/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171027.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 213 Headlines 94 CORNER: Faces "Varela-Itzmoyotl" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT AARON'S INC: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Spying Software Suit AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Underway AARON'S INC: Briefing on Motion for Summary Judgment Pending ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suit over Improper Fees Pending AFC INDUSTRIES: Nandram Filed Suit Over Delayed Wages ALTICE USA: Settlement in Cablevision Consumer Suit Pending ARCADIA RECOVERY: "Vullings Disputes Collection Letter ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Suit over Sterling Merger Remains Pending AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Suit over Edgewater Fire Underway AVID TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss "Mohanty" Case Underway AVID TECHNOLOGY: Says $40,000 Paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel AVISTA CORP: "Jen" Suit Seeks to Block Hydro One Merger BASSAM ARAFA: "Wolfe" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages BIOAMBER INC: Securities Class Action Underway in New York CAMBREX CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid to Reduce Damages Award Pending CARSON WILD WINGS: Ortega Seeks OT Pay, Paystubs, Reimbursements CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Expect Case Dismissal by Early 2018 CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces "French" Lawsuit CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Await Trial in Kansas Suit CHICAGO, IL: Court Grants Conyers' Bid for Class Certification CHL INC: King Wants Certification of Workers Class Under FLSA CIGNA CORP: Reconsideration Motion Pending in Pension Plan Case CIGNA CORP: Still Faces Franco v. Connecticut General Suit CITIZENS INC: "Gamboa" Class Action Remains Pending CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: "Mederos" Suit Seeks Paystubs, OT Wages CTI BIOPHARMA: Dec. 15 Hearing on $20 Million Deal DOORDASH INC: "Austin" Suit Seeks Wage Payments, Reimbursements EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Seeks Approval of "Harbin" Suit Settlement EQUIFAX GROUP: "Lagasse" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages EQUIFAX GROUP: "Mead" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages FARMERS INSURANCE: DeLuca Moves to Certify Class of Investigators FEDEX GROUND: "Anderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Granted FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba's Cert. Bid Denied Over Settlement Talks GEICO INDEMNITY: Faces Tower Health Suit in S. Dist. Fla. GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Fluker Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Court Denies Chruby's Bid to Certify 4 Classes GREENCORE USA: "Diaz" Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention GREENLY: "Davis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties HEALTH INSURANCE: Defending Against TCPA Lawsuits HUTCHISON TREE: Berber's Cert. Bid Denied Due to Settlement Talks HYATT EQUITIES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Guarisma" Suit IC SYSTEM: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Wise" Class Suit INDUS INVESTMENTS: "Haddadin" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime INSTAFF INC: "Pelaez" Claims Overtime, Reimbursements, Paystubs INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $354,000,000 Accord Wins Final Court OK INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Ashley Furniture Suit Underway in Tennessee ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS: Brna Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement JOHN D CLUNK: Rainier May Refile Bid to Certify Class, Court says LEVEL 3: Settlement of Rights-of-Way Litigation Pending MATCH GROUP: "McCloskey" Class Action Ongoing in Texas MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: "Robinson" Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. MDL 2796: "Lewis" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California MG SECURITY: Denied Gibbons Overtime, Wage Statements MICRO MATIC: Doritty Wants to Notify Class of Workers, Applicants MIDLAND CREDIT: Court OKs 2nd Bid to Certify Class in Pierre Suit MILLER AND STEENO: Court Strikes Dilallo's Bid to Certify Class NATIONAL ACCOUNT: "Larsen" Disputes Collection Letter OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Class Action Awaiting Court's Decision OMNITRITION INT'L: "Pattison" Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Securities Action Pending in New York ORBITAL ATK: Dismissal of "Knurr" Class Action Sought PACCAR INC: Petition to Certify Class Action Filed PASADENA CITY: "Komesar" Hits Excessive Taxes on Electricity Bill PETER PIPER: "Jacobson" Litigation in Earliest Stages PHIA GROUP: "Weyant" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages PHILADELPHIA, PA: Thornton Files Class Action v. Sheriff's Office PHILADELPHIA, PA: DOC Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation POST HOLDINGS: Class Action Appeal Still Ongoing QUALITY THERAPY: Kondati's Bids to Certify and Set Notice Tossed R.L. VALLEE: "Kent" Seeks Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum RAYONIER INC: Says Insurers Fully Funded Settlement Payment REGENCY VILLAGE: Ridley Seeks to Certify Nurses Class Under FLSA RLJ LODGING TRUST: Facing Assad or Bagheri Lawsuits RODEO REALTY: "Crosley" Suit Seeks Penalties, Reimbursements SAN DIEGO, CA: City Employees Seek to Recover Overtime Premium SND OPERATING: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Odenbaugh" Suit SONIC CORP: Ramirez Files Suit Over Stolen Personal Info SOUTH CAROLINA: DOC Sued Over Civil Rights Acts Violation SPARK ENERGY: Initial Discovery Ongoing in "Melville" Suit SPARK ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in Suit by Veilleux and Chon SPARK ENERGY: Court Orders Briefing in Suit by Gillis et al. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Ayeni and Hartsock Cases Consolidated STATE STREET: Securities Suit over Invoicing Matters Ongoing STEAKHOUSE EXPRESS: "Packard" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay STONERIDGE INC: Royal Moves for Prelim. OK of Class Settlement SUNTRUST BANKS: Trial Court to Reconsider Motion in "Bickerstaff" SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Company Stock Class Suit SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Says Class Suit Pending in Indiana SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Objectors Fail to Launch Appeal TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Allen" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Bright" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. TAISHAN GYPSUM: "DeOliveira" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Lochhead" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Mertlitz" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. TOTAL RENAL: Brewster Sues Over Missed Breaks, Missing Paystubs TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL: Sued in M.D. Fla. Over Automated Calls U.S. BANCORP: Visa Litigation Proceeding in District Court U.S. GOVERNMENT: Faces "Tita" Class Suit in Federal Claims Court UBER TECH: "Sienkaniec" Hits Misclassification, Claims Benefits UGI CORP: Says AmeriGas Partners Satisfied Case Judgment UGI CORP: Eighth Circuit Appeal in Consumer Suit Ongoing USAA LIFE INSURANCE: "Spegele" Sues Over Excessive Charges VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Defends 3 Class Suits WELCH FOODS: "Hall" Class Suit Removed to East. Dist. New York WELLS FARGO: 3 ATM Access Fee Cases Returned to District Court WELLS FARGO: Discovery Proceeding in Remanded Class Suits WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Order of Posting Litigation Ongoing WELLS FARGO: RMBS Trustee Litigation Still Pending WELLS FARGO: Hearing on "Jabbari" Settlement Set for Q1 2018 WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Suits over Amazon.com Merger XTO ENERGY: Amount Charged to Trust Not Yet Determined * JND's Keough Named Female Entrepreneur of the Year Finalist Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Junks Synergy Suits vs. Ligett ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phase I Discovery Underway in Smoker Actions ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Has $606.1MM Asbestos Liability as of July 1 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 19 Cases at July 2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Settlement Obligation Estimated at $364MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: PC Trust Reaches Deal with Asbestos Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japanese Gov't. Responsible for Asbestos Damage ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talc User's Body Had Asbestos, Jury Hears ASBESTOS UPDATE: Butte Contractor Sues Montana DEQ Over Disposal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Flips Summary Ruling in Colgate Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Justices to Weigh Coverage Gap Quandary ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wants Maine Law to Govern Exposure Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Urges Court to Chuck $8MM Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talcum Powder Suit Trials Continue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns $5MM Verdict in Cancer Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Can Be Liable for Secondary Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Against Allegheny Man to be Dropped ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Settle Removal Claims in New Bedford Park ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at Council Depot ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Women Become Victims of Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon No Duty to Reimburse Defense Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Released From "Savoie" Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment Denied in "Belac" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss "Doolin" Asbestos Suit ********* 94 CORNER: Faces "Varela-Itzmoyotl" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Mariano Varela-Itzmoyotl, on behalf of others similarly situated v. 94 Corner Cafe Corp. d/b/a 94 Corner Cafe, Mohinder Singh, Alejandro Doe, and Balwinder Singh a/k/a Rocky, Case No. 1:17-cv-07620 (S.D.N.Y., October 5, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 2518 Broadway, New York, NY 10025. [BN] Jose Mariano Varela-Itzmoyotl is a pro se plaintiff. AARON'S INC: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Spying Software Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- RJ Vogt, writing for Law360, reported that Pennsylvania Federal Judge Cathy Bissoon in September 2017 denied class certification to customers alleging that Aaron' s Inc. and a franchisee used spying software on computers it leased, saying that the group's latest attempt at a class definition still lacks sufficient cohesiveness among class members. Judge Bissoon adopted the August recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, who agreed with Aaron's franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises Inc.'s argument against Crystal and Brian Byrd's expanded class definition. Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called "PC Rental Agent." Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeks an injunction, and names additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, but denied the Company's motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class certification. On January 24, 2017, final briefs were submitted on the remand of plaintiffs' motion for class certification with the District Court, and oral arguments were held on March 30, 2017. The Court's decision is pending. Aaron's, Inc. is an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase solutions. AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending in the lawsuit by Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow. In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages as well as certification of a putative California class. In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court. In May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied in July 2015. On May 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining single plaintiff case. The briefing on that motion was completed in late June 2017, and it remains pending. Aaron's, Inc. is an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase solutions. AARON'S INC: Briefing on Motion for Summary Judgment Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that briefing on the Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining single plaintiff case remains pending. In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiffs' law firm's clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The Court has dismissed all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court denied on January 25, 2017. On May 5, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the remaining single plaintiff case. The briefing on that motion was completed in late June 2017, and it remains pending. Aaron's, Inc. is an omnichannel provider of lease-purchase solutions. ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suit over Improper Fees Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit over improper fees. In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014 in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014. In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel, administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries, as a consolidated entity, is a nonhazardous solid waste services company providing collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services to customers in the South, Midwest and Eastern regions of the United States. AFC INDUSTRIES: Nandram Filed Suit Over Delayed Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Balram Nandram, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. A.F.C. Industries Inc., Defendants, Case No. 713323/2017 (N.Y. Sup., September 21 2017), seeks maximum liquidated damages and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly as well as costs and attorneys' fees incurred pursuant to New York Labor Law. A.F.C. Industries Inc. is engaged in the business of furniture designing, development and manufacturing located at 13-16 133 RD Place, College Point, NY 11356, where Plaintiff was employed as a manual laborer. Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 355-9668 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com ALTICE USA: Settlement in Cablevision Consumer Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Altice USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the settlement in the case, In re Cablevision Consumer Litigation, remains subject to Court approval. Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and carriage was restored. Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On May 30, 2014, the Court approved the form of class notice, and on October 7, 2014, approved the class notice distribution plan. The class notice distribution has been completed, and the opt-out period expired on February 27, 2015. Expert discovery commenced on May 5, 2014, and concluded on December 8 and 28, 2015, when the Court ruled on the pending expert discovery motions. On January 26, 2016, the Court approved a schedule for filing of summary judgment motions. Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2016. The Company filed its own summary judgment motion on June 13, 2016. The motions for summary judgment have been denied with leave to re-file in the event the discussions between the parties are not successful. The parties have entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to Court approval. As of December 31, 2016, the Company had an estimated liability associated with a potential settlement totaling $5,200,000. During the six months ended June 30, 2017, the Company recorded an additional liability of $800,000. The amount ultimately paid in connection with the proposed settlement could exceed the amount recorded. Altice completed its acquisition of Cablevision on June 21, 2016. ARCADIA RECOVERY: "Vullings Disputes Collection Letter ------------------------------------------------------ Michelle W. Vullings, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arcadia Recovery Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04361 (E.D. Pa., September 29, 2016), seeks actual and statutory damages, declaratory relief, reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses, plus costs of suit and such additional and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Arcadia is a debt collection agency who sent a collection letter to the Plaintiff in an attempt to collect a debt. Vullings disputes the terms used in the said letter which seeks to allegedly confuse the Plaintiff as to whether to call or write if the validity of the debt or any portion thereof is disputed. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent F. Vullings, Esq. VULLINGS LAW GROUP, LLC 3953 Ridge Pike, Suite 102 Collegeville, PA 19426 Tel: (610) 489-6060 Fax: (610) 489-1997 Email: bvullings@vullingslaw.com ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Suit over Sterling Merger Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Astoria Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend Sterling Merger-related Litigation. On March 6, 2017, Astoria entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Sterling Bancorp, a Delaware corporation. Following the announcement of the execution of the Sterling Merger Agreement, a number of lawsuits challenging the proposed Sterling Merger were filed: (1) MSS 1209 Trust v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., Index No. 602161/2017, filed March 13, 2017 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, or the MSS Action; (2) Parshall v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02165, filed April 10, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or the Parshall Action; (3) Minzer v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 2017-0284, filed April 12, 2017 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, or the Minzer Action; (4) O'Connell v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., Index No. 603703/2017, filed April 28, 2017 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, or the O'Connell Action, and together with the MSS Action and the Minzer Action, the State Court Actions; and (5) Jenkins v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02608, filed May 2, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or the Jenkins Action, and together with the Parshall Action, the Federal Actions. Collectively, the State Court Actions and the Federal Actions are referred to as the Class Actions. Each of these lawsuits is a putative class action filed on behalf of stockholders of Astoria and names as defendants Astoria, its directors and Sterling. The plaintiffs in the State Court Actions generally allege that the directors of Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the Sterling Merger Agreement because they failed to properly value Astoria and to take steps to maximize value to Astoria's public stockholders, resulting in inadequate merger consideration. The plaintiffs in the State Court Actions further variously allege that (i) the directors of Astoria approved the Sterling Merger through a flawed sales process, alleging the absence of a competitive sales process and that the process was tainted by certain alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the Astoria directors; and (ii) the directors of Astoria breached their fiduciary duties because they agreed to unreasonable deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Astoria. The plaintiffs in the State Court Actions further allege that Sterling aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the Astoria Board of Directors. The plaintiffs in the Federal Actions variously allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating a registration statement that omitted material information with respect to the Sterling Merger. The plaintiffs in the O'Connell Action and the Minzer Action also allege that the registration statement is materially misleading. Plaintiffs in the Class Actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed Sterling Merger, additional disclosure, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages if the Sterling Merger is consummated, and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On June 6, 2017, Astoria, Sterling and the plaintiffs in the Class Actions entered into a memorandum of understanding, or the MOU, which provides for the settlement of the Class Actions. The MOU contemplates, among other things, that Astoria would make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Sterling Merger. Although the defendants deny the allegations made in the Class Actions and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to minimize the distraction, burden, risk and expense of further litigation and in order to avoid any possible delay in the closing of the proposed Sterling Merger, Astoria agreed to make such supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU, which supplemental disclosures were made in Exhibit 99.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Astoria with the SEC on June 7, 2017. Furthermore, pursuant to the MOU, plaintiffs in the Minzer Action, the Parshall Action and the Jenkins Action voluntarily dismissed their respective actions without prejudice. In addition, on April 26, 2017, a separate putative class action challenging the proposed Sterling Merger, Garfield v. Sterling Bancorp, et al., Index No. 031888/2017, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland, or the Garfield Action. This lawsuit was brought on behalf of the stockholders of Sterling and names Sterling, its directors and Astoria as defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Astoria aided and abetted a breach of the Sterling directors' fiduciary duty of candor by jointly filing a materially deficient and misleading proxy statement. Sterling and Astoria agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Sterling Merger, which supplemental disclosures were made in Exhibit 99.2 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Astoria with the SEC on June 7, 2017, in contemplation of a potential settlement of the Garfield Action. On June 30, 2017, Sterling, Astoria and the plaintiffs in the Garfield Action entered into a Stipulation and Settlement, or the Garfield Stipulation, pursuant to which, in addition to the supplemental disclosures made on June 7, 2017, Sterling agreed, subject to final court approval, to pay to plaintiffs' counsel a fixed amount in full settlement of the plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and expenses. Although the defendants in the Garfield Action continue to deny the allegations made in the Garfield Action, they have nevertheless agreed to enter into the Garfield Stipulation in order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation. On May 15, 2017, another putative class action, Karp v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., Index No. 604286/2017, was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, or the Karp Action, challenging the proposed Sterling Merger on substantially similar grounds as the other State Court Actions. Plaintiffs in the Karp Action seek similar remedies as the plaintiffs in the State Court Actions, as well as an order enjoining individual defendants from initiating any defensive measures or taking other actions that would allegedly inhibit their ability to maximize value for Astoria stockholders. Following the execution of the MOU, on July 10, 2017, Astoria, Sterling and the plaintiffs in the Karp Action entered into a Stipulation as to Scheduling and Acceptance of Service, or the Stipulation, pursuant to which the defendants' time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the Karp Action has been extended indefinitely pending the outcome of any settlement approval process pursuant to the MOU. The defendants continue to believe that all of these actions are without merit. Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated statement of financial condition at June 30, 2017 with respect to these matters. The settlements contemplated by the MOU and the Garfield Stipulation are subject to confirmatory discovery and customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Astoria's and Sterling's stockholders, respectively. If the settlements are finally approved by the court, they will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Astoria and Sterling challenging any aspect of the Sterling Merger, the Sterling Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlements. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlements contemplated by the MOU and the Garfield Stipulation. If the court does not approve either or both of the settlements, or if the settlements are otherwise disallowed or terminated by plaintiffs or defendants, to the extent provided for therein, the proposed settlements may become null and void. If the MOU and/or the Garfield Stipulation is terminated, no assurance can be given at this time that the litigation against us will be resolved in our favor, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material. AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Suit over Edgewater Fire Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that trial was slated to begin October 2, 2017, in the 19 consolidated lawsuits related to the Edgewater apartment fire. In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at Edgewater apartment community located in Edgewater, New Jersey ("Edgewater"). Edgewater consisted of two residential buildings. One building, containing 240 apartment homes, was destroyed. The second building, containing 168 apartment homes, suffered minimal damage and has been repaired. The Company has established protocols for processing claims from third parties who suffered losses as a result of the fire, and many third parties have contacted the Company's insurance carrier and settled their claims. Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company on behalf of occupants of the destroyed building and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a settlement which provides a claims process (with agreed upon protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to evaluate claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to determine damage amounts to be paid to individual claimants covered by the class settlement. In July 2017 the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and all claims were required to be submitted to the independent claims adjuster by September 11, 2017. A total of 66 units (consisting of residents who did not previously settle their claims and who did not opt out of the class settlement) are included in the class action settlement and bound by its terms. A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was filed against the Company on behalf of residents of the second Edgewater building that suffered minimal damage. In addition to the class action lawsuits, 20 lawsuits representing approximately 150 individual plaintiffs have been filed and are currently pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County - Law Division. All of these state court cases, except for one that was recently filed, have been consolidated by the court. All of these plaintiffs, except for two, formally opted out of the class action settlement and have decided to continue their individual actions. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the extent of damages claimed in all of the suits. The 19 consolidated lawsuits currently have a trial date of October 2, 2017. There are also five subrogation lawsuits that have been filed against the Company by insurers of Edgewater residents who obtained renters insurance; it is the Company's position that in the majority of the applicable leases the residents waived subrogation rights. One of these lawsuits has been dismissed on that basis and the other four have been consolidated and are currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District Court denied the Company's motions seeking dismissal on this basis. The Company will reassess the viability of this defense after conducting additional discovery. Having settled many third party claims through the insurance claims process, the Company currently believes that any potential remaining liability to third parties (including any potential liability to third parties determined in accordance with the class settlement described above) will not be material to the Company and will in any event be substantially covered by the Company's insurance policies. However, the Company can give no assurances in this regard and continues to evaluate this matter. AvalonBay Communities is a Maryland corporation that has elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT") for federal income tax purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"). The Company focuses on the development, redevelopment, acquisition, ownership and operation of multifamily communities primarily in New England, the New York/New Jersey metro area, the Mid-Atlantic, the Pacific Northwest, and Northern and Southern California. AVID TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss "Mohanty" Case Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the case, Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc., is not yet scheduled for trial. On August 21, 2017, a "Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss" for failure to state a claim was filed by Avid Technology, Louis Hernandez, Jr., and Ilan Sidi. In November 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-12336) against the Company and certain of its executive officers seeking unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 4, 2016 and November 9, 2016, inclusive. The complaint purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws as a result of alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint's allegations relate generally to the Company's disclosure surrounding the level of implementation of the Company's Avid NEXIS solution product offerings. On February 7, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel in the matter. On June 14, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the action. The matter is not yet scheduled for trial. Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports software and hardware for digital media content production, management and distribution. AVID TECHNOLOGY: Says $40,000 Paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel --------------------------------------------------------- Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the parties in a stockholder lawsuit have agreed to a payment by Avid to plaintiffs' counsel of $40 thousand in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses. On March 15, 2017, Danae Georges, a stockholder of the Company, filed a class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Action") against the Company and our board members alleging that Article III, Section 6 of the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws (the "Bylaws") violated Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL"). This section of the Bylaws required that (unless otherwise required by Delaware law) the Company's directors could be removed by the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 66 2/3% of the voting power of the outstanding common stock of the Company entitled to vote in the election of directors. The Action sought to lower that threshold to a simple majority of the voting power of the Company's outstanding common stock. The Company's position was that the bylaw was consistent with Delaware law but to avoid the expense of continued litigation, on March 30, 2017, our Board of Directors approved an amendment to Article III, Section 6 of the Company's Bylaws, lowering the threshold voting requirement for the removal of directors from 66 2/3% to a majority of the voting power of the outstanding common stock of the Company entitled to vote in the election of directors. This amendment effectively mooted the Action. On May 1, 2017, the Court of Chancery entered an order dismissing the Action and retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of ruling on the plaintiff's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. The parties subsequently agreed to a payment by Avid to plaintiffs' counsel of $40 thousand in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Court of Chancery has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, this payment. Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports software and hardware for digital media content production, management and distribution. AVISTA CORP: "Jen" Suit Seeks to Block Hydro One Merger ------------------------------------------------------- Matthias Jen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Avista Corporation, Erik J. Anderson, Kristianne Blake, Don Burke, Rebecca A. Klein, Scott H. Maw, Scott Morris, Marc Racicot, Heidi B. Stanley, R. John Taylor and Janet Widmann, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00333, (E.D. Wash, September 25, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Avista by Hydro One Limited, awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Avista and Hydro One issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Olympus Holding Corp., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Hydro One and Olympus Corp., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Hydro One would acquire all of Avista's outstanding stock for $53.00 per share in cash. Transaction has a total value of approximately $5.3 billion. The complaint says the merger documents omitted the company's financial projections and the analyses critical from Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. in evaluating the offer price. Avista is primarily an electric and natural gas utility. Avista provides utility operations in the Pacific Northwest and Juneau, Alaska. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 Facsimile: (206) 652-8290 Email: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 Facsimile: (202) 333-2121 Email: denright@zlk.com etripodi@zlk.com BASSAM ARAFA: "Wolfe" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Melissa Wolfe and Misty Johnson, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bassam Arafa, Monticello Seafood Eatery, Inc., Whitehall Seafood, Inc., Wynne Seafood & More, Inc. and Forrest City Seafood, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00245 (E.D. Ark., September 26, 2017), seeks monetary and liquidated damages prejudgment interest and civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Defendants own and/or operate several restaurants under the name "Sam's Southern Eatery" throughout Eastern Arkansas where Plaintiffs worked as servers at Defendant's Monticello location. Plaintiff is represented by: Steve Rauls, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. Sanford Law Firm, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BIOAMBER INC: Securities Class Action Underway in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- BioAmber Inc. continues to defend a putative securities class action in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. On March 18, 2017, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and Messrs. Jean-Francois Huc, Fabrice Orecchioni and Mario Saucier in federal district court in New York alleging violations of the U.S. Exchange Act and the U.S. Securities Act. "The complaint principally alleges that the prospectus for our January 2017 follow-on public offering failed to disclose the postponement of a large customer order. The Company believes the suit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend it. The potential loss is therefore remote," the Company said. BioAmber is an industrial biotechnology company producing renewable chemicals. CAMBREX CORP: Plaintiffs' Bid to Reduce Damages Award Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Cambrex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs' motion to reduce the damages award by a total of $9,600,000 is pending before the District Court. In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court"). Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate). All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the total amount of $19,200,000, payable jointly and severally, and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount of $16,709,000. In addition, at the time, the District Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500,000 in prejudgment interest. The case is currently pending before the District Court following a January 2011 remand by the Court of Appeals. In July 2014, the District Court dismissed certain customers for which the plaintiffs were unable to establish jurisdiction and consequently, the plaintiffs currently have a motion pending before the District Court to reduce the damages award by a total of $9,600,000. CARSON WILD WINGS: Ortega Seeks OT Pay, Paystubs, Reimbursements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jasmin Ortega, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly- situated, Plaintiff, v. Carson Wild Wings, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC677389, (Cal. Super., September 26, 2017), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to pay earned wages, sick leaves, minimum wages, overtime compensation, meal/rest breaks; failure to provide itemized and accurate wage statements; and for wages not timely paid upon termination and reimbursement of business-related expenses under the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code. Carson Wild Wings operates Buffalo Wild Wing restaurant locations where Plaintiff worked as an hourly, non-exempt server at their Los Angeles location. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 5723 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (310) 921-7056 Fax: (310) 820-1258 E-Mail: jon@lebelaw.com - and - Rodney Mesriani, Esq. MESRIANI LAW GROUP, APLC 5723 Melrose Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90038 Tel: (310) 826-6300 Fax: (310) 820-1258 E-Mail: rodney@mesriani.com CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Expect Case Dismissal by Early 2018 -------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017, that the parties in the employment-related litigation expect that their settlement will be concluded and the case dismissed by the end of the first quarter of 2018. On October 10, 2014, former venue General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against CEC Entertainment in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly- situated current and former General Managers of CEC Entertainment in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount in damages and to certify a class based on allegations that CEC Entertainment wrongfully classified current and former California General Managers as exempt from overtime protections; that such General Managers worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods, and paid meal periods; and that CEC Entertainment failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements or to pay timely wages upon separation from employment, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff also alleged that CEC Entertainment failed to reimburse General Managers for certain business expenses, including for personal cell phone usage and mileage, in violation of the California Labor Code; he also asserted a claim for civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On December 5, 2014, CEC Entertainment removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On March 16, 2016, the Court issued an order denying in part and granting in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Specifically, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent that he sought to certify a class on Plaintiff's misclassification and wage statement claims, but certified a class with respect to Plaintiff's claims that CEC Entertainment had wrongfully failed to reimburse him for cell phone expenses and/or mileage. On June 14, 2016, the Court dismissed Sinohui's PAGA claim. After participating in mediation on April 19, 2017, the parties agreed to settle all of Sinohui's individual and class claims. Pursuant to the basic terms of their settlement, Sinohui will grant a complete release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that he asserted or could have asserted against the Company, based on the facts that gave rise to the Sinohui Litigation, in exchange for the Company's settlement payment. The parties will present their proposed class settlement to the Court for review and approval during the third quarter of 2017, and expect that the settlement will be concluded and the case dismissed by the end of the first quarter of 2018. "The settlement of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. After the Court in the Sinohui Litigation issued its order denying certification of a class of California-based general managers on misclassification and wage statement claims, six lawsuits were filed against the Company in California state court (the "California General Manager Litigation"). The plaintiffs in these actions include nine current and 12 former California General Managers asserting individual misclassification, wage statement, and expense reimbursement claims. Between December 20, 2016 and April 21, 2017 the Company filed initial responses to each of the lawsuits and removed them all to Federal District Court. As part of the settlement reached by the parties in the Sinohui Litigation, described above, the parties also agreed to settle the California General Manager Litigation. Pursuant to the basic terms of their comprehensive settlement, each of the Plaintiffs will grant a complete release to CEC Entertainment of all claims that he or she asserted or could have asserted against the Company based on the facts that gave rise to the California General Manager Litigation in exchange for the Company's settlement payments to each of them. The parties expect that the comprehensive settlement of these lawsuits will be concluded and each of these cases dismissed by the end of the third quarter of 2017. The settlement of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces "French" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017, that the Company continues to defend the lawsuit by former Technical Manager Kevin French. On January 30, 2017, former Technical Manager Kevin French filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that CEC Entertainment failed to pay overtime wages, failed to issue accurate itemized wage statements, failed to pay wages due upon separation of employment, and failed to reimburse for certain business expenses, including for mileage and personal cell phone usage, in violation of the California Labor Code and federal law. "We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in its earliest stages, the Company does not yet have sufficient information to reach a good faith determination on the Company's potential liability or exposure in the event that its defense is unsuccessful," the Company said. CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Await Trial in Kansas Suit ----------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017, that the District Court has not yet set the litigation related to the merger for trial. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC Entertainment had entered into an agreement ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to which an entity controlled by Apollo Global Management, LLC and its subsidiaries merged with and into CEC Entertainment, with CEC Entertainment surviving the merger ("the Merger"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of CEC Entertainment, against A.P. VIII Queso Holdings, L.P., CEC Entertainment, CEC Entertainment's directors, Apollo and Merger Sub (as defined in the Merger Agreement), in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. These actions were consolidated into one action (the "Consolidated Shareholder Litigation") in March 2014, and on July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action petition was filed as the operative consolidated complaint, asserting claims against CEC's former directors, adding The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant, and removing all Apollo entities as defendants (the "Consolidated Class Action Petition"). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that CEC Entertainment's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC Entertainment's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two members of CEC Entertainment's board who also served as the senior managers of CEC Entertainment had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The Consolidated Class Action Petition seeks, among other things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company assumed the defense of the Consolidated Shareholder Litigation on behalf of CEC's named former directors and Goldman Sachs pursuant to existing indemnity agreements. On March 23, 2016, the Court conducted a hearing on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Petition and on March 1, 2017, the Special Master appointed by the Court issued a report recommending to the Court that the Consolidated Class Action Petition be dismissed in its entirety. On March 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's report and recommendation with the Kansas court and separately filed a motion with the Special Master to amend the complaint as to Goldman Sachs. "We currently await the Special Master's decision on the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The District Court has not yet set this case for trial," the Company said. The Company continues to believe the Consolidated Class Action Petition is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). CHICAGO, IL: Court Grants Conyers' Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on September 28, 2017, in the case titled Blake H Conyers, et al. v. City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06144 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable John J. Tharp Jr. The minute entry states that: -- For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted; and -- A status hearing was set for Thursday, October 12, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vfu8dLPB CHL INC: King Wants Certification of Workers Class Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KEVIN KING v. CHL, INC.; and HOA KEVIN TRAN, Case No. 2:17-cv-03691-SM-JVM (E.D. La.), moves for conditional collective certification and court- authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The collective consists of: All individuals who worked for CHL, Inc., d/b/a CHL Linens, or Hoa Kevin Tran at any time between April 19, 2014 to the present, and who were not paid overtime time-and-half premiums for working more than forty hours in a workweek. Kevin King alleges that CHL, through its control person and co- defendant Hoa Kevin Tran, underpays wages and overtime by paying workers a flat hourly rate for all hours worked, without any overtime premium for working more than 40 hours in a workweek. The Plaintiff further asks that the Court authorize that notice be sent to the members of the collective, that the Court approve the proposed Form of Notice, that the Defendants be ordered to disclose contact information on an expedited basis, and that the Court issue an order equitably tolling the statute of limitations during the pendency of the opt-in period. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DHfRpusK The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Stiegler, Esq. STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC 318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104 New Orleans, LA 70124 Telephone: (504) 267-0777 Facsimile: (504) 513-3084 E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com CIGNA CORP: Reconsideration Motion Pending in Pension Plan Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Plaintiffs in the Amara cash balance pension plan litigation have filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2017 Order. In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre- conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. From 2008 through the present, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members. The court order left several aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits open to interpretation. During 2016, the Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the plaintiffs filed various objections. On January 10, 2017, the District Court issued an additional ruling regarding certain aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits. On July 14, 2017, the District Court ruled on a motion for clarification and reconsideration, clarifying and modifying aspects of the January 10, 2017 Order. The Company's reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at June 30, 2017, based on calculations consistent with the Company's interpretation of the updated guidance from the Court. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2017 Order. The final timing of the resolution of this matter therefore remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to comply with the final interpretation of the District Court's order and the benefits will begin to be paid. Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global health services organization. CIGNA CORP: Still Faces Franco v. Connecticut General Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the case, Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation. In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims. However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global health services organization. CITIZENS INC: "Gamboa" Class Action Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------- Citizens, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit by Juan Gamboa. 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. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL: "Mederos" Suit Seeks Paystubs, OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Suzana Mederos, individually and on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Disposal Services, LLC and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC677379 (Cal. Super., September 26, 2017), seeks redress for failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete, wages not timely paid upon termination and accurate wage statements, reimbursement of necessary business expenses and resulting from unfair business practices and in violation of the California Labor Law provisions of the Business and Professions Code, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees under applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. Mederos was an hourly employee of Consolidated, a solid waste collection and recycling service based in Santa Fe Springs, California, from September 2010 through July 2017, as a customer resource representative, performing call center-type duties. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Singer, Esq. Janine R. Menhennet, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 595-3001 Fax: (619) 595-3000 - and - Jonathan Lebe, Esq. LEBE LAW, APC 5723 Melrose Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90038 Phone: (310) 921-7056 Fax: (310) 820-1258 CTI BIOPHARMA: Dec. 15 Hearing on $20 Million Deal -------------------------------------------------- Dani Kass, writing for Law360, reported that CTI BioPharma Corp. and its executives will pay $20 million to a proposed class of investors for allegedly withholding information about patient deaths during clinical trials for a myelofibrosis drug, which led to a stock drop when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stopped the trials, the investors told a Washington federal court. The proposed class, led by DAFNA LifeScience LP, said in a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and class certification that CTI has agreed to pay following talks with JAMS mediator Jed D. Melnick. The plaintiffs then requested a settlement hearing for Dec. 15. "The parties reached the settlement only after more than a year and half of litigation and good faith, arm's-length negotiations between sophisticated parties and experienced counsel, including extensive mediation conducted by an experienced mediator," the motion states. "Lead plaintiff respectfully submits that the proposed settlement is a very favorable outcome for the settlement class. If approved, the settlement represents a substantial recovery that falls well within the range of possible approval and avoids myriad litigation risks." CTI Biopharma Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company has received a written offer for the global resolution and settlement of the consolidated action, In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, in exchange for cash payment of $20 million. On February 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016, class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv- 01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. C16- 216, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's securities pursuant to our September 24, 2015 public offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired our stock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive. The complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of our current and former directors and officers for violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims allege that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for the September 24, 2015 public offering contained materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including with respect to the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's public disclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading or omitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court on May 19, 2016. On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order to proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016, the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action being captioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL. On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order, as revised by order entered December 8, 2016, setting November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file a consolidated class action complaint and deadlines for briefing defendants' motion to dismiss. Briefing concluded on February 22, 2017. A hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss has not been set. The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims similar to those asserted in the initial complaints, although it no longer asserts claims relating to the September 24, 2015 public offering, but adds claims relating to the Company's October 27, 2015 and December 4, 2015 public offerings. The Company said, "On July 26, 2017, we received a written offer for the global resolution and settlement of the consolidated action in exchange for cash payment of $20 million. The Company has insurance coverage related to this matter and such insurance is expected to cover $18 million of the claim. We have agreed in principle to the terms of the settlement offer and are currently negotiating the terms of a memorandum of understanding with respect to the terms of the settlement offer with the lead plaintiff's representatives. The terms of any final agreement for the settlement of the litigation will be subject to court approval, amongst other customary terms and conditions." CTI is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of novel targeted therapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer a unique benefit to patients and health care providers. DOORDASH INC: "Austin" Suit Seeks Wage Payments, Reimbursements --------------------------------------------------------------- Darnell Austin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Doordash, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17- 3098F filed in the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on September 26, 2017, seeks restitution for all damages due to the Plaintiff because of their misclassification as independent contractors. The suit also seeks statutory trebling of damages, attorneys' fees and costs and interest and any other relief under Massachusetts General Law. DoorDash is a food delivery service that can be scheduled and dispatched through a mobile phone application or through its website from restaurants to customers at their homes and businesses. Austin worked as a delivery driver for DoorDash and claims to be misclassified as an independent contractor. DoorDash failed to reimburse drivers' necessary business expenses such as gas and car maintenance and failed to pay him the Massachusetts minimum wage after accounting for drivers' expenses and excluding their tips, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Adelaide Pagano, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com apagano@llrlaw.com EMERGENCY COVERAGE: Seeks Approval of "Harbin" Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit captioned DUSTIN HARBIN and JIMMY PRUITT, on behalf of plaintiffs and the class defined herein v. EMERGENCY COVERAGE CORPORATION and ACCOUNT RESOLUTION TEAM, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00125-TRM-HBG (E.D. Tenn.), jointly ask the Court to enter an order which: (i) preliminarily approves the Class Settlement Agreement; (ii) certifies for settlement purposes the Settlement Class as defined in Paragraph 10 of the Agreement; (iii) appoints Alan C. Lee, Esq., Peter A. Holland, Esq., and Scott C. Borison, Esq., as Class Counsel; (iv) appoints Plaintiffs as representatives of the Settlement Class; (v) sets dates for Settlement Class members to opt-out of, or object to, the Agreement; (vi) schedules a hearing for final approval of the Agreement; (vii) approves the mailing of notice to Settlement Class members; and (viii) finds that the mailing of such notice satisfies the requirements of due process. The Parties have stipulated to certification of this class for settlement purposes only: (a) All persons sued by Defendants; (b) in the General Session Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee; (c) that had garnishments issued against their wages that included amounts of post-judgment interest or fees that exceeded the amount allowed under Tennessee state law; (d) that made payments to Defendants as a result of the wrongful garnishments issued to their employers by garnishment of wages or direct payment to the clerk between March 16, 2013 and ending on April 5, 2016. The Defendants' business records indicate that there are approximately 136 people in the Settlement Class. The Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and asserts additional claims for restitution and punitive damages under Tennessee law, as a result of allegedly seeking post-judgment interest in requests for issuances of a garnishment that exceeded the amount permitted under Tennessee law. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants will: -- create a class settlement fund of $1,360, which the Class Administrator, First Class, Inc., will distribute a $10 check to each of those Settlement Class Members, who do not exclude themselves; -- pay $1,010 to Plaintiff Dustin Harbin and $1,010 to Plaintiff Jimmy Pruitt for their statutory damages, plus in recognition for their services to the Settlement Class; and -- pay the Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as the Court may award for prosecution of a "successful action." A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=68Kql6iR The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan C. Lee, Esq. P. O. Box 1357 Talbott, TN 37877-1357 Telephone: (423) 581-0924 E-mail: aleeattorney@gmail.com - and - Peter A. Holland, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 914 Bay Ridge Road, Suite 230 Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: (410) 280-6133 Facsimile: (410) 280-8650 E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com - and - Scott C. Borison, Esq. LEGG LAW FIRM, LLC 1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 350 San Mateo, CA 94403 Telephone: (301) 620-1016 Facsimile: (301) 620-1018 E-mail: borison@legglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John M. Lawhorn, Esq. FRANTZ, MCCONNELL & SEYMOUR, LLP 550 West Main Avenue, Suite 500 P. O. Box 39 Knoxville, TN 37901-0039 Telephone: (865) 546-9321 Facsimile: (865) 637-5249 E-mail: jlawhorn@fmsllp.com EQUIFAX GROUP: "Lagasse" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Lagasse and Andrea E. Petrungaro, in behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 03745, (N.D. Ga., September 25, 2017), seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages, costs of suit including the costs of notice of class action certification and judgment, and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from invasion of privacy and violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as information on everything from child support payments, credit limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers and credit card numbers. Klavans claims to be a victim of the data breach. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC are engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN] Steven F. Molo, Esq. Justin B. Weiner, Esq. Megan Cunniff Church, Esq. Daniel Michaeli, Esq. MOLO LAMKEN LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 450-6700 Fax: (312) 450-6701 Email: smolo@mololamken.com jweiner@mololamken.com mchurch@mololamken.com dmichaeli@mololamken.com - and - Benjamin T. Sirolly, Esq. MOLO LAMKEN LLP 600 New Hampshire Ave. NW Washington, DC 20037 Tel: (202) 556-2000 Fax: (202) 556-2001 Email: btsirolly@mololamken.com - and - James E. Butler, Jr., Esq. Joel O. Wooten, Jr., Esq. Joseph M. Colwell, Esq. Ramsey B. Prather, Esq. BUTLER WOOTEN & PEAK LLP 2719 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30324 Tel: (404) 321-1700 Fax: (404) 321-1713 Email: jim@butlerwooten.com joel@butlerwooten.com joseph@butlerwooten.com ramsey@butlerwooten.com - and - Stephen D. Susman, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 651-9366 Fax: (212) 336-8340 Email: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com EQUIFAX GROUP: "Mead" Sues Over Data Breach, Claims Damages ----------------------------------------------------------- Terry Mead and Sean Knute Adcock, in behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Equifax Credit Information Services LLC and Equifax Consumer Services LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00208, (D. Alaska, September 29, 2017), seeks compensatory, statutory, treble and punitive damages, costs of suit including the costs of notice of class action certification and judgment, and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from invasion of privacy and violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and breach duty of care. Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as information on everything from child support payments, credit limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers and credit card numbers. Plaintiffs claim to be victims of the data breach. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services LLC are engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties upon request. [BN] Lee Holen, Esq. LEE HOLEN LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 92330 Anchorage, AK 99509 Telephone: (907) 278-0298 Facsimile: (907) 278-0247 - and - Kevin Sharp, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 611 Commerce St., Suite 3100 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 434-7001 Facsimile: (615) 434-7020 Email: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com - and - Ed Chapin, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1700 San Diego CA 92101 Tel: (619) 577-4253 Fax: (619) 577-4250 Email: echapin2@sanfordheisler.com - and - Danielle Fuschetti, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP 111 Sutter St., Suite 975 San Franscisco CA 94104 Tel: (415) 795-2020 Fax: (415) 795-2021 Email: dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com FARMERS INSURANCE: DeLuca Moves to Certify Class of Investigators ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DAVID DELUCA AND BARRY FRANCIS, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and FARMERS SPECIALITY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00034-EDL (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for certification of this class: All persons who were, are or will be employed by Defendants in the State of California as special investigators, senior special investigators, or general special investigators, other than those in the "Nationals" group, at any time within four (4) years prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint through the date of final disposition of this action who were, are, or will be classified as exempt from overtime pay under applicable law (the "California Rule 23 Class"). On January 4, 2017, Plaintiffs David DeLuca and Barry Francis filed this lawsuit seeking unpaid overtime alleging that Farmers misclassified special investigators as overtime exempt in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law. The Plaintiffs also seek waiting time and wage statement penalties, and premiums for missed meal periods. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on January 9, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9B0ju32D The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (877) 448-0492 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: helland@nka.com dbrome@nka.com - and - Matthew H. Morgan, Esq. Reena I. Desai, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3243 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 E-mail: morgan@nka.com rdesai@nka.com FEDEX GROUND: "Anderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Anderson and Marques T. Sutton, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant, Case No. BC677625 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorney's fees, costs and expenses and penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs claim unpaid wages and interest for all hours worked at minimum wage rate, redress for missed meal periods, statutory penalties for non-issuance of wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment. FedEx is engaged in the business of the delivery of packages nationwide where Plaintiffs worked as package handlers. FedEx allegedly classified its delivery drivers as independent contractors despite various state wage laws ruling otherwise. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott B. Cooper, Esq. Samantha A. Smith, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C. 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250 Irvine, CA 92604 Telephone: (949) 724-9200 Facsimile: (949) 724-9255 Email: samantha@cooper-firm.com scott@cooper-firm.com - and - Amber L. Eck, Esq. Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878 Email: ambere@haelaw.com alreenh@haelaw.com FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit has been granted and all claims have been dismissed with prejudice. The Company as successor to First Clover Leaf, certain former executive officers of First Clover Leaf, and certain former members of First Clover Leaf's board of directors, and the Company are named as defendants in one purported class action lawsuit brought by an alleged individual First Clover Leaf stockholder challenging the merger of First Clover Leaf into the Company (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit is captioned Raul v. Highlander, et al , Case No. 16- L-703, and was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, Third Judicial District. The Lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual officers and directors of First Clover Leaf relating to the process leading to the merger of First Clover Leaf and the Company. The Lawsuit alleges that the merger consideration was inadequate and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus did not contain sufficient disclosures and detail. The Lawsuit also alleges that First Clover Leaf and the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants. On July 12, 2017, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff can appeal this decision prior to August 11, 2017. FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba's Cert. Bid Denied Over Settlement Talks ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Andrea R. Wood denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled SCOTT DOLEMBA v. FORA FINANCIAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10651 (N.D. Ill.). Pursuant to Defendants' agreed motion, the case has been stayed since May 8, 2017, to permit the parties to focus on settlement negotiations, according to the order. The case was set for a settlement conference before the magistrate judge on October 11, 2017. In light of the stay and settlement conference, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied without prejudice. The Court further found that the Plaintiff has preserved all rights with respect to his request for class certification. The Court specifically advises the parties that while the stay remains in place, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the Defendant shall not take any action in an attempt to moot or otherwise impair the Plaintiff's claim or ability to serve as class representative, such as by depositing the full amount of the Plaintiff's claim in an account payable to him. If the settlement conference is unsuccessful, the Plaintiff may request that the motion be reinstated prior to the stay being lifted. To avoid confusion, Judge Wood adds, although the Court's prior order indicated that the stay would remain in place until October 25, 2017, the stay is modified so that it will remain in place until further order of the Court. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F0bOr2sP GEICO INDEMNITY: Faces Tower Health Suit in S. Dist. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company. The case is captioned Tower Health Center, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated other Yesenia Gomez v. GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company, Case No. 0:17-cv-61968-CMA (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2017). GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company offers auto, life, and home insurance solutions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Perez, Esq. Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. ARONOVITZ LAW 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372-2772 Facsimile: (305) 397-1886 E-mail: bp@aronovitzlaw.com ta@aronovitzlaw.com - and - Theophilos George Poulopoulos, Esq. CORREDOR, HUSSEINI AND SNEDAKER, P.A. 9130 South Dadeland Blvd Datran II Center, Suite 1902 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (978) 621-4636 GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Fluker Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention --------------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Fluker, Jr. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition, Inc. and Automatic Data Processing, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-12993, (Ill. Ch., September 26, 2017), seeks statutory damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post- judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Glanbia is a sports nutrition company that produces a wide range of fitness and performance-related food products, such as protein smoothies, energy drinks, and protein bars. Fluker worked for Glanbia as a Quality Operator at one of its Illinois facilities from July 2016 to July 2017. Glanbia uses a biometric time tracking system that requires employees to use their fingerprint as a means of authentication, instead of key fobs or identification cards. Fluker was never informed of the specific limited purposes or length of time for which Glanbia collected, stored or used his fingerprint. Plaintiff was never informed of any biometric data retention policy developed by Glanbia, nor has he been informed of whether Glanbia will ever permanently delete his fingerprint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Sydney M. Janzen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N. LaSalle, 13th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 589-6370 Email: brichman@edelson.com jedelson@edelson.com sjanzen@edelson.com - and - David Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 Fax: (630) 778-0400 Email: fish@fishlawfirm.com jkunze@fishlawfirm.com GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Court Denies Chruby's Bid to Certify 4 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Timothy L. Brooks entered a memorandum opinion and order in the lawsuit styled WALTER CHRUBY, et al. v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, Case No. 5:15-cv-05136-TLB (W.D. Ark.), denying: -- Defendant Global Tel*Link Corporation's motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings; and -- Plaintiffs Walter Chruby, Earl Reese, Stephen Orosz, Sr., Stephen Orosz, Jr., Michael Veon, Stefanie Veon, Lewis Brooks, Jacqueline Jacobs, and Shondra Caldwell's motion for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. In their Motion, the Plaintiffs sought certification of four classes: Unjust Enrichment Class 1: All persons who at any time on or after April 24, 2011 , paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility in Arkansas, California, Indiana, or Vermont, during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls; Unjust Enrichment Class 2: All persons who at any time on or after April 24, 2011, paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, South Dakota, or Virginia , during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls; ADTPA Class: All persons who at any time on or after June 12, 2010: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global T el*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility in Arkansas, during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel *Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any intrastate calls within Arkansas; and UCL Class: All persons who at any time on or after August 28, 2011: (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional facility in California, during a period of time when Global T el *:Link paid the facility a commission of any type in connection with the intrastate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any intrastate calls within California. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M4DxU7iJ GREENCORE USA: "Diaz" Sues Over Biometrics Data Retention --------------------------------------------------------- Alma R. Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Greencore USA - CPO Partners, LLC (d/b/a Peacock Foods), Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-13198 (Ill. Cir., September 29, 2017), seeks statutory damages, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. Peacock is a food manufacturing, packaging and supply chain solutions company that uses a biometric time tracking system that requires employees to use their fingerprint as a means of authentication, instead of key fobs or identification cards. Diaz was never informed of the specific limited purposes or length of time for which Peacock collected, stored or used his fingerprint. Plaintiff was never informed of any biometric data retention policy developed by the Defendants, nor has he ever informed of whether Peacock will ever permanently delete his fingerprint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq. Alexis D. Martin, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD. 224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel. (312) 763-6880 GREENLY: "Davis" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties --------------------------------------------------- Sable Davis, an individual, Axanti Anthony, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Greenly, Emily Meyers and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC677941 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for Defendant's failure to pay for all hours worked at minimum wage rate, failure to provide meal/rest, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, reimbursement of business- related expenses, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Greenly is in the business of providing medical marijuana and associated products to its clients throughout the Southern California area where Davis worked as a driver. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Kearney, Esq. Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq. KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP 3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Ste. 230 Glendale, CA 91208 Telephone (213) 473-1900 Facsimile (213) 473-1919 Email: tak@kearneylittlefield.com pwl@kearneylittlefield.com - and - Brandon Littlefield, Esq. LITTLEFIELD LAW 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone (213) 785-8802 - and - Aren Derbarseghian, Esq. 15303 Ventura Blvd., 9th Floor Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Phone: (818) 574-0846 Fax: (818) 936-9696 Email: ad@ad-esq.com - and - Amir Abdizadeh, Esq. ADRO LAW 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 651-3035 Fax: (310) 300-1680 HEALTH INSURANCE: Defending Against TCPA Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------- Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending against multiple lawsuits relating to alleged TCPA matters. The Company has received a number of private-party claims relating to alleged violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by its independently owned and operated licensed-agent distributors, alleging that their marketing activities were potentially unlawful. The Company has been named as a defendant in multiple lawsuits relating to alleged TCPA matters, including claims styled, but not yet certified, as class actions. The Company is presently reviewing these matters and reviewing distributor compliance, and enhancing existing compliance. "While these types of claims have previously settled or resolved without any material effect on the Company, there is a possibility in the future that one or more could have a material effect. The Company requires that its independently owned and operated licensed-agent distributors reimburse or indemnify it for any such settlements," the Company said. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. is a developer, distributor and cloud-based administrator of affordable individual health and family insurance plans ("IFP") which include short-term medical ("STM") insurance plans, and guaranteed-issue and underwritten Health Benefit Insurance Plans, previously referred to as hospital indemnity plans. HUTCHISON TREE: Berber's Cert. Bid Denied Due to Settlement Talks ----------------------------------------------------------------- James C. Dever, III, denies without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed in the lawsuit entitled ADRIAN BERBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HUTCHISON TREE SERVICE, NORTHSTAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., PIEDMONT NATURAL GAS, INC., and CRAIG HUTCHISON, Case No. 5:15-cv-00143-D (E.D.N.C.). The parties shall conduct a court-hosted settlement conference with United States Magistrate Judge James E. Gates, Judge Dever rules. If the settlement conference does not resolve the case, the Court will address the merits of the Plaintiff's Motion, Judge Dever says. Judge Gates will notify the parties how he wishes to proceed concerning the settlement conference, and the date on which it will be held. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7g7rD8j0 HYATT EQUITIES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Guarisma" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ursula Ungaro denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled CARLOS GUARISMA v. HYATT EQUITIES, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-20931-UU (S.D. Fla.). On March 13, 2017, Plaintiff Carlos Guarisma filed the putative class action, alleging one claim for violations of Section 1691c(g) of the Fair and Accurate Credit Reporting Act, amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Hyatt Equities, LLC, willfully, knowingly or recklessly violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g), which, in short, prohibits persons that accept "credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business" from "print[ing] more than the last 5 digits of the card number or the expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale or transaction." The Plaintiff has moved to certify this nationwide class: (i) All persons in the United States (ii) who, when paying for their hotel room at any Hyatt hotel identified by Defendant or its records as using Opera PMS software during a time period the software was programmed to print a point-of-sale transaction receipt that disclosed the expiration date or first six digits of the number of any debit or credit card used in that kind of transaction at that hotel, (iii) made such payment using a credit or debit card (iv) and were provided with a printed receipt. According to the order, the Court finds that individual issues predominate over common ones, such that certification would be inappropriate. The Court adds that a class action is not the clearly superior method for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SBVUx3jE IC SYSTEM: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Wise" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer grants the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit styled ROCHELLE WISE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-09752 (N.D. Ill.). Judge Pallmeyer opines that ICS has produced sufficient evidence that the right to arbitrate in the Customer Agreement was assigned to it. Judge Pallmeyer also rules that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is stricken, and the case is dismissed without prejudice to arbitration. Plaintiff Rochelle Wise received an e-mail in October 2016 from ICS attempting to collect a debt that she owes to DirecTV, her former cable provider. She claims that, in this e-mail, ICS failed to disclose that it was a debt collector, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She brought this suit on behalf of herself and all Illinois consumers from whom ICS attempted to collect a debt, and similarly failed to disclose that it was a debt collector, during the year prior to the filing of her complaint. ICS promptly moved to dismiss and compel arbitration of the dispute. ICS contends it is entitled to enforce the agreement for services between Wise and DirecTV, including the provision in which Wise agreed to resolve "any legal or equitable claim relating to this Agreement, any addendum, or [Wise's] Service" through binding arbitration. The arbitration provision also includes a class action waiver. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K7TOav7F INDUS INVESTMENTS: "Haddadin" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Oday Haddadin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Indus Investments, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC677948 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Defendants employed Haddadin as a non-exempt employee working in Defendants' hotel in Santa Monica as a guest services agent from approximately March of 2015 through 7 October of 2016. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C. 287 S. Robertson Blvd., Ste. 303 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel: (310) 438-5555 Fax: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com INSTAFF INC: "Pelaez" Claims Overtime, Reimbursements, Paystubs --------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Pelaez, on behalf of himself and all employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Instaff, Inc., a California corporation, Cruz Modular, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00946964 (Cal. Super., September 26, 2017), seeks redress for Defendants' failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements and reimbursement of necessary business expenses, including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees resulting from unfair business practices and violation of the California Labor Laws of the Business and Professions Code,. Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee by Cruz Modular though a labor-contracting agency, Instaff, Inc., assembling office furniture at various sites. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Dionisios Aliazis, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Email: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net daliazis@mahonev-law.net INTERNATIONAL PAPER: $354,000,000 Accord Wins Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------ The $354,000,000 settlement in the case, Kleen Products LLC, et al., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. International Paper Company, et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, has been granted final court approval on October 17, 2017. International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the district court scheduled the final approval hearing for October 17, on the settlement in the Containerboard class action. On June 27, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the class plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit captioned Kleen Products LLC et al. v. International Paper Co. et al. (N.D. Ill.) which was filed in September 2010, and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Eight containerboard producers, including the Company, Temple-Inland and Weyerhaeuser Company (the "Released Defendants"), were named as defendants in the lawsuit which alleges a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products during the period from February 15, 2004, through November 8, 2010. Four similar complaints were filed and consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In March 2015, the District Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from the defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the class period. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, on August 1, 2017, the Company paid $354 million into a settlement fund in return for a dismissal of the Released Defendants and release of all claims and alleged damages asserted against the Released Defendants in the lawsuit or that are related to or arise from the direct purchase of containerboard products from the Released Defendants by the class members from the beginning of time up to preliminary approval of the settlement agreement by the district court, which occurred on July 13, 2017. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the district court and all costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the settlement fund. The settlement agreement remains subject to final approval by the district court and provides for a period of time during which class members will be notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to file a claim form to receive a settlement payment, object to the settlement or do nothing. The district court has scheduled a final approval hearing for October 17, 2017, at which time the parties will request final approval of the settlement and at which time any objectors to the settlement will be heard. If the district court gives final approval to the settlement, the release will be effective as to all class members regardless of whether they filed a claim form and received payment. Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.containerboardproductscase.com/ INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Ashley Furniture Suit Underway in Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00469 (W.D. Wis.), Judge William M Conley entered an Opinion and Order on Sept. 26, 2017, denying a Partial Motion to Dismiss or for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part, a Partial Motion to Dismiss; denying a Partial Motion to Dismiss; denying a Partial Motion to Dismiss; denying a Partial Motion to Dismiss; granting in part, a Joint Motion to Stay. International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in June 2016, a lawsuit captioned Ashley Furniture Indus., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (W.D. Wis.), was filed in federal court in Wisconsin against ten defendants, including the Company, Temple-Inland and Weyerhaeuser Company. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit closely tracks the allegations found in the Kleen Products complaint, alleging a practically identical civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, but also asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims. In January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid- 2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. No class certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee action. The Company continues to dispute the allegations made in the Ashley Furniture and Tennessee lawsuits and vigorously defend each. "At this time, however, because actions are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss," the Company said. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS: Brna Seeks Prelim. OK of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled DANIEL A. BRNA, RAMON FERNANDEZ and JAMES E. SCOTT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ISLE OF CAPRI CASINOS, INC. and INTERBLOCK USA, LLC, Case No. 0:17-cv-60144-FAM (S.D. Fla.), filed with the Court their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and for certification of the settlement class. For the purposes of implementing the proposed Settlement, and for no other purpose, the Defendants have conditionally withdrawn their objections to the certification of a class and stipulated to the conditional certification of this Settlement Class: All Fan Club members who played the game of craps on Interblock's Organic Dice machines at IOC's Pompano Park casino during the Class Period and who placed and won a Buy Bet while playing craps. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (a) officers, directors, and employees of IOC, Interblock and their parents and subsidiaries; and (b) judicial officers and employees of the Court. The Settlement Agreement provides direct monetary relief to IOC Fan Club members, who played the game of craps on Interblock's Organic Dice machines at IOC's Pompano Park casino and placed a winning "buy bet" during the Class Period which is "July 8, 2015 to January 22, 2017, inclusive." According to IOC's Fan Club records, approximately 6,000 IOC Fan Club members inserted their membership card to play the Organic Dice machines at IOC's Pompano Park casino during the Class Period and will be eligible to claim settlement relief in this case if they certify that they placed winning Buy Bets during the Class Period. The Settlement Agreement affords every member of the Settlement Class the opportunity to receive direct monetary relief in the form of a settlement check in the amount of $15 or, if the participation rate in the settlement does not exceed 17.5%, then each eligible Class Member will instead receive the increased amount of $30. Consequently, the Settlement Class members could receive as much as $90,000 in aggregate monetary relief. The Parties stipulate in the Settlement Agreement that the law firms of Kelley Uustal PLC and Daren Stabinski, P.A. will serve as Class Counsel. Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses shall not exceed $155,000 and Defendants agreed that they will not oppose such application and agree to pay such amount if granted by the Court. This payment of attorney's fees and costs is separate from the monetary relief to be paid to the Settlement Class members and does not reduce that recovery. The Defendants have also agreed not to oppose a service award of $2,500 to each named plaintiff, Daniel Brna and James Scott, for their service to the class. The Parties have agreed to a resolution that provides for the settlement on a classwide basis of the claims that are the subject of this litigation. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pglfxJrd The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cristina M. Pierson, Esq. KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC 500 North Federal Highway, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 522-6601 Facsimile: (954) 522-6608 E-mail: cmp@kulaw.com - and - Daren Stabinski, Esq. DAREN STABINSKI P.A. 700 SW 78th Ave., #916 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone (954) 540-9517 E-mail: daren@tenderbox.tv Defendant Isle of Capri, Inc., is represented by: Gary C. Rosen, Esq. Daniel L. Wallach, Esq. BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A. 1 East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 985-4133 Facsimile: (954) 985-4176 E-mail: grosen@bplegal.com dwallach@bplegal.com Defendants Interblock USA L.L.C. and Isle of Capri Inc, n/k/a Isle of Capri LLC, are represented by: Stephen Warren, Esq. Allison Kernisky, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 374-8500 Facsimile: (305) 789-7799 E-mail: stephen.warren@hklaw.com allison.kernisky@hklaw.com JOHN D CLUNK: Rainier May Refile Bid to Certify Class, Court says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Michael H. Watson denied without prejudice to re-filing within 30 days the motion to certify a class or, in the alternative, to certify a class as to certain issues filed by Stephen Rainier, and Scott and Stacy Marple, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN & VICKI RAINIER, et al. v. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN D. CLUNK CO., L.P.A., Case No. 2:13-cv-01173-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio). In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify this class: All persons who received a Chapter 7 discharge in U.S. Bankruptcy Court and were subsequently named as a party in a foreclosure complaint filed by Defendant (The Law Offices of John D. Clunk, Co., L.P.A.) on or between the dates of November 20, 2012 and December 31, 2013. According to the order, on September 22, 2017, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment as to liability and granting, in part, Clunk's cross-motion for summary judgment as to actual damages. That disposition either resolved or clarified several of the issues addressed in the Plaintiffs' Motion and Defendant's response thereto. In light of these changed circumstances, the Court finds that, in the interest of judicial economy, the Plaintiffs' current certification motion should be denied without prejudice. The parties are directed to work in good faith toward a negotiated statutory damages class definition. In the event an agreement is reached, the parties should file a joint motion requesting approval of their proposed class, Judge Watson rules. If these efforts are unsuccessful, Judge Watson states, the Plaintiffs may file a renewed class certification motion and briefing will follow in the ordinary course. Any briefing should be undertaken with the understanding that all parties shall abide by the Court's page limit requirements. Either motion may be filed within 30 days. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KKI3ocJK LEVEL 3: Settlement of Rights-of-Way Litigation Pending ------------------------------------------------------- Level 3 Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to seek approval of the settlement of Rights-of-Way Litigation in the remaining state. The Company said, "We are party to a number of purported class action lawsuits involving our right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In general, we obtained the rights to construct our networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed our networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities and others who granted us the right to construct and maintain our network did not have the legal authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive damages. We have also received, and may in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different legal theories. We have defeated motions for class certification in a number of these actions but expect that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification of statewide or multi-state classes." "The only lawsuit in which a class was certified against us, absent an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in November 2010. "We negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which we have installed our fiber optic cable networks. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case. "In November 2010, we negotiated revised settlement terms for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which we have installed our fiber optic cable networks. We are currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in applicable jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and former landowners, have received final federal court approval in all but one of the applicable states and the parties are actively engaged in, or have completed, the claims process for the vast majority of the applicable states, including payment of claims. We continue to seek approval in the remaining state. "Management believes that we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved for all affected landowners." Level 3 Communications, Inc. and subsidiaries is a facilities- based provider (that is, a provider that owns or leases a substantial portion of the plant, property and equipment necessary to provide our services) of a broad range of integrated communications services. MATCH GROUP: "McCloskey" Class Action Ongoing in Texas ------------------------------------------------------ Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the "McCloskey" securities class action litigation. On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed in federal court in Texas against the Company, five of its officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in November 2015. See David M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). The complaint alleged that the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering were materially false and misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match Group's Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU would decline substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint asserted that these alleged failures to timely disclose material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended December 31, 2015. The complaint pleaded claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in, or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement, the prospectus, and related communications in violation of Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's alleged violations. The complaint sought among other relief class certification and damages in an unspecified amount. On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different named plaintiff. See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas). On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case. On April 27, 2016, various current or former Match Group shareholders and their respective law firms filed motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative class. On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties' stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants' response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for determination. In accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-549-L. On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel. On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving the parties' proposed schedule. On September 9, 2016, in accordance with the schedule, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The new pleading focuses solely on allegedly misleading statements or omissions concerning the Match Group's Non-dating business. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint on November 8, 2016. The plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions on December 23, 2016, and the defendants filed replies to the oppositions on February 6, 2017. "We believe that the allegations in these lawsuits are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them," the Company said. Match Group, Inc. is the world's leading provider of dating products. MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: "Robinson" Labor Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Sharise Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. and The Kansas City Star Company, Defendants, Case No. 1716- CV-18730 (Mo. Cir., August 5, 2017) was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on September 29, 2017, under Case No. 17-cv-00818. Robinson alleges that Defendant improperly classified her as an independent contractor and reported sums paid to her on a Form 1099 and not withholding wages as if she were an employee. She seeks statutory, liquidated and statutory damages plus punitive damages and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Internal revenue Code. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY II 4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (913) 661-2900 Fax: (913) 312-5841 Email: Phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com Defendant is represented by: Richard N. Bien, Esq. Elizabeth D. Hatting, Esq. 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108-2618 Telephone: (816) 292-2000 Fax: (816) 292-2001 Email: rbien@lathropgage.com ehatting@lathropgage.com MDL 2796: "Lewis" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Steven Lewis, Travis Burton, Gabriel Briscoe, and Marilyn Fong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Dr. Ing. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-Benz US International, Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC, received on October 5, 2017, a transfer order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, that the action is transferred to the Northern District California Creating MDL No. 3:17-md-2796 CRB. The Defendants are in the business of producing automobiles and motorcycles, and aircraft engines. [BN] The Plaintiff Steven Lewis is represented by: Emily Catherine Aldridge, Esq. Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq. Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4013 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: ealdridge@bfalaw.com lweaver@bfalaw.com mweiler@bfalaw.com The Plaintiff Gabriel Briscoe is represented by: Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Ryan McDevitt, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com - and - Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612-9800 Telephone: (510) 463-3900 Facsimile: (510) 463-3901 E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com - and - Juli E. Farris, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com The Plaintiff Marilyn Fong is represented by: Lisa P. Mak, Esq. Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq. MINAMI TAMAKI LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000 Facsimile: (415) 398-3887 E-mail: lmpk@minamitamaki.com seant@minamitamaki.com The Defendant BMW North America, LLC is represented by: Kimberly Arouh, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY 600 West Broadway, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-8700 Facsimile: (619) 702-3898 E-mail: kimberly.arouh@bipc.com The Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.is represented by: Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4976 Facsimile: (212) 291-9104 E-mail: nelless@sullcrom.com The Defendant Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.is represented by: Charles Christian Correll Jr., Esq. Norman A. Armstrong Jr., Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 590-0700 Facsimile: (650) 590-1900 E-mail: ccorrell@kslaw.com narmstrong@kslaw.com The Defendant Mercedes Benz USA, LLC is represented by: Eric J. Knapp, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 954-0200 Facsimile: (415) 393-9887 E-mail: Eric.Knapp@squirepb.com The Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH is represented by: Claire Naila Rajan, Esq. ALLEN OVERY LLP 1101 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 683-3869 Facsimile: (202) 683-3869 E-mail: claire.rajan@allenovery.com MG SECURITY: Denied Gibbons Overtime, Wage Statements ------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Gibbons, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MG Security Services LLC, Defendants, Case No. 158554/2017 (N.Y. Sup., September 26, 2017), seeks maximum liquidated damages and interest for being paid overtime wages, and non-overtime wages later than weekly; compensation for not receiving compliant notices and statements; and costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to New York Labor Law. Defendant was engaged in the security business, providing security personal at many locations such as apartment buildings, and employed Gibbons as a security guard. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Tel: (718) 740-1000 Fax: (718) 355-9668 Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com MICRO MATIC: Doritty Wants to Notify Class of Workers, Applicants ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DIANE DORITTY, JOSEPHINE FLETCHER, KAREN CARR, DEBRA SLATON and BRYAN SLATON, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MICRO MATIC USA, INC., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 8:17-cv-01679-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court for an order permitting and supervising notice to: employees and applicants over the age of 40 who: (i) were employed at Defendant's Brooksville facilities between August 29, 2015 to the present and were terminated or demoted; or (ii) applied for, but were denied, employment at Defendant's Brooksville facilities of their "opt-in" rights. The action accuses the Defendant of having a policy or practice of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uccgxc4Z The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822-1111 Facsimile: (727) 898-2001 E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com jason@thefllawfirm.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Court OKs 2nd Bid to Certify Class in Pierre Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber denied as moot the Plaintiff's first motion to certify class in view of the Court's order granting the Plaintiff's second motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Renetrice R. Pierre v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02895 (N.D. Ill.). A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L7kG7kF6 MILLER AND STEENO: Court Strikes Dilallo's Bid to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Samuel Der-Yeghiayan has stricken without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit captioned Roberta Dilallo v. Miller and Steeno, P.C., et al., Case No. 1:16- cv-00051 (N.D. Ill.). A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sc4KQKCZ NATIONAL ACCOUNT: "Larsen" Disputes Collection Letter ----------------------------------------------------- John Larsen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Account Systems of Omaha, LLC and Matthew P. Saathoff, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00356, (D. Neb., September 25, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, actual and statutory damages, including disgorgement and refund of any amounts collected as a result of collecting attorneys' fees and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. On April 12, 2017, Defendants filed their standard county court collection complaint against Larsen seeking to collect the sum of $606.94 for services of Thomsen Dental Group. Said letter indicated that Plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable attorney fee to be taxed as part of the costs against Defendant. This language is misleading to an unsophisticated consumer because under Nebraska Law, costs are allowed upon filing the lawsuit but attorney fees are only allowed upon judgment being taken, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela A. Car, Esq. William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. CAR & REINBRECHT, P.C., LLO 8720 Frederick Street, Suite 105 Omaha, NE 68124 Tel: (402) 391-8484 Fax: (402) 391-1103 E-mail: pacar@cox.net - and - O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ& ASSOCIATES 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 372-8822 Fax: (312) 372-1673 Email: rand@horwitzlaw.com OLD REPUBLIC: "White" Class Action Awaiting Court's Decision ------------------------------------------------------------ Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the "White" class action lawsuit is awaiting the Court's decision. 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 decision. OMNITRITION INT'L: "Pattison" Suit Removed to W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Deana Pattison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Omnitrition International, Inc., Roger M. Daley and Barbara Daley, individually and their marital community comprised therewith, Jennifer Van Vynck, Omnitrition Independent Marketing Associate, Defendant, Case No. 17-2-19735-1, (Wash. Super., July 25, 2017), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on September 25, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-01454. Plaintiff asserts claims for alleged violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, fraud, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment resulting from the labeling, marketing and sales of "Omni Drops" product sold by the Daleys' company, Omnitrition International, Inc. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler K. Firkins, Esq. Victor J. Torres, Esq. VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS 721 45TH ST NE Auburn, WA 98002-1381 Tel: (253) 859-8899 Email: tfirkins@vansiclen.com Defendants are represented by: Kristin Beneski, Esq. Heidi Brooks Bradley, Esq. Douglas W Greene, Esq. LANE POWELL PC 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 Tel: (206) 223-7000, (206) 223-7979 Email: beneskik@lanepowell.com bradleyh@lanepowell.com greened@lanepowell.com ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Securities Action Pending in New York ------------------------------------------------------- OneMain Holdings, Inc. continues to defend federal securities class actions in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. On February 10, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and two of its officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material information, and was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016. The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. On March 23, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff for the putative class and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of counsel. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2017, challenging statements regarding the Company's projections of future financial performance and certain statements regarding integration after the OneMain Acquisition. The Company believes that the allegations specified in the amended complaint are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. As the lawsuit is in the preliminary stages, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result from the lawsuit. OneMain is a provider of responsible personal loan products, primarily to non-prime customers. ORBITAL ATK: Dismissal of "Knurr" Class Action Sought ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, Knurr v. Orbital ATK Inc. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv- 01031 (E.D. Va.), a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim was filed October 24 by defendants Mark W DeYoung, Blake E. Larson, Orbital ATK Inc., Garrett E. Pierce, David W. Thompson, and Hollis Thompson. In September, according to a report by Jon Hill of Law360, Virginia Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis III lopped off the fraud-related claims from a proposed class action accusing defense company Orbital ATK of making false and misleading statements about a $2.3 billion U.S. Army ammunition contract, finding that the investors behind the suit hadn't shown an intent to deceive. Judge Ellis dismissed without prejudice two of the four counts in the investors' roughly 100-page complaint, ruling that their allegations didn't individually or collectively support the strong inference of scienter necessary for the investors' fraud claim and associated control person liability claim to survive. Orbital ATK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017, that, "On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming the Company, our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer as defendants, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Steven Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN)). The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) the Company lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a result, the Company failed to record an anticipated loss on its long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant." "On April 24, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding our Chief Operating Officer and a former Chief Executive Officer/Director as defendants and asserting claims for violations of additional sections of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges false and misleading statements in the Company's Form S-4 filed with the SEC relating to the merger between the Company and Orbital Sciences Corporation. The complaint seeks an award of damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and expert fees, and an award of such other relief as deemed appropriate by the Court. The Company is defending this action vigorously." Orbital ATK is an aerospace and defense systems company and supplier of products to the U.S. Government, allied nations, prime contractors and other customers. PACCAR INC: Petition to Certify Class Action Filed -------------------------------------------------- PACCAR Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a petition to certify a claim as a class action have been filed against DAF Trucks N.V., and other truck manufacturers. In the first quarter of 2016, the Company recorded a charge of EUR850.0 million ($942.6 million) in connection with an investigation by the EC of all major European truck manufacturers, including DAF Trucks N.V., its subsidiary DAF Trucks Deutschland GmbH (collectively, "DAF") and the Company as their parent. On July 19, 2016, the EC reached a settlement with DAF and the Company under which the EC imposed a fine of EUR752.7 million ($833.0 million) for infringement of European Union competition rules. As a result of the settlement, the Company reversed, in the second quarter of 2016, EUR97.3 million ($109.6 million) of the previously recorded charge. DAF paid the fine in August 2016. Following the EC settlement, claims and a petition to certify a claim as a class action have been filed against DAF and other truck manufacturers. Others may bring EC-related claims against the Company or its subsidiaries. While the Company believes it has meritorious defenses, such claims will likely take a significant period of time to resolve, and it is not possible to estimate a range of potential loss. An adverse outcome of such proceedings could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations. The Company is a defendant in various legal proceedings and, in addition, there are various other contingent liabilities arising in the normal course of business. After consultation with legal counsel, management does not anticipate that disposition of these various proceedings and contingent liabilities will have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements. PACCAR is a global technology company whose Truck segment includes the design and manufacture of high-quality light-, medium- and heavy-duty commercial trucks. PASADENA CITY: "Komesar" Hits Excessive Taxes on Electricity Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eve Komesar, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. City of Pasadena and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 677632, (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017), seeks a refund of all unconstitutional taxes imposed, declaratory and injunctive relief for violation of Proposition 218. Plaintiff alleges that the City of Pasadena illegally imposes fees and charges for its electric utility service without voter approval. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Kearney, Esq. Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq. Kearney Littlefield, LLP 3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Suite 230 Glendale, CA 91208 Tel: (213) 473-1900 Fax: (213) 473-1919 Email: tak@keamevlittlefield.com pwl@keameylittlefield.com - and - Vincent D. Slavens, Esq. Eric J. Benink, Esq. KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 530 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 232-0331 Fax: (619) 232-4019 Email: vslavens@kkbs-law.com eric@kkbs-law.com PETER PIPER: "Jacobson" Litigation in Earliest Stages ----------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017, that the Peter Piper, Inc. Litigation is in its earliest stages. On September 8, 2016, Diane Jacobson filed a purported class action lawsuit against Peter Piper, Inc. ("Peter Piper") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division (the "Jacobson Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-situated consumers who, within the two years prior to the filing of the Jacobson Litigation, received a printed receipt on which Peter Piper allegedly printed more than the last five digits of the consumer's credit/debit card number, in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. On November 11, 2016, Peter Piper filed a motion to dismiss the Jacobson Litigation. After the plaintiff filed her opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and Peter Piper filed its reply in support thereof, the motion was submitted to the Court for ruling on December 22, 2016. On February 2, 2017, the Court stayed the Jacobson Litigation pending the decision of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Noble v. Nevada Check Cab Corp., a case that presents an issue for decision that is relevant to the Peter Piper's motion to dismiss. "We believe Peter Piper has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and, should the Court overrule the motion to dismiss, we intend to vigorously defend it. Since the litigation is in its earliest stages, the Company does not yet have sufficient information to reach a good faith determination on Peter Piper's potential liability or exposure in the event that its defense is unsuccessful," the Company said. CEC Entertainment develops, operates and franchises family dining and entertainment venues under the names "Chuck E. Cheese's" ("Where A Kid Can Be A Kid") and "Peter Piper Pizza" ("The Solution to the Family Night Out"). PHIA GROUP: "Weyant" Suit Seeks to Recover Damages -------------------------------------------------- Jessica Weyant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Phia Group, LLC and Indecs Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 656033/2017, (N.Y. Sup., September 26, 2017), seeks to recover damages, penalties, punitive damages, attorney fees, interest, costs and other such further relief under the New York General Obligations Law and New York General Business Law. In 2012, Jessica Weyant was involved in a motor vehicle accident wherein she sustained serious injuries and received benefits under a health insurance policy through a health benefits plan sponsored by the member School Districts. The Phia Group, LLC, acting as an agent for Indecs Corporation, asserted a lien, subrogation claim and/or demand for reimbursement as against Plaintiffs' personal injury recoveries as to the benefits which the Plan had paid. Weyant was billed $16,057.19 of her tort recovery by Phia despite that they are paid a percentage of the money which they recover through their lien, subrogation and/or repayment demands and efforts, says the complaint. Indecs Corporation is the third-party administrator for a health plan comprised of member school districts in New York with The Phia Group, LLC, as authorized agent. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Kannebecker, Esq. 104 West High Street Milford, PA 18337 Tel: (570) 296-6471 Email: kannebecker@wsklawfirm.com PHILADELPHIA, PA: Thornton Files Class Action v. Sheriff's Office ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joanne Thornton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City of Philadelphia and Sheriff Jewell Williams and Philadelphia Sheriff's Office, Defendants, Case No. 171000060, (Pa. Com. Pleas, September 29, 2017), seeks to recover on behalf of plaintiff and all others similarly situated from the Defendants all monies due and owing resulting from negligence, unjust enrichment, negligent mishandling of funds and breach of contract. Unable to make payment on her mortgage to EverBank, her mortgagee, Thornton's Home was sold at sheriff's sale to a Third Party individual buyer in the amount of $305,000 on September 9, 2014, notes the Plaintiff. The real debt owed on Thornton's Home to mortgagee EverBank was $75,580.10 while the schedule of distribution from the sale of Thornton's home specifically listed the Sheriffs costs as $10,306.78 and identified the excess funds remaining from the proceeds of the sheriff's sale at $193,795.18. Rule 3136 mandates the distribution of excess funds of the proceeds from a sheriff's sale to the foreclosed homeowner, says the complaint. The Sheriff refused to distribute the excess funds requested in her claim and instead demanded that Thornton obtain a payoff statement from the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority for a lien they had on Thornton's Home. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 - and - Christopher G. Hayes, Esq. LAWOFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER G.HAYES 225S Church St. West Chester, PA 19382 Telephone: (610) 9505 PHILADELPHIA, PA: DOC Sued Over Civil Rights Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Allen Woods and Keith Campbell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sean Marler, Case No. 2:17-cv-04443- MAK (E.D. Penn., October 5, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act. Sean Marler is a Correctional Institution Administrator at the Bureau of Prisons/Federal Prison System in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Bazelon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANA BAZELON One South Broad St., suite 1500 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 609-3247 E-mail: dbazelon@danabazelonlaw.com POST HOLDINGS: Class Action Appeal Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------ Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. and some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The case involves three plaintiff groups: (1) direct purchasers of eggs and egg products; (2) companies (primarily large grocery chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted out of any eventual class and brought their own separate actions against the defendants ("opt-out plaintiffs"); and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs. Motions related to class certification: In September 2015, the court granted the motion of the direct purchaser plaintiffs to certify a shell-egg subclass, but denied their motion to certify an egg-products subclass. Also in September 2015, the court denied the motion of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs for class certification. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed an alternative motion for certification of an injunctive class, and that motion was denied on June 27, 2017. Motions for summary judgment: In September 2016, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on purchases of egg products, thereby limiting all claims to shell eggs. Also in September 2016, the court denied individual motions for summary judgment made by Michael Foods and three other defendants that had sought the dismissal of all claims against them. Settlements by Michael Foods: On December 8, 2016, Michael Foods reached an agreement to settle all class claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser plaintiffs for a payment of $75.0 million. The Company has paid such amount into escrow. This settlement is subject to approval by the court following notice to all class members. While the Company expects the settlement will receive the needed approval, there can be no assurance that the court will approve the agreement as proposed by the parties. On January 19, 2017, Michael Foods entered into a settlement, the details of which are confidential, with the opt-out plaintiffs (excluding those opt-out plaintiffs whose claims relate primarily or exclusively to egg products; several of those plaintiffs are now appealing the dismissal of the egg products claims). This settlement was paid by the Company as of June 30, 2017. Michael Foods has at all times denied liability in this matter, and neither settlement contains any admission of liability by Michael Foods. During the nine months ended June 30, 2017, the Company expensed $74.5 million, included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, related to these settlements. Expense of $10.0 million was recorded related to these settlements in the three and nine months ended June 30, 2016. At September 30, 2016, the Company had accruals related to these settlements of $28.5 million that were included in "Other current liabilities" on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Under current law, any settlement paid, including the settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the settlement with the opt-out plaintiffs, is deductible for federal income tax purposes. Remaining portions of the case: The indirect purchaser plaintiffs are seeking to immediately appeal the court's denial of their motions for class certification. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on whether it will accept these matters for review. Additionally, the elimination of egg products from the case is being appealed by the opt-out plaintiffs who purchased egg products. The appeal is fully submitted to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. While the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the Michael Foods settlements, there is still a possibility of an adverse outcome following appellate review of the remaining portions of the case. "At this time, however, we do not believe it is possible to estimate any loss in connection with these remaining portions of the egg antitrust litigation," the Company said. "Accordingly, we cannot predict what impact, if any, these remaining matters and any results from such matters could have on our future results of operations." Post Holdings is a consumer packaged goods holding company operating in four reportable segments: Post Consumer Brands, Michael Foods Group, Active Nutrition and Private Brands. Its products are sold through a variety of channels such as grocery, club and drug stores, mass merchandisers, foodservice, ingredient and via the internet. QUALITY THERAPY: Kondati's Bids to Certify and Set Notice Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly terminates the motion to certify collective action and motion to determine content of notice filed in the lawsuit titled Sumana Kondati v. Quality Therapy and Consultation, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01461 (N.D. Ill.). Motion to certify collective action and motion to determine content of notice, filed several months ago, are terminated as pending motions in light of intervening developments and rulings, says the Court. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7QlNQn1t R.L. VALLEE: "Kent" Seeks Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum ---------------------------------------------------------- Jacob R. Kent, Anne B. Vera, Thomas R. Mahar, Dawn M. Mahar, David C. Carter, and Barbara Carter and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R.L. Vallee, Inc., SB Collins, Inc., Wesco, Inc. and Champlain Oil Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-3080B (D. Md., September 22, 2017), seeks an order authorizing the issuance of a Subpoena Duces Tecum to produce the documents and records for proceeding in tribunal outside the Commonwealth pursuant to Massachusetts General Law in a proceeding now pending in the Superior Court, Civil Division, Chittenden Unit, State of Vermont. Plaintiffs allege price-fixing and/or collusion of wholesale and retail gasoline prices by Defendants in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act as well as unjust enrichment. Defendants operate gas stations in Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle counties. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Lajoie, Esq. Bailey & Glasser LLP 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 439-6730 Fax: (617) 951-3954 Email: blajoie@baileyglasser.com R.L. Vallee, Inc. is represented by: Walter E. Judge, Jr., Esq. Tristram Coffin, Esq. DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN, PLLC PO Box 190 Burlington, VT 05402-0190 Phone: (802) 846-8326 Email: wjudge@drm.com tcoffin@drm.com Champlain Oil Co., Inc. is represented by: Robert Hemley, Esq. Matthew Byrne, Esq. GRAVEL & SHEA P.O. Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 Phone: (802) 658-0220 Email: rhemley@gravelshea.com mbyrne@gravelshea.com S.B. Collins, Inc. is represented by: Jeffrey R. Behm, Esq. Kevin Lumpkin, Esq. SHEEHEY FURLONG & BEHM PC PO Box 66 Burlington, VT 05402-0066 Phone: (802) 864-9891 Email: JBehm@sheeheyvt.com KLumpkin@sheeheyvt.com Wesco, Inc. is represented by: David V. Kirby, Esq. Barbara O'Connor, Esq. O'CONNOR & KIRBY, PC 174 Battery St., 3rd Fl. Burlington, VT 05401 Phone: (802) 863-0112 Email: david@kirbyoconnor.com barbara@kirbyoconnor.com RAYONIER INC: Says Insurers Fully Funded Settlement Payment ----------------------------------------------------------- Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that as of July 14, 2017, the insurance carriers have fully funded the settlement payment in a class action lawsuit. Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and filing of the restated interim financial statements for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the "November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G. Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker arising from circumstances described in the November 2014 Announcement, entitled respectively: * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv- 01395, filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv- 01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv- 01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida; and * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv- 08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474. On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015. On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants' motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile. Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued to assert claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and Messrs. Boynton and Vanden Noort. Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 26, 2015. The court denied those motions on May 20, 2016. On December 31, 2016, the case continued to be in the discovery phase and the Company could not determine whether there was a reasonable likelihood a material loss had been incurred nor could the range of any such loss be estimated. On March 13, 2017, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the case and all parties executed a term sheet memorializing such agreement. The parties executed and filed with the Court the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on April 12, 2017 (the "Settlement Agreement"), which Settlement Agreement included the material terms contained in the term sheet executed on March 13. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which is subject to Court approval and requests for exclusion by members of the settlement class, the Company agreed to cause certain of its directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers to fund a settlement payment to the class of $73 million. As of July 14, 2017, the insurance carriers have fully funded the settlement payment by deposits in an escrow account as required by the Settlement Agreement. In connection with the settlement, the Company agreed to reimburse one of its insurance carriers approximately $740,000 for certain disputed pre-litigation expenses, which reimbursement was made in the second quarter of 2017. The amounts agreed to on March 13, 2017, including the realized amount funded by the insurance carriers, were reflected in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of June 30, 2017. Rayonier is a timberland real estate investment trust ("REIT") with assets located in some of the most productive softwood timber growing regions in the United States and New Zealand. REGENCY VILLAGE: Ridley Seeks to Certify Nurses Class Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MARK RIDLEY, STEPHANIE KETCHUM, OLGA GUEVARA, and MARIA FERNANDEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. REGENCY VILLAGE INC. D/B/A REGENCY VILLAGE SKILLED AND REHAB CENTER and PENBAR, INC. D/B/A REGENCY VILLAGE SKILLED AND REHAB CENTER, Case No. 4:17-cv- 00974 (S.D. Tex.), ask the Court to conditionally certify the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act with respect to a class of the Defendants': current and former nurses who were subject to an automatic meal break deduction and worked at Regency Village at any time from three year prior to the granting of this Motion to the present. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: (1) require the Defendants to produce within 10 days of the granting the Motion in a computer readable format, the names, all known addresses, all phone numbers (home, mobile, etc.), dates of birth, all known e-mail addresses (work and personal), driver's license numbers, and dates of employment for all class members; (2) authorize mailing of the proposed Notice and Consent Form to Class Members via regular mail and e-mail within seven days of Plaintiffs' counsel receiving the class list from Defendants, and allow the Plaintiffs' counsel to hire a third-party class action administration company if they deem appropriate; (3) allow Class Members to execute their consent forms electronically via Right Signature; and (4) approve that notice be sent to the putative class members first via mail and electronically within seven days of receiving the list of putative class members from Defendants and then a postcard reminder be sent 30 days after the initial mailing, but only to those class members who have not yet submitted their Consent Forms. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ojZmd1v7 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Todd Slobin, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net rprieto@eeoc.net RLJ LODGING TRUST: Facing Assad or Bagheri Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------- RLJ Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company has not yet been served with process or the complaint in either the Assad Lawsuit or the Bagheri Lawsuit. The Company and several affiliated entities have been named as defendants in two putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in connection with the Company's proposed merger with FelCor. The first case, Assad v. FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01744 (D. Md.) (the "Assad Lawsuit"), names as defendants the Company and certain affiliated entities, as well as FelCor, its directors and FelCor LP. The Assad Lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2017 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The second case, Bagheri v. FelCor Lodging Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01892 (N.D. Tex.) (the "Bagheri Lawsuit"), names as defendants the Company and certain affiliated entities, as well as FelCor, its directors and FelCor LP. The Bagheri Lawsuit was filed on July 17, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Both the Assad Lawsuit and the Bagheri Lawsuit allege violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") arising in connection with the filing of the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the "Registration Statement") that was filed in connection with the Company's proposed merger with FelCor. The plaintiffs in the Assad Lawsuit and the Bagheri Lawsuit seek, among other things, damages, an order enjoining consummation of the proposed merger with FelCor, changes to the Registration Statement, an award of attorney's fees and declaratory relief stating that the defendants violated the Exchange Act. The Company has not yet been served with process or the complaint in either the Assad Lawsuit or the Bagheri Lawsuit. The Company disputes the allegations raised in both actions and will vigorously defend the Company and related defendants. Because these matters are in the early stages, the timing and resolution of them is uncertain. RLJ Lodging is a self-advised and self-administered Maryland real estate investment trust ("REIT") that acquires primarily premium- branded, focused-service and compact full-service hotels. RODEO REALTY: "Crosley" Suit Seeks Penalties, Reimbursements ------------------------------------------------------------ Summer Crosley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rodeo Realty, Inc., Rodeo Realty, Rodeo Realty Fine Estates and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. BC677748 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017), seeks statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements and reimbursement of business-related expenses under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code. Defendants are in the business of selling, purchasing and leasing luxury residential real estate where Crosley worked as a real estate agent. Rodeo allegedly misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. Donald R. Pepperman, Esq. Taylor C. Wagniere, Esq. BLECHER COLLINS & PEPPERMAN, P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4222 Facsimile: (213) 622-1656 - and - Scott D. McVarish, Esq. EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION & NEGOTIATION LAW OFFICE, APC 6080 Center Drive, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Mailing address: P.O. Box 4564 Culver City, CA 90231 Telephone: (800) 792-9889 Facsimile: (800) 628-5605 SAN DIEGO, CA: City Employees Seek to Recover Overtime Premium -------------------------------------------------------------- Candace Mitchell, Jennifer Becker, Keith Boothe, Grant Bowers, Gavin Broatch, Isabelle Camacho, Kent Cuevas, Mary Enyeart, Alexander Milo Flores, Patricia Foss, Jennifer Geran, James A. Golden, Thairahammi, Ryan Hay, Cynthia Hernandez, Stephanie Hoover, Miguel Huerta, Graham Hufford, Wayne Jarrell, Anas M. Kaziha, Teri Kipnis, Nicolas B. Manansala, Erika Mcneill, Gabrielle Mead, Debra Owen, Alec Phillipp, Michael Prinz, Steven Ramirez, Pete Razo, Anthony Rea, Arnilda Reyes, Catherine Rivera, Scott Robinson, Richard Russell, Jim Silverstein, Clemens Wassenberg, Daniel Weiss, Loretta Williams, Cody Wilkinson, Gregory Woods, on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City Of San Diego, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-02014 (S.D. Cal., September 29, 2017), seeks to recover underpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees of the City of San Diego who worked in excess of 40 hours in a 7-day work week but were not compensated. Plaintiff is represented by: Ann M. Smith, Esq. SMITH, STEINER, VANDERPOOL & WAX, APC 401 West A Street, Suite 320 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-7200 Fax: (619) 239-6048 SND OPERATING: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Odenbaugh" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Robert W. Schroeder, III, granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify class pursuant to Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act filed in the lawsuit entitled TONY ODENBAUGH v. SND OPERATING, LLC, S N D ENERGY COMPANY, INC., Case No. 6:16-cv- 01400-RWS (E.D. Tex.). Judge Schroeder denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for approval of form and process for class notice. Plaintiff Tony Odenbaugh filed a complaint against the Defendants on behalf of all former and current Production Operators for Defendant since December 30, 2013. The Plaintiff and the putative class members seek relief in a collective action pursuant to the FLSA. The Plaintiff and the putative class members worked as Production Operators for the Defendants, where they were responsible for monitoring oil-well sites. They allege they were improperly misclassified as exempt from payment of an overtime premium. The Defendants object to the Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice and request the parties be given an opportunity to confer on the form, content and manner of any notice and disclosure of contact information before the issue is submitted to the Court. Moreover, the parties' positions regarding other disputes concerning the Proposed Notice indicate an inadequate meet and confer. Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer and jointly file a Proposed Notice for approval. The scope of the Proposed Notice should incorporate the rulings from this Order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GZ9GargC SONIC CORP: Ramirez Files Suit Over Stolen Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------- Denise Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sonic Corp., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv- 01044 (W.D. Okla., September 29, 2017), seeks equitable relief, damages, attorneys' fees costs and litigation expenses, prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded and such other and further relief resulting from negligence and violation of New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act. Sonic is a chain of drive-in restaurants in the United States with over 3,500 restaurants in 44 states. Plaintiff claims Defendant failed to secure and safeguard consumers' personally identifiable information which Sonic collected from various sources in connection with the operation of its restaurant business. Sonic has acknowledged that a cybersecurity incident resulted in the theft of its customers' information mainly consisting of credit card numbers. Plaintiff is a regular customer at several different Sonic restaurants in the Albuquerque area and always pays with a debit card. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Joshua D. Wells, Esq. Carin L. Marcussen, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jdw@federmanlaw.com clm@federmanlaw.com SOUTH CAROLINA: DOC Sued Over Civil Rights Acts Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Sean Milan, Junior Kiker, Anthony Bolden, Terry Dennis, Jeffrey Colberth, and Matthew Gilliard, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, Patricia Cunningham, Linda McNut, Whitney Clark, and Christine Livingston, Case No. 0:17-cv-02692-JFA-PJG (D.S.C., October 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Acts. The Defendants are responsible for the correctional facility in the state of South Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Cole Mayer, Esq. MAYER LAW LLC 18 Carolina Street, Suite B Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 225-7240 E-mail: aaron@mayerlawpractice.com - and - James Edward Bell III, Esq. BELL LEGAL GROUP 219 N Ridge Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Telephone: (843) 546-2408 Facsimile: (843) 546-9604 E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel C. Plyler, Esq. DAVIDSON AND LINDEMANN PA PO Box 8568 Columbia, SC 29202-8568 Telephone: (803) 806-8222 E-mail: dplyler@dml-law.com SPARK ENERGY: Initial Discovery Ongoing in "Melville" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that initial discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit by John Melville. John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. Initial discovery is ongoing. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC intend to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein. "Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time," the Company said. Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. SPARK ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in Suit by Veilleux and Chon ----------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that discovery has not yet commenced in the lawsuit by Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon. Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark Holdco, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark Holdco, LLC in mid-2016, enrolled customers through fraudulent and misleading advertising and promotions prior to the acquisition. Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all Defendants: violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney's fees. On July 7, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint to add a new Plaintiff. Discovery has not yet commenced in this matter. Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein. "Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations," the Company said. Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. SPARK ENERGY: Court Orders Briefing in Suit by Gillis et al. ------------------------------------------------------------ Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the district court has ordered briefing on Defendant's motion to dismiss in the case, Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC. Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On June 23, 2014, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the disclosure statement contained in Respond Power, LLC's variable rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers limited the variable rate that could be charged to no more than the monthly rate charged by the consumers' local utility company. The plaintiffs also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached its variable rate contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing therein, by charging rates in excess of the monthly rate charged by the consumers' local utility company; (ii) engaged in deceptive conduct in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (iii) engaged in negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment in connection with purported promises of savings. The amount of damages sought is not specified. By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class certification. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court's denial of class certification and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. The district court has ordered briefing on Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Company currently cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations. Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Ayeni and Hartsock Cases Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The cases, Olutayo Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 21, 2016 in the United States District Court, Central District of California; Case No. 2:16-cv-07074) (the "Ayeni Action") and Glen Hartsock v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (Filed September 28, 2016 in the United States District Court, District Court of Nevada Case; No. 2:16-cv-02279- RFB-GWF) (the "Hartsock Action"), have been consolidated, pursuant to the order dated October 5, 2017, by Nevada District Court Judge Kent J. Dawson. The "Hartsock" case will serve as the base case in which all future pleadings must be filed in. The "Ayeni" case is administratively closed. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that on November 15, 2016, the Ayeni Action was transferred to the United States District Court, District Court of Nevada. The parties have stipulated to a consolidation of the Ayeni Action with the Hartsock Action. "These class action lawsuits allege that we and certain of our executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business and the prospects of approval for our NDA to the FDA for QAPZOLA in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief," the Company said. "We believe that these claims are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Furthermore, the value of a potential settlement cannot be reasonably estimated given its highly uncertain nature as of June 30, 2017." Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company, with a primary strategy comprised of acquiring, developing, and commercializing a broad and diverse pipeline of late-stage clinical and commercial products. STATE STREET: Securities Suit over Invoicing Matters Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company is defending against a shareholder litigation. In January 2017, a State Street shareholder filed a purported class action complaint against the Company alleging that statements made by the Company in its annual reports for the 2011- 2015 period regarding its internal controls and procedures were misleading due to the failure of those controls and procedures to detect the practices at issue in the Transition Management and Invoicing Matters. State Street Corporation is a financial holding company organized in 1969 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. STEAKHOUSE EXPRESS: "Packard" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Eleni Packard, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Steakhouse Express, Inc., Pig-N-Chik Express, Inc., Pnc Enterprises, Inc., Richard W. Marrack, and James H. Graddy, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03815 (N.D. Ga., September 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, litigation costs, attorneys' fees and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants operate Pig-N-Chik barbeque restaurants in the Atlanta, Georgia area where Packard worked the counter in three locations operated by the Defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Regan Keebaugh, Esq. RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC 315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080 Decatur, GA 30030 Tel: (678) 271-0300 Fax: (678) 271-0311 Email: regan@decaturlegal.com STONERIDGE INC: Royal Moves for Prelim. OK of Class Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RICKEY ROYAL, SANDRA EPPERSON, and GREG HULCY, Individually on behalf of all putative class members v. STONERIDGE, INC.; STONERIDGE CONTROL DEVICES, INC. f/k/a JOSEPH POLLAK CORP., Case No. 5:14-cv-01410-F (W.D. Okla.), move for preliminary approval of class action settlement, appointment of class counsel, and to set the date for final approval hearing. The litigation arises from allegations that Stoneridge designed, manufactured, and supplied defective clutch safety interlock devices ("CSIDs") for use in certain manual transmission motor vehicles. The CSID is a single function switch designed to prevent a vehicle engine from starting unless the driver fully depresses the clutch pedal. The Plaintiffs allege the subject CSIDs were defectively designed, which can cause the springs to break resulting in a vehicle's untended startup or a vehicle's inability to start. The Settlement Agreement provides relief to a settlement class defined as: All United States residents who currently own vehicles incorporating "Covered CSIDs," defined as all clutch safety interlock devices containing model 16813 compression springs that (1) were built between February 24, 2005 and January 1, 2007; and (2) are not subject to any recall campaign (included but not limited to Chrysler campaigns 14V-795 and 15V-222). Members of the Settlement Class will be eligible to receive from Stoneridge a shipped replacement CSID containing redesigned 16813- 01 springs (the "Replacement CSIDs"), together with instructions describing the appropriate procedure for replacing the CSIDs. Each Replacement CSID has a retail value of approximately $80. In order to receive Replacement CSIDs, members of the Settlement Class must (1) elect to participate; (2) properly complete and submit a claim form with evidence of eligibility (including the date code their CSID); and (3) do so within the time period set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, Plaintiffs Rickey Royal, Sandra Epperson, and Greg Hulcy will apply to this Court for, and Stoneridge has agreed not to oppose, incentive awards in the amount of $5,000 each. Stoneridge will provide notice of the settlement to all reasonably identifiable members of the Settlement Class by first class mail (based on data obtained from the industry-leading vendor for motor vehicle data), and will supplement the mailed notice with a class settlement website containing more detailed notice and claims information. The detailed notice will explain the function of the CSIDs, how to obtain date code evidence, and the potential ramifications of CSID failure. The parties will utilize a mutually agreeable, independent claims administrator to process claims, and Stoneridge will bear the costs of claims administration. The process will include creation of a Web site and toll-free telephone line for the benefit of members of the Settlement Class so that information and forms concerning the settlement are readily available. Stoneridge has agreed not to oppose a fee application by the Plaintiffs' counsel that requests fees and expenses up to the amount of $375,000. The Plaintiffs have agreed not to seek an award of fees and expenses in excess of $375,000. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qGmwy3f9 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey T. Embry, Esq. George Cowden IV, Esq. HOSSLEY EMBRY, LLP 515 S. Vine Avenue Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903) 526-1772 Facsimile: (903) 526-1773 E-mail: jeff@hossleyembry.com george@hossleyembry.com - and - F. Leighton Durham III, Esq. Kirk L. Pittard, Esq. KELLY, DURHAM & PITTARD, LLP P.O. Box 224626 Dallas, TX 75222 Telephone: (214) 946-8000 Facsimile: (214) 946-8433 E-mail: ldurham@texasappeals.com kpittard@texasappeals.com - and - Simone Gosnell Fulmer, Esq. FULMER GROUP PLLC PO Box 2448 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 Telephone: (405) 510-0077 Facsimile: (405) 510-0077 E-mail: sfulmer@fulmersill.com SUNTRUST BANKS: Trial Court to Reconsider Motion in "Bickerstaff" ----------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the trial court will reconsider the motion for class certification in the case, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank. This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. The Bank filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that the Bank's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for the putative class members. The Bank filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and on September 8, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal. On January 4, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal. On July 8, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals of Georgia and remanded the case for further proceedings. As a result, the trial court will reconsider the motion for class certification. SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Company Stock Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in the Company Stock Class Action. Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiffs sought to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"), in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided that appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Circuit Court remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer. On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On August 17, 2016, the District Court entered an order that among other things granted certain of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. According to the Order, the class is defined as "All persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") at any time between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period") and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust common stock ("SunTrust Stock") during that time period and who sustained a loss to their account as a result of the investment in SunTrust Stock." On August 1, 2016, certain non-fiduciary defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as it relates to them, which was granted by the District Court on October 5, 2016. Discovery is ongoing. SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- SunTrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that discovery is ongoing in Mutual Funds Class Actions. On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014. On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Tibble v. Edison International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent investments. After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions into one case. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2016 and discovery is ongoing. SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Says Class Suit Pending in Indiana ------------------------------------------------------ Supreme Industries, Inc. continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Indiana, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2017. On November 4, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, Mark Weber (the Company's Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew W. Long (the Company's Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected backlog. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the plaintiff and the defendants. An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative class period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016. Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at this time, management believes that the allegations are without merit and is vigorously defending the matter. Supreme Industries, Inc., through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Supreme Corporation, is a manufacturer of specialized commercial vehicles including truck bodies and specialty vehicles. SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Objectors Fail to Launch Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the time for objectors to file an appeal in a class action lawsuit has already expired without any appeal being filed. The Company said, "On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against us and our previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI"). On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011. In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement pursuant to which we would pay the plaintiffs $30 million, which we accrued." "On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, which was subsequently paid into escrow by us. The Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and entered judgment in the case. Objectors to the settlement have appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eighth Circuit"), challenging the Court's approval of the settlement, and the decision granting approval was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit on April 28, 2017. The time for the objectors to appeal the Eighth Circuit's ruling has now expired without any appeal being filed. This matter is therefore now closed." Symantec Corporation provides cybersecurity services. TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Allen" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Lela and Melinda Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00217 (S.D. Miss., August 1, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on September 25, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08288. Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for residential purposes. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Reeves, Jr. REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC 160 Main Street P. O. Drawer 1388 (19533) Biloxi, MS 39530 Tel: (228) 374-5151 Email: jrr@rmlawcall.com TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Bright" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned David and Melody Bright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00035 (E.D.N.C., August 1, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on September 22, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08290. Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for residential purposes. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. Plaintiff is represented by: J. Michael Malone, Esq. Hendren & Malone, PLLC 4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 150 Raleigh, NC 27612 Tel: (919) 573-1423 TAISHAN GYPSUM: "DeOliveira" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Harry DeOliveira, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-02019 (E.D.S.C., August 1, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on September 22, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08291. Plaintiff alleges that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for residential purposes. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth M. Suggs, Esq. JANET JENNER & SUGGS, LLC (BALTIMORE) 1777 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Tel: (410) 653-3200 - and - Gerald D. Jowers, Jr. JANET JENNER & SUGGS, LLC (COLUMBIA) 500 Taylor St. Columbia, SC 29201 Tel: (803) 726-0050 TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Lochhead" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Kenneth Lochhead and Maria L. Webste, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv-00294 (S.D. Tex., August 1, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on September 25, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08288. Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for residential purposes. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER LAW, LLP 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Tel: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Mertlitz" Suit Transferred to E.D. La. ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Andy Mertlitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co., Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00140 (E.D. Tex., August 1, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) on September 25, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-08293. Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed, manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered, supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for residential purposes. Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts, breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide. Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER LAW, LLP 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Tel: (972) 387-4040 Fax: (972) 387-4041 Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com TOTAL RENAL: Brewster Sues Over Missed Breaks, Missing Paystubs --------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Brewster, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Total Renal Care, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. BC678087 (Cal. Super., September 29, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked at minimum wage rate, failure to provide meal/rest, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and Professions Code. Defendants operate an enterprise engaged in the business of nursing and dialysis services at multiple locations within California where Brewster worked as nurse. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Stralen, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, APC 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 Email: jstralen@justice4you.com jwatson@justice4you.com TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL: Sued in M.D. Fla. Over Automated Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- Tickling Keys, Inc., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Transamerica Financial Advisors, Inc., World Financial Group, Inc., World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc., and John Does 1-5, Case No. 6:17-cv-01734- RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla., October 5, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. The Defendants operate a multi-level marketing company which sells investment, insurance, and various other financial products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd Ste 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com U.S. BANCORP: Visa Litigation Proceeding in District Court ---------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Visa Restructuring and Card Association Litigation is proceeding in district court. The Company's payment services business issues credit and debit cards and acquires credit and debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. card association or its affiliates (collectively "Visa"). In 2007, Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc. common stock to its financial institution members in contemplation of its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in the first quarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization"). As a part of the Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate number of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares"). Visa U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International (collectively, the "Card Associations") are defendants in antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card Associations (the "Visa Litigation"). Visa U.S.A. member banks have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from the Visa Litigation. The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A. member banks has no specific maximum amount. Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation. The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa Litigation contingent liability. On October 19, 2012, Visa signed a settlement agreement to resolve class action claims associated with the multi-district interchange litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. This case is the largest of the remaining Visa Litigation matters. The district court approved the settlement, but that approval was appealed by certain class members. On June 30, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the approval of the settlement and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling. On November 23, 2016, certain class members filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court asking it to review the Second Circuit's decision to reject the settlement. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the class members' petition. The case is proceeding in the district court. U.S. GOVERNMENT: Faces "Tita" Class Suit in Federal Claims Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against the U.S. government. The case is captioned Christopher Tita and Ijang Fomukong-Tita, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USA, Case No. 1:17-cv-01461-MBH (C.F.C., October 6, 2017). The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6375 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com UBER TECH: "Sienkaniec" Hits Misclassification, Claims Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Sienkaniec, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Rasier, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-04489 (D. Minn., September 29, 2017) seeks to recover all unpaid wages/compensation, liquidated damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs owed under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, California, 94103. Plaintiffs are Uber drivers. Uber allegedly misclassifies its drivers as contractors, not employees, thus denying them basic employee benefits like minimum wages, overtime pay, workers' compensation and benefits to include unemployment insurance, income tax withholding, and the ability to participate in Uber's retirement plan(s), meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff is an Uber Driver who provide on-demand transportation services for Uber. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa S. Weiner, Esq. Christopher J. Moreland, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 Email: weiner@halunenlaw.com moreland@halunenlaw.com UGI CORP: Says AmeriGas Partners Satisfied Case Judgment -------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that AmeriGas Partners has satisfied the judgment in a class action lawsuit. In connection with the AmeriGas Partners' 2012 acquisition of the subsidiaries of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP") that operated ETP's propane distribution business ("Heritage Propane"), the Partnership became party to a class action lawsuit that was filed against Heritage Operating, L.P. in 2005 by Alfred L. Williams, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The class action lawsuit alleged, among other things, wrongful collection of tank rental payments from legacy customers of People's Gas, which was acquired by Heritage Propane in 2000. In 2010, the Florida District Court certified the class and in January 2015, the Florida District Court awarded the class approximately $18.0 million. In April 2016, the Partnership appealed the verdict to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals (the "Second DCA") and, in September 2016, the Second DCA affirmed the verdict without opinion. "Prior to the Second DCA's action in the case, we believed that the likelihood of the Second DCA affirming the Florida District Court's decision was remote," the Company said. As a result of the Second DCA's actions, in September 2016, the Partnership recorded a $15.0 million adjustment to its litigation accrual to reflect the full amount of the judgment plus associated interest. In October 2016, the Partnership filed a Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with the Second DCA. Following denial of such motion, the Partnership satisfied such judgment. UGI conducts a domestic propane marketing and distribution business through AmeriGas Partners, L.P. AmeriGas Partners is a publicly traded limited partnership that conducts a national propane distribution business through its principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP"). AmeriGas Partners and AmeriGas OLP are Delaware limited partnerships. UGI's wholly owned second-tier subsidiary, AmeriGas Propane, Inc. (the "General Partner"), serves as the general partner of AmeriGas Partners and AmeriGas OLP. UGI refers to AmeriGas Partners and its subsidiaries together as the "Partnership" and the General Partner and its subsidiaries, including the Partnership, as "AmeriGas Propane." UGI CORP: Eighth Circuit Appeal in Consumer Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the appeal from the order dismissing an indirect customer class action lawsuit remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District Court"). In July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers. In June 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ("Eighth Circuit") ruled en banc to reverse the dismissal by the District Court, which had previously been affirmed by a panel of the Eighth Circuit. "We are considering the filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Eighth Circuit," the Company said. In July 2015, the District Court also dismissed all claims brought by the indirect customers other than those for injunctive relief. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint with the District Court claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In September 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. The indirect customers appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit; such appeal was subject to a stay pending the en banc review of the direct purchasers' claims. In light of the Eighth Circuit decision with respect to the direct purchaser claims, the briefing schedule in respect of the indirect purchaser appeal will now resume. On July 21, 2016, several new indirect customer plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of Missouri. The new indirect customer class action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain indirect customer plaintiffs appealed the decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect customer appeal still pending in the Eighth Circuit. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. UGI Corporation is a holding company that, through subsidiaries and affiliates, distributes, stores, transports and markets energy products and related services. USAA LIFE INSURANCE: "Spegele" Sues Over Excessive Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- Roy C. Spegele, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. USAA Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00967, (W.D. Tex., September 29, 2017), seeks compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, injunctive relief, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, Plaintiff's costs incurred and such other relief for breach of contract and conversion. Plaintiff purchased a Universal Life Insurance Policy from USAA Life Insurance Company. Defendant is alleged of taking inflated charges and improper amounts from cash values of its policies. Spegele seeks to recover amounts that Defendant charged him in excess of the amounts authorized by the express terms of their life insurance policies including [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Morales II, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 6243 IH-10 West, Suite 132 San Antonio, TX 7820 Telephone No. (210) 225-0811 Facsimile No. (210) 225-0821 Email: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 711 Third Ave, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212)798-0136 Facsimile: (212)557-2952 Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com amo@girardgibbs.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 Email: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Still Defends 3 Class Suits ------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that as of June 30, 2017, three actions were pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these actions. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action, violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties, creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds, disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of limitations and federal preemption. In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class certification hearing has been held. The case has been stayed for a number of years, with the stay renewed every few years. The last stay was entered on March 16, 2016 and stays the case, including all discovery, pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants. Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues. Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969 should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial. The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs. With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome of the first phase of the trial. On May 23, 2016, the trial court ruled that the case may proceed against Liggett. Liggett requested that the trial court certify the matter to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals for review, but the trial court refused. A scheduling order was entered governing the Phase I common issues pre-trial proceedings and discovery is underway. It is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in approximately 90 individual cases. WELCH FOODS: "Hall" Class Suit Removed to East. Dist. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on June 5, 2017 entitled Lauren Hall, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Welch Foods, Inc. and The Promotion In Motion Companies, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-03997, was removed on October 5, 2017, from the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05828-RRM-JO. The case asserts labor-related claims. Welch Foods, Inc. processes and produces grape-based products that include juices, jams, jellies, and spreads. The Promotion In Motion Companies, Inc. manufactures and markets confections, fruit snacks, fruit rolls, and snack foods in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Scott Bauchner, Esq. Michael H. Ansell, Esq. ANSELL GRIMM & AARON, P.C. 365 Rifle Camp Road Woodland Park, NJ 07424 Telephone: (973) 247-9199 Facsimile: (973) 247-9199 E-mail: jb@ansellgrimm.com mha@ansellgrimm.com The Defendant is represented by: David R. King, Esq. Ronald Jay Levine, Esq. HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 274-2000 Facsimile: (973) 274-2500 E-mail: dking@herrick.com rlevine@herrick.com - and - Leah Kelman, Esq. HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP 2 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 542-1400 E-mail: lkelman@herrick.com WELLS FARGO: 3 ATM Access Fee Cases Returned to District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that three ATM access fee cases have been returned to the district court for further proceedings. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin, et. al. v. Visa, Inc. et. al., against Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that if an ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCard transactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access fee charged for transactions on other networks violates antitrust rules. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law. Two other antitrust cases which make similar allegations were filed in the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as a defendant. On February 13, 2013, the district court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the three actions. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court's decisions and remanded the three cases to the district court for further proceedings. On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granted defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the three cases returned to the district court for further proceedings. WELLS FARGO: Discovery Proceeding in Remanded Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that discovery is proceeding in the opt-out litigations and the remanded class cases related to the Interchange Litigation. Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filed putative class actions, and individual merchants have filed individual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wachovia Corporation regarding the interchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions. Visa, MasterCard and several other banks and bank holding companies are also named as defendants in these actions. These actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims against defendants based on alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief. Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard and payment card issuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates. Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa and MasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offered to merchants are anticompetitive. Wells Fargo and Wachovia, along with other defendants and entities, are parties to Loss and Judgment Sharing Agreements, which provide that they, along with other entities, will share, based on a formula, in any losses from the Interchange Litigation. On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard and the financial institution defendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidated class action and reached a separate settlement in principle of the consolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be made by all defendants in the consolidated class and individual actions totaled approximately $6.6 billion before reductions applicable to certain merchants opting out of the settlement. The class settlement also provided for the distribution to class merchants of 10 basis points of default interchange across all credit rate categories for a period of eight consecutive months. The District Court granted final approval of the settlement, which was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by settlement objector merchants. Other merchants opted out of the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions. On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the settlement agreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, prior class counsel filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of the reversal of the settlement by the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017. On November 30, 2016, the District Court appointed lead class counsel for a damages class and an equitable relief class. Several of the opt-out litigations were settled during the pendency of the Second Circuit appeal while others remain pending. WELLS FARGO: Appeal in Order of Posting Litigation Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that Wells Fargo's appeal in the Order of Posting Litigation remains pending. Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions against Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many other banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the banks post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. Most of these actions were consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings (the "MDL proceedings") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putative plaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of the claims of unnamed class members. The court denied the motions to compel arbitration on October 17, 2016. Wells Fargo has appealed this decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. WELLS FARGO: RMBS Trustee Litigation Still Pending -------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that the Company continues to defend the RMBS Trustee Litigation. In November 2014, a group of institutional investors (the "Institutional Investor Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for a number of residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint"). Similar complaints have been filed against other trustees in various courts, including in the Southern District of New York, in New York state court and in other states, by RMBS investors. The Federal Court Complaint alleges that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee, caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, notify investors of alleged events of default, and abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Plaintiffs seek money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. In December 2014 and December 2015, certain other investors filed four complaints alleging similar claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the Southern District of New York, and the various cases pending against Wells Fargo are proceeding before the same judge. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court dismissed claims related to certain of the trusts at issue (the "Dismissed Trusts"). The Company's motion to dismiss the Federal Court Complaint was granted in part and denied in part in March 2017. In May 2017, the Company filed third-party complaints against certain investment advisors affiliated with the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs seeking contribution with respect to claims alleged in the Federal Court Complaint. A complaint raising similar allegations to the Federal Court Complaint was filed in May 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor. In addition, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint relating to the Dismissed Trusts and certain additional trusts in California state court (the "California Action"). The California Action was subsequently dismissed in September 2016. In December 2016, the Institutional Investor Plaintiffs filed a new putative class action complaint in New York state court in respect of 261 RMBS trusts, including the Dismissed Trusts, for which Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. serves or served as trustee (the "State Court Action"). The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint. In July 2017, certain of the plaintiffs from the State Court Action filed a civil complaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s setting aside reserves for legal fees and expenses in connection with the liquidation of eleven RMBS trusts at issue in the State Court Action. The complaint seeks, among other relief, declarations that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is not entitled to indemnification, the advancement of funds or the taking of reserves from trust funds for legal fees and expenses it incurs in defending the claims in the State Court Action. WELLS FARGO: Hearing on "Jabbari" Settlement Set for Q1 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------ Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that a final approval hearing has been scheduled for the first quarter of 2018 on the settlement in the case, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Federal, state and local government agencies, including the Department of Justice, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Department of Labor, and state attorneys general and prosecutors' offices, as well as Congressional committees, have undertaken formal or informal inquiries, investigations or examinations arising out of certain sales practices of the Company that were the subject of settlements with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney announced by the Company on September 8, 2016. The Company has responded, and continues to respond, to requests from a number of the foregoing seeking information regarding these sales practices and the circumstances of the settlements and related matters. In addition, a number of lawsuits have also been filed by non- governmental parties seeking damages or other remedies related to these sales practices. First, various class plaintiffs purporting to represent consumers who allege that they received products or services without their authorization or consent have brought separate putative class actions against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and various other jurisdictions. In April 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement in the first-filed action, Jabbari v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to resolve claims regarding certain products or services provided without authorization or consent for the time period May 1, 2002 to April 20, 2017. The Company said, "Pursuant to the settlement, we will pay $142 million for remediation, attorneys' fees, and settlement fund claims administration. In the unlikely event that the $142 million settlement total is not enough to provide remediation, pay attorneys' fees, pay settlement fund claims administration costs, and have at least $25 million left over to distribute to all class members, the Company will contribute additional funds to the settlement." "The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in July 2017. A final approval hearing has been scheduled for the first quarter of 2018. WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Suits over Amazon.com Merger ----------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market, Inc. is defending class action lawsuits related to its merger with Amazon.com, Whole Foods said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017. On June 15, 2017, Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon.com") and Whole Foods Market, Inc. ("Whole Foods Market") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger under which Walnut Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon.com ("Merger Sub") will be merged with and into Whole Foods Market, with Whole Foods Market continuing as the surviving company. After the transaction was announced, three putative class action lawsuits - captioned Riegel v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-00674-LY (W.D. Tex.), Berg v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-00677-LY (W.D. Tex.), and Gieske v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-00684 (W.D. Tex.) - were filed by purported Whole Foods Market stockholders in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaints in these actions assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the disclosures contained in the July 7, 2017 preliminary proxy statement filed by Whole Foods Market with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Each suit names Whole Foods Market and the directors of Whole Foods Market as defendants. The Berg suit also names Amazon.com and Merger Sub as defendants. The complaints seek a variety of equitable and injunctive relief including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the merger, rescinding the transaction if it is consummated, and awarding the plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees. Copies of the complaints in these three actions were publicly filed by the Company as Soliciting Material under Sec. 240.14a-12 of the Exchange Act on July 21, 2017. Whole Foods Market believes that plaintiffs' claims are without merit. Whole Foods Market is a natural and organic foods supermarket. XTO ENERGY: Amount Charged to Trust Not Yet Determined ------------------------------------------------------ Hugoton Royalty Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017, that in the case, Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc., the Trustee has requested the settlement amount from XTO Energy and has been informed that at this time, the amount that XTO Energy believes should be charged to the Trust has not been determined. In December 2010, a royalty class action lawsuit was filed against XTO Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case was certified as a class action in April 2012; however, on appeal in June 2012, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the certification of the class and remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. XTO Energy has informed the Trustee that it has reached a tentative settlement for the matter. The Trustee has requested the settlement amount from XTO Energy and has been informed that at this time, the amount that XTO Energy believes should be charged to the Trust has not been determined. XTO Energy has advised the Trustee that the settlement will be allocated to all of XTO Energy's Oklahoma wells, the majority of which are not properties in which the Trust owns an underlying net profits interest. * JND's Keough Named Female Entrepreneur of the Year Finalist ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Keough, CEO and co-founder of JND Legal Administration, a legal management and administration company serving law firms, corporations and government entities, has been named a Female Entrepreneur of the Year finalist in the 14th annual Stevie(R) Awards for Women in Business. As a finalist, Ms. Keough will ultimately be recognized as a Gold, Silver or Bronze Stevie Award winner. The Stevie Awards for Women in Business honor women executives, employees and the companies they run -- worldwide. The Stevie Awards have been hailed as the world's premier business awards. "Every year we say that the current crop of Stevies for Women nominations couldn't be better, and the next year we're proven wrong," said Michael Gallagher, founder and president of the Stevie Awards. "The judges' scores and comments bear witness to the fact that this year we will honor a truly remarkable class of women and women-led organizations." Finalists were chosen from a pool of more than 1,500 candidates by more than 170 professionals serving on five specialized judging committees. Gold, Silver and Bronze Stevie Award winners will be announced during a gala event on November 17 at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in New York. More details about the Stevie Awards for Women in Business and the list of finalists are available at https://stevieawards.com/women/2017-stevie-award-winners. "It is an honor to be recognized among some of the world's most accomplished female business leaders," Ms. Keough comments. "I'm proud of the results we have achieved at JND. Our success is very important to me, as is the culture we strive to create where men and woman work collaboratively and equally. Being recognized as a Female Entrepreneur of the year is also a testament to the strong partnership between me and JND's other co-founders, Neil Zola and David Isaac." Under Ms. Keough's leadership, JND has more than doubled its revenues in just one year making it the fastest-growing company in its industry. As the only female CEO in the legal administration sector, Ms. Keough serves as a mentor and role model for women seeking to achieve professional success. Prior to co-founding JND, Ms. Keough served as chief operating officer and executive vice president of one of the largest class action administration firms in the country at that time. Previously, she worked as a class action business analyst at Perkins Coie. Ms. Keough holds a law degree and a master's in finance from Seattle University, and was named as a "Women Worth Watching" in 2015 and 2017 by Profiles in Diversity Journal. About JND Legal Administration JND Legal Administration -- http://www.JNDLA.com-- is a legal management and administration company led by a team of industry veterans who are passionate about providing superior service to clients. Armed with decades of expertise and a powerful set of tools, JND has deep experience expertly navigating the intricacies of multiple, intersecting service lines including class action settlements, corporate restructuring, eDiscovery, mass tort claims and government services. JND is trusted by law firms, government agencies and Fortune 500 companies across the nation. The company is backed by Stone Point Capital and has offices in California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Washington and Washington, D.C. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Junks Synergy Suits vs. Ligett ----------------------------------------------------------- A trial court issued an order dismissing all synergy cases against the tobacco defendants, including Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, without prejudice, according to Vector Group's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. The Company states, "Liggett was a defendant in 16 multi-defendant personal injury cases in Maryland that allege claims arising from asbestos and tobacco exposure. The tobacco defendants, including Liggett, moved to dismiss the cases. In the past, motions to dismiss have generally been successful, typically resulting in the dismissal without prejudice of the tobacco company defendants. In Stidham, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., however, a Maryland intermediate appellate court ruled that dismissal of tobacco company defendants may not be appropriate where the asserted injury is based on both asbestos and tobacco exposure ("synergy cases"). In July 2016, the Court of Appeals (Maryland's highest court) ruled that joinder of tobacco and asbestos cases may be possible in certain circumstances, but plaintiffs must demonstrate at the trial court level how such cases may be joined while providing appropriate safeguards to prevent embarrassment, delay, expense or prejudice to defendants and "the extent to which, if at all, the special procedures applicable to asbestos cases should extend to tobacco companies." The Court of Appeals remanded these issues to be determined at the trial court level. On June 2, 2017, the trial court issued an order dismissing all synergy cases against the tobacco defendants, including Liggett, without prejudice. Plaintiffs may seek appellate review or file new cases against just the tobacco companies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Rp4698 Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc. units are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States. Its New Valley LLC unit is engaged in the real estate business and seeks to acquire additional operating companies and real estate properties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Phase I Discovery Underway in Smoker Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Phase I discovery in individual smoker actions against numerous defendants including Vector Group Ltd.'s subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, are underway, according to Vector Group's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. The Company states, "In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants. "Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues. Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969 should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further proceedings. The court entered judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims except the ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30 plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial. The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs. With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett survive given the outcome of the first phase of the trial. On May 23, 2016, the trial court ruled that the case may proceed against Liggett. Liggett requested that the trial court certify the matter to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals for review, but the trial court refused. A scheduling order was entered governing the Phase I common issues pre-trial proceedings and discovery is underway. It is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in approximately 90 individual cases." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Rp4698 Headquartered in Miami, Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group LLC and Vector Tobacco Inc. units are engaged in the manufacture and sale of cigarettes in the United States. Its New Valley LLC unit is engaged in the real estate business and seeks to acquire additional operating companies and real estate properties. ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Has $606.1MM Asbestos Liability as of July 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- SPX Corporation recorded $606.1 for asbestos product liability matters at July 1, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 1, 2017. The Company says, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries (collectively, "claims"). These claims relate to litigation matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual property, and competitive claims), environmental matters, product liability matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management matters (e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers' compensation claims). Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring significantly greater loss than we anticipate. While we (and our subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product, general liability, environmental, and directors' and officers' liability insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies in connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us against potential loss exposures. Also, while we believe we are entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect us against potential loss exposures. "Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled $651.4 (including $606.1 for asbestos product liability matters) and $653.5 (including $605.6 for asbestos product liability matters) at July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Of these amounts, $615.7 and $621.0 are included in "Other long-term liabilities" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, with the remainder included in "Accrued expenses." The liabilities we record for these claims are based on a number of assumptions, including historical claims and payment experience and, with respect to asbestos claims, actuarial estimates of the future period during which additional claims are reasonably foreseeable. While we base our assumptions on facts currently known to us, they entail inherently subjective judgments and uncertainties. As a result, our current assumptions for estimating these liabilities may not prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these liabilities in the future, which could result in charges to earnings. These variances relative to current expectations could have a material impact on our financial position and results of operations. "Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we no longer operate. It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or more corporate entities to be named as defendants. We vigorously defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment, and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements. During the three months ended July 1, 2017 and July 2, 2016, our payments for asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries, were $1.2 and $1.3, respectively. During the six months ended July 1, 2017, our insurance recoveries for asbestos- related matters, net of payments, were $7.8, which included cash proceeds received during the first quarter of 2017 of $8.5 related to a settlement reached with an insurance carrier. During the six months ended July 2, 2016, our payments for asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries, were $3.0. A significant increase in claims, costs and/or issues with existing insurance coverage (e.g., dispute with or insolvency of insurer(s)) could have a material adverse impact on our share of future payments related to these matters, and, as such, have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling $554.0 and $564.4 at July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, and included in "Other assets" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets. These assets represent amounts that we believe we are or will be entitled to recover under agreements we have with insurance companies. The assets we record for these insurance recoveries are based on a number of assumptions, including the continued solvency of the insurers, and are subject to a variety of uncertainties. Our current assumptions for estimating these assets may not prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these assets in the future, which could result in additional charges to earnings. These variances relative to current expectations could have a material impact on our financial position and results of operations. "During the three and six months ended July 1, 2017, we recorded a charge to "Other income (expense), net" of $3.0 associated with the settlement of a group of asbestos-related claims, while there were no such charges during the three and six months ended July 2, 2016." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/2PuTCB ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 19 Cases at July 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. has 19 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2017. The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently has three pending silica cases and 19 pending asbestos cases. To date, 1,493 silica cases and 50 asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of AMCOL. Two new asbestos cases were filed in the second quarter of 2017, and one asbestos case was dismissed during the quarter (not counting an existing case that was dismissed in one state only to be filed again in another state). No silica cases were dismissed during the quarter. Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. "The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 19 pending asbestos cases, 16 of the non-AMCOL cases claim liability based on sales of products both before and after the initial public offering. The Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for sales prior to the initial public offering. In the two remaining non-AMCOL cases, the plaintiffs have not alleged dates of exposure. The remaining case is an AMCOL case, which makes no allegation with respect to periods of exposure. Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/cvMTGN ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Settlement Obligation Estimated at $364MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") estimates its future obligation for the settlement of personal injury claims at $364 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2017. The Company states, "The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF by 1985. "BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends. "Throughout the year, BNSF monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary. "Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF projects that approximately 65, 80 and 95 percent of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively. Other Personal Injury "BNSF estimates its other personal injury liability claims and expense quarterly based on the covered population, activity levels and trends in frequency and the costs of covered injuries. Estimates include unasserted claims except for certain repetitive stress and other occupational trauma claims that allegedly result from prolonged repeated events or exposure. Such claims are estimated on an as-reported basis because the Company cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss due to other non- work related contributing causes of such injuries and the fact that continued exposure is required for the potential injury to manifest itself as a claim. BNSF has not experienced any significant adverse trends related to these types of claims in recent years. "BNSF monitors quarterly actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received, the forecasted number of claims closing with payment and expected claim payments. Adjustments to the Company's estimates are recorded quarterly as necessary or more frequently as new events or revised estimates develop. "At June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, $80 million and $85 million was included in current liabilities, respectively. Defense and processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis, were not included in the recorded liability. The Company is primarily self-insured for personal injury claims. "Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs to settle personal injury claims may range from approximately $320 million to $435 million. However, BNSF believes that the $364 million recorded at June 30, 2017 is the best estimate of the Company's future obligation for the settlement of personal injury claims. "The amounts recorded by BNSF for personal injury liabilities were based upon currently known facts. Future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of disposing of claims, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding personal injury litigation in the United States, could cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than projected. "Although the final outcome of personal injury matters cannot be predicted with certainty, considering among other things the meritorious legal defenses available and liabilities that have been recorded, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of these items, when finally resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or liquidity. However, the occurrence of a number of these items in the same period could have a material adverse effect on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/tJVA6n ASBESTOS UPDATE: PC Trust Reaches Deal with Asbestos Claimants -------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce Gannon, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported that a trust set up to handle asbestos litigation against Pittsburgh Corning Corp. has reached a $178 million settlement with a group of 2,000 claimants who have been seeking relief since the 1990s. In a deal disclosed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Pittsburgh, the $4 billion trust agreed to pay initially $38 million to the group, called the Cimino claims, which filed its cases against Pittsburgh Corning in Texas in the 1990s. They will receive another $140 million if an arbitration panel decides in their favor. The trust had resisted paying the claims saying some of them never went to trial or their verdicts were overturned. The trust was created to handle claims when Pittsburgh Corning emerged from bankruptcy in 2016. Thousands of people filed claims saying the company's insulation products caused illnesses. The trust is funded by PPG and Corning Inc. which were original joint venture partners in the company. Earlier this year, Plum- based Pittsburgh Corning was acquired by Owens Corning of Toledo, Ohio. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Japanese Gov't. Responsible for Asbestos Damage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jiji Press reported that the Yokohama District Court ordered the Japanese government and two construction materials makers to pay a total of JPY306 million in damages over health problems caused by asbestos. Judge Otake Yuko, who presided over the lawsuit at the court in Yokohama, said that the state failed to put proper asbestos regulations into place and that the two firms neglected their duty to indicate asbestos use in their products. In the suit, 61 former construction workers and bereaved relatives demanded damages totaling some JPY1.7 billion yen from the state and 43 construction materials manufacturers, claiming that the workers developed lung cancer or other diseases after inhaling the toxic substance at construction sites. Otake said that the government recognized the danger of asbestos by 1974 at the latest, adding that companies have been obligated since 1976 to put warnings on the wrapping or packaging materials for their products containing asbestos. The judge pointed out that damages can be granted in cases in which asbestos made by a particular company is strongly suspected to be the cause of health damage. ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talc User's Body Had Asbestos, Jury Hears -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a woman claiming asbestos in Johnson & Johnson's talcum products caused her mesothelioma had particles of both talc and asbestos in the lymph nodes connected to her lungs, as well as talc in her lung tissue, a Mount Sinai pathologist told a California jury. During the fourth day of the trial in Pasadena, California, plaintiffs Tina and Doug Herford called to the stand pathologist Ronald E. Gordon of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai to back up their claim. During the first day of the retrial in Pasadena, California, nine days after Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge C. Edward Simpson declared a mistrial two days into the first attempt to try the case. If Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products contained asbestos, a person using them on their child or on themselves could develop mesothelioma, a former Tulane pathology professor and asbestos expert testified in a California trial for a woman alleging she developed the cancer in this way. During the second day of the trial in Pasadena, California, plaintiffs Tina and Doug Herford called to the stand Tulane University professor emeritus and asbestos expert Arnold Brody as the first witness supporting their claim that J&J and its talc supplier Imerys Talc America Inc. are responsible for Tina Herford's mesothelioma, an asbestos-related lung cancer. Under examination by the Herfords' attorney Jay Stuemke of Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC, Brody testified in detail for the jury about how asbestos fibers enter human lungs, cause damage to the DNA in the cells lining the lungs, and through this process trigger the development of mesothelioma. At the conclusion of Brody's testimony, Stuemke laid out a lengthy hypothetical scenario bearing close resemblance to Herford's own story -- a person, born in the 1950s, who has talcum powder products used on them as a child, and who uses them themselves for decades. Stuemke asked if that talcum powder hypothetically contained asbestos, and that hypothetical person had mesothelioma, would Brody consider the talcum powder a cause of the mesothelioma. "Yes, that would be a cause in my view. There is asbestos, if there's asbestos above background, if the individual was exposed," Brody answered. Alexander Calfo, Esq. -- acalfo@kslaw.com -- of King & Spalding LLP, representing J&J, began his cross-examination by pressing Brody about the fact that he had not actually studied Herford herself, or J&J's talc. "Doctor, you've done nothing to support even a thought that the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder used by Mrs. Herford was somehow contaminated with asbestos, true?" Calfo asked. "I've not studied Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder," Brody answered. Calfo again pressed Brody on the subject, asking him to confirm that he had done no work specific to Herford's case. "I don't expect that Mrs. Herford's lungs reacted differently than anyone else's. That's why I can teach that, to medical students or the jury, this is what happened in a person who developed mesothelioma," Brody answered. The Herfords filed suit in January against a host of companies, alleging that they were responsible for asbestos that they say caused Tina Herford's mesothelioma. The case headed to trial earlier this month with claims against J&J and Imerys. On Oct. 10, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge C. Edward Simpson declared a mistrial because Tina Herford, who took the stand as the first witness in her case on Oct. 6, violated a court order by mentioning the alleged link between J&J's talc and ovarian cancer, according to attorneys for the parties. A new jury was empaneled for a retrial, which began Thursday. The Herfords' trial came in the wake of multiple lawsuits that have accused J&J's talcum powder of causing harm, not through any alleged asbestos link but rather by contending that the talcum powder itself causes ovarian cancer when applied to a woman's genital area. After five completed trials in St. Louis over the alleged link between J&J's talcum powder products and ovarian cancer, the company was hit with verdicts totaling more than $300 million but also was cleared of liability in one trial. In the first trial in consolidated Los Angeles County litigation about the issue, a jury awarded plaintiff Eva Echeverria $417 million. On Friday, however, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maren E. Nelson tossed that $417 million verdict, ruling that Echeverria's expert witnesses had failed to provide sufficient evidence that her ovarian cancer was more likely than not caused by J&J's talc. The Herfords are represented by Jay Stuemke and Chris Panatier of Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett PC. J&J is represented by Sharla J. Frost, Esq. -- sharla.frost@tuckerellis.com -- of Tucker Ellis LLP, Morton Dubin, Esq. -- mdubin@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and Alexander Calfo of King & Spalding LLP. Imerys is represented by Todd Benoff, Esq. -- todd.benoff@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird LLP. The case is Tina Herford et al. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number BC646315, consolidated in LAOSD Asbestos Cases, case number JCCP4674, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Butte Contractor Sues Montana DEQ Over Disposal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Ayer, writing for NBC Montana, reported that a Butte contractor is suing Montana's Department of Environmental Quality claiming the agency isn't doing its job in making sure asbestos waste is being properly disposed in Montana landfills. Doug Ingraham, the corporate secretary of Ingraham Environmental in Butte, tells NBC Montana it's state law that all waste be properly screened before it's disposed of. He said when asbestos waste is disposed there needs to be an inspection, but landfill operators aren't enforcing it. Ingraham said it's a health hazard for anyone that breathes in the air near landfills. He filed a lawsuit in early August with the DEQ and said they are just beginning to respond. NBC Montana reached out to the DEQ, but so far they haven't returned our calls. "The department requires landfills to uphold the plans that they have submitted that require them to handle asbestos in a specific manner. These plans are in place right now and dictate how they're to be handled, and nobody's checking to make sure that that's happening," Ingraham said. Ingraham said he's been trying to raise this awareness for 11 years and believes a court intervention is the only way to get a significant change. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Ct. Flips Summary Ruling in Colgate Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reported that a California appeals court said a trial court had erred in granting summary judgment to Colgate-Palmolive Co over allegations its cosmetic talcum powder Cashmere Bouquet contained asbestos and caused a woman to develop mesothelioma. In a unanimous decision the three-justice panel of the California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3 said that Mary Lyons had provided enough evidence to warrant a trial. Dave Simpson, writing for Law360, said the California appellate court revived the suit against Colgate brought by a woman alleging their talc product contained asbestos that contributed to her mesothelioma, ruling that contrary to the lower court's assessment, there was triable evidence in the case. In a unanimous published decision, the panel struck down the November 2016 ruling of Superior Court Judge Garrett L. Wong, who'd found that Mary Lyons did not have sufficient triable evidence after Colgate-Palmolive Co. picked apart the testimony of her expert witness, Sean Fitzgerald. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Justices to Weigh Coverage Gap Quandary ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reported that New Jersey's high court will hear arguments in Travelers' appeal of a decision that Honeywell doesn't have to help cover costs tied to asbestos- related injury suits filed after insurers started excluding asbestos coverage, in a case that could broadly impact how coverage is spread between policyholders and insurers in similar cases. What's at Stake The New Jersey Supreme Court is considering a bid by two excess insurers, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. and parent Travelers Casualty and Surety Co., to overturn a state appellate panel's decision that Honeywell International Inc. doesn't have to foot the bill for asbestos product liability suits filed against it after exclusions for claims tied to the carcinogen became common in general liability insurance policies in 1987. The panel's ruling was based on its application of the so-called unavailability exception established in the state high court's landmark 1994 ruling in the case of Owens-Illinois Inc. v. United Insurance Co. In Owens-Illinois, the New Jersey justices adopted a "pro rata" insurance allocation method, whereby each of a company's insurance companies is liable for a proportional amount of a loss based on the length of time the insurer's policies were in effect and the degree of risk assumed. Under that decision, if a policyholder consciously decides not to buy available insurance for a particular risk, it must cover a portion of the liability for claims arising during that time period. If, however, there is no insurance available for purchase, the unavailability exception applies and the policyholder has no coverage obligations. The current case has a wrinkle: Travelers is arguing that Honeywell's predecessor deliberately continued to manufacture asbestos-containing products after 1987, even after the risks of the substance became apparent. Attorneys who represent policyholders have told Law360 that a decision in Travelers' favor could unfairly force insureds to pay out-of-pocket for claims of asbestos injuries occurring during periods when asbestos coverage could not be purchased. Conversely, lawyers who counsel insurance carriers have said a decision for Honeywell could reward irresponsible business decisions by policyholders. How We Got Here During the 17-year-old case, Honeywell has sought coverage under more than 330 policies issued by various insurance companies to its predecessors, Bendix Corp. and Allied Corp., for scores of claims brought by individuals who allege they were injured by exposure to Bendix's asbestos-containing brake and clutch pads. Honeywell ultimately settled with all of the insurers except for Travelers and its St. Paul unit, which had issued a total of 10 excess policies to Bendix between 1968 and 1983, according to court documents. Notably, Honeywell is pursuing coverage from those carriers only for claims brought by individuals who were allegedly first exposed to asbestos-containing products before asbestos exclusions proliferated in 1987. In a July 2016 opinion, a panel of the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld a lower court's holding that the Garden State's law applies to the case and also affirmed that Honeywell did not have to share coverage for the underlying claims as if it were self-insured after 1987 because excess coverage for asbestos injury claims was no longer available after that year. Travelers filed a petition for review with the New Jersey Supreme Court, challenging the lower courts' rulings on both the choice of law and the unavailability exception, and the state high court agreed to hear the case last December. Travelers' Stance For starters, Travelers is contending that Michigan -- rather than New Jersey -- law applies to the dispute, because the policies at issue were brokered, negotiated, underwritten and delivered to Bendix in Michigan decades ago, well before that company was acquired by Honeywell. As the appellate panel noted, the determination of the proper law will have a significant impact on the way Honeywell's coverage is allocated. According to the appellate opinion, New Jersey courts have established a unique pro rata allocation method that takes into account both the length of time an insurer's policies were in place and the limits of those policies, while Michigan courts don't consider limits in the allocation analysis. Travelers says the Appellate Division's choice-of-law ruling flouted precedent favoring application of the law of the state in which an insurance policy is negotiated and issued. The insurer also asserted that the parties can avoid more costly litigation if Michigan's "far simpler" allocation method is applied. "The approach adopted by the Appellate Division threatens to undermine important policy interests that have long informed choice of law, including the needs of certainty, predictability and uniformity, the reasonable expectations of the parties, the interests of national commerce, and ease of judicial administration, and in the process injects needless confusion, complexity and inconsistency," Travelers contended in its petition for review. With respect to allocation, Travelers argued that the Appellate Division applied a "rigid and inflexible" reading of Owens- Illinois's unavailability exception, failing to take into account Bendix's decision to continue making and selling asbestos- containing products after 1987. "Rather than encouraging responsible conduct, the Appellate Division has implicitly encouraged risk-taking and irresponsible conduct, and would signal to manufacturers that they can continue to engage in activities alleged to cause continuous and progressive injury without insurance coverage knowing they will be able to transfer losses to their prior insurers," Travelers said in its petition. Honeywell's Stance For its part, Honeywell countered in an opposition brief that the parties lack sufficient ties to Michigan that would justify applying that state's law to the case, given the fact that Honeywell has been based in New Jersey for more than 30 years. Moreover, Honeywell said, courts have already ruled that the Garden State's law applies to hundreds of other policies issued to the company and its predecessors, so it would make no sense to apply Michigan law solely to the 10 Travelers excess policies. "While Travelers' view of Michigan law would reduce its obligations, New Jersey law requires Travelers to pay its fair share of claims, consistent with New Jersey's interest in protecting its policyholders," Honeywell argued in its brief. In addition, Honeywell said, Travelers has misleadingly suggested that the company is trying to seek coverage for its predecessor's conduct after 1987 under policies issued before that year. To the contrary, Honeywell is seeking coverage only for claims by individuals who allege they were first exposed to Bendix products prior to 1987, before asbestos exclusions became standard, according to the brief. "Travelers failed to come forward with a single shred of evidence that any conduct by Honeywell after 1987 had any effect on such pre-1987 exposure claims," Honeywell's attorneys wrote. Counsel St. Paul and Travelers are represented by Stefano V. Calogero, Esq. -- scalogero@windelsmarx.com -- and Tanya M. Mascarich, Esq. -- tmascarich@windelsmarx.com -- of Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP and Andrew T. Frankel of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. Honeywell is represented by Michael J. Lynch, Esq. -- Mike.Lynch@klgates.com -- Donald W. Kiel, Esq. -- Mike.Lynch@klgates.com -- Donald E. Seymour, Esq. -- Mike.Lynch@klgates.com -- and John T. Waldron III, Esq., of K&L Gates LLP. The case is Continental Insurance Co. et al. v. Honeywell International Inc. et al., case number 078152, in the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey. ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wants Maine Law to Govern Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reported that Maine law should govern claims against General Electric Co. in a former U.S. Navy shipyard worker's asbestos exposure lawsuit, the company told a Massachusetts federal court, arguing the man lived and worked almost his entire life in Maine and never in Massachusetts. Ernest Burleigh, who originally sued GE and a number of other companies over a cancer diagnosis in December 2015, was born and raised in Maine and lived and worked there except for a four-year stint in North Carolina that ended in 1959. Burleigh died in June 2016 and his widow, Ruth, is pursuing claims as representative of his estate. Massachusetts and Maine law differ considerably regarding issues of fault, damages and contribution and those differences are significant in a case such as the instant suit, where Burleigh sued a number of defendants and claims his mesothelioma was caused by exposure to a variety of products over a period of 40 years, GE said. "These different considerations dramatically affect the determination of the nature and scope of GE's liability as well as whether any damages awarded are GE's sole responsibility or are to be shared with other culpable parties and nonparties," GE said. "Since these conflicts cannot be reconciled, a choice of law analysis is necessary in this case." Burleigh worked several jobs in Maine prior to leaving for North Carolina: at a local movie theater, a service station, a shoe factory, a mill and at two motor companies. Upon his return, he worked for a short time at a textile mill and a twine factory before starting work at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, in 1960. He worked there until 1994. It's clear and undisputed that the only place he could've encountered GE products was at the shipyard, GE said, arguing that no other state's laws fit the claims against it better than Maine's. In Massachusetts, only active defendants can be included on verdict forms -- settled defendants and non-parties, such as bankrupt companies, cannot. In Maine, however, only non-settling defendants must pay their part of a verdict. GE said that this distinction would seriously affect the amount of damages for which it may ultimately be liable. After Burleigh died, his widow amended the lawsuit to include a wrongful death claim, and in Massachusetts, if wrongful death was caused by malicious, willful or reckless misconduct, punitive limitless damages are possible. Meanwhile, in Maine, there's a statutory cap of $500,000 for non-economic damages and punitive damages are only available if a defendant clearly acted maliciously, but are capped at $250,000 in wrongful death suits, GE said. As for verdict contribution, Massachusetts says defendants are jointly liable, requiring them to figure out how much they each have to pay, while in Maine, each defendant has the right to seek contributions from the others, GE said. The company acknowledged that it is based in Massachusetts, but argued that while the state has an interest in providing a forum for residents to seek compensation for personal injuries, its interest doesn't outweigh Maine's interest in compensation for harm related to products sold in, purchased from or worked on within its borders. Ruth Burleigh could not be reached for comment. GE is represented by Catherine A. Mohan, Esq. -- cmohan@mccarter.com -- of McCarter & English LLP. Burleigh is represented by James L. Ferraro Jr. and David Jagolinzer of The Ferraro Law Firm PA. The case is Burleigh v. General Electric Co., et al., case number 1:16-cv-11030, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Urges Court to Chuck $8MM Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------ Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reported that an industrial manufacturer facing part of a mesothelioma sufferer's $8 million verdict told the Florida Supreme Court that the award should not stand because expert testimony underpinning the verdict is inadmissible, whether the court decides to adopt a stricter standard for screening expert testimony or not. Crane Co., which is on the hook for part of the $8 million award, urged the high court to affirm a Fourth District Court of Appeal decision reversing the award to plaintiff Richard DeLisle. ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Talcum Powder Suit Trials Continue ------------------------------------------------------- Another talcum powder lawsuit is at trial in California, this time involving a woman who claims her long-time use of Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products caused a deadly form of cancer called mesothelioma. (Case No. JCCP4674) The trial opened on October 19th in Los Angeles County Superior Court in Pasadena, with the plaintiff's attorney asserting that Johnson & Johnson had evidence confirming the presence of asbestos particles in its talcum powder products for decades, but deliberately withheld this information from consumers. "Our Firm is representing a number of women who allegedly developed ovarian cancer due to the long-term use of Johnson & Johnson's talc-based powders for feminine hygiene purposes. They also accuse the company of concealing this potential risk from the public," says Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq. -- Liebhard@bernlieb.com -- a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of defective medical devices, drugs and consumer products. The Firm is offering free legal reviews to women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer that may be associated with Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to- Shower products. Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Litigation More than 4,800 lawsuits involving talcum powder and ovarian cancer have been filed against Johnson & Johnson in courts throughout the nation. Plaintiffs involved in this litigation claim that the company has long been aware of studies dating to the 1970s that suggest the regular and repeated application of talcum powder to the female genitals increases a woman's risk of ovarian cancer. Yet the company failed to include cancer warnings on its talcum powder labels in order to protect profits derived from its Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower franchises. One of the country's largest talcum powder ovarian cancer litigations is currently underway in Missouri's 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis, where five cases have gone to trial since February 2015. Only one jury has rendered a verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson. Plaintiffs in four talcum powder lawsuits have been awarded compensatory and punitive damages amounting to $110 million, $70 million, $72 million and $55 million. (Case No. 1422- CC09326-01) California completed its first talcum powder ovarian cancer trial in September, when a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded the plaintiff $417 million, including $340 million in punitive damages. The case was the first time a plaintiff was able to present evidence showing that some of Johnson & Johnson's competitors had begun including ovarian cancer warnings on their talcum powder labels. (Case No. BC628228) Women who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer following the long- term use of talc-based powder for feminine hygiene purposes may be eligible to file their own talcum powder lawsuit. To learn more, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website, or call 800-511- 5092 to arrange for a free, no obligation case review. About Bernstein Liebhard LLP Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex individual and class action lawsuits nationwide since 1993. As a national law firm, Bernstein Liebhard LLP possesses all of the legal and financial resources required to successfully challenge billion dollar pharmaceutical and medical device companies. As a result, our attorneys and legal staff have been able to recover more than $3.5 billion on behalf of our clients. Bernstein Liebhard LLP is honored to once again be named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List," recognizing the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. This year's nomination marks the thirteenth year the firm has been named to this prestigious annual list. Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016 800-511-5092 Contact Information: Sandy A. Liebhard, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Email: info@consumerinjurylawyers.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Returns $5MM Verdict in Cancer Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for Pantagraph.com, reported that after about an hour of deliberation, a McLean County jury returned a judgment of more than $5 million in favor of the family of a Clinton man who died of mesothelioma. Willard "Bill" Krumwiede, 81, died in 2012 of the incurable cancer, which was tied to his work as a window glazier on commercial buildings throughout Central Illinois and northeast Indiana between 1956 and the 1990s. Damages of $5,063,324 were returned against Tremco Inc. During a two-week trial, the jury heard evidence that Tremco knew of the hazards of asbestos in its products "and failed to even identity asbestos as an ingredient in its products" during the victim's time as a union employee, said Andrew Kelly, with Wylder Corwin Kelly LLP, attorneys for widow Ruth Krumwiede and sons Mike and Jeff Krumwiede. Medical evidence at the trial showed that Krumwiede used Tremco's 440 tape and Mono caulking on construction sites where he installed glass. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies Can Be Liable for Secondary Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Garret Murai, Esq. -- gmurai@wendel.com -- at Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that the history of asbestos regulation in the United States is complicated. Prior to the 1970s, asbestos-containing materials used in construction was widespread. In 1971, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an emissions standard for asbestos as part of the Clean Air Act. In 1972, the EPA extended this regulation to an occupational standard and, over the next decade, the EPA together with the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a wide array of regulations aimed at asbestos. Finally, in 1989, the EPA enacted the "Asbestos Ban and Phaseout Rule," which would have eliminated nearly 94 percent of all asbestos-containing products. However, the ban and phaseout was overturned in 1991 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA (5th Cir. 1991) 947 F.2d 1201, on the grounds that the EPA had not considered alternative regulations short of prohibition. While an outright ban on asbestos failed in the U.S., the use of asbestos has been curtailed significantly over the years, primarily due to asbestos litigation, which continues today. The next case, Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. B245037 (July 5, 2017), discusses the breadth these asbestos cases can take and how crazy these cases can get in terms of the evidence. Petitpas v. Ford Motor Company In Petitpas, husband and wife Marline and Joseph Petitpas sued Ford Motor Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Rossmoor Corporation and others alleging that exposure to asbestos through Joseph's work resulted in "secondary exposure" of asbestos by Marline. Joseph's Work at Enco Joseph and Marline met in 1966 while Joseph was working at an Enco service station in Pomona, California. Humble Oil, a predecessor company of Exxon, owned the Enco service station. Joseph later worked at different Enco service stations in in Ontario and Pleasanton, California. While working at the Enco service station, Joseph did a variety of work on Ford cars including brake inspections and replacements. He did brake inspections two or three times a day and brake replacements two or three times a week. During this work Joseph used an air compressor to blow dust out of wheel assemblies to check or change brakes. According to Marline, she watched Joseph do brake work on a total of seven to ten cars at the Enco station, and while should couldn't recall the make or model of those cars, the work created dust which she breathed in. Marline also testified stat she watched Joseph clean up at the end of the day, which involved blowing or sweeping the floor, which also created dust which she breathed in. And finally, according to Marline, while she and Joseph were dating, Joseph would wear his Enco service shirt when they went out after work and, after they were married, Marline would wash Joseph's uniform. Joseph's Work at Leisure World Later, Joseph went to work for Rossmoor as a draftsman. At the time, Rossmoor was building Leisure World, a large retirement community in Walnut Creek, California. While at Rossmoor, Joseph would visit the construction site as part of the work. He typically spent an hour to an hour and a half at the project site. At first, he drove his own car to the site, and later he used a company car for visits. Leisure World used gypsum drywall, joint compound, textured ceiling material and stucco at the project. According to Joseph, they owned one car, and once or twice a week Marline would drive him to work in the morning and pick him up in the evening. When Marline would pick up Joseph they would typically hug one another. Joseph also occasionally came home for lunch. Joseph testified that before he left a construction site he might stomp his feet or brush off his pants if dusty, but that it was "very possible" that dust from the construction site might be on his lower pants at the end of the day. With the exception of Joseph's slacks, Marline would wash Joseph's shirts, socks and underclothes. In addition, on occasion, according to Joseph, he would show Marline the partially completed buildings while no one was around. According to the Petitpas' experts, numerous studies had connected asbestos to lung disease, that asbestos from joint compound, textured ceilings and brakes can cause mesothelioma, and that each exposure to asbestos raised Marline's risk of developing mesothelioma. Rossmoor's Motion for Non-Suit Following the Petitpas' presentation of their case at trial, Rossmoor moved for non-suit (note: a motion for non-suit is a motion presented by a defendant after a plaintiff has presented its case at trial contending that the plaintiff has failed to prove each element of its causes of action) contending that it owed no duty to protect family members of workers working in an environment with asbestos, arguing that it was irrelevant whether such exposures occurred "from laundering the clothes, from riding in the same automobile as someone who was directly exposed or giving someone a hug in the parking lot by the office." Rossmoor also contended that there was no evidence that Marline was directly exposed to asbestos at the Leisure World project site, arguing that "there is no testimony that they were at the house at the time that the construction work was going on and/or that they were even on the premises at the time that construction work was going on where there was any potential release of asbestos fibers" and that "Mrs. Petitpas specifically testified that, when she walked into the house, she didn't see any dust." In response, the Petitpas' responded that expert testimony had showed "that the nature of respirable asbestos fibers are, in fact, microscopic and invisible to the naked eye," that only specialized testing can demonstrate if there are asbestos fibers in the air, and because the houses were under construction at the time "that asbestos and asbestos dust, asbestos laden dust was in the structures. And . . . it doesn't go out. So there doesn't need to be someone actively doing work for asbestos exposures to occur." The trial court granted Rossmoor's motion and the Petitpas' appealed. The Appeal On appeal, the Court of Appeal explained that the California Supreme Court, in the recently decided case Kesner v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1132, had held that companies can be held liable for "secondary exposure" if asbestos from a job site causes someone in a worker's home to become sick. However, held the Court, "in the context of a cause of action for asbestos-related latent injuries, the plaintiff must first establish some threshold exposure to the defendant's defective asbestos-containing products, and must further establish in reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a 'legal cause' of his injury, i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about the injury." And, here, while it was "possible" that Marline was exposed to asbestos from dust on Joseph's clothing because Joseph was in the presence of dust that may have contained asbestos and Marline was in the presence of Joseph, the "[m]ere presence at a site where asbestos was present is insufficient to establish legally significant asbestos exposure." Rather, explained the Court of Appeals ""[a] possible cause only becomes 'probable' when, in the absence of other reasonable causal explanations, it becomes more likely than not that the injury was a result of its action." And, here, while the Petitpas' expert had testified that exposure could have occurred if Marline shook visible dust from Joseph's clothing or if Joseph dusted off his pants in the presence of Marline, no one testified that either of these hypothetical scenarios had in fact occurred. Conclusion For those involved in the construction industry, Petitpas is warning that your duty to your workers can extend to their household members as well. The case is also illustrative of the breadth of evidence considered in such cases -- possibilities versus probabilities -- and degree to which the strength of a plaintiff's evidence is dependent on the testimony of the plaintiffs themselves. After all, the case could have easily turned the other way had either Mr. or Mrs. Petitpas testified that it was likely that Joseph had dusted off his pants in front of Marline. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Charges Against Allegheny Man to be Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------ Don Hopey, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported that the biggest illegal asbestos disposal case ever brought by the Allegheny County Health Department got a sharper focus when the department agreed to drop all charges against Raymond Sida, who claims he was set up to be the "fall guy" by his employers, Ramesh and Vikas Jain. Planned dismissal of Mr. Sida's charges shifts the spotlight onto the Jains, the father and son developers who face penalties totaling $1.47 million for ordering the unpermitted removal of more than 130,000 square feet of asbestos-containing floor tile and pipe insulation at the former George Westinghouse Research and Technology Park in Churchill earlier this year. The Jains, who planned to convert multiple buildings on the 135- acre corporate campus into a commercial development first dubbed "Shoppes at Pittsburgh Studios" and then "Churchill Crossings," have denied the allegations. Their attorney, Maurice Nernberg, declined comment. Formal dismissal of the charges against Mr. Sida should occur within the week, said Max Slater, the health department hearing officer, following the conclusion of Mr. Sida's hearing. During the hearing, held on Sept. 26, Mr. Sida, who did painting and maintenance work over the past five years for the Jains, testified that not only did the Jains direct the asbestos removal and disposal without the required county permits, but they misrepresented the material as safe to handle, grind up and dispose of for the crew of Guatemalan nationals working at the site. Sampling by county air quality inspectors later found the tile and insulation materials contained up to 65 percent amosite asbestos, which has been found to cause cancer. After Churchill and county inspectors halted the illegal work, Mr. Sida said the Jains tried to bribe him with offers of houses, money and a car, if he would take the blame. Mr. Sida, who was incorrectly identified by the health department in its original June enforcement order as "Ramon Perez," and the "principal owner" of Pintura Construction LLC, testified that not only was he not Pintura's owner, he had never heard of the company. He also said his name was forged on a $3,100 check drawn on a Pintura account to pay attorney Brad Sommer, who Vikas Jain introduced to Mr. Sida in a phone call on April 10 as Mr. Sida's lawyer. "I asked him why I needed a lawyer," Mr. Sida said. Mr. Sida's current attorney, Ken Hardin, asked Mr. Slater to dismiss the charges against his client, and Jason Willis, assistant solicitor for the health department's air quality division, said he was not opposed. "The department has no evidence to contradict any of the evidence presented. This is an ongoing investigation, but we have no basis to deny the request for dismissal," Mr. Willis said. "We believe the Jains are primarily responsible for the removal and disposal, and will not contest the dismissal of charges against Mr. Sida." Mr. Willis said resolution of the appeals on the enforcement order against the Jains will take time to play out. An "ability to pay" hearing -- which was closed to the public and media at the Jains' request -- concluded in August, and briefs on that aspect of the case are due to the hearing officer Nov. 3, who will then make a ruling. After that, the Jains' appeal of the merits of the county enforcement order can move forward, Mr. Willis said. The multimillion-dollar redevelopment project, for which the Jains had secured a $3.5 million state grant commitment, was shut down by the health department in May. Work cannot resume until the Jains receive various permits, including for asbestos removal, from the county. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cos. Settle Removal Claims in New Bedford Park --------------------------------------------------------------- The Standard-Times reported that the owner of a New Bedford industrial building complex and three companies hired to demolish the facility will pay a total of $377,600 in penalties to settle allegations that they caused or allowed illegal asbestos work at the site, Attorney General Maura Healey announced. The consent judgments, entered in Suffolk Superior Court, partially settle a lawsuit filed by the AG's Office on Sept. 5 against Multilayer Coating Technologies LLC, the Lexington-based company that owned the site; Sabre Demolition Corp., a New York demolition contractor; American Environmental Consultants Inc., the Weymouth-based environmental consultant; MK Environmental, a Lowell-based asbestos abatement company; and Advanced Construction Technologies Corp., a Rhode Island asbestos-abatement company. The lawsuit alleges that the companies violated the state's clean air law and regulations in 2012 and 2013, when their workers failed to take the required safety precautions when removing asbestos at the site and failed to remove all of the asbestos- containing material at the site before demolishing the building. The AG's complaint alleges that Sabre demolished a portion of the facility containing asbestos without taking the required precautions to protect the public or workers from asbestos exposure and subsequently failed to ensure that asbestos- contaminated waste was secured properly. The lawsuit also alleges that MK Environmental and Advanced Construction failed to remove all of the asbestos-containing material from the portions of the projects that they were hired to abate and that Multilayer and American supervised the other companies' work and caused or allowed their violations. The claims against MK Environmental for its role in the violations were not settled by the consent judgment and will proceed in Suffolk Superior Court. This case was handled by Assistant Attorney General Louis Dundin of AG Healey's Environmental Protection Division, with assistance from Asbestos Program Section Chief Cynthia Baran, Environmental Analyst Colleen Ferguson, and Senior Regional Counsel Daniel d'Hedouville of MassDEP's Southeastern Regional Office in Lakeville, and Health Inspector Avelina Correia of the Department of Labor Standards Regional Office in New Bedford. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Asbestos at Council Depot ------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hebditch, writing for Aberdeen Journal, reported that the Health and Safety Executive has launched an investigation after workers were exposed to asbestos at an Aberdeen council depot. Open bags of roofing material covered in asbestos were found by workers beginning their morning shifts at the council's Kincorth facility last month. But mystery remains over who had accessed the site, which is locked at night, to dump the bags. Union bosses expressed doubt over the local authority's own ability to investigate the incident, as it is thought only someone with keys could access the depot. They reported it to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which has now launched a probe. When the city council removes asbestos from a property there is usually a paper-trail to indicate where it came from and how it will be disposed. Unite union representative Tommy Campbell said: "Unite welcome that there will be an investigation by the HSE, it is however disappointing that we have had to take the action of reporting it." A spokesman for HSE said: "HSE is investigating asbestos concerns raised at Aberdeen's City Council's Kincorth depot. Our inquiries are ongoing." An Aberdeen City Council spokeswoman said: "The health and safety of our staff is a priority for us and so we have liaised with HSE about the matter, and are working with their officers in their investigation." ASBESTOS UPDATE: More Women Become Victims of Mesothelioma ---------------------------------------------------------- Doug Conway, writing for Canterbury-Bankstown Express, reported that Geoff and Lyn Bursill renovated their fibro home more than 30 years ago. Now Lyn has the incurable, deadly disease mesothelioma and Geoff, her principal carer, has often wondered whether he might have it, too. "I have asked specialists about it and the answer is, 'Don't go down that path'. You can't test for it. If you get crook, that's when you find out," said Mr Bursill, a retired teacher who attended a special thank you lunch for carers of mesothelioma patients at Revesby Workers Club. He is one of a growing number of male carers now that women are increasingly falling victim in the so-called "third wave" of the asbestos-related disease. "We are certainly noticing more females," said Jocelyn McLean, a registered nurse who coordinates support for the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute. Whereas earlier waves affected predominantly men in the workplace, more women are presenting with symptoms typically from activities such as laundering dirty work clothes or sweeping up. Or in Mrs Bursill's case helping to renovate their Croydon Park home in the late 1970s. "Manufacturers might have known about asbestosis in those days but they weren't telling us," said Mr Bursill. "We hung a sheet up across the doorway while we were doing renovations, not because of any concern we could get sick but to stop the dust getting into the rest of the house." Small wonder their daughter Patricia, of Earlwood, refers to mesothelioma as a "lottery with a shit prize." Australia suffers the highest per capita rate of malignant mesothelioma in the world, with around 700 new patients a year. DEVIL IN THE DUST The average life expectancy is 12 months though some patients can live a further 10 years or more. "Everybody with this disease dies of it, and the people left behind can really struggle," said Jocelyn McLean. "What the carers do is tireless, very much undervalued work. Nobody could go through radical surgery, such as a lung removal, without a good carer. I know of some who have declined surgery for that reason. That says it all." Despite asbestos being banned in 55 countries, including Australia, it is still made and exported in products by many others including China and Russia. "It is money driven," said Mr Bursill, with exports to third world countries who were unable to diagnose or treat the disease, a situation described by his daughter as "shocking, disgusting, insane". Mr Bursill's big hope is that researchers such as those at Concord and RPA hospitals will find an immuno therapy treatment that may not cure mesothelioma but will at least stop it in its tracks. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OneBeacon No Duty to Reimburse Defense Costs ------------------------------------------------------------- The Appeals Court of Massachusetts vacates so much of the judgment that awarded Celanese Corporation defense costs for the period April 13, 2009, through May 27, 2011, as well as the prejudgment. The Court declares that OneBeacon America Insurance Company has no duty to reimburse Celanese for defense costs that Celanese incurred during that period of time. In March, 2010, OneBeacon filed an action for declaratory relief. A judge entered an order on May 27, 2011, declaring that OneBeacon had the right to control the defense of Celanese's underlying claims as a result of its offer to defend without a reservation of rights. On the further cross motions, the judge ruled that OneBeacon was liable for reasonable and necessary defense costs incurred by Celanese during this period of time as part of OneBeacon's duty to defend. The judge further referred the issue of the amount of reasonable and necessary legal fees to a special master, and ultimately awarded Celanese $2,435,921.49 in attorney's fees, plus prejudgment interest from May 27, 2011, to May 31, 2013. OneBeacon appeals from the final judgment awarding reasonable and necessary defense costs to its insured, Celanese Corporation, which Celanese incurred from April 13, 2009, through May 27, 2011. The issue on appeal is whether that determination precludes Celanese from receiving any reimbursement for defense of the underlying claims during the period of time when the question of control over the defense was being litigated. OneBeacon argues that it is not liable for any defense costs incurred by Celanese during that period of time because OneBeacon offered to defend Celanese without a reservation of rights. Over the years, Celanese has been subject to numerous legal actions involving claims of bodily injury from asbestos and chemicals allegedly contained in Celanese's products or facilities. In an effort to seek coverage under its insurance policies in April, 2009, Celanese sent a letter to OneBeacon stating that it was terminating the parties' then-existing defense cost-sharing agreements and demanding that OneBeacon instead defend the ongoing asbestos and chemical product injury claims under its original general liability policies. OneBeacon offered to defend Celanese against the remaining asbestos and chemical product injury claims without a reservation of rights. To this effect, OneBeacon offered to waive any issues of coverage and to indemnify Celanese from any settlements or judgments up to its full liability limits. In offering to defend Celanese without a reservation of rights, OneBeacon has the right to control Celanese's defense of those claims. This right to control Celanese's defense includes the authority to choose the counsel who will defend the claims and to make other decisions related to control of the defense that would traditionally be vested in the insured, as a named party in the case. Celanese rejected OneBeacon's offer to defend without a reservation of rights and conducted its own defense because it believed that its own attorney would provide a better defense. That was Celanese's right. However, absent a sufficient conflict of interest on the part of OneBeacon, Celanese lost its right to obtain reimbursement for defense costs when it refused to accept OneBeacon's defense, offered without a reservation of rights. The Court finds that OneBeacon satisfied its duty to defend by offering to defend Celanese without a reservation of rights. The Court explains that because of Celanese's unjustified refusal of OneBeacon's control of that defense, OneBeacon is not liable for the attorney's fees that Celanese incurred in conducting its own defense. The appealed case is ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, vs. CELANESE CORPORATION, No. 16-P-203, (Mass. App.). A full-text copy of the Order dated October 16, 2017 is available at https://is.gd/TbhO55 from Leagle.com. Kevin J. O'Connor (Kara A. Loridas also present) for the plaintiff. Michael John Miguel for the defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Released From "Savoie" Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carl J. Barder of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Motion to Re-urge State Court Exception of Res Judicata filed by Owens-Illinois, Inc. The Doctrine of Res Judicata precludes re-litigation of claims and issues arising out of the same factual circumstances when there is a valid final judgment. On October 7, 1991, Joseph Savoie ("Decedent") filed a lawsuit in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans against the Defendant and others, alleging that asbestos exposure during his employment at Avondale Shipyard caused him to develop asbestosis. During the pendency of that litigation, the Decedent and his wife entered into a Receipt, Release, and Indemnification Agreement with the Defendant as part of a group settlement. Per the terms of the Release Agreement, the Decedent and his wife agreed to release the Defendant from any causes of action arising out of the Decedent's asbestos-related injury, including, inter alia, mesothelioma, cancer, wrongful death, and survival claims. The Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, seventeen years after he entered into the Release Agreement, and for that reason, filed the instant suit against Defendant (and others) in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on August 21, 2014. Subsequent to filing this lawsuit, the Decedent died as a result of his mesothelioma. The Decedent's surviving wife and children then filed an amended petition for damages and joined the lawsuit seeking survival and wrongful death damages pursuant to Louisiana law. The Defendants removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on April 16, 2015, and filed the instant Motion to Re-urge State Court Exception of Res Judicata. The Defendant argues that the Court should grant its motion because the Release Agreement clearly and unambiguously releases Defendant from all future claims related to the Decedent's asbestos exposure, including any mesothelioma claims, wrongful death claims, and survival actions. The Plaintiffs assert that the Release Agreement is invalid because it was not signed by both parties -- it does not contain the Defendant's signature or that of one if its agents. Nevertheless, the Court finds other documents included in the record that were signed by individuals acting on the Defendant's behalf. For instance, the Defendant's attorney, Walter Watkins, electronically signed the last page of the Settlement Agreement. The signed Settlement Agreement provides that for each case dismissed, the Defendant agrees to pay $4,000 if the principal diagnosis is asbestos-related. Accordingly, the record reflects a Settlement Check Request Form which affirms that the Decedent was to receive $4,000 out of the total $1,660,500 group settlement. In addition, the group settlement check, for "full and final settlement of any and all claims," bears the signature of Defendant's treasurer. When construed together, the Court sustains that these documents clearly demonstrate that the Defendant agreed to pay the Decedent and his wife $4,000 in exchange for them entering into the Release Agreement. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Decedent's claim did not exist until seventeen years after he signed the Release Agreement when the Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma. The Court determines that the Release Agreement includes an express release of future mesothelioma claims, wrongful death claims, and survival actions. Because the Release Agreement contains language that includes the specific claims brought in the instant dispute, the Court concludes that said claims "existed" when the Decedent and his wife signed the Release Agreement. The Plaintiffs allege that the Decedent and his wife did not intend to settle future mesothelioma claims because they were unaware that Decedent could contract mesothelioma. In addition, Plaintiffs contend that the mere nuisance value they received in exchange for the Release Agreement evinces their lack of intent to settle such claims. The Court finds, however, that the Release Agreement at issue contains an express release of claims involving "mesothelioma... and all related lung diseases... whether past, present or future, without limitation, including wrongful death and survival actions." The Court concludes that such clear and unambiguous language leaves no doubt that the parties intended to release not only the Decedent's pending asbestosis claim, but also future mesothelioma claims, wrongful death claims, and survival actions. Despite this, the Decedent's wife asserts that no one explained the releases to her or her husband, that neither she nor her husband could read the releases, and that she had never heard of mesothelioma until her husband was diagnosed. But the Court maintains that a person who signs a written instrument is presumed to know its contents and cannot avoid its obligations by contending that he did not read it, or that it was not explained or that he did not understand it. The Plaintiffs further contend that the parties did not intend to release claims for terminal malignant mesothelioma for $4,000 -- an amount Plaintiffs characterize as a mere nuisance sum. Louisiana courts have reasoned that when a settlement agreement includes a specific reference to the claim sought to be released, the actual value a party receives for the release is inconsequential. The case is LORITA M. SAVOIE, ET AL., v. PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL., SECTION: J (3), Civil Action No. 15-1220, (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of the Order and Reasons dated October 12, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/oDNMCj from Leagle.com. Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement. Lorita M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Marcia Savoie Medlin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Craig M Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Tania Savoie Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Rodney A Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Greta Savoie Boudoin, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Dale J Savoie, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Joseph B. Savoie, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Benjamin Peter Dinehart, Roussel & Clement, Dylan A. Wade, TMG Consulting, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Angela J. O'Brien, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. Eagle Inc, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Owens Illinois, Inc, Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Travis Brendon Wilkinson, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. International Paper Company, Third Party Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Jason K. Elam, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Albert L Bossier, Jr, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Mathilde Villere Semmes, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Troy Nathan Bell, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC. McCarty Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M. Zanovec, Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Manion Gaynor Manning LLP & Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Uniroyal, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. Foster Wheeler LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., Benjamin Melvin Castoriano, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelly L. Long, Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C. & Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Frilot L.L.C.. Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Daniel L. Ring, Mayer Brown, LLP, Ernest G. Foundas, Pugh, Accardo, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, McGready Lewis Richeson, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, Michael H. Abraham, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP & Milele N. St. Julien, Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey. 3M Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Sophia L. Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP. General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Owens-Illinois, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Nicole M. Loup, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Daphne M. Lancaster, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Kevin Powell, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP. Owens Illinois, Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by Walter G. Watkins, III, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP, Elizabeth Riddell Penn, Forman Watkins & Krutz LLP, Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP, Forrest Ren Wilkes, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Mary Reeves Arthur, Forman, Watkins, & Krutz, LLP. Lorita M Savoie, Counter Defendant, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bids for Summary Judgment Denied in "Belac" ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case is In Re Asbestos Litigation. LORETTA BELAC, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, C.A. No. PC-2016- 0544, (R.I. Super.), the Superior Court of Rhode Island finds that Plaintiff, Loretta Belac, has provided sufficient evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment, and denies Evenheat Kiln, Inc.'s and Sargent Art, Inc.'s motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff originally filed this personal injury action on February 9, 2016, asserting claims for failure to warn, negligence, strict product liability, breach of warranty, and conspiracy. The Plaintiff named several defendants, including Evenheat and Sargent Art. In her Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that over the course of her career crafting ceramics from her home business, she was exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the Defendants. She contends that this exposure ultimately caused her to develop mesothelioma. During discovery, the Plaintiff was deposed over the course of six days from June to September of 2016. Both Evenheat and Sargent Art attended the deposition. Plaintiff died last year due to complications from her illness. As of October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff's counsel has not moved for the appropriate substitution of parties Evenheat, a kiln manufacturing company, never contested jurisdiction in Rhode Island. Rather, after responding to the Plaintiff's discovery requests, Evenheat brought a motion for summary judgment on December 22, 2016. Evenheat maintains that the Plaintiff has failed to provide any product identification evidence or evidence demonstrating a causal connection between the Plaintiff's illness and its products. Evenheat further contends that the affidavit submitted by the Plaintiff's daughter, Faith Belac Cope, should be struck pursuant to the "sham affidavit" doctrine. In support of this argument, Evenheat asserts that the Belac Cope affidavit contradicts Plaintiff's deposition testimony and provides no explanation for the contradiction. Evenheat alleges that the affidavit contradicts the Plaintiff's unambiguous deposition testimony regarding the number of kilns and the brands of kilns that the Plaintiff used throughout her lifetime. Moreover, Evenheat asserts that the Plaintiff provides no explanation for the alleged discrepancies between the affidavit and the deposition testimony. In response, the Plaintiff contends that she has presented material facts identifying Evenheat and showing a causal connection to the Plaintiff's illness. Moreover, the Plaintiff argues that she intends to produce additional evidence of her use of Evenheat's products as the discovery process moves forward. She further asserts that a finding for Evenheat here is improper because the evidence produced has created a question of material fact best left for the jury's determination. Sargent Art, a craft product company, also did not contest jurisdiction in Rhode Island and filed a motion for summary judgment on January 10, 2017. In its motion, Sargent Art simply contends that the Plaintiff has failed to show any evidence indicating that Plaintiff has identified its products or demonstrating a causal connection. Specifically, Sargent Art argues in its Memorandum that "Plaintiff has produced no evidence showing that the Plaintiff worked with, or in close proximity to, asbestos-containing products sold, distributed or installed by [Sargent Art]." Moreover, Sargent Art asserts that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence establishing a causal relationship between its products and her illness. The Plaintiff argues in response that -- through her deposition testimony and the Belac Cope affidavit -- she has met her initial burden regarding product identification and causal connection evidence. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argues that she intends to produce supplemental evidence of her use of Sargent Art's products as the discovery process moves forward. She again asserts that a finding for the Defendant is improper because the evidence produced has created a question of material fact best left to the factfinder. The Belac Cope affidavits were completed on May 10, 2017 and filed on May 22, 2017. With regard to Evenheat, Belac Cope states that her mother used an Evenheat kiln "from about 1960 to 1962 and thereafter." Additionally, her affidavit states that the Plaintiff "would clean the kiln" by scraping the inside of the unit and using the recommended kiln wash "on a daily basis for several years." With regard to Sargent Art, Belac Cope states that her mother "used many products manufactured by Sargent Art, including, but not limited to dye, clays and paints...." Conversely, both Evenheat and Sargent Art assert that they have never manufactured asbestos-containing products. Further, they argue that because Plaintiff did not specifically identify either Evenheat or Sargent Art during her six-day deposition, she has not provided the requisite product identification and causal connection evidence necessary to proceed. The Plaintiff disagrees, stating that she has provided both product identification and causal connection evidence. The Plaintiff contends that she has provided adequate product identification and causal connection evidence at this stage of the proceeding through her deposition testimony and the Belac Cope affidavits. Pursuant to the "sham affidavit" doctrine, "when an interested witness has given clear answers to unambiguous questions, he cannot create a conflict and resist summary judgment with an affidavit that is clearly contradictory, but does not give a satisfactory explanation of why the testimony is changed.'" This doctrine bars reliance on portions of an affidavit that are contradicted by the affiant's prior deposition testimony. The Court finds that Belac Cope has not been subject to a deposition in this matter; consequently, her affidavit cannot be said to contradict her own testimony. While Belac Cope's testimony may be deserving of further scrutiny, it is not within the Court's purview to "assess the weight or the credibility of the evidence." Therefore, the Court declines to strike Belac Cope's affidavit under the "sham affidavit" doctrine, thus saving a determination of this witness's credibility for the fact-finder. The Defendants contend that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the Plaintiff has provided no product identification evidence with respect to each of the Defendants. The Court finds that the Plaintiff did not specifically identify either Evenheat or Sargent Art during her deposition testimony. With regard to Evenheat, the Plaintiff did state that she has owned "at least seven kilns" throughout her lifetime. She identified a number of kiln manufacturers specifically, but -- throughout her deposition -- she also refers to kilns that she owned without providing a brand name or description of the kiln. However, the Court refers to the affidavit provided by the Plaintiff's daughter and co-worker, Belac Cope, which specifically states that "Evenheat was one of the kilns [the Plaintiff] used" on a daily basis from 1960 to 1962. Regarding Sargent Art, throughout her deposition testimony, the Plaintiff generally discusses owning paints and clays over the course of her career. In particular, she discusses using interior house paint on her ceramics and purchasing craft supplies from Michael's craft store. Again, the Plaintiff also supplies an affidavit from her daughter and co-worker, Belac Cope, who states that she witnessed her mother "use many products manufactured by Sargent Art" while working in their home. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient product identification and causal evidence with regard to each Defendant. Through her deposition testimony and Belac Cope's affidavit, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a specific period of exposure and the proximity and frequency of that exposure. Accordingly, this Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding product identification, exposure, and causal connection for a jury's consideration. A full-text copy of the Decision, dated October 19, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/GgX8Lr from Leagle.com. John E. Deaton, Esq., for Plaintiff. Andrew R. McConville, Esq., Marc E. Finkel, Esq., Lisa M. Kresge, Esq., Kevin J. McAllister, Esq., for Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Bid to Dismiss "Doolin" Asbestos Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of STACEY DOOLIN, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard E. Doolin, Plaintiff, v. BORG WARNER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-778-J-34PDB, (M.D. Fla.), Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denies Pneumo Abex LLC's and Ford Motor Company's Motions to Dismiss without prejudice, by operation of Rule 12. Rule 12 states, in pertinent part, that "a motion asserting any of [the listed] defenses must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is allowed." The Eleventh Circuit has held that Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss are inappropriate where an answer has already been filed. On May 22, 2017, the Defendants filed their respective Amended Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. In the Motions, the Defendants Pneumo Abex LLC and Ford Motor Company move to dismiss all claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Notably, however, on August 10, 2016 -- prior to filing the Motions -- both Defendants filed answers and affirmative defenses to Plaintiff Stacey Doolin's amended complaint. With leave of Court, on January 20, 2017, the Defendants subsequently filed amended answers and affirmative defenses to Doolin's amended complaint. In both the Answers and Amended Answers, the Defendants challenge the Court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. The Court explains that the Defendants waived their right to seek dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) by declining to file the Motions prior to their responsive pleadings. But this does not mean, however, that the Defendants have waived their defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction altogether. The Court says that the Defendants may raise the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in a properly-supported motion for summary judgment under Rule 56.3. A full-text copy of the Order dated October 17, 2017 is available at https://is.gd/y1s1xI from Leagle.com. Stacey Doolin, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Phillip Kunen, The Ferraro Law Firm. Borg Warner Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda Rae Cachaldora, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Caroline M. Iovino, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Eduardo J. Medina, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Kelly L. Kesner, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL, Melanie E. Chung-Tims, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL & Susan J. Cole, Bice Cole Law Firm, PL. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Alina Alonso Rodriguez, Bowman and Brooke, LLP, Andrew Scott Freedman, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Caroline M. Iovino, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Clarke S. Sturge, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Henry Salas, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Shepherd D. Wainger, McGuire Woods, LLP, pro hac vice & Wendy Frank Lumish, Bowman and Brooke, LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony Nolan Upshaw, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Caroline M. Iovino, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Melissa Raspall Alvarez, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP & Jack Roy Reiter, GrayRobinson, PA. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Scott Freedman, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Caroline M. Iovino, McDermott, Will & Emery, LLP, Clarke S. Sturge, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Henry Salas, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, Johan D. Flynn, DeHay Elliston, LLP, pro hac vice & John M. Fitzpatrick, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, pro hac vice. ********* 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. Agravante, 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 * * *