crude oil, natural gas liquids ("NGL"), natural gas and refined products. PURDUE PHARMA: Faces "Lewis" Suit Over Misleading Opioids Label --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Ray Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Purdue Pharma L.P, Purdue Pharma, Inc., The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Cephalon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo Health Solutions, Inc., Watson's Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis Inc., Watson's Laboratories, Inc., Actavis LLC, and Actavis Pharma, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-05118-TLB (W.D. Ark., June 29, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' misrepresentation and deceptive conduct of disseminating common messages to reverse the popular and medical understanding of Opiods. Specifically by, downplaying the serious risk of addiction, promoting the concept of "pseudoaddiction" and thus advocate that the signs of addiction should be treated with more Opiods, exaggerating the effectiveness of screening tools in preventing addiction, claiming that Opioids dependence and withdrawal are easily managed, denying the risks of higher Opioids dosages, and exaggerating the effectiveness of "abuse-deterrent" Opioid formulations to prevent abuse and addiction. The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Graland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 - and - Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 845-3305 Facsimile: (479) 845-2198 REGENCY CENTERS: Still Faces Merger Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Regency Centers Corporation and Regency Centers, L.P. said in their 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 a class action lawsuit related to a merger. After the announcement of the merger agreement on November 14, 2016, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a purported stockholder in the Circuit Court for Duval County, Florida, under the following caption: Robert Garfield on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated vs. Regency Centers Corporation, Martin E. Stein, Jr., John C. Schweitzer, Raymond L. Bank, Bryce Blair, C. Ronald Blankenship, J. Dix Druce, Jr., Mary Lou Fiala, David P. O'Connor, and Thomas G. Wattles, No. 16-2017-CA-000688- XXXX-MA, filed February 3, 2017. The class action alleged, among other matters, that the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Regency and Equity One with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on January 24, 2017 (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") omitted certain material information in connection with the Merger. The complainant sought various remedies, including injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the Merger unless certain allegedly material information was disclosed and sought compensatory and rescissory damages in the event the Merger was consummated without such disclosures. On February 17, 2017, the defendants entered into a stipulation of settlement with respect to the class action, pursuant to which the parties agreed, among other things, that Regency would make certain supplemental disclosures. The supplemental disclosures were made by Regency in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Regency with the SEC on February 17, 2017. The supplemental disclosures should be read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Regency Centers Corporation (the "Parent Company") began its operations as a Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT") in 1993 and is the general partner of Regency Centers, L.P. (the "Operating Partnership"). The Parent Company engages in the ownership, management, leasing, acquisition, and development of retail shopping centers through the Operating Partnership. The Parent Company has no other assets other than through its investment in the Operating Partnership, and its only liabilities are the unsecured notes assumed from the Equity One merger, which are co- issued and guaranteed by the Operating Partnership. The Parent Company guarantees all of the unsecured debt of the Operating Partnership. On March 1, 2017, Regency completed its merger with Equity One, Inc., whereby Equity One merged with and into Regency, with Regency continuing as the surviving public company. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Equity One stockholder received 0.45 of a newly issued share of Regency common stock for each share of Equity One common stock owned immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger, resulting in the issuance of approximately 65.5 million shares of common stock to effect the merger. REMINGTON: State AGs Seek Reversal of Gun Safety Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reports that a coalition of attorneys general have asked a federal appeals court to overturn the settlement of a class action that had accused gun manufacturer Remington Arms of producing flawed rifles that resulted in dozens of deaths. The attorneys general of 14 states including New York, California and Illinois, submitted a joint amicus brief on July 7 to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit arguing the settlement agreement unfairly terminated valuable legal claims and left the public at ongoing risk of death or injury. [GN] SEACOR HOLDINGS: ORM & NRC Still Face Deepwater Oil Spill Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEACOR 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 ORM and NRC continue to face remaining claims in the Deepwater Horizon multi-district litigation. On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in one of the several "master complaints" filed in the overall multi- district litigation relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL"). On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC were named as defendants in one of the several "master complaints" filed in the overall multi- district litigation relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL"). The "B3" master complaint naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally and the use of dispersants specifically. Both prior to and following the filing of the aforementioned master complaint, individual civil actions naming the Company, ORM, and/or NRC alleging B3 exposure-based injuries and/or damages were consolidated with the MDL and stayed pursuant to court order. The Company has continually taken the position that all of the B3 claims asserted against ORM and NRC have no merit. On February 16, 2016, all but eleven B3 claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed with prejudice, whether by joinder in the master complaint, individual complaint, or otherwise (the "B3 Dismissal Order"). The deadline for Plaintiffs to appeal the B3 Dismissal Order has passed and the Company continues to evaluate how this ruling will impact the individual civil actions. On April 8, 2016, the Court entered an order establishing a summary judgment briefing schedule as to the remaining eleven B3 claimants (the "Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs"). The Clean-Up Responder Defendants, including ORM and NRC, filed an omnibus motion for summary judgment as to the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs on May 9, 2016. Following briefing by the parties, on August 2, 2016, the Court granted the omnibus motion as it concerns ORM and NRC in its entirety, dismissing the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs' against ORM and NRC with prejudice (the "Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs' Dismissal Order"). To date, no appeal has been filed and the deadline to appeal has expired. Various civil actions concerning the Deepwater Horizon clean-up have been consolidated with the MDL, although a number of them have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. A summary of those that remain pending is as follows. On October 3, 2012, ORM and NRC were served with a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint by Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C. and Jambon Marine Holdings L.L.C. in their Limitation of Liability action, in the Matter of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:12-CV- 00426 (E.D. La.) (the "Jambon Action"). This Third-Party Complaint alleges that if claimant David Dinwiddie, who served as a clean-up crewmember aboard the M/V JAMBON SUPPLIER II vessel during the clean-up efforts, was injured as a result of his exposure to dispersants and chemicals during the course and scope of his employment, then said injuries were caused by the third-party defendants. The Jambon Action remains stayed. On April 8, 2013, the Company, ORM, and NRC were named as defendants in William and Dianna Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration et al., No. 2:13-CV-00650 (E.D. La.) (the "Fitzgerald Action"), which is a suit by a husband and wife whose son allegedly participated in the clean-up effort and became ill as a result of his exposure to oil and dispersants. While the decedent in the Fitzgerald Action's claims against ORM and NRC were dismissed by virtue of the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs' Dismissal Order, the claim as against the Company remains stayed. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the B3 Dismissal Order, the Remaining Eleven Plaintiffs' Dismissal Order, and other developments in the MDL, including the settlements discussed below, on these individual actions. Following a status conference with the Court on February 17, 2017, the Court issued several new pretrial orders in connection with the remaining claims in the MDL. Plaintiffs' submissions in connection with these pretrial orders will continue until May 3, 2017, with defense reporting to the Court to follow. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters, to the extent they remain viable, but believes they are without merit and does not expect that they will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On February 18, 2011, Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Holdings LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc., and Transocean Deepwater Inc. (collectively "Transocean") named ORM and NRC as third-party defendants in a Rule 14(c) Third-Party Complaint in Transocean's own Limitation of Liability Act action, which is part of the overall MDL, tendering to ORM and NRC the claims in the referenced master complaint that have already been asserted against ORM and NRC. Transocean, Cameron International Corporation ("Cameron"), Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., and M- I L.L.C. ("M-I") also filed cross-claims against ORM and NRC for contribution and tort indemnity should they be found liable for any damages in Transocean's Limitation of Liability Act action and ORM and NRC asserted counterclaims against those same parties for identical relief. The remainder of the aforementioned cross-claims in Transocean's limitation action remain pending, although the Court has found Cameron and M-I to be not liable in connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident and resultant oil spill and dismissed these parties from the MDL. The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these actions but believes they are without merit and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. On November 16, 2012, 668 individuals who served as beach clean-up workers in Escambia County, Florida during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response commenced a civil action in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Escambia County, Abney et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 2012-CA-002947, in which they allege, among other things, that ORM and other defendants engaged in the contamination of Florida waters and beaches in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 376 and injured the Plaintiffs by exposing them to dispersants during the course and scope of their employment. This case was removed to federal court and ultimately consolidated with the MDL on April 2, 2013. On April 22, 2013, a companion case to this matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Abood et al. v. Plant Performance Services, LLC et al., No. 3:13- CV-00284 (N.D. Fla.), which alleges identical allegations against the same parties but names an additional 174 Plaintiffs, all of whom served as clean-up workers in various Florida counties during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response. This case was consolidated with the MDL on May 10, 2013. By court order, both of these matters have been stayed since they were consolidated with the MDL. The Company continues to evaluate the impact of the developments in the MDL, on these cases, but believes that the potential exposure, if any, resulting from these matters has been reduced as a result of the B3 Dismissal Order and does not expect that these matters will have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. SKULLCANDY INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Paprakis" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rose Paprakis filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Paprakis v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-CV-00810-DB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah - Salt Lake City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with acquisition of Skullcandy by Incipio, LLC. Defendant Skullcandy is a lifestyle-driven audio brand fusing technology with focus on action sports, fashion, and music. The appellate case is captioned as Paprakis v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-4114, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Docketing statement is due on July 31, 2017, for Rose Paprakis; -- Transcript order form is due on July 31, 2017, for Rose Paprakis; and -- Notice of appearance is due on July 31, 2017, for Rick Alden, Doug Collier, S. Hoby Darling, Jason Hodell, Jeff Kearl, Heidi O'Neill, Scott Olivet, Rose Paprakis, Skullcandy, Inc. and Greg Warnock.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant ROSE PAPRAKIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093 Business: 801/322-2002 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Facsimile: (801) 912-0320 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - James M. Wilson Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jwilson@faruqilaw.com Defendant-Appellee SKULLCANDY, INC., is represented by: Matthew C. Baltay, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, MA 02210-2600 Telephone: (617) 832-1138 Facsimile: (617) 832-7000 E-mail: mbaltay@foleyhoag.com Defendants-Appellees SKULLCANDY, INC., S. HOBY DARLING, DOUG COLLIER, HEIDI O'NEILL, JEFF KEARL, SCOTT OLIVET, GREG WARNOCK, RICK ALDEN and JASON HODELL are represented by: Monica S. Call, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 201 South Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-4904 Telephone: (801) 328-3131 E-mail: monica.call@stoel.com Defendant-Appellee JASON HODELL is represented by: Michael H. Rosner, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mrosner@zlk.com SLATER & GORDON: Settles Shareholders' Class Action for $36.5MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that shareholders in Slater and Gordon have reached a $36.5 million settlement with the beleaguered law firm, a move that will pave the way for the group's restructure. However, it is unclear whether this is the end of the litigation process, with the firm leading one of the class actions Maurice Blackburn previously saying it was considering suing against Slater and Gordon's advisers. Slater and Gordon's insurers will tip in $32.5 million of the settlement while the hedge funds that hold the debt in the group, which will be swapped for equity through the restructure, will contribute $4 million to the settlement. "The conditional in-principle settlement will . . . resolve any and all potential shareholder claims against the company and its directors and officers," Slater and Gordon said in a statement on July 11. It will take in shareholders in all current claims against Slater and Gordon. The bulk is expected to go to investors signed up to the Maurice Blackburn claim. The deal, which was first revealed online by Fairfax Media on July 11, comes after two years of financial strife for the once-great legal institution. Investors were originally seeking $250 million but the financial problems of the company limited the claim. The settlement was brokered late on July 10 between lawyers for the shareholders from Maurice Blackburn and lawyers for Slater and Gordon, led by Leon Zwier at Arnold Bloch Leibler. Shareholders launched the class action against Slater and Gordon after its disastrous acquisition of British firm Quindell led to $1 billion-plus write-downs, a string of financial losses and a major investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Slater and Gordon's class action settlement paves the way for the restructure of the company. Slater and Gordon's shares were worth more than $8 in 2015 but were trading at 7.4õ on July 7. They jumped 9.5 per cent to 8.1õ after news of the settlement on July 11. The shareholders had alleged Slater and Gordon made false and misleading statements to the market about its acquisition of the professional services arm of UK group Quindell and the "true state of the company's overall financial position and performance". 'Best outcome' Maurice Blackburn class action principal Andrew Watson said the low settlement rate reflected the low level of insurance held by Slater and Gordon. "Given the diabolical alternative, which was likely insolvency for Slater and Gordon and lesser returns for shareholders, we thought this was the best outcome," Mr Watson said. "It's not a settlement that gives in any view a fantastic outcome for shareholders but that's because of the absolutely bereft financial situation that Slaters found itself in once it had made its fateful decision to purchase the Quindell business." Long expected A settlement between the parties had long been expected. Fairfax Media first revealed in March that a quick settlement of the action was on the cards after lawyers for Slater and Gordon asked the Federal Court to delay the proceeding so it could finalise the restructure. The settlement is also thought to have been impacted by plans by Slater and Gordon to ask the court that only its insurance could be called upon to pay the claim because it was in the midst of a restructure. The restructure was dependent on the class action being settled, while the settlement requires court approval and the recapitalisation scheme going through. [GN] SOUTHERN GLAZER: Sued Over Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Annie Hayes, writing for The Spirits Business, reports that a nationwide class action has been brought against Southern Glazer's Wine & Spirits, accusing the US drinks distribution company of "unfair, unlawful, deceptive, and fraudulent" business practices. The lawsuit was filed on July 5 by Scott Cole & Associates, APC and Wakeford Gelini on behalf of James Nguyen, former liquor license holder for Arena Restaurant and Lounge in California, as well as on behalf of "all entities or persons who maintained an open account with Southern Glazer's during, at least, the last four years". According to the complaint, Mr. Nguyen recently "found that he had been assessed thousands of dollars in taxes for liquor he supposedly purchased, but did not purchase, from Southern". The suit alleges that Southern Glazer's "knowingly engaged in unfair, unlawful, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices" regarding its sales and distribution scheme. It accuses Southern of providing "class members" account numbers and/or government agency-provided liquor license numbers to third- parties without their knowledge. It adds that Southern would have reason to know that this information would be used by the third parties to charge alcohol to the accounts, create tax liabilities for class members and/or threaten their liquor licenses and business operations. The class action also alleges that Southern Glazer's allows its employees to purchase alcohol on the accounts or licenses of class members without their knowledge, and to provide these details to third parties who "then purchase alcohol by assuming class members' business identities". The document claims that the drinks distributer sells and distributes alcohol "at reduced prices, if not free of charge" to persons or entities who "may or may not" hold valid liquor licenses, as well as "selling liquor to different parties at different prices". Other allegations state that the firm allowed employees to buy alcohol on class members accounts using cash, and then stored it in order to meet sales quotas; allowed its employees to buy alcohol on class members accounts, later returning it without refunding the money; and created unfair competition -- giving away alcohol by printing sample labels for regular bottles. The firm is also said to have falsified sales documentation, and unlawfully pressured retailers about the practices detailed above by threatening to cut off their supply. According to the document, class members "had no way of knowing about Southern's unlawful sales and distribution scheme". The plaintiff is seeking "damages, interest thereon, restitution, injunctive and other equitable relief, an accounting of all monies unlawfully collected and held by Southern, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs" as well as "disgorgement of all benefits Southern has enjoyed from its numerous unlawful and/or deceptive business practices". A spokesperson for Southern Glazer's told The Spirits Business: "We have just received a copy of the lawsuit and are reviewing the information. It is premature for us to comment any further at this time." [GN] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Stewart Appeals W.D. Okla. Order to 10th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Michael Hicks and Paul Stewart filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Stewart, et al. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., Case No. 5:17-CV-00429-F, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma - Oklahoma City. The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions. The appellate case is captioned as Stewart, et al. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., Case No. 17-6167, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of appearance are due on July 27, 2017, for Michael Hicks and Paul Stewart; and -- Notice of appearance is due on July 27, 2017, for Southwest Airlines, Co.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PAUL STEWART and MICHAEL HICKS, and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey Allen Martin, Esq. JEFF MARTIN & ASSOCIATES 1611 South Utica Avenue, Suite 173 Tulsa, OK 74104 Telephone: (918) 583-4165 Facsimile: (918) 583-4166 E-mail: jm8069337@aol.com Defendant-Appellee SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., DBA Southwest Airlines, is represented by: Kevin Dell Gordon, Esq. Mary H. Tolbert, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY 324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 239-6619 Facsimile: (405) 272-5260 E-mail: kevin.gordon@crowedunlevy.com molly.tolbert@crowedunlevy.com STATE FARM: Denied to Certify Question to Colorado Supreme Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied both the parties' motions to certify a question to Colorado Supreme Court in the case captioned ZACHARY McFARLAND, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-CV-00291-MSK-STV (D. Colo.). Mr. McFarland brought this suit as a class action in state court. State Farm removed the matter to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). The Amended Complaint identifies the purported class of Plaintiffs as persons or entities that received "actual cash value" payments from State Farm for loss or damage to a structure in Colorado for the last 12 years where the cost of labor was depreciated. Three claims are asserted: (i) breach of contract; (ii) violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; and (iii) statutory bad faith. The basis of all of the claims is that in calculating "actual cash value," State Farm improperly included labor costs as part of "depreciation." Both parties, by separate motions, ask this Court to certify a question to Colorado Supreme Court. State Farm proposes the question on whether the Colorado law requires the insurer to exclude labor costs from the calculation of depreciation in order to arrive at the ACV figure where a homeowners insurance policy provides for payment of the actual cash value ("ACV") of the damaged part of the insured property at the time of the loss, and the insurer calculates ACV by estimating the total cost to repair or replace the damaged property minus any depreciation. Mr. McFarland seeks certification of the question on whether the insurer may depreciate the labor that is necessary to accomplish repairs where a homeowner's insurance policy provides for ACV coverage without defining ACV or "depreciation." The Colorado Appellate Rule 21.1 permits the federal district court to certify any questions of law of the state which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court. But certification is discretionary and is not to be routinely invoked whenever a federal court is presented with an unsettled question of state law. The Court declines to certify either of the questions identified by the parties, finding that the dispositive issue in this case can be resolved by applying Colorado law to the terms of the policy. Under Colorado law, an insurance policy constitutes a contract, which courts construe using general principles of contractual interpretation. The parties characterize their dispute as whether State Farm may depreciate both labor and materials' costs to determine the "actual cash value." But calculation of deprecation is not addressed in the Policy, nor does the Policy link depreciation and actual cash value. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that this matter can be resolved without certification to the Colorado Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Court denied both Motions to Certify. Mr. McFarland will have 30 days from the date of the Order to file a Motion to Certify the Class. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017, order is available at https://is.gd/1AR3Fx from Leagle.com. Zachary McFarland, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Austin Mattingly, Jr., Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC. State Farm Fire and Casualty CO., Defendant, represented by Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Jacob L. Kahn -- jkahn@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Joseph Anthony Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Marilyn S. Chappell -- mchappell@SweetbaumSands.com -- Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C., Tal Cohen Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Jon F. Sands -- jsands@SweetbaumSands.com -- Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, P.C. STRAD ENERGY: Tristan Partners' Class Action Discontinued --------------------------------------------------------- Cannell Capital LLC ("CC"), General Partner to Tristan Partners, L.P. and Investment Advisor to Tristan Offshore Fund, Ltd. on July 10 announced the discontinuance of the matter of Tristan Partners, et al. vs. Strad Energy Services, Ltd. ("Strad") [Queen's Bench File No. 1601-07269]. Said discontinuance was granted by the Queen's Bench on May 17, 2017 effective July 6, 2017. CC is heartened by the recent appointment of both Tom Alford and Mick McNulty to Strad's Board of Directors, two individuals which Tristan had requested join the Board of Strad as part and parcel of settlement. CC is confident that Strad shareholders will benefit more from the vision and oversight which Mssrs. Alford and McNulty bring to the Board of Directors than litigation. In 2014 "peak" EBITDA of Strad was CN $59 million. Today, however, its market capitalization is only CN $84 million. Consensus estimate for 2018 EBITDA is CN $32 million. CC has no acumen to pinpoint cycles but it does believe that CN $84 million is a small price to pay for a good company with dramatically reduced expenses emerging from a severe downturn. The better question is what will 2019 bring. CC believes that Strad is making good acquisitions at the right time. The time to be greedy is when everybody is panicking, much like the time to buy straw hats is in the winter. Toward this end, CC in 2017 has increased its holding of Strad to 6.8% through an additional purchase of 224,585 shares of Strad. We eat what we bake. (The discontinuance of the legal action mentioned above should not, however, imply any conclusion by CC as to the merit of the underlying statement of claim.) That was then. This is now. CC believes that the Board addition of Alford and McNulty adds operational experience and more robust oversight and independence for the benefit of all shareholders. Accordingly, CC believes our investors and other Strad shareholders are best served through support and investment of Strad now versus litigation. STRADMONT OAK: "Knight" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Knight, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Stradmont Oak Investments, LLC, Infinite Dining Group, Inc., JLK, II, Inc., and James Liakakos, Case No. 1:17-cv-02459- MHC (N.D. Ga., June 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Fulton County, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Sued in Arizona Over Proposed Knight Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gaylen A. Peterson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Company, Richard H. Dozer, Glenn Brown, Jose Cardenas, Jerry Moyes, William Riley III, and David Vander Ploeg, Case No. 2:17-cv-02073-DMF (D. Ariz., June 29, 2017), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Swift Transportation Company, to enjoin the Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Swift and Bishop Merger Sub, Inc. will be combined with Knight Transportation, Inc. According to the complaint, Swift filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that Swift stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However, the Registration Statement fails to provide Company stockholders with material information or provides them with materially misleading information concerning: (i) the Company's financial projections; (ii) potential conflicts of interest concerning the Company's directors; and (iii) potential conflicts of interest involving Morgan Stanley. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as stockholders need such information in order to cast a fully-informed vote in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint says the Proposed Transaction will unlawfully divest Swift's public stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company stockholders. To remedy defendants' Exchange Act violations, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such problems are remedied. Headquartered at 2200 South 75th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85043, Swift Transportation Company is the largest common carrier in the United States, with over 16,000 trucks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Barrett, Esq. WARD, KEENAN & BARRETT, P.C. 3838 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1720 Phoenix, AR 85012 Telephone: (602) 279-1717 Facsimile: (602) 279-8908 E-mail: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com - and - Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4291 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com denright@zlk.com SYNGENTA AG: Settles Nebraska Farmer's Corn Suit Ahead of Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- DTN Washington Insider reports that Syngenta AG reached a confidential settlement with a Nebraska farmer who claimed the company mishandled marketing of its genetically modified seed, causing U.S. corn prices to plummet. With the settlement, Syngenta averts a trial that was scheduled to start July 10. Terms were not disclosed, according to Bloomberg. Syngenta lost a $218 million jury verdict for a class of Kansas farmers who brought similar claims against the Swiss agrochemical company, which has been acquired by China National Chemical Corp. The Basel-based company completed its $43 billion takeover by ChemChina in June. Syngenta faces its next class action in a Minnesota court in August, where farmers are seeking more than $600 million. The farmers claim Syngenta rushed its GMO seed to market before getting approval from China to export the grain there. In 2013, China stopped shipments after calling the corn contaminated by the GMO seed, setting off a five-year depression in prices, the farmers claim. They also allege Syngenta misled them on when the Chinese would approve the seed. Syngenta disputes the damages, or that it did anything wrong. The company did not sell the seed until approved by the U.S. and did not need Chinese approval, Syngenta lawyers have argued. The federal judge overseeing multiple class actions in Kansas set several trial dates for additional class actions to be tried in that court. The claims of Arkansas and Missouri farmers will go forward in January, while Illinois and Nebraska go to trial in April.[GN] TATA GROUP: Bombay High Court Wont' Hear Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashwin Mohan, writing for The Economic Times, reports that in a relief to Tata Sons, the Bombay High Court on July 10 revoked its earlier permission to hear a representative class action suit filed by six Tata group shareholders which sought Rs 41,000 crores in damages against the holding company, its directors and Tata Trusts, two individuals familar with the verdict told ET NOW on the condition of anonymity. The verdict minimises the legal risks for Tata Sons as all concerned shareholders now have to file suits in their personal capacities and even the damages will be limited to the personal loss of the shareholders. ET NOW was the first to report the development and is awaiting a detailed copy of the judgement. "The high court has revoked its own leave which was granted in December 2016 allowing six shareholders of listed Tata group companies for the institution of the suit as a representative suit to sue Tata Sons, its directors, Tata Trusts and some of the Tata operating companies," said one of the individuals cited above. "This verdict is likely to be challenged and this case may go all the way to the Supreme Court," said the second individual cited above. The shareholders had moved court claiming damages of Rs 41,832 crores for alleged loss caused to all the non-promoter shareholders of certain listed Tata group companies arising from a fall in share prices following the removal of former Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry. It was also submitted to the court that 60 other shareholders had filed applications in support of the suit. Challenging this stance, Tata Sons argued earlier that it was "perverse to say that all non-promoter shareholders have the same grievance and are unhappy." Tata Sons was represented by Senior Advocate P Chidambaram and Nitesh Jain, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas. Senior advocate Dinyar Madon appeared for the shareholders and Cyrus Mistry was represented by senior advocate Janak Dwarkadas. [GN] TAQUERIA HECHO: "Mateo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Mateo, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Taqueria Hecho En Mexico, Inc. and Juan Padilla, Case No. 4:17-cv-02003 (S.D. Tex., June 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2525 North Loop West, Suite 125, Houston, Texas 77008. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com - and - Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: vijay@buenkerlaw.com TAURUS: 11th Circuit Affirms Pistol Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a settlement has been affirmed in a Taurus pistol class action lawsuit filed by Charleston law firm Bailey & Glasser. Owners of potentially defective Taurus pistols will be able to get the guns repaired or replaced with safer handguns, according to a press release issued by Bailey & Glasser. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled to uphold a settlement that was negotiated in the lawsuit alleging that a faulty design in a number of the Taurus pistols made them likely to discharge when dropped, even with the manual safety engaged, and allowed them to be fired with the safety in the on position. Three class members challenged the settlement and appealed to the 11th Circuit. The settlement included three types of relief -- an enhanced warranty, safety training and cash payments. Settlement class members will receive an enhanced warranty covering the pistols at issue. Taurus agreed to modify the existing warranty covering and repair policy to allow the owner to submit a warranty claim at any time and if the defects cannot be repaired, Taurus will offer to replace the pistol with a similar new pistol. Also, as part of the enhanced warranty settlement benefits, Taurus agreed to waive all inspection fees and labor charges, including the minimum charge of $35 normally associated with their existing warranty and repair policy. It will also pay shipping costs. The defendants will also make available safety training for settlement class members to address the safety defects and the operation and handling of the pistols. The safety training will address proper handling and carrying to avoid dropping the pistols; educate owners concerning the safety features and safety systems in the pistols; and provide information and instructions on how to properly store, pack and ship the pistols for return to Taurus. Settlement class members may also elect to send their pistols back to Taurus un exchange for a cash payment that ranges from less than $150 to $200. The maximum liability for cash payment benefits is capped at $30 million. At least 13 people since 2005 had been injured or killed in incidents where Taurus pistols were unintentionally fired, according to lawsuits. In 2016, Newsweek called the agreement reached with Taurus "a landmark legal concession from a gun manufacturer." Taurus agreed to a recall framework for nearly one million guns to settle the class action lawsuit in July 2015. The class action lawsuit was filed by Chris Carter, an Iowa police officer. The settlement website outlines the provisions of the settlement, potentially worth $239 million if all class members make a claim. The plaintiffs are represented by David Selby, John Barrett, Eric Snyder and Ryan Donovan of Bailey & Glasser; and Todd Wheeles of Morris, Haynes, Wheeles, Knowles & Nelson. Taurus pistols subject to the defects include the Millennium, Millennium Pro, Millennium Pro Compact, Millennium Pro Sub- Compact, 24/7, and others. Owners wishing to claim the cash benefit option will have a limited time period in which to make a claim. This will be clearly set out on the settlement website once the claim period begins. To file a claim, visit https://www.tauruscartersettlement.com. TD BANK: Judge Rejects Cellphone Users' Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a federal judge has rejected class-action status for a lawsuit alleging TD Bank repeatedly called cellphone users against their wishes. U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle also dismissed a claim that the Cherry Hill-based bank and the Target chain broke the law with calls to Charlene Martinez, a California woman who sued the companies in October 2015. But Judge Simandle said a jury could consider Martinez's claim that the companies harassed her by making 165 calls over a delinquent credit card between Aug. 29, 2014, and April 15, 2015. Only three of those calls were answered, the judge noted. Ms. Martinez sought to have her complaint certified as a class- action lawsuit for "hundreds of thousands" of cellphone users. The suit had sought payments of at least $500 per person. In a June 30 decision, Judge Simandle noted each member of the proposed class would have to prove he or she had been called by the defendants without their consent. "If class members are impossible to identify without extensive and individualized fact finding, or 'mini-trials,' then a class action is inappropriate," his 35-page ruling said. Judge Simandle also said Ms. Martinez could not prove she'd been called improperly, and so she could not be a member of the class she sought to represent. "She consented to receive the vast majority of these calls, including all calls made on multi-call days," the judge noted. According to the ruling, Martinez agreed to accept calls on her cellphone when she opened a Target credit card account in 2007. The judge said that doomed her claim that the companies had violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which guards against unsolicited calls made by automated dialing systems. According to the ruling, a bankruptcy attorney for Ms. Martinez said he sent letters to two fax machines at TD Bank on April 10, 2015, asking that she not be called. Four calls followed over the next five days. The calls stopped after a Target representative "reported in Target's account system that (Martinez) had retained a bankruptcy attorney." TD and Target asserted the fax machines identified by the attorney were not intended for communications involving the retailer's credit card accounts. The companies also said they never received the letters. Judge Simandle also observed Ms. Martinez had previously contacted a customer-service representative to stop calls to a different phone. He said Ms. Martinez could not explain why her bankruptcy lawyer had not taken the same route. An attorney for Ms. Martinez could not be reached for immediate comment. TD Bank does not comment on pending litigation. TESORO CORPORATION: Stockholder Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Tesoro 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 merger-related litigation has been dismissed. On February 7, 2017, a Tesoro stockholder filed a purported class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, on behalf of himself and all other Tesoro stockholders against the current members of our board of directors. The case has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice. TG THERAPEUTICS: Consolidated Securities Litigation Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- TG 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 consolidated securities litigation has been dismissed. On January 6, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in New York federal court against the Company and certain of its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The case was captioned John Lyon v. TG Therapeutics, Michael S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The complaint alleged that, throughout the Class Period various statements made by the Company regarding its GENUINE Phase 3 trial were materially false or misleading when made in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 24, 2017, a second purported class action complaint was filed in New York federal court against the Company and certain of its directors, officers or consultants on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics common stock between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016. The case was captioned Kenneth C. Wyzgoski v. TG Therapeutics, Michael S. Weiss, Sean A. Power and Robert Niecestro, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00508-VM (S.D.N.Y.). The claims and allegations in the Wyzgoski complaint were substantially identical to those in the Lyon case. By order dated March 23, 2017, the court consolidated the Lyon and Wyzgoski cases into one action, captioned In re TG Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00112-VM (S.D.N.Y.), appointed lead plaintiffs in the case, and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of lead counsel. On April 5, 2017 the Court so ordered a stipulation pursuant to which lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated action in its entirety without prejudice. The Company denies the allegations and claims made in the above- referenced actions and no consideration was given by the Company in connection with lead plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of the consolidated action. TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of novel treatments for B-cell malignancies and autoimmune diseases. UBER TECH: Aug. 10 Deadline to Submit Email Test Design ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned In Re Uber FCRA Litigation, Case No. 14-cv- 05200-EMC, Consolidated with No. 14-cv-05241-EMC, No. 15-cv-03009- EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the parties' stipulation that the Court extends the deadline for them to make their submission regarding the email test (along with an updated Preliminary Approval Order) to on or before Aug. 10, 2017. On June 29, 2017, the Court issued its Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court ordered the Parties to devise and submit a design for a "trial test run to ascertain what percentage of emails are likely to be blocked as spam within seven days from the date of the order for approval. At the request of the Parties, the Court extended the deadline for the Parties to make their submission regarding the email trial test run to July 20, 2017. Since June 29, 2017, the Parties have worked diligently to submit the design for the trial test run by July 20, 2017. They need some additional time to further confer about the design for such a test run, but are encountering some scheduling conflicts due to, among other things, summer vacation schedules. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/LE5tBj from Leagle.com. Abdul Kadir Mohamed, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Keith King, Ahdoot and Wolfson, P.C.. Abdul Kadir Mohamed, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Ahdoot, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho & Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.. Michael Nokchan, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh, Setareh Law Group, Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho & Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights. Ronald Gillette, Plaintiff, represented by Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & William Copley Jhaveri-Weeks, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho. Shannon Wise, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights, Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C. & Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.. Brandon Farmer, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights & Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho. Meghan Christenson, Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C., Andrew Paul Lee, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Elisa Marie Della-Piana, Lawyers Committee For Civil Rights & Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho. Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Debra Wong Yang, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C., John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Marcellus Antonio McRae, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rod M. Fliegel, Littler Mendelson P.C., Sophia Behnia, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Theane D. Evangelis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & William J. Simmons, Littler Mendelson PC. Rasier, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Debra Wong Yang, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP, Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, Emily Erin O'Connor, Littler Mendelson, P.C., John C. Fish, Jr., Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua Seth Lipshutz, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Marcellus Antonio McRae, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rod M. Fliegel, Littler Mendelson P.C., Sophia Behnia, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Theane D. Evangelis, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & William J. Simmons, Littler Mendelson PC. Kathy Robinson, Interested Party, Pro Se. Kathy Robinson, Interested Party, represented by Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, P.C.. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Improper Pay Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Suayan, writing for South East Texas Record, reports that a popular rideshare company is accused in a federal class action lawsuit of failing to properly compensate its drivers. Attorney Kevin R. Michaels of the Law Offices of Kevin R. Michaels, P.C. in Houston filed the suit against Uber Technologies, Inc. on behalf of 19 drivers in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas on June 19. The class plaintiffs claim Uber "misclassified their employees as independent contractors to avoid paying minimum wage and overtime per the (Fair Labor Standards Act)." Per the complainants, their relationship with Uber "is clearly that of employer-employee." They additionally insist that they all worked in excess of 40 hours per week. "The facts of this case will show that the workers/ employees are not independent contractors, and are owed minimum wage and overtime pay," recent court documents assert. Uber is further faulted for fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and "flagrant and persistent" misreporting of driver income on Form 1099's. A jury trial is requested. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case No. 4:17- CV-2011 [GN] UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: Trial Court Ruling in "Bauserman" Flipped ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GRANT BAUSERMAN, KARL WILLIAMS and TEDDY BROE, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant- Appellant, No. 333181 (Mich. App.), the Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the trial court's order denying the Defendant's motion for summary disposition. This appeal arises from a class action lawsuit initiated by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant arising from their claims for unemployment benefits with the Defendant. On Sept. 9, 2015, Bauserman filed a class action complaint against the Defendant in the Court of Claims alleging that the Defendant utilizes an automated decision-making system to detect and adjudicate suspected instances of employment benefit fraud. He further alleged that the Defendant's automated decision-making system, known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System ("MiDAS") deprives UIA claimants of due process and fair and just treatment because it determines guilt without providing notice, without proving guilt and without affording claimants an opportunity to be heard before penalties are imposed. The complaint alleged, with regard to Bauserman, that after a determination that Bauserman had engaged in fraudulent conduct with regard to his unemployment benefits, the Defendant seized his property without notice of the specific grounds for the allegations against him, without providing 60 days in which to present evidence, without providing him an opportunity to present evidence, and without the notice and other due process required by federal law and the Michigan constitution. The Defendant moved for summary disposition of the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) which provides that dismissal of the action is appropriate because of immunity granted by law, or the statute of limitations. It also moved for dismissal of the Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8), which provides for summary disposition where the opposing party has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The trial court did not specify under which subrule of MCR 2.116 it was denying summary disposition, however it is apparent from its ruling that it considered documentary evidence outside of the pleadings. The Court reviewed the trial court's decision in accordance with MCR 2.116(C)(7). On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary disposition where the Plaintiffs' claims were not filed in compliance with the governing provision of the Court of Claims Act. The parties do not dispute that the Defendant ultimately reconsidered its earlier determinations that Bauserman was ineligible for unemployment benefits and had engaged in fraud after receiving notice from Bauserman that the payment at issue from his former employer was a bonus he received while still employed by his former employer. Bauserman was ultimately not liable to pay back any unemployment benefits or have any penalties or interest assessed. Any monies seized from Bauserman were returned by the Defendant. The Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on Oct. 19, 2015 naming Williams and Broe as the Plaintiffs in addition to Bauserman. Where the facts with respect to Williams and Broe are not disputed, the Court referred to the portion of the trial court's written ruling addressing the facts pertinent to Williams and Broe. The parties do not dispute that Bauserman's notices of redetermination regarding his unemployment benefits were dated Dec. 3, 2014. Likewise, Broe's notices of determination advising him of his disqualification for unemployment benefits are dated July 15, 2014. Finally, Williams's notice of determination/redetermination is dated June 22, 2012. Accordingly, where the Plaintiffs did not institute their action until Sept. 9, 2015, their claims were not filed in compliance with MCL 600.6431(3), within six months following the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action. The Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of the Defendant. The Court does not retain jurisdiction. The Defendant, as the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/2gK4Rt from Leagle.com. KEVIN M. CARLSON -- kevin@kevincarlsonlaw.com -- for GRANT BAUSERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellee. DEBBIE K. TAYLOR, for UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendant- Appellant. UNITED RENTALS: Bid to Junk S&S Construction's Suit Partly OK'd --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned S&S CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Plaintiff, V. UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC., and UNITED RENTALS, INC., Defendants, No. 2:15-CV-712 (NGG)(SRW) (M.D. Ala.), Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (i) granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and reverse ruling on the remaining arguments therein; (ii) granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend; and (iii) denied the Defendants' Application for Status Conference. The Plaintiff initiated this action on Sept. 25, 2015. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on Nov. 10, 2015, asserting arguments as to standing, personal jurisdiction, venue, and the sufficiency of the Plaintiff's allegations. On Nov. 23, 2015, District Judge Myron H. Thompson issued an order finding that the Plaintiff had failed to establish diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Judge Thompson ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice unless the Plaintiff filed an appropriately amended complaint within seven days. The Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on Nov. 30, 2015. On Dec. 17, 2015, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss, asserting substantially similar arguments as in their prior motion. On April 13, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Amend. The Proposed Second Amended Complaint is identical to the First Amended Complaint except that the Second Amended Complaint adds a single additional class representative, Wells Land Development, Inc. The Court finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to assert any claims that do not arise out of contracts entered into in Alabama. The Defendants have searched their records and offered evidence that the Plaintiff never paid any of the disputed Charges in Florida or Georgia during the relevant time period, except in connection with excluded contracts that contained class action waivers. The Plaintiff has not meaningfully contested that evidence. Absent any qualifying Charge payment in Florida or Georgia, the Plaintiff has not suffered a redressable injury in fact for purposes of his putative class claims under the common- law contract doctrines or consumer protection statutes in Florida and Georgia. Therefore, the Courts granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in part and dismissed, without prejudice, all claims except those arising out of contracts entered into in Alabama. The Court also finds that majority of the Plaintiff's claims have been dismissed without prejudice. In addition, by adding or modifying allegations regarding the location of, provisions in, and parties to specific contracts, the Plaintiff may be able to address -- or may capitulate to -- certain among the Defendants' arguments in favor of dismissal. The Court therefore granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend in part. The Plaintiff will have an opportunity to file a second amended complaint, which need not be identical to the proposed second amended complaint that it attached to the Motion to Amend. The Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the Order. If the Plaintiff does not so file, the Court will rule on the remaining arguments in the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/EzL8bU from Leagle.com. S&S Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas W. Armstrong, Price Armstrong LLC. S&S Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Oscar M. Price, IV, Price Armstrong, LLC, Taylor Christopher Bartlett -- taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis & William Lewis Garrison, Jr. -- wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger Garrison Davis, L.L.C.. United Rentals (North America), Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth D. Adler -- eadler@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Evan Patrick Moltz -- emoltz@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., John Aaron Earnhardt -- jearnhardt@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. & S. Stewart Haskins, II, King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice. United Rentals, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth D. Adler, King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Evan Patrick Moltz, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., John Aaron Earnhardt, Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. & S. Stewart Haskins, II, King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice. UNITED STATES: Settlement in "Lambert" Subclass I Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned SCOTT J. LAMBERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 12-395L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Nancy B. Firestone of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted final approval to the parties' revised proposed settlement for subclass I Plaintiffs. This rails-to-trails class action arises from the conversion of a railroad corridor in Shelby County, Tennessee to a recreational trail. The Plaintiffs alleged that the government "took" their property interests without just compensation when it authorized the conversion of the rail corridor to a recreational trail. The Court has previously issued Final Approval Order I for a proposed settlement on Dec. 16, 2015 following a fairness hearing. Following the Federal Circuit's decision regarding attorneys' fees in Haggart v. United States, the Court was obligated to reconsider the parties' proposed settlement only as it related to attorneys' fees. On May 18, 2017, the parties filed a joint revised proposed revised noticed to class members regarding the proposed revised settlement agreement the parties had reached in light of the Haggart decision. Under the proposed revised settlement, each Plaintiff would receive the same settlement amount as approved in Final Approval Order I, plus additional interest since accrued. The Plaintiffs will receive a principal total sum of $3,962,282.16, and $1,179,451 in interest accrued through Dec. 31, 2016. The proposed revised settlement agreement only differs from the original approved settlement agreement with regard to fees for counsels. Under the original settlement, class counsel was awarded a fee of 30% of the negotiated settlement (principal and interest), or $1,092,607.11. Under the proposed revised settlement, and in accordance with the Federal Circuit's ruling in Haggart, the class counsel will instead be awarded fees and costs pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 ("URA") in the amount of $256,862.10 in fees and $20,875.71 in costs and expenses, for a total of $277,737.81. The court granted preliminary approval for the revised settlement on May 23, 2017 and notice was sent to class members. In response to the notice, the class counsel received explicit approval of the settlement for 68 of the 88 claimants. The Court held a telephonic fairness hearing on July 17, 2017. For the reasons stated in Final Approval Order I, the Court approved the parties' revised proposed settlement agreement for the subclass I Plaintiffs, including the attorneys' fees and costs agreed to as authorized by the URA. Pursuant to RCFC 54(b), there being no just reason for delay, the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly for the subclass I Plaintiffs in the principal amount of $2,505,093.35 and $1,179,451 in interest accrued through Dec. 31, 2016. The interest will continue to accrue until the Plaintiffs are paid. The judgment also includes $256,862.10 as reimbursement for attorneys' fees and $20,875.71 in costs and expenses, for a total of $277,737.81 pursuant to the URA. A full-text copy of the Court's July 18, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/fvVfkO from Leagle.com. SCOTT J. LAMBERT, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald -- WALD@SWM.LEGAL -- Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. SAMANTHA A. LAMBERT, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald, Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. IVAN ROBINSON, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald, Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. DENISE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald, Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. MARCIA L. VACCARIO, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald, Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. LOUISE V. WRIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald, Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. TINA V. GREGORY, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald, Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. STEPHEN M. OMOREGIE, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Mathew Wald, Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC. USA, Defendant, represented by Daniela Alejandra Arregui Labarca, U.S. Department of Justice. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: "Basile" Status Conference on July 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- A status conference is set for July 25, 2017, in the case, Anthony Basile et al v. Valeant Pharmaceutical International, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02004 (C.D. Cal.). The Hon. David O Carter presides over the case. On July 21, 2017, Lead Plaintiffs -- Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, Patrick T. Johnson, State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio -- submitted a status report concerning the Status Conference. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 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 Anthony Basile Allergan shareholder class action, defendants' motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to appeal from the class certification order remains pending. On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, an alleged shareholder of Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan shareholders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company, Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants contending that various purchases of Allergan securities by PS Fund were made while in possession of material, non-public information concerning a potential tender offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, various Pershing Square affiliates, William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, and, on November 9, 2015, the Court denied that motion. On March 15, 2017, the Court entered an order certifying a plaintiff class comprised of persons who sold Allergan common stock contemporaneously with purchases of Allergan common stock made or caused by defendants during the period February 25, 2014 through April 21, 2014. On March 28, 2017, defendants filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to appeal from the class certification order. That motion remains pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. On February 10, 2017, the Company, Valeant (together, the "Valeant Co Parties") and J. Michael Pearson (together, the "Valeant Parties") and Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., Pershing Square Holdings, Ltd., Pershing Square International, Ltd., Pershing Square, L.P., Pershing Square II, L.P., PS Management GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC, Pershing Square GP, LLC (together, "Pershing Square"), and William A. Ackman ("Ackman" and, together with Pershing Square, the "Pershing Square Parties") entered into a litigation management agreement (the "Litigation Management Agreement"), pursuant to which the parties agreed to certain provisions with respect to the management of this litigation, including all cases currently consolidated with the California action described above and any opt-out litigation or individual actions brought by members of the putative class in the California action asserting the same or similar allegations or claims (collectively, the "Allergan Litigation"), including the following: * In respect of any settlement relating to the Allergan Litigation that receives the mutual consent of both the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties, the payments in connection with such settlement will be paid 60% by the Valeant Co Parties and 40% by the Pershing Square Parties. The agreement does not provide for any allocation of costs in a settlement that is not consented to by both parties; * The first $10 million in legal fees and litigation expenses incurred by the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties after the date of the Litigation Management Agreement in connection with the Allergan Litigation will be paid 50% by the Valeant Co Parties and 50% by the Pershing Square Parties; and * The Litigation Management Agreement will terminate on November 1, 2017 if a stipulation of settlement with regards to the current California action has not been executed by that date (unless the Litigation Management Agreement is extended by mutual written agreement of the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties). In addition to the agreements set out above with respect to the Allergan Litigation, the Litigation Management Agreement includes an undertaking by the Pershing Square Parties to forbear from commencing any action or actions that arise out of, or relate to, the claims alleged or facts asserted in the Allergan Litigation or to the purchase or acquisition of, or transactions with respect to, the Company's securities against any of the Valeant Parties from February 3, 2017 until the date that is thirty days after the termination of the Litigation Management Agreement. Any statute of limitations applicable to such actions or tolled claims is suspended during this period. If the Litigation Management Agreement is terminated pursuant to its terms, the parties will meet and discuss whether any tolled claims should be submitted to confidential arbitration or mediation. Furthermore, in connection with the entrance into the Litigation Management Agreement, on February 10, 2017 the Valeant Parties and the Pershing Square Parties entered into a mutual release of claims (the "Mutual Release"). The Mutual Release will go into effect upon the later of satisfaction of the payment obligations that each party would have in connection with any settlement of the current California action pursuant to the Litigation Management Agreement described above and the date of entry of final judgment, and will not occur if the Litigation Management Agreement is terminated. If the Mutual Release becomes effective, each party will release the other parties and their respective attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, lenders and securities underwriters (in their capacities as such and to the extent they provide a mutual release) from any and all claims relating to or arising out of (a) any purchase of any security of Valeant, (b) any one or more of the claims asserted in and/or the facts alleged in (i) the Allergan Litigation, (ii) a putative class action on behalf of purchasers of Valeant securities captioned In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. Securities Litigation, Case 3:15-cv-07658- MAS-LHG, currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "U.S. Class Action"), (iii) certain enumerated individual actions and/or (iv) certain enumerated actions in Canada, or (c) the Valeant business. In addition, each party covenants not to sue the other parties with respect to any claims covered by the Mutual Release upon the effectiveness of the Mutual Release. Each party also covenants not to sue the other parties' attorneys, accountants, financial advisors, lenders and securities underwriters (in their capacities as such) with respect to any of the claims covered by the Mutual Release from the date of the signing of the Mutual Release, except to the extent that (i) a claim has been asserted against such party by any such attorney, accountant, financial advisor, lender and/or securities underwriter or (ii) the Litigation Management Agreement has been terminated in accordance with its terms. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Underway in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the case, Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-07658 (D. N.J.). Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman on July 18 entered a Discovery Confidentiality Order. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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' answers to the consolidated complaint were due by May 12, 2017, in the case, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation. From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15- cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during various time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company's business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company's relationship with Philidor. On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658, and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint naming additional defendants and asserting additional claims based on allegations of false and misleading statements and/or omissions similar to those in the initial complaints. Specifically, the consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's equity securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the Company's securities in the United States in the Company's debt and stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Briefing on the Company's motion was completed on January 13, 2017. On April 28, 2017, the Court denied the motions to dismiss, except with certain claims arising out of the Company's private placement offerings. Defendants' answers to the consolidated complaint are due by May 12, 2017. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Canadian Securities Class Suits Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 securities class actions in Canada. In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082- 00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O'Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O'Brien, Catucci and Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau- Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior Court by consent order. Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose material information about the Company's business and prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company's policies and accounting practices, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies and, in particular, the Company's relationship with Philidor. The Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien actions also assert common law claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of liability contemplated by the Code. The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to those outlined above. The Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do not intend to pursue the actions. The Company expects that certain of these actions will be consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in any jurisdiction. In particular, on June 10, 2016, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision on carriage motions (motions held to determine who will have carriage of the class action) heard on April 8, 2016, provisionally staying the O'Brien action, in favor of the Kowalyshyn action. On September 15, 2016, in response to an arrangement between the plaintiffs in the Kowalyshyn action and the O'Brien action, the court ordered both that the Kowalyshyn action be consolidated with the O'Brien action and that the consolidated action be stayed in favor of the Catucci action pending either the further order of the Ontario court or the determination of the motion for leave in the Catucci action. In the Catucci action, motions for leave under the Quebec Securities Act and for authorization as a class proceeding were heard the week of April 24, 2017, with the motion judge reserving her decision. Prior to that hearing, the parties resolved applications by the defendants concerning jurisdiction and class composition, with the plaintiffs agreeing to revise the definition of the proposed class to exclude claims in respect of Valeant securities purchased in the United States. The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Briefing on RICO Class Actions Completed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that briefing of the motion to dismiss RICO Class Actions was scheduled to be completed by May 17, 2017. Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class of certain third party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Valeant branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015 (Airconditioning and Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-03087, Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-3885 and N.Y. Hotel Trades Council et al v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16- cv-05663). On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv- 03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 14, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co- pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured's consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 13, 2017. Briefing of the motion is scheduled to be completed by May 17, 2017. On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner. The Company did not oppose the motion to stay. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 remaining parties in the case, In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, are currently engaged in class certification briefing and expert discovery. Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed against Medicis, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("VPII") and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees. By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") centralized the suits in the District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14- md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper. After the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Class Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 2 and various state laws but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws. VPII was dismissed from the case, but the litigation continues against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the remaining claims. A subsequent effort to re-plead claims under Sherman Act, Section 2 was denied on September 20, 2016. Plaintiffs have reached a settlement with two of three generic manufacturer defendants, and, on April 14, 2017, the Court granted the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and End-Payor Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary approval of those settlements. Fact discovery in these actions has concluded. The remaining parties are currently engaged in class certification briefing and expert discovery. On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to dismiss the class action complaints was pending, two additional non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain retail pharmacy and grocery chains ("Individual Plaintiffs") making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that sought by Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs. Those suits have been centralized with the class action suits in the District of Massachusetts. Following the Court's August 14, 2015 decision on the motion to dismiss, the Individual Plaintiffs each filed amended complaints on October 1, 2015, and Medicis answered on December 7, 2015. A third non-class action was filed by another retail pharmacy against Medicis on January 26, 2016, and Medicis answered on March 28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Cert. Ongoing in Contact Lens Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. 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 Contact Lens Antitrust Class Actions, the Class Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending. Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L, three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees. By order dated June 8, 2015, the JPML centralized the suits in the Middle District of Florida, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, before U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. After the Class Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class action complaint on December 16, 2015, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. On June 16, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws. The actions are currently in discovery. On March 3, 2017, the Class Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On April 17, 2017, defendants filed an unopposed motion requesting that the court extend defendants' time to oppose the class certification motion from May 12, 2017 to June 2, 2017. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Liability Case Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 has been voluntarily dismissed from nearly all of the Shower to Shower Products Liability cases, and only claims against Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC ("VPNA") remain. The Company has been named in over sixty lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson. Many of these cases have been subsequently dismissed as to the Company and/or VPNA. These lawsuits include one case originally filed on December 30, 2016 in the In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation, Multidistrict Litigation 2738, pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company and its subsidiary, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC ("VPNA"), were first named in a lawsuit filed directly into the MDL alleging that use of the Shower to Shower product caused the plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer. On March 24, 2017, the plaintiff agreed to a dismissal of all claims against the Company and VPNA without prejudice, and neither the Company nor VPNA have been named in any further lawsuits in the MDL. In addition, beginning on October 26, 2016 and continuing into May 2017, fifty individual lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Delaware alleging use of Shower to Shower caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer. The Company has been voluntarily dismissed from nearly all of these cases, and only claims against VPNA remain. These lawsuits also include allegations against Johnson & Johnson, directed primarily to its marketing of and warnings for the Shower to Shower product prior to the Company's acquisition of the product in September 2012. The allegations in these cases specifically directed to VPNA include failure to warn, design defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, and punitive damages. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages including medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment, loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, treble damages, and attorneys' fees. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Case Pending in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 defend itself vigorously in each of the remaining actions in Canada that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to a grant of summary judgment. On or about October 3, 2016, the Company was served with a claim in a proceeding filed before the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Williamson v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No: 179011), in which the Company is named as a defendant, along with various Johnson & Johnson entities. The plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in British Columbia and Canada who have purchased or used Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower, including their estates, executors and personal representatives. The Company also acquired the rights to the Shower to Shower product in Canada from Johnson & Johnson in September 2012. The Company is also named as a defendant along with various Johnson & Johnson entities in a similar application filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, on or about April 12, 2016, in which the plaintiff is requesting leave to institute a proposed class action on behalf of persons in QuÇbec who have used Johnson's Baby Powder or Shower to Shower, as well as their family members, assigns and heirs (Kramar v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 500-06- 000787-164). The plaintiff in the British Columbia action alleges the use of the products increases certain health risks. The plaintiff in the Quebec action is alleging negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. The likelihood of the authorization or certification of these claims as class actions cannot be assessed at this time. In addition, twelve cases have been filed alleging use of Shower to Shower and other products resulted in the plaintiffs developing mesothelioma. Four were filed in California Superior Courts (Herford v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. BC46315, filed on January 10, 2017; Dominguez v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. BC50123, filed on February 9, 2017; Koretoff v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. BC6566506, filed on April 4, 2017; Weirick v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. BC656425, filed on April 4, 2017). The Herford and Weirick cases have been voluntarily dismissed, and discovery in the remaining cases may also lead to dismissal if all product use was prior to September 2012. One case was filed in Superior Court of Delaware (Wheeler v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. N16C-12-285, filed on December 22, 2016). Six cases have been filed in New Jersey Superior Courts (Alderdice v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. MID-L-0546-17, filed on January 20, 2017; Kelley-Stramer v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. MID-L-00196-17, filed on January 11, 2017; Macy v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. MID-L-0623-17AS, filed on January 31, 2017; Verdolotti v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. MID-L-05973-16, filed on October 14, 2016; Ladue v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. MID-L-827?17AS, filed on February 10, 2017; Arend v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. MID-L-1730-17AS, filed on March 6, 2017; Beren v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. MID-L-2422-17AS, filed on April 25, 2017). Plaintiff did not oppose summary judgment in the Verdolotti case. One case was filed in the District Court of Louisiana (Parish of Calcasieu) (Citizen v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 2014-2920, originally filed on July 23, 2014, VPNA added via amendment on April 13, 2017). The allegations in these cases generally include design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, and punitive damages, and in some cases breach of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for loss of services, economic loss, pain and suffering, and, in some cases, lost wages or earning capacity and loss of consortium, in addition to punitive damages, interest, litigation costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in each of the remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to a grant of summary judgment. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops, manufactures, and markets a broad range of branded, generic and branded generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter ("OTC") products and medical devices (contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices), which are marketed directly or indirectly in over 100 countries. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 19 Hearing in Afexa Case Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 appeal hearing related to the Afexa Class Action has been scheduled for September 19, 2017. On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of action. In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed certain amendments, while it struck others. The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and, on November 16, 2016, the Court issued a decision dismissing the plaintiff's application for certification of this action as a class proceeding. On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the decision to dismiss the application for certification. The plaintiff filed its appeal factum on March 15, 2017 and filed its appeal factum on April 19, 2017. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for September 19, 2017. The Company denies the allegations being made and is continuing to vigorously defend this matter. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sprout Litigation in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, 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 Sprout Litigation is now in discovery as to the remaining claims. On or about November 2, 2016, the Company and Valeant were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by the shareholder representative of the former shareholders of Sprout in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (C.A. No. 12868). The plaintiff in this action is alleging, among other things, breach of contract with respect to certain terms of the merger agreement relating to the Sprout Acquisition, including a disputed contractual term respecting the use of certain diligent efforts to develop and commercialize the Addyi(R) product (including a disputed contractual term respecting the spend of no less than $200 million in certain expenditures). The plaintiff in this action is seeking unspecified compensatory and other damages and attorneys' fees, as well as an order requiring Valeant to perform its obligations under the merger agreement. On December 27, 2016, the Company and Valeant filed (i) an answer directed to the claim for breach of contract and (ii) a partial motion to dismiss the other claims. The Court held a hearing on the partial motion to dismiss on March 10, 2017, and the Court subsequently granted that motion in part, dismissing plaintiff's intentional misrepresentation and declaratory judgment claims in their entirety and narrowing plaintiff's implied covenant claim. The action is now in discovery as to the remaining claims. The Company is vigorously defending this matter. WALTER INVESTMENT: Proceedings in "Buckles" Stayed -------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that further proceedings in the case, Sanford Buckles v. Green Tree Servicing LLC and Walter Investment Management Corporation, in the U.S. District Court are stayed pending a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court. In Sanford Buckles v. Green Tree Servicing LLC and Walter Investment Management Corporation, filed on August 18, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech Financial (the Parent Company has since been dismissed) is subject to a putative class action suit alleging that Ditech Financial, within the three years prior to the filing of the complaint, improperly recorded phone calls received from, and/or made to, persons in Nevada at the time of the call, and did so without their prior consent in violation of Nevada state law. The plaintiff in this suit, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeks punitive damages, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees. Ditech Financial moved to dismiss the complaint, and the court determined that the relevant issue is a question of Nevada law to be decided by the Nevada Supreme Court. Accordingly, further proceedings in the U.S. District Court are stayed pending a decision by the Nevada Supreme Court. Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the Company, is an independent servicer and originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans. WALTER INVESTMENT: Lee Case Remains Pending in Nevada ----------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. 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, Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, remains pending. In Kamimura, Lee C. v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, filed on April 8, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Ditech Financial is subject to a putative nationwide class action suit alleging FCRA violations by obtaining credit bureau information without a permissible purpose after the discharge of debt owed to Ditech Financial pursuant to Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. The plaintiff in this suit, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, seeks actual and punitive damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and litigation costs. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the Company, is an independent servicer and originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans. WALTER INVESTMENT: Bonomi and Petrovets Actions Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Bonomi action and the Petrovets action have been dismissed. Three federal securities fraud complaints have been filed against the Company. Courtney Elkin, et al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-20997 was filed in the Southern District of Florida on March 16, 2017, Emil Bonomi, et al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corporation, et al., Case No 8:17-cv-00645 was filed in the Middle District of Florida on March 17, 2017, and Joseph Petrovets, et al. vs. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., Case No 8:17-cv-00695 was filed in the Middle District of Florida on March 24, 2017. All three complaints name the Company, George M. Awad, Denmar J. Dixon, and Gary L. Tillett as defendants, and the Elkin and Petrovets complaints also name Anthony N. Renzi as a defendant. All three complaints seek monetary damages and assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints allege (i) that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about our internal controls over financial reporting related to Ditech Financial, (ii) that these statements artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock, and (iii) that when the Company disclosed that it discovered a material weakness in its internal controls on March 14, 2017, the Company's stockholders suffered losses because the price of the Company's common stock dropped by approximately 38% or $1.30 per share. The Petrovets complaint also alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions concerning RMS's alleged violation of the False Claims Act. On May 2, 2017, the Court in the Elkin action transferred that action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the plaintiffs in the Bonomi and Petrovets actions agreed to dismiss their actions without prejudice and coordinate the pursuit of their claims with the claims in the Elkin action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Bonomi action was dismissed on May 4, 2017, and the Petrovets action was dismissed on May 9, 2017. Walter Investment Management Corp. and its subsidiaries, or the Company, is an independent servicer and originator of mortgage loans and servicer of reverse mortgage loans. WATTS WATER: Settlements of Connector Class Actions Approved ------------------------------------------------------------ Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017, that the Court has entered Final Orders and Judgments approving the settlements of the Connector Class Actions. In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of water heater connectors. On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). Watts Water Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion is still pending. In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors (hereinafter "Klug"). On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and sought to correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint on February 2, 2016. No formal discovery was conducted. The Company participated in mediation sessions of the Ponzo and Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On February 16, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims. The proposed total settlement amount is $14 million, of which the Company is expected to pay approximately $4.1 million after insurance proceeds, of up to $9.9 million. The parties executed final written settlement agreements in April 2016. Motions for preliminary approval of the settlements were submitted on May 4, 2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal Court. On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlements. After a fairness hearing held on April 12, 2017, the Court entered Final Orders and Judgments approving the settlements on April 13, 2017. There were no objections to the settlements. Absent an appeal, the settlements were to become final on May 15, 2017. Until the settlements become final, there can be no assurance that they will be final in their current form. If the settlements do not become final, the Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the allegations in these cases. During the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recorded a liability of $14 million related to the Ponzo and Klug matters of which $7.8 million was included in current liabilities and $6.2 million in other noncurrent liabilities. The liability was reduced by $0.8 million for notice and claims administrator payments made during the first quarter of 2017 and as of April 2, 2017, the remaining liability is $13.2 million. In addition, a $9.5 million receivable was recorded in current assets related to insurance proceeds due, based on costs incurred as of December 31, 2015. In the first quarter of 2017, the Company recorded $0.4 million in current assets related to insurance proceeds due, based on the costs incurred through April 2, 2017. This brings the total receivable for insurance proceeds due to the maximum amount to be covered by insurance related to this settlement of $9.9 million. The Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $3.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2015 related to the settlement after adjusting the existing product liability accrual. Additional information on the cases is available at: http://www.connectorsettlements.com/ Watts Water Technologies is a supplier of products and solutions that conserve water and manage the flow of fluids and energy into, through and out of buildings in the residential and commercial markets of the Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa ("APMEA"). WEIGHT WATCHERS: Appeal in "Roberts" Case Pending ------------------------------------------------- Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that the appeal related to the case, Raymond Roberts v. Weight Watchers International, Inc., remains pending. On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of contract and violations of the New York General Business Law. On February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. On March 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that, as a result of the temporary glitches in the Company's website and app in November and December 2015, the Company has: (1) breached its Subscription Agreement with its OnlinePlus members; and (2) engaged in deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section 350 of the New York General Business Law. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual, punitive and statutory damages, as well as his attorneys' fees and costs incurred in connection with this action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 6, 2016. The plaintiff filed his opposition papers on June 9, 2016 and the Company filed its reply papers on June 23, 2016. The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on November 14, 2016. On November 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal of the Court's decision and on January 31, 2017, the plaintiff filed its brief in support of appeal. The Company filed its opposition brief on April 5, 2017, and the plaintiff filed his reply brief on April 25, 2017. The Company believes that the plaintiff's appeal is without merit and will be denied in due course WEST CORPORATION: Faces "Katz" Suit Over Proposed Apollo Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Katz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. West Corporation, Thomas B. Barker, Lee Adrean, Donald M. Casey, Anthony J. Dinovi, Paul R. Garcia, Laura Grattan, Jeanette Horan, Michael A. Huber, Diane E. Offereins, and Gregory T. Sloma, Case No. 4:17-cv-03084 (D. Neb., June 29, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 9, 2017, pursuant to which West Corporation will be acquired by affiliates of certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC, Mount Olympus Holdings, Inc. and Olympus Merger Sub, Inc. for $23.50 per shareholder's share in cash. According to the complaint, West filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Specifically, the Preliminary Proxy Statement fails to disclose the; (i) "Background of the Merger"; (ii) "Recommendation of the Board"; (iii) "Reasons for Recommending the Adoption of the Merger Agreement"; and (iv) "Interests of Directors and Executive Officers in the Merger." West Corporation is a global provider of communication and network infrastructure services. West Corporation is a technology-driven communication services provider headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. West offers it services, including conferencing and collaboration, unified communications, alerts and notifications, emergency communications, business process outsourcing and telephony/interconnect services, around the globe. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Rowe, Esq. Robert D. Kinsey Jr., Esq. KINSEY ROWE BECKER & KISTLER, LLP 3800 VerMaas Place, Suite 100 Lincoln, NE 68502 Telephone: (402) 438-1313 - and - Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com WOLVERINE STATE: Retiree Wants High Court to Revive Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Koenig, writing for Law360, reports that a retired Michigan teacher is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his proposed class action against the Wolverine State for retroactively revoking state and local tax exemptions on state pensions without providing "comparable alternative financial benefits." Thomas R. Okrie asked the high court June 28 to take on his challenge to a Court of Appeals of Michigan decision that nixed his lawsuit over a change to state law that kicked in on Jan. 1, 2012. That change, Mr. Okrie said, ended exemptions to state and local taxes for teachers' and state employees' "defined-benefit pensions" in contravention of high court retroactivity principles as well as the "principles underlying the rule of law." Former employees born after 1945 who made "irrevocable" decisions to retire before the change went into effect are entitled to compensation or a return of the tax exempt status for their state pensions, Mr. Okrie said, arguing that retroactive legislation is generally frowned on in the law and pointing specifically to retroactivity principles laid out in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1994 decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products. "Specifically, statutes may not be applied retroactively if they abrogate or impair vested rights," Mr. Okrie said, arguing that in Landgraf, the high court held that basic fairness means individuals should have a chance to know what the law is and base their conduct on that knowledge, holding that "settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted." According to the petition, Michigan's own attorney general in 1991 issued a formal opinion holding that the state legislature could only "limit or repeal" public pension tax exemptions, for employees who had already retired if it also provided "alternative benefits in their place that are equal to or greater" than the pension benefits that would be taken away. The AG's opinion, Mr. Okrie said, came on the heels of a 1989 high court decision in Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury in which the justices said that the state couldn't grant the tax exemptions only to retired state workers and not retired federal employees living in Michigan. A state appeals court subsequently agreed with the Michigan government's position, Mr. Okrie said, that it was better to further extend the tax break to federal workers rather than lose the incentive used to "hire and retain qualified civil servants." The tax break was supposed to be considered "deferred compensation" for the years retirees spent working for the state, Mr. Okrie said, only for the legislature in 2011 to revoke the benefit he and others had relied on in their financial retirement planning. In doing so, Mr. Okrie contends the law change violates the Landgraf principles that include a statement of "clear legislative intent" for the change to apply retroactively. "Specifically, the language of 2011 P.A. 38 falls far short of demonstrating a clear intent by the Michigan legislature favoring the retroactive elimination of tax exemptions for the defined- benefit pensions of Mr. Okrie, et al.," he said, "without the payment of comparable financial benefits that were equal to, or greater than the deferred compensation that they earned for their years of governmental service in form of tax-exempt pensions, as stated in the formal opinion issued by the state Attorney General in 1991." Mr. Okrie further argued that he and his fellow retirees were never told that their pensions could be made taxable, even though they should have been told about the legal options. The retroactive decision also violates the Federal Contracts Clause of the Constitution, he said, only for the Michigan appeals court to "ignore" the high court's 1938 holding in Indian ex. Rel. Anderson v. Brand. The law change -- which Mr. Okrie said should apply only to future retirees -- was a "substantial contractual impairment" that he said lacked a "reasonable" approach to serving "an important public purpose." Mr. Okrie argued the legislature "specifically targeted, in age-discriminatory fashion," those retirees born after 1945. The retroactive change also violates the Constitution's takings clause without proper compensation, according to the petition, along with the "elementary considerations of fairness" under the Constitution's due process requirements. Representatives for Mr. Okrie and the Michigan Attorney General's Office did not immediately respond on July 10 to press inquiries. Mr. Okrie is represented by Gary P. Supanich. Counsel information for the state was not available on July 10. The case is Thomas R. Okrie v. Michigan et al., case number 17-34 before the U.S. Supreme Court. [GN] WV AMERICAN: Judge Nixes Elk River Chemical Spill Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Dickerson, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a federal judge has nixed a proposed class action settlement regarding the 2014 Elk River chemical spill. U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver Jr. on July 6 issued an order denying the proposal. He denied it without prejudice, meaning the parties can refile a revised agreement. Judge Copenhaver wrote that he has concerns about the tiered payment plan for different businesses as well as the way appeals filed by spill victims would be handled and the timeliness of the payments to the victims. He also said he has questions about the awarding of attorney fees to lawyers handling the case. "The court declines to approve the proposed settlement until the parties submit an agreement and preliminary approval motion meeting the foregoing conditions," Judge Copenhaver wrote in the 93-page order. The $151 million settlement proposal denied by Judge Copenhaver would have provided an estimated $525 to each household affected by the 2014 chemical spill that contaminated the water supply for residents in nine counties. Terms of the proposed settlement were revealed in April. West Virginia American Water has agreed to pay $126 million, and Eastman Chemical has agreed to pay $25 million. Customers of West Virginia American Water Company would have to file claim forms to get their piece of the settlement. Additional monies would be provided for each additional person in a household, and claimants can provide receipts for items such as bottled water and replacement hot water heaters for additional funds. Pregnant women and people who can provide proof of medical expenses related to the incident also would be entitled to additional money. The same goes for people who lost wages because their employers were forced to close because of the spill. Businesses, government agencies and non-profit groups would receive between $6,250 and $40,000, depending on different variables, if they were forced to close. Businesses that didn't have to close can receive a payment of $1,850. Exact amounts could change depending on the number of claims. In October, parties in the case agreed to the terms of the deal just before the trial was scheduled to begin. The case stemmed from an incident in January 2014 when a tank at Freedom Industries in Charleston leaked crude MCHM into the adjacent Elk River. The site was just upstream from the water company's intake plant. Nine counties and almost 225,000 residents were affected by the incident. Eastman is the company that manufactured the MCHM and didn't warn Freedom of all of the dangers of the chemical used to wash coal. If approved by the court, the firm of Smith, Cochran & Hicks will serve as settlement administrator. Attorneys would get 30 percent of the total payments made up to the first $100 million of the settlement. After that, they would get 25 percent of the amount paid up to the remaining $51 million. The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin W. Thompson and David R. Barney Jr. of Thompson Barney; Van Bunch -- vbunch@bffb.com -- of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC; and Stuart Calwell, Alex McLaughlin and D. Christopher Hedges of The Calwell Practice LC. Eleven law firms had asked for payment. Court documents show the amount of time worked and money sought for by dozens of attorneys, paralegals and other staff members. The firms listed as "class counsel" are Bonnett Fairbourne Friendman & Balint, The Calwell Practice and Thompson Barney. Other firms that represented plaintiffs in state court litigation are Powell & Majestro, Bailey & Glasser, The Masters Law Firm, Smith Stag, Underwood Law Office, Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, The Law Office of P. Rodney Jackson and Ciccarello, De Giudice & LaFon. The filing also asks Copenhaver to approve "incentive awards" of $15,000 for 11 people and businesses that served as class representatives in federal court. For more information, people can visit the settlement website at www.wvwaterclaims.com or by calling 855-829-8121. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number: 2:14-cv-01374 XOMA CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss "Markette" Case Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- XOMA Corporation 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 case, Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al., remains pending. On June 9, 2017, a Supplemental Brief regarding the Order in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint was filed by Joseph Tarzia. In addition, a Supplemental Brief regarding the Order in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was filed by Kelvin M. Neu, Paul D. Rubin, John Varian, XOMA. On July 24, 2015, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Markette v. XOMA Corp., et al. (Case No. 3:15-cv-3425) against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Medical Officer. The complaint asserts that all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements regarding the Company's EYEGUARD-B study between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that Messrs. Varian and Rubin violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 8, 2016 asserting the same claims and adding a former director as a defendant. On September 2, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice the amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 7, 2016. Defendants filed a reply on October 21, 2016. The judge in the case has advised that he will rule on the motion based on those pleadings, but has not yet issued a ruling. Based on a review of allegations, the Company believes that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Currently, the Company does not believe that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition, although an unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations for the period in which such a loss is recognized. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from this lawsuit. XOMA Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has a long history of discovering and developing innovative therapeutics derived from its unique platform of antibody technologies. YUM! BRANDS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Wage and Hour Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, 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 the case, In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions, engaged in settlement negotiations and have agreed in principle to dismiss the appeals and settle the matter. The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also sought penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well as statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011, the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms were mailed on January 21, 2014. Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim, the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty claim were tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 claim. On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco Bell on the PAGA claims and the Sec. 17200 claim. In a separate ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. Plaintiffs also filed various post-trial motions. On July 15, 2016, the court denied Taco Bell's motion to overturn the verdict. The court denied Plaintiffs' motions: (1) for a new trial, (2) for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the verdicts in favor of Taco Bell, (3) challenging the jury instructions and special verdict forms, and (4) to overturn the court's rejection of the Sec. 17200 claims for meal and rest break violations. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motions for additional costs and for enhanced awards to two of the named Plaintiffs. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the Sec. 17200 claim regarding the underpaid meal premium claim, but rejected awarding any additional damages, finding that the jury verdict sufficiently compensated the class. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, but awarded only approximately $1.1 million of the $7.3 million requested. The court also granted Plaintiffs' bill of costs, but only awarded approximately $0.1 million of Plaintiffs' $0.2 million. Thereafter, both Plaintiffs and Taco Bell timely filed notices of appeal and the matter is now before the Ninth Circuit. Subsequently, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and have agreed in principle to dismiss the appeals and settle the matter. The parties are drafting a final written settlement agreement and, in the event the appeals are dismissed, the parties will then move the District Court to amend the judgment to include a list of class members and a method for division of the verdict. The proposed settlement amount has been accrued in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, and the anticipated associated cash payments are not expected to be material. Yum! Brands, Inc. operates or franchises a worldwide system of more than 43,500 restaurants in 136 countries and territories, primarily through the concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. These three concepts are the global leaders in the chicken, pizza and Mexican-style food categories, respectively. Of the more than 43,500 restaurants, 6% are operated by the Company and unconsolidated affiliates and 94% are operated by franchisees. ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Motion Pending in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017, that there is one discovery motion pending in a class action lawsuit that could, if granted, reopen fact discovery. In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions ("Symbol"). A putative federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al., was filed on August 16, 2005 against Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Robert Waring. After the filing of the Waring action, several additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and the same former officers making substantially similar allegations (collectively, the New Class Actions"). The Waring action and the New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on April 26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as defendants. The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiff alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures and seeks unspecified damages. The court has certified a class of investors that includes those that purchased Symbol common stock between March 12, 2004 and August 1, 2005. The parties have substantially completed fact and expert discovery. However, there is one (1) discovery motion pending that could, if granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held in abeyance all other deadlines, including the deadline for the filing of dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial. The current lead Directors and Officers ("D&O") insurer continues to maintain its position of not agreeing to reimburse defense costs incurred by the Company in connection with this matter, and the Company disputes the position taken by the current D&O insurer. Zebra Technologies Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries ("Zebra" or the "Company") designs, manufactures, sells, and supports a broad range of direct thermal and thermal transfer label printers, radio frequency identification printer/encoders, dye sublimation card printers, real-time locating solutions, related accessories, and support software. These products are used principally in automatic identification (auto ID), data collection and personal identification applications and are distributed world-wide through a network of resellers, distributors, and end- users representing a wide cross-section of industrial, service, and government organizations. * CFPB Adopts Rule Prohibiting Class Action Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------- Amie Tsang, writing for The New York Times, reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the United States has opened the door to more class-action lawsuits against lenders -- and in so doing, set itself up for a fight with Republicans. The agency has adopted a rule prohibiting financial firms from forcing consumers into arbitration in disputes over bank and credit card accounts. The new rule, which could take effect next year, would allow individuals to band together in class-action lawsuits that could cost banks and other financial firms billions of dollars. But it is the sort of move that will probably anger the Trump administration and House Republicans. Both have pushed to rein in the bureau as part of broader efforts to lighten regulation on the financial industry. Critics also say the rule would be nothing more than a gift to class-action lawyers. But it may be tricky politically for Republicans to kill a rule that has wide populist appeal. Across the country, judges, prosecutors and regulators have criticized arbitration clauses for allowing corporations to circumvent the courts and for taking away tools to fight abusive business practices. The Labor Department's June 7, 2017 withdrawal of that informal guidance is an encouraging sign that the new administration intends to follow a modified approach on worker classification. But the regulatory standards for "employee" still remain far from clear or uniform. In reaction to the Supreme Court's invention of an economic- realities test for determining who is an "employee" under federal labor laws, Congress amended two New-Deal statutes, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Social Security Act, to reinstate the common-law agency test for classifying workers. The Obama-era NLRB, motivated by DOL's successful crusade against independent contracting, essentially ignored the NLRA's more restrictive standard of employment when targeting employers. On numerous occasions (see, e.g., a WLF Legal Opinion Letter on Crew One Productions v. NLRB and a WLF blog post on FedEx Home Delivery v. NLRB), federal courts shut down NLRB enforcement actions for exceeding statutory authority. Congress did not, however, amend the third major New Deal labor law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, which defines "employee" as "any individual employed by an employer." That circular definition opened the door to broad judicial interpretation, which in turn allowed DOL to utilize an extreme version of the Supreme Court's economic-realities test. Congressional action on the FLSA would complete the harmonization of how agencies categorize workers under the major federal labor laws that Congress started over 70 years ago. It would require DOL to utilize the common-law agency test when enforcing the FLSA, while also forestalling future labor regulators' attempts to reinstate broader standards for defining "employee." In addition to explicitly adopting the common-law test, an FLSA amendment would have to include a provision that preempts all substantially similar state, city, and county laws that address worker categorization. Absent federal preemption, some state and local regulators will continue to foment uncertainty over who is an "employee," and plaintiffs' lawyers will keep doing the same through class-action litigation. All stakeholders involved in the regulation of worker categorization would benefit from a harmonized test based on the common law. Government regulators would finally all be on the same page when determining labor laws' applicability. Employers would gain desperately needed legal predictability, reducing their compliance costs and altering the risk-benefit calculus they undertake when considering independent contractors. And most importantly, clear legal standards would encourage more businesses to hire independent contractors, and inspire the creation of new gig-economy companies organized around the independent-contractor model. [GN] * Issue Over Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Brenda L. Rosales, Esq. -- rosalesb@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that employers in the gaming and hospitality arena are eagerly awaiting the results of the upcoming changes to the legal landscape that are expected to emerge from a business-oriented administration. These employers have long tried to reduce the costs and length of litigation, particularly in the context of wage and hour claims, by requiring employees to arbitrate work-related disputes on a bilateral, rather than collective or class-wide, basis. The Trump administration has already begun to change course regarding the legality of class action waivers, which is affecting employers in dozens of cases. In a rather expected move, the Department of Justice now says it no longer believes that class action waivers in arbitration agreements infringe upon workers' Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). On June 16, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., which oral arguments on this issue are scheduled for October. The DOJ's brief argues that, "Nothing in the NLRA's legislative history indicates that Congress intended to bar enforcement of arbitration agreements like those at issue here . . . And while the National Labor Relations Board's ("NLRB" or "Board") reading of ambiguous NLRA language is entitled to judicial deference, the Board's analysis of the interplay between the NLRA and the FAA is not." The DOJ acknowledges that it previously filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on behalf of the NLRB, but that after the change in administration, it reconsidered the issue and has reached the opposite conclusion. The saga started in January 2012 with the controversial ruling in D.R. Horton, Inc., in which the Board ruled that agreements between an employer and its individual employees interfere with the employees' right to engage in concerted activities if the agreements require arbitration of work-related disputes on a bilateral rather than collective or class wide basis. This issue has created a split among the circuit courts. On review, the Fifth Circuit rejected the Board's D.R. Horton analysis and held that enforcement of the challenged arbitration agreement would not deny a party any statutory right because the use of class action procedures is not a substantive right under the NLRA. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have disagreed. In Epic Systems Corporations v. Jacob Lewis, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that an arbitration agreement requiring employees to waive the right to participate in a class proceeding was invalid and unenforceable under the NLRA. In a similar case, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's order granting an employer's motion to compel bilateral arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held that the NLRA gives employees a "right to pursue work-related legal claims together" and that the employer had violated that right by requiring employees to resolve their legal claims in separate arbitration proceedings. Most recently, the NLRB's General Counsel reaffirmed the Board's prior decision in D.R. Horton, Inc., notwithstanding the Fifth Circuit's ruling rejecting that decision, by issuing a complaint against Murphy Oil USA, Inc. for requiring its employees to waive their rights to commence or participate in a class action. In October, the Supreme Court will address this split among the circuits and hear Murphy Oil, Epic Systems, and the Ninth Circuit case. Notably, on June 16, the NLRB announced that the Acting Solicitor General of the United States has authorized the NLRB to represent itself at the hearing. The General Counsel's office, headed up by Richard F. Griffin, Jr. until his term ends in November, will represent the Board. It is unclear whether the DOJ will face off with the General Counsel, given its new take on this issue. It is currently unclear how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this issue in October, or what effect the Department of Justice's new position will have on its ultimate ruling. Either way, it is likely that employers will soon have new guidance on whether class waivers in arbitration agreements infringe upon workers' Section 7 rights. Shortly after the hearing, President Trump is expected to nominate a new General Counsel whose views will certainly align with the business-friendly Trump administration. While we wait for the Supreme Court's ruling and at least until Griffin's term ends, employers should continue to consult counsel when considering including class waivers in their arbitration agreements. [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 * * *