/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/171229.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, December 29, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 258 Headlines AAY SECURITY: "Borne" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ACCREDITED DEBT: "Marinez" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations AFNI INC: "Heerema" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ALCO COLLECTIONS: Faces "Spencer" Suit in S.D. of Texas ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway ALTERATION GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages, "Arnutouskaya" Suit Says ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Dec. 31 ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits in Canada Underway ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces 4 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Heard in "Larsen" Case Appeal AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Still Ongoing ANTHEM INC: Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Pending ANTHEM INC: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Still Pending ARCADIA TRANSIT: Underpays Workers, Hovanesian Claims ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Drop Merger Suit Underway ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Agreement Reached in 4 Class Action Suits AVIS BUDGET: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida BAY TERRACE: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Vargas Alleges BEHR PROCESS: Faces "Surprenant" Suit in N.D. of Georgia BOBCAT COMPANY: Faces Autumn Suit Over Defective Track Loaders BOFI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Action Suit BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Drop 3rd "Zamir" Complaint Pending BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Discovery Underway in "Nieder" Class Suit BUFFALO WILD: New York Employee Class Action Suit Underway CELGENE CORP: IUB Class Action Suit in New Jersey Underway CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Muransky" Suit Seeks to Certify Class CHICO'S FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Ongoing CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Ackerman" Suit Okayed CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Calleros" Suit Okayed CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Suits by 2 Credit Unions Consolidated CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Gordon" and "Lawson" Suits Consolidated CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: NY and CO Shareholders Suits Still Ongoing CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: $1.475MM Contributed to Settlement Fund CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing CR BARD: Continues to Defend Suits over Hernia Products CR BARD: Suits over Women's Products Underway CR BARD: Continues to Defend Against Filter Product Claims CR BARD: "Tanguma" Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CREDIT ONE: Faces "Beitler" Suit in Southern District of Florida DOORDASH INC: Faces "Austin" Suit in Dist. of Massachusetts EQUIFAX INC: Faces D.L. Evans Bank Suit in N.D. of Georgia ERIE INDEMNITY: Case Dismissal Order Under Appeal to 3rd Circuit EVINE LIVE: Customer Class Action in New York Ongoing EVINE LIVE: TCPA Class Action in California Underway FAMOUS BOURBON: "Richardson" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class FEDCHEX RECOVERY: Faces "Spencer" Suit in S.D. of Texas FIRST ENERGY: "Ewing" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime FIVE BOROUGH: Stepanov Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law GC SERIVCES: Faces "Fligman" Suit in Eastern District of NY GC SERVICES: "Kausar" Suit Seeks to Certify Class GREATBANC TRUST: "McMaken" Suit Seeks to Certify Class GTS HOLDINGS: Pierrot Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law HP INC: Additional Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed in "Forsyth" HP INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Firmware Update Suit I.Q. DATA: "Dees" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA INTEL CORP: Appeal in Calif. Shareholders Suit Still Pending ITURAN LOCATION: Israeli Class Action Suit Ongoing JC PENNEY: $97.5MM Deal in Securities Class Suit Awaits Final OK JC PENNEY: Awaits Final Court Approval of $4.5MM ERISA Case Deal JC PENNEY: Deal in Calif. Suit Pending, Illinois Suit Resolved LOUISIANA: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes MARVEL TECHNOLOGY: March Trial Date in Shareholder Suit MATTEL INC: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Moodie" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class MDC PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Appeal MDC PARTNERS: Case Management Judge Appointed in Canada Suit MDC PARTNERS: Seeks to Determine Scope of Class Definition MDL 2437: USG Still Faces Wallboard Price Fixing Suits MICHIGAN: "Salem" Suit Seeks Class Certification MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Defend British Columbia Class Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Suit Still Dormant MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Bernard" Suit Seeks Conditional Certification MONSANTO COMPANY: "Koons" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2741 NCL CORPORATION: Certification of Collective Action Sought NEULION INC: Bid to Consolidate Nevada Class Action Suits Pending NEW AGE: Has Sent Spam Advertisements, "Abedi" Action Claims NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes O'REILLY AUTO: Court Denies Class Certification in "Davidson" OLSON RESEARCH: "Fischbein" Suit Seeks to Certify Class PEOPLE 2.0: "Duran" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations PETMED EXPRESS: Securities Suit Ongoing in Florida PHD FITNESS: Faces "Bohr" Suit in Northern District of Illinois POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Minnesota Class Suit Okayed QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. En Banc Denies Petition for Rehearing QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Court Certifies California Consumers Class SAL-MARK RESTAURANT: Cruz Submits Proposed Stipulation & Order SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit under Appeal SERVICE CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Allard" Suit SMARTHEAT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $120,000 SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: New Trial Sought in Arkansas Royalty Suit STEIN MART: "Sperling" Suit Seeks to Certify Class TERRAFORM POWER: Jan. 31 Hearing on $14.8MM Deal in "Chamblee" TILLYS INC: $6.2MM Estimated Loss for "Minniti" Case Settlement TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suits over ET Plus System Still Ongoing TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed THOMAS AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abby" Action Claims TOYOTA MOTOR: "Salas" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Pointe Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Court Nixed Catholic Benefits Association's Suit UNITIL CORP: Mass. Appeals Court Drops Town of Lunenburg Suit VAN WYK: Class Certification Bid Nixed as Parties Reach Accord VOYA FINANCIAL: Faces "Barnes" Suit Over Breach of Contract WALGREENS BOOTS: Class Certification Bid in Chicago Suit Underway WALGREENS BOOTS: Pennsylvania Class Action Suits Still Ongoing WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend RMBS Investors' Class Suit WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Certify Class WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery in SD Cards Class Action Suit Stayed WESTERN DIGITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: Faces "Gregory Haskin" Suit in S.D. of Fla. WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Epstein" Case Has Final Okay Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Judgment Favoring Pneumo Abex ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Order vs. Cleaver-Brooks Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Continue Discussions ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $908MM Claim Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,500 Cases at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Liability Upped to $35.2MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Still Has Less Than 500 Cases at Sept 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $25.1MM Libby Costs at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$80.0MM Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $44.4MM Asbestos Coverage at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Sept30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$875.5MM Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP3.8MM for North East Asbestos Victims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Materials Removed in Minister's Home ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Lacks Asbestos Awareness ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Endanger Children Playing Xmas Decors ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foundry Job Exposed Husband to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neyland Couple Sue for Asbestos-Related Injuries ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Asbestos Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Suspected to Contain Asbestos Sent to DHB ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Points Accurate Mesothelioma Testing ********* AAY SECURITY: "Borne" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Darin Borne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AAY Security LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00510 (E.D. Tex., December 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Darin Borne is a resident of Beaumont, Texas. He was hired by Defendant around September 2015 to work as a security officer. Defendant is a security company that provides trained professional security officers to maritime, petrochemical, and refinery facilities in the United States, including at Cheniere Energy, Inc.'s Sabine Pass LNG Terminal in Cameron, Louisiana. Defendant offers a variety of security services, including, if requested, the provision of an around-the-clock, twenty-four hour per day security presence at Defendant's customers' facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Mabry, Esq. THE MABRY LAW FIRM, PLLC 10320 Sommerville Avenue Houston, TX 77041 Tel: (832) 350-8335 Fax: (832) 831-2460 E-mail: amabry@mabrylaw.com ACCREDITED DEBT: "Marinez" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Anna Marinez and John Brooks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Accredited Debt Relief, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-14419 (S.D. Fla., December 4, 2017), seek injunctive relief, requiring Defendant to cease all solicitation text- messaging activities to cellular telephones without first obtaining prior express written consent, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees. Plaintiff Marinez is a natural person residing in the City of Chicago in the State of Illinois. Plaintiff Brooks is a natural person residing in the City of Port Saint Lucie in the State of Florida. Defendant is a company that specializes in assisting consumers with various debt-relief programs and matching them to the appropriate debt-settlement company. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 333131 Tel: (888) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 AFNI INC: "Heerema" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GEORGE E. HEEREMA, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFNI, INC. and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00244-JBC (D.N.J.), Mr. Heerema, on consent of Defendant, will move the Court for an Order certifying this case to proceed as a class action and granting preliminary approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement, on behalf of a class of: "all persons who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom AFNI, Inc. mailed a written communication, in connection with its attempt to collect a debt owed to Sprint, which included a statement that "[p]ayments made electronically to Afni may be subject to a $4.95 processing fee" during the period beginning January 14, 2015, and ending January 14, 2016." A copy of the Consent Notice of Motion is available at no charge at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uJDfyJEx Attorneys for George E. Heerema: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 - and - Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 ALCO COLLECTIONS: Faces "Spencer" Suit in S.D. of Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alco Collections. The case is styled Monique Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alco Collections and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03845 (S.D. Tex, December 21, 2017). Alco Collections, is a licensed and bonded full service commercial collection agency serving Louisiana business's collection needs since 1987.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq. The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein 6906 Rocky Top Circle Dallas, TX 75252 Tex: (646) 753-0149 Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company's bid to dismiss the amended complaint in a class action suit related to misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris remains pending. As previously reported, on December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris. On April 12, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff. On July 14, 2017, lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint against the Company and seven current or former employees. The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes, and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of the misrepresentations. Defendant's moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on September 12, 2017. Alexion Pharmaceuticals said "Given the early stages of this litigation, management does not currently believe that a loss related to this matter is probable or that the potential magnitude of such loss or range of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated." Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on serving patients and families affected by rare diseases through the innovation, development and commercialization of life-changing therapies. The company is based in New Haven, Connecticut. ALTERATION GROUP: Fails to Pay Wages, "Arnutouskaya" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- IRINA ARNUTOUSKAYA individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALTERATION GROUP OF NY, LLC d/b/a/ ALTERATION SPECIALISTS OF NEW YORK, and related or affiliated entities, and JEREMY MILLER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 161194/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, all minimum wages compensation, overtime compensation, and damages arising from Defendants' breach of contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants pay their tailors on commission or on hourly wage basis. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, however they were not compensated for all the hours worked and were not paid overtime compensation pursuant to the New York Labor Law. In addition, Defendants maintained a policy and practice of paying its tailors commissions at a rate lower than the rate promised and unlawfully deducting earned wages from Plaintiffs' last paycheck. Alteration Specialists of New York offers custom tailoring services in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack L. Newhouse, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212 943 9080 Facsimile: 212 943 9082 E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com ALTRIA GROUP: 7 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial Thru Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that as of October 23, 2017, seven Engle progeny cases are set for trial through December 31, 2017. There are no other individual smoking and health cases and no "Lights/Ultra Lights" class actions against Philip Morris USA set for trial during this period. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry may be scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are subject to change. Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts have been returned in 62 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights" and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 41 of the 62 cases. These 41 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (7), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (2), Mississippi (1), Missouri (4), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for reconsideration. In December 2015, the Alaska Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to reassess whether to grant a new trial. In March 2016, the trial court granted a new trial and PM USA filed a petition for review of that order with the Alaska Supreme Court, which the court denied in July 2016. The retrial began in October 2016. In November 2016, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. The plaintiff subsequently moved for a new trial. In October 2017, the trial court vacated the October 16, 2017 trial date. A new date for trial has not been set. Of the 21 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 18 have reached final resolution. As of October 23, 2017, 114 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision as follows: 62 verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs; 45 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA. Five verdicts that were initially returned in favor of plaintiff were reversed post-trial or on appeal and remain pending and two verdicts in favor of PM USA were reversed for a new trial. See Smoking and Health Litigation - Engle Progeny Trial Court Results below for a discussion of these verdicts. After exhausting all appeals in those cases resulting in adverse verdicts associated with tobacco-related litigation, since October 2004, PM USA has paid in the aggregate judgments and settlements (including related costs and fees) totaling approximately $490 million and interest totaling approximately $184 million as of September 30, 2017. These amounts include payments for Engle progeny judgments (and related costs and fees) totaling approximately $99 million, interest totaling approximately $22 million and payment of approximately $43 million in connection with the Federal Engle Agreement. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Smoking and Health Class Suits in Canada Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces. As of October 23, 2017, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Still Faces 4 Lights & Ultra Lights Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that as of October 23, 2017, Philip Morris USA, the company or its other subsidiaries continues to defend a total of four class action cases that are pending in various U.S. state courts. Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its other subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of October 23, 2017, a total of four such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Heard in "Larsen" Case Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the Missouri Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal on August 8, 2017. In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, Philip Morris USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim, which the court denied in June 2015. Upon retrial, in April 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA. In August 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA cross-appealed. In November 2016, the court of appeals dismissed PM USA's cross-appeal without prejudice upon joint motion of the parties. Oral argument at the Missouri Court of Appeals occurred August 8, 2017. Altria Group, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes, smokeless products, and wine in the United States. The company sells its tobacco products primarily to wholesalers, including distributors; large retail organizations, such as chain stores; and the armed services. Altria Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is based in Richmond, Virginia. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Antitrust Suits and DOJ Probe Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action suit filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. In June 2015, American received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part of an investigation into whether there have been illegal agreements or coordination of air passenger capacity. The CID seeks documents and other information from American, and other airlines have announced that they have received similar requests. American is cooperating fully with the DOJ investigation. In addition, subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by the DOJ, American, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with respect to air passenger capacity. The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. On October 28, 2016, the Court denied a motion by the airline defendants to dismiss all claims in the class actions. American Airlines said "Both the DOJ investigation and these lawsuits are in their relatively early stages and American intends to defend these matters vigorously." American Airlines, Inc. operates as a network air carrier. The company provides scheduled air transportation services for passengers and cargo. It also offers freight and mail services. The company is based in Fort Worth, Texas. ANTHEM INC: Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that cross motions for partial summary judgment in an Alabama antitrust suit were heard by the Court in October 2017, and they remain pending. The company is a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across the country. The cases were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, or the Court. Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan), restrictions on acquisitions, rules governing the BlueCard and National Accounts programs and other arrangements in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs, health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints in July 2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to dismiss in September 2013. In June 2014, the Court denied the majority of the motions, ruling that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at that stage of the litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our affirmative defenses in December 2014. Since January 2016, subscribers have filed additional actions asserting damage claims in Indiana, Kansas, Kansas City, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Virginia, all of which have been consolidated into the multi-district lawsuit. In November 2016 and April 2017, subscriber plaintiffs and provider plaintiffs filed new consolidated amended complaints adding new named plaintiffs and new factual allegations. The company filed answers to the amended complaints in May 2017. In February 2017, the Court granted in part defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the filed rate doctrine finding that the damages claims of certain named Alabama subscribers are barred under federal law. Subscribers filed a motion to reconsider the Court's order, which was denied without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to raise the issue at a later date. In April 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling in a related declaratory judgment action, Musselman v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., that the antitrust conspiracy claims being asserted by a subset of putative provider class members were released a decade ago by class action settlements in the In re Managed Care Litigation. In June 2017, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss certain of the claims in provider plaintiffs' latest consolidated complaint. Briefing on the relevant standard of review for the claims asserted under the Sherman Antitrust Act commenced in July 2017. Cross motions for partial summary judgment on the relevant standard of review were heard by the Court in October 2017, and they remain pending. In August 2017, provider plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment against Anthem on the basis of collateral estoppel on several issues discussed in United States v. Anthem, Inc., 236 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2017). That motion was heard in October 2017, and is pending. No dates have been set for either the pretrial conference or trials in these actions. Anthem said "We intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health benefits company in the United States. It operates through three segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business, and Other. The Company offers a spectrum of network-based managed care health benefit plans to large and small employer, individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets. The Company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ANTHEM INC: Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company filed in April 2017 a motion to dismiss claims brought against it in an ERISA class action lawsuit but the same remains pending. Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in June 2016 in the Southern District of New York by three members of ERISA plans alleging ERISA violations captioned Karen Burnett, Brendan Farrell, and Robert Shullich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Anthem, Inc. The lawsuit was then consolidated with a similar lawsuit that was previously filed against Express Scripts. A first amended consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated lawsuit, which is captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation. The first amended consolidated complaint was filed by six individual plaintiffs against Anthem and Express Scripts on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA health care plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which Anthem provided prescription drug benefits through a PBM Agreement with Express Scripts and who paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. As to the ERISA members, the plaintiffs allege that Anthem breached its duties under ERISA (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the PBM Agreement and (ii) by placing its own pecuniary interest above the best interests of Anthem insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the PBM Agreement in exchange for the $4,675.0 purchase price for our NextRx PBM business. As to the non-ERISA members, the plaintiffs assert that Anthem breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans under which the non- ERISA members are covered by (i) negotiating and entering into the PBM Agreement with Express Scripts that was detrimental to the interests of such non-ERISA members, (ii) failing to adequately monitor the activities of Express Scripts, including failing to timely monitor and correct the prices charged by Express Scripts for prescription medications, and (iii) acting in Anthem's self-interests instead of the interests of the non-ERISA members when it accepted the $4,675.0 purchase price for NextRx. Plaintiffs seek to hold Anthem and Express Scripts jointly and severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill- gotten gains, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest. In November 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims brought against Anthem. In response, in March 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint adding two self-insured accounts as plaintiffs and asserting an additional purported class of self-insured accounts. In April 2017, the compan filed a motion to dismiss the claims brought against Anthem. Our motion remains pending. In January 2017, Express Scripts filed a motion to transfer the case to a federal court in Missouri, which the court denied. Anthem said "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however, its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined." Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health benefits company in the United States. It operates through three segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business, and Other. The Company offers a spectrum of network-based managed care health benefit plans to large and small employer, individual, Medicaid, and Medicare markets. The Company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana. ARCADIA TRANSIT: Underpays Workers, Hovanesian Claims ----------------------------------------------------- EDVART HOVANESIAN, an individual, SERZHIK SARGSYAN, an individual, and KHOSROW PETROSSIAN, an individual, and on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. ARCADIA TRANSIT, INC., a California corporation, SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC687617 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover compensation for all hours worked and minimum wage under California. According to the complaint, despite Plaintiffs' status as independent contractors, Defendants dictated Plaintiffs' work hours, assignments, revisions to their assignments, and their planned routes. The Defendants controlled significant aspects of Plaintiffs' operation of the vans, yet required Plaintiffs to purchase their vans from Defendants and pay for their own insurance, fuel, and damage. Moreover, Defendants deduct $50 from a driver's pay when a driver refuses a route. The designation of the drivers as independent contractors was and is clearly improper because drivers lack the requisite control and discretion over their job responsibilities and duties to deserve treatment as independent contractors. Defendants clearly intentionally misclassified Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class. In addition to wrongful misclassification, Plaintiffs allege in this lawsuit that Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class were not provided with lawful meal and rest periods as required by California state law. The Plaintiffs further alleges that they were required to work off-the-clock, which violates state minimum wage laws, and that they were not reimbursed for all business related expenses, such as expenses related to passengers' invalid credit cards or no shows, maintenance of the trucks, mileage, gas, and other expenses which are weekly deducted from drivers' pay, among other claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Morrison, Esq. Jessica S. Choi, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, California 90401 Telephone: 310 394 0888 Facsimile: 310 394 0811 E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com jchoi@akgllp.com - and - Thomas W. Falvey, Esq. Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Armand R. Kizirian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547 5200 Facsimile: (818) 500 9307 E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com mike.falveylaw@gmail.com armand.falveylaw@gmail.com ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL: Bid to Drop Merger Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Armour Residential REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company awaits the court's decision on its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit related to a tender offer and merger for Javelin. Nine putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the tender offer (the "Tender Offer") and merger (the "Merger") for JAVELIN. The Tender Offer and Merger are collectively defined herein as the "Transactions." All nine suits name ARMOUR, the previous members of JAVELIN's board of directors prior to the Merger (of which eight are current members of ARMOUR's board of directors) (the "Individual Defendants") and JMI Acquisition Corporation ("Acquisition") as defendants. Certain cases also name ACM and JAVELIN as additional defendants. The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of JAVELIN's common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of JAVELIN's stockholders, alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the putative class of JAVELIN stockholders, including claims that the Individual Defendants failed to properly value JAVELIN; failed to take steps to maximize the value of JAVELIN to its stockholders; ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of interest; failed to disclose material information about the Transactions; took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give ARMOUR an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions; and erected unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders. The suits also allege that ARMOUR, JAVELIN, ACM and Acquisition aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Individual Defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among other relief, to enjoin consummation of the Transactions, or rescind or unwind the Transactions if already consummated, and award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017. On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned In re JAVELIN Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation (Case No. 24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016, interim lead counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty, and waste. On June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the Court reserved ruling. To date, the Court has not issued an order on the Motion to Dismiss. ARMOUR Residential REIT, Inc. invests in residential mortgage backed securities in the United States. It is managed by ARMOUR Capital Management LP. The Company was founded in 2008 and is based in Vero Beach, Florida. ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Agreement Reached in 4 Class Action Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Banc-Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the Corporation and Bank Mutual reached agreement with the plaintiffs in the cases, Schumel et al v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., Paquin et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al. Wollenburg et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., and Parshall et al., v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al. Subsequent to the announcement on July 20, 2017, of the Merger Agreement between the Corporation and Bank Mutual, several lawsuits were filed in connection with the proposed merger. On July 28, 2017, two substantially identical purported class action complaints, each by various individual plaintiffs, were filed with the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Milwaukee County on behalf of the respective named plaintiffs and other Bank Mutual shareholders against Bank Mutual, the members of the Bank Mutual board, and the Corporation. The lawsuits are captioned Schumel et al v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al. and Paquin et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al. Both complaints allege state law breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Bank Mutual board for, among other things, seeking to sell Bank Mutual through an allegedly defective process, for an allegedly unfair price and on allegedly unfair terms. On August 30, 2017, a third purported class action complaint, captioned Wollenburg et al. v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., was filed in the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, on behalf of the same class of shareholders and against the same defendants as the prior two complaints. The Wollenburg complaint asserts similar allegations as the prior two complaints, and further alleges that the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC contains various alleged misstatements or omissions under federal securities law. The Paquin, Schumel and Wollenburg complaints allege that the Corporation aided and abetted Bank Mutual's directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The parties have entered into a stipulation seeking to consolidate the three actions. On September 13, 2017, the Corporation filed a notice of removal of the Paquin, Schumel and Wollenburg actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On September 15, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Paquin, Schumel and Wollenburg actions filed identical motions to remand the three cases back to state court, and on September 27, 2017, the defendants filed oppositions to the motions to remand. On October 3, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the three actions. On September 6, 2017, a fourth purported class action complaint, captioned Parshall et al., v. Bank Mutual Corporation et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on behalf of the same class of shareholders and against the same defendants as the prior complaints. The Parshall complaint criticizes the adequacy of the merger consideration and alleges that Bank Mutual, the members of the Bank Mutual board and the Corporation allegedly omitted and/or misrepresented certain information in the registration statement on Form S-4 filed in connection with the proposed merger in violation of the federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the transaction and damages. The Corporation believes the allegations are without merit. On October 13, 2017, Bank Mutual and the Corporation reached agreement with the plaintiffs in each of the four cases whereby Bank Mutual issued certain additional disclosures in a Form 8-K, and each of the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their actions with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the rest of the purported class members. Associated Banc-Corp said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Associated, Bank Mutual and the other defendants believe that the claims asserted in the lawsuits are without merit and that the disclosures in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate under the law. However, to avoid the risk that the lawsuits may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such actions, Associated and Bank Mutual wish to voluntarily make the Supplemental Disclosures related to the Merger set forth below. Associated and Bank Mutual specifically deny that any further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable law. In light of the Supplemental Disclosures, the plaintiffs in the lawsuits have agreed to dismiss their individual claims with prejudice. A copy of the company's supplemental disclosure is available at https://goo.gl/NXEeg8 Associated Banc-Corp is a U.S. regional bank holding company providing retail banking, commercial banking, commercial real estate lending, private banking, specialized financial services, and insurance services. It is headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin and is the largest bank (by asset size) headquartered in Wisconsin. AVIS BUDGET: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Budget Group, Inc. The case is styled Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-24643-UU (S.D. Fla., December 21, 2017). Avis Budget is the American parent company of Avis Car Rental, Budget Car Rental, Budget Truck Rental, Payless Car Rental, Apex Car Rentals, Maggiore Group and Zipcar.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq. Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group 333 Las Olas Way Suite CU3-311 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 282-1858 Fax: (844) 786-3694 Email: service@advocacypa.com BAY TERRACE: Violates Wage & Hour Laws, Vargas Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ CESAR TELLO VARGAS and LEANDRO RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAY TERRACE PLAZA LLC D/B/A ALLORA ITALIAN KITCHEN & BAR and STEVE MENEXAS and DANIEL STEINBERGER, as individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-07385-PKC-SJB (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant's violations of state and federal wage and hour laws. The Plaintiff's primary duties were as a food runner, expediter, busser, and cleaner, and performing other miscellaneous duties from April 2017 until July 2017. The Plaintiff has worked 54-61 hours or more per week for Defendants from April 2017 to July 2017. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263 9591 BEHR PROCESS: Faces "Surprenant" Suit in N.D. of Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Behr Process Corp. The case is styled Thomas Surprenant, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Behr Process Corp, Behr Paint Corp, Masco Corp, The Home Depot, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-05330-WSD (N.D. Ga., December 21, 2017). The Defendants are suppliers of architectural paint and exterior wood care products to the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Levin Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Tel: (215) 592-1500 Fax: (215) 592-4663 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Michael McShane, Esq. Audet & Partners, LLP Suite 1460 221 Main Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: (415) 982-1776 Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com - and - Ranse M. Partin, Esq. Conley Griggs Partin, LLP- GA Building One, Suite 300 4200 Northside Parkway, NW Atlanta, GA 30327 Tel: (404) 467-1155 Fax: (404) 467-1166 Email: ranse@conleygriggs.com - and - S. Clinton Woods, Esq. Audet & Partners, LLP -CA 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 568-2555 BOBCAT COMPANY: Faces Autumn Suit Over Defective Track Loaders -------------------------------------------------------------- Autumn Ridge Landscaping, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bobcat Company, Case No. 0:17-cv- 05343-MJD-BRT (D. Minn., December 4, 2017), is an action of damages and equitable relief on behalf of the Class, each of whom purchased and leased one or more of the defectively designed and manufactured Bobcat Compact Track Loaders. The defect at issue is Bobcat's failure to include a standard and effective metal shield in their Class Loaders, which, if installed, would provide a solid and durable buffer between the rapidly spinning drive belts within the engine of the Loader and the hydraulic, fuel filler, and fuel distribution lines which run along the outside of the engine. Bobcat Company currently manufactures and sells three types of loaders -- Skid-Steer Loaders, Compact Track Loaders and Mini Track Loaders -- designed to assist workers such as construction and farm workers with moving heavy materials such as asphalt, dirt, and feed through the use of a tractor-mounted loader. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Becker, Esq. David Grounds, Esq. Jennell K. Shannon, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (612) 436-1804 Facsimile: (612) 436-4801 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com jshannon@johnsonbecker.com - and - Gregory Erickson, Esq. MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 465-0937 Facsimile: (612) 341-1076 E-mail: erickson@mklaw.com BOFI HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case"). On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case #: 3:15-cv-02324- GPC-KSC (the "First Class Action"), and the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead plaintiff. The First Class Action complaint was amended by a certain Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. On September 27, 2016, the Court dismissed the First Class Action, with leave to amend, as to defendants Andrew Micheletti, Paul Grinberg, Nicholas Mosich and James Argalas. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Company and Gregory Garrabrants. On November 25, 2016, the putative class action plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which includes the previously dismissed defendants. On December 23, 2016, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss such Second Amended Complaint. On May 23, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants; motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On September 28, 2017, the Company and other defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which is currently pending. The First Class Action seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the Court. The Second Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a complaint filed in connection with a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit filed on October 13, 2015 (the "Employment Matter") and that as a result the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well as portions of its financial statements, were false and misleading. The Company and the other defendants named in the Employment Matter dispute the allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiff in that case, including plaintiff's statement of the underlying factual circumstances, and are vigorously defending against the complaint filed in connection therewith. Moreover, the Company and the other named defendants dispute the allegations advanced by the plaintiffs in the First Class Action and are vigorously defending against the Second Amended Complaint. On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and brought in United States District Court for the Southern District of California (the "Mandalevy Case"). The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the Court. The complaint in the Mandalevy Case (the "Mandalevy Complaint") alleges a class period that differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a March 2017 media article. The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class Action. On June 2, 2017, lead plaintiff motions were filed on behalf of three members of the putative class and on July 17, 2017, the Company and other defendants filed an opposition to such motions. The Mandalevy Complaint has yet to be served upon the Company or the other named defendants. The Company and the other named defendants dispute the allegations advanced by the plaintiffs in the Mandalevy Case, and are vigorously defending against the Mandalevy Complaint. BofI Holding, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products in the United States. The Company offers deposits products, including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time deposit accounts. BofI Holding, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is based in San Diego, California. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Bid to Drop 3rd "Zamir" Complaint Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the case entitled Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al., filed a third amended complaint and the defendants filed a third motion to dismiss which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants. On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 19, 2017 and the defendants filed a third motion to dismiss, which is currently pending with the court. Bridgepoint said "The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. The Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action." Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides postsecondary education services. Its academic institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies, offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology, social sciences, and health sciences. The company offers its programs primarily through online; and at its campuses. The company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed its name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Discovery Underway in "Nieder" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the case Dustin Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC, which was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego, is currently in discovery. On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer denying the claims and the case is currently in discovery. Bridgepoint "The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action." Bridgepoint Education, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides postsecondary education services. Its academic institutions, Ashford University and University of the Rockies, offer associate's, bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degree programs in the disciplines of business, education, psychology, social sciences, and health sciences. The company offers its programs primarily through online; and at its campuses. The company was formerly known as TeleUniversity, Inc. and changed its name to Bridgepoint Education, Inc. in February 2004. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. BUFFALO WILD: New York Employee Class Action Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 24, 2017, that the plaintiffs in a putative class action suit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, amended their complaint to include putative class action claims under the laws of seven additional states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Company said, "On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and putative class action under New York state law against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The claim alleges that we have a policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible for tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of the FLSA and New York state law. On September 27, 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include putative class action claims under the laws of seven additional states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin." Added Buffalo Wild Wings, "We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. We believe there is a reasonable possibility of loss related to these claims; however, we are currently unable to determine the potential range of exposure, if any." Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual dining restaurant and sports bar franchise in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman, which specializes in Buffalo wings and sauces. The company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. CELGENE CORP: IUB Class Action Suit in New Jersey Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action lawsuit filed by the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB). The Company said, "On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that we violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient; (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of our THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products; and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on behalf of itself and a putative class of third party payers, is seeking injunctive relief and damages." "In February 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss IUB's complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence), the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's complaint. In October 2015, the court denied our motion to dismiss on all grounds. "The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs -- International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives' Endowment Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell. "Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and Providence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a Consolidated Amended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA, and Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed another complaint, which it identified as related to the consolidated case, and which made similar allegations on behalf of an additional asserted class representative: New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund. The completion of fact discovery and expert discovery in these cases is scheduled for April 2, 2018 and September 13, 2018, respectively. No trial date has been set." Celgene added "We intend to vigorously defend against these claims." Celgene Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is an integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery, development and commercialization of innovative therapies for the treatment of cancer and inflammatory diseases through next-generation solutions in protein homeostasis, immuno- oncology, epigenetics, immunology and neuro-inflammation. The company is based in Summit, New Jersey. CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Muransky" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DR. DAVID S. MURANSKY, the Plaintiff, v. THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, INC., d/b/a THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07569-CJC- RAO (C.D. Cal.), Mr. Muransky will move the Court on January 22, 2018, for an order certifying this action to proceed as a class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6SM48Lu2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel Clark, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT WARMUTH, APC 17700 Castleton St. No. 168 City of Industry, CA 91748 Telephone: (626) 282 6868 - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33091 Telephone: (954) 589 0588 Facsimile: (954) 589 0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726 1092 - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Esq. BRET L. LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 302 Aventura, Florida 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 CHICO'S FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in the case entitled Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc. In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts. Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes the case is without merit. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss on July 13, 2016, and the parties have engaged in extensive discovery since then. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification in May 2017, which WHBM opposed in a brief filed in June 2017. Chico's FAS said "The Company will continue to vigorously defend the matter, including a planned motion for summary judgment to dismiss all claims. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, related to the lawsuit because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without limitation, (a) whether the action will be permitted to proceed as a class, (b) if a class is certified, the resolution of certain disputed statutory interpretation issues that may impact the size of the putative class and (c) whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages." Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of women's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operating under the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Soma brand names. The company earns revenues and generates cash through the sale of merchandise in their domestic and international retail stores, their various websites and their call centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, and through an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico. CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Ackerman" Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------ Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement, and the court issued a final approval and entry of judgment on June 5, 2017. In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. The complaint alleged numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. Plaintiff subsequently amended her complaint to make the same allegations on a class action basis. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the Court issued final approval and entry of judgment on June 5, 2017. The settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of women's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operating under the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Soma brand names. The company earns revenues and generates cash through the sale of merchandise in their domestic and international retail stores, their various websites and their call centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, and through an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico. CHICO'S FAS: De Minimis Deal in "Calleros" Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------ Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled Calleros v. Chico's FAS, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the court on July 25, 2017. In July 2016, the company was named as a defendant in Calleros v. Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleged that the Company failed to comply with California law requiring it to provide consumers cash for gift cards with a stored value of less than $10.00. Following voluntary mediation of the matter in November of 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the court on July 25, 2017. The settlement will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Chico's FAS, Inc. is a leading omni-channel specialty retailer of women's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates and complementary accessories, operating under the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Soma brand names. The company earns revenues and generates cash through the sale of merchandise in their domestic and international retail stores, their various websites and their call centers, which takes orders for all of our brands, and through an unaffiliated franchise partner in Mexico. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Class Suits by 2 Credit Unions Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the purported class action complaints filed by Bellwether Community Credit Union and Alcoa Community Credit Union in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado, have been consolidated. On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the company negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card information of customers of the plaintiffs and those of other similarly situated credit unions, banks and other financial institutions alleged to be part of the putative class, causing those institutions to suffer financial losses. The complaint also claims that the company was negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado making substantially the same allegations as the Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the same relief. The Bellwether and Alcoa cases have been consolidated and will proceed as a single action. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Gordon" and "Lawson" Suits Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- Chiptole Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the Gordon case and the Lawson and Conard case have notified the court of their agreement to consolidate their cases and file an amended consolidated complaint. On June 9, 2017, Todd Gordon filed a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the company negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card information of the plaintiff and other similarly situated customers alleged to be part of the putative class, causing such customers to suffer financial losses. The complaint also claims the company was negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws, and also alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. Additionally, on August 21, 2017, Greg Lawson and Judy Conard filed a purported class action complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colorado making allegations substantially similar to those in the Gordon complaint, and stating substantially similar claims as well as claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiffs in the Gordon case and the Lawson and Conard case have notified the court of their agreement to consolidate their cases and file an amended consolidated complaint for the consolidated matter. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: NY and CO Shareholders Suits Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Chiptole Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself from a purported class action complaints filed by Susie Ong in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Elizabeth Kelly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of the company's common stock between February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016. The complaint purports to state claims against the company, each of the co- Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the claimed class period to disclose material information about the quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer and employee health. The complaint asserts that those failures and related public statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the market price of the company's stock was artificially inflated during the claimed class period. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2017. Additionally, on July 20, 2017, Elizabeth Kelly filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock between February 5, 2016 and July 19, 2017, with claims and factual allegations similar to the Ong complaint, based primarily on media reports regarding illnesses associated with a Chipotle restaurant in Sterling, Virginia. Chipotle Mexican Grill said "We intend to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or any potential liability from the cases." Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: $1.475MM Contributed to Settlement Fund ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher & Banks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the company contributed $1.475 million into a settlement fund in the second fiscal quarter of 2017. The Company said, "In connection with a preliminary settlement of pre-litigation employment claims reached in February 2017, we established a loss contingency of $1.475 million as of January 28, 2017. In connection therewith, on April 13, 2017, a complaint was filed in state Circuit Court in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida (the "Florida Circuit Court") by three named plaintiffs in a purported class action asserting claims on behalf of current and former store managers. The plaintiffs principally alleged that they and other similarly situated store managers were improperly classified as exempt employees and thus not compensated for overtime work as required under applicable federal and state law. On May 4, 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the named plaintiffs and the proposed class. On May 8, 2017, the Florida Circuit Court issued an order approving the class settlement." As approved by the Florida Circuit Court, certain current and former store managers will be eligible to receive payments in connection with time worked in prior years. The settlement of the lawsuit is not an admission by us of any wrongdoing. Christopher & Banks said "As part of the settlement, the Company contributed $1.475 million into a settlement fund in the second fiscal quarter of 2017. Any funds remaining after payment of all submitted claims and related settlement fund costs and expenses will revert to the Company. A final resolution of the matter and the dissolution of the settlement fund is expected by the end of this fiscal year. While the ultimate amount of the claims paid under the settlement is likely to be less than the Company has recorded, the difference is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial position or liquidity." Christopher & Banks Corporation is a national specialty retailer featuring exclusively-designed, privately-branded women's apparel and accessories. The company offers their customers an assortment of unique, classic and versatile clothing that fits her everyday needs at a good value. The company operates an integrated, omni- channel platform that provides their customers the ability to shop when and where they wants, including online or at retail and outlet stores. CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Corporation warned in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the bankruptcy filing of an unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in a price reporting class action suit could increase the risk of loss to CMS Energy. CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as defendants in four class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit arising as a result of alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report trade information. Allegations include price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs are making claims for the following: treble damages, full consideration damages, exemplary damages, costs, interest, and/or attorneys' fees. After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict litigation process. In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on FERC preemption. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court decision. The appellate court found that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims. The matter was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2015 upheld the Ninth Circuit's decision. The cases were remanded back to the federal district court. In May 2016, the federal district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the individual lawsuit based on a release in a prior settlement involving similar allegations and reinstated CMS Energy as a defendant in one of the class action lawsuits. The order of summary judgment has been appealed. In December 2016, CMS Energy entities reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in the three Kansas and Missouri cases for an amount that was not material to CMS Energy. In August 2017, the federal district court approved the settlement. CMS Energy entities remain as defendants in the Wisconsin class action lawsuits. In March 2017, the federal district court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has accepted the matter for hearing. In June 2017, an unaffiliated company that is also a defendant in these cases filed for bankruptcy, which could increase the risk of loss to CMS Energy. CMS Energy said "These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple jurisdictions. Presently, any estimate of liability would be highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's reasonably possible loss would be based on widely varying models previously untested in this context. If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases could negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations." CMS Energy Corporation is an energy company that is focused principally on utility operations in Michigan. Its principal business is Consumers Energy, a public utility that provides electricity and natural gas to more than 6 million of Michigan's 10 million residents. Its non-utility businesses are focused primarily on domestic independent power production. Consumers Energy has operated since 1886. The company is based in Michigan. CR BARD: Continues to Defend Suits over Hernia Products ------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend lawsuits related to Hernia Product Claims in various federal and state courts. As of September 30, 2017, approximately 25 federal and 185 state lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 205 plaintiffs, as well as one putative class action in the United States, are currently pending against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in December 2005. In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently, other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The MDL stopped accepting new cases in the second quarter of 2014 and was terminated in November 2016, at which time the remaining federal lawsuits were remanded to their courts of original jurisdiction for trial. As of September 30, 2017, all but one of the United States putative class actions pending against the company was dismissed. The remaining putative class action pending against the company has not been certified and seeks: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2014, a settlement was reached with respect to three putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded by the company. As of September 30, 2017, five new putative Canadian class actions have been filed against the company. Approximately 170 of the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately 170 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The company has resolved the majority of its historical Hernia Product Claims, including through agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases. Each agreement involving the settlement of a firm's inventory of claims was subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation. The company expects additional trials of Hernia Product Claims to take place over the next 12 months. The company cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity. C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide. The Company sells its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical specialty distributors. C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey. CR BARD: Suits over Women's Products Underway --------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend lawsuits related to Women's Health Product Claims in various federal and state courts. As of September 30, 2017, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 3,285 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the company's surgical continence products for women, which includes products manufactured by both the company and two subsidiaries of Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc) ("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company. Medtronic has an obligation to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product defect liability for products its subsidiaries had manufactured. In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic (which was amended in June 2017) regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. In addition, five putative class actions in the United States and five putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the company, and a limited number of other claims have been filed or asserted in various non-U.S. jurisdictions. The foregoing lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims, putative class actions and other claims, together with claims that have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's Health Product Claims". The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in one Canadian putative class action. In March 2016, the company reached an agreement in principle to resolve all Canadian putative class actions, with the exception of a Quebec class action, within amounts previously recorded by the company, which settlement was finalized in September 2016. In January 2017, the court approved the discontinuance of the proposed Quebec class action. In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV District Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits involving all women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million. On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million, which was upheld by the Fourth Circuit on January 14, 2016. The company does not believe that any verdicts entered to date are representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product Claims. On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV District Court ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300 individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders"). The 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and continuing through the second quarter of 2015. In February 2015, the WV District Court appointed a Special Master to assist with settlement resolution. In June 2015, the WV District Court issued an order staying the requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered by the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders. Substantially all of the 500 individual cases that are the subject of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders have been part of agreements or agreements in principle to settle with various plaintiff law firms. In December 2016, the WV District Court lifted the stay of the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders and remanded five of the unsettled cases to their courts of original jurisdiction for trial. In the first quarter of 2017, an additional 11 cases were remanded for trial for a total of 16 remanded cases. As of September 30, 2017, after accounting for settlements effectuated over the second and third quarters of 2017, there are only three remaining remanded matters, of which two cases have been assigned trial dates in 2018. In response to court orders on January 27, 2017 and March 3, 2017, the company is preparing an additional approximately 125 remaining individual cases for trial (together with the 2014 WHP Pre-Trial Orders, the "WHP Pre-Trial Orders"), which has been reduced from the original order due to settlements and dismissals over the second and third quarters of 2017. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in material additional costs in future periods in defending Women's Health Product Claims. The WV District Court may also order that the company prepare additional cases for trial, which could result in material additional costs in future periods. As of September 30, 2017, the company reached agreements or agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle their respective inventories of cases totaling approximately 13,050 Women's Health Product Claims, including approximately: 560 during 2014, 6,215 during 2015, 4,155 during 2016 and 2,120 during 2017. C. R. Bard said "The company believes that these Women's Health Product Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by various plaintiffs' law firms, which have not been included in the approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first paragraph of this section." Each agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of plaintiffs." The company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may include additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these settlement efforts, the company anticipates additional trials over the next 12 months. In addition, one or more possible consolidated trials may occur in the future. In July 2015, Medtronic agreed to take responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company has paid Medtronic $121 million towards these potential settlements. In June 2017, the company amended the agreement with Medtronic to transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on terms similar to the July 2015 agreement, including with respect to the obligation to make payments to Medtronic towards these potential settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion, transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreements do not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle, if any. As part of the agreements, Medtronic and the company agreed to dismiss without prejudice their previously filed litigation with respect to Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the company. C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide. The Company sells its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical specialty distributors. C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey. CR BARD: Continues to Defend Against Filter Product Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that as of September 30, 2017, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 2,765 plaintiffs are currently pending against the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena cava filter products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter Product Claims"). In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation ("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the District of Arizona. There are approximately 2,690 Filter Product Claims that have been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL. In September 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification of a medical monitoring class. Plaintiffs may appeal this decision. In March 2017, the company filed a motion for summary judgment based upon principles of federal preemption. The remaining approximately 70 Filter Product Claims are pending in various state courts. In March 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed against the company in Quebec. In April 2016 and May 2016, putative Canadian class actions were filed in Ontario and British Columbia, respectively. In November 2016, a putative Canadian class action was filed in Saskatchewan. The approximate number of lawsuits set forth above does not include approximately 20 claims that have been threatened against the company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. The company continues to receive claims and lawsuits and may in future periods learn additional information regarding other unfiled or unknown claims, or other lawsuits, which could materially impact the company's estimate of the number of claims or lawsuits against the company. The company expects that trials of Filter Product Claims may take place over the next 12 months. C. R. Bard said "While the company intends to vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle, including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity." C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide. The Company sells its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical specialty distributors. C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey. CR BARD: "Tanguma" Class Action Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the Tanguma action has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The company, its directors, BD and Merger Corp were or have been named as defendants in two putative class actions in the United States District Court of the District of New Jersey, under the captions Barbara Stanford Tanguma v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-CV-03977 (filed June 2, 2017) (the "Tanguma action") and Richard K. Maser v. Timothy M. Ring, et al., Case No. 2:17-CV-04549 (filed June 21, 2017) (the "Maser action" and, together with the Tanguma action, the "lawsuits"). The complaint for the Tanguma action alleged, and for the Maser action alleges, that the preliminary registration statement on Form S-4 filed by BD on May 23, 2017 contains material misstatements and omits material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Tanguma action sought, and the Maser action continues to seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the Merger and attorneys' fees and costs. The Tanguma action also sought dissemination of a registration statement that is materially true and not misleading and, if the company and BD consummate the Merger, its rescission and/or rescissory damages, and the Maser action continues to seek unspecified damages. On September 25, 2017, the Tanguma action was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. C. R. Bard said "The company believes that Maser action is without merit." C. R. Bard, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices worldwide. The Company sells its products directly to hospitals, individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities, and alternate site facilities through hospital/surgical supply and other medical specialty distributors. C. R. Bard, Inc. was founded in 1907 and is headquartered in Murray Hill, New Jersey. CREDIT ONE: Faces "Beitler" Suit in Southern District of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit One Bank, N.A. The case is styled Chris Beitler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 9:17-cv-81383-RLR (S.D. Fla., December 21, 2017). The Defendant is a national banking association with its principal place of business located at 585 Pilot Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Peerce Howard, Esq. The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC 210-A South MacDill Avenue Tampa, FL 33609 Tel: (813) 500-1500 Fax: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com DOORDASH INC: Faces "Austin" Suit in Dist. of Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DoorDash, Inc. The case is captioned as Darnell Austin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DoorDash, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-12498-IT (D. Mass., Dec. 19, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani. DoorDash is an on-demand restaurant delivery service founded in 2013 by Stanford students Andy Fang, Stanley Tang, Tony Xu and Evan Moore.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adelaide H. Pagano, Esq. Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: apagano@llrlaw.com sliss@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Francis J. Bingham, Esq. Michael Mankes, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. One International Place, Suite 2700 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 378 6000 E-mail: fbingham@littler.com mmankes@littler.com EQUIFAX INC: Faces D.L. Evans Bank Suit in N.D. of Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The case is styled D.L. Evans Bank and Texas First Bank, individually and on behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiffs v. Equifax Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05357-TWT (N.D. Ga., December 21, 2017). Equifax Inc. operates a global credit reporting agency that collects, stores, organizes, analyzes and disseminates data on millions of consumers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony C. Lake, Esq. Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC 3490 Piedmont Road, N.E. One Securities Centre, Suite 1050 Atlanta, GA 30305 Tel: (404) 842-9700 Fax: (404) 842-9750 Email: aclake@gwllawfirm.com - and - Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Murray Law Firm 650 Poydras Street Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (505) 525-8100 Email: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P. -MN 1100 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 341-0400 Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Chestnut Cambronne, PA Suite 300 17 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Bryan A. Fox, Esq. Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA 5th Floor 1133 Penn Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 - and - Charles Hale Van Horn, Esq. Berman Fink Van Horn, P.C. -Atl 3475 Piedmont Road, N.E. Suite 1100 Atlanta, GA 30305 Tel: (404) 261-7711 Fax: (404) 233-1943 Email: cvanhorn@bfvlaw.com - and - Erin Green Comite, Esq. Scott & Scott, LLP-NY 17th Floor 230 Park Avenue New York, NY 10169 Tel: (860) 537-5537 Email: ecomite@scott-scott.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA 5th Floor 1133 Penn Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - Jamisen Etzel, Esq. Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP - PA 5th Floor 1133 Penn Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 Email: jetzel@carlsonlynch.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP 230 Park Avenue 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Tel: (212) 223-6444 Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com - and - Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen 100 Washington Avenue South 2200 Washington Square Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com - and - Stephen B. Murray , Sr., Esq. Murray Law Firm 650 Poydras Street Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Tel: (504) 525-8100 Email:amurray@murray-lawfirm.com - and - Thomas A. Withers, Esq. Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC 8 E. Liberty Street Savannah, GA 31401 Tel: (912) 447-8400 Fax: (912) 233-6584 Email: twithers@gwllawfirm.com ERIE INDEMNITY: Case Dismissal Order Under Appeal to 3rd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erie Indemnity Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiffs in the "Beltz II" lawsuit filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, from the district court's decision granting the company's and the directors' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit. On February 6, 2013, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned Erie Insurance Exchange, an unincorporated association, by members Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan and Anita Sullivan, and Patricia R. Beltz, on behalf of herself and others similarly situate v. Richard L. Stover; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Susan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Claude C. Lilly, III; Lucian L. Morrison; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Elizabeth H. Vorsheck; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz" lawsuit), by alleged policyholders of Exchange who are also the plaintiffs in the Sullivan lawsuit. The individuals named as defendants in the Beltz lawsuit were the then-current Directors of Indemnity. As subsequently amended, the Beltz lawsuit asserts many of the same allegations and claims for monetary relief as in the Sullivan lawsuit. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of all policyholders of Exchange, or, alternatively, on behalf of Exchange itself. Indemnity filed a motion to intervene as a Party Defendant in the Beltz lawsuit in July 2013, and the Directors filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August 2013. On February 10, 2014, the court entered an order granting Indemnity's motion to intervene and permitting Indemnity to join the Directors' motion to dismiss; granting in part the Directors' motion to dismiss; referring the matter to the Department to decide any and all issues within its jurisdiction; denying all other relief sought in the Directors' motion as moot; and dismissing the case without prejudice. To avoid duplicative proceedings and expedite the Department's review, the Parties stipulated that only the Sullivan action would proceed before the Department and any final and non-appealable determinations made by the Department in the Sullivan action will be applied to the Beltz action. On March 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on March 26, 2014. On November 17, 2014, the Third Circuit deferred ruling on Indemnity's motion to dismiss the appeal and instructed the parties to address that motion, as well as the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, in the parties' briefing. Briefing was completed on April 2, 2015. In light of the Department's April 29, 2015 decision in Sullivan, the Parties then jointly requested that the Beltz appeal be voluntarily dismissed as moot on June 5, 2015. The Third Circuit did not rule on the Parties' request for dismissal and instead held oral argument as scheduled on June 8, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the Third Circuit issued an opinion and judgment dismissing the appeal. The Third Circuit found that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal, because the District Court's February 10, 2014 order referring the matter to the Department was not a final, appealable order. On July 8, 2016, the Beltz plaintiffs filed a new action labeled as a "Verified Derivative And Class Action Complaint" in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The action is captioned Patricia R. Beltz, Joseph S. Sullivan, and Anita Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Erie Insurance Exchange v. Erie Indemnity Company; Kaj Ahlmann; John T. Baily; Samuel P. Black, III; J. Ralph Borneman, Jr.; Terrence W. Cavanaugh; Wilson C. Cooney; LuAnn Datesh; Patricia A. Goldman; Jonathan Hirt Hagen; Thomas B. Hagen; C. Scott Hartz; Samuel P. Katz; Gwendolyn King; Claude C. Lilly, III; Martin J. Lippert; George R. Lucore; Jeffrey A. Ludrof; Edmund J. Mehl; Henry N. Nassau; Thomas W. Palmer; Martin P. Sheffield; Seth E. Schofield; Richard L. Stover; Jan R. Van Gorder; Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck; Harry H. Weil; and Robert C. Wilburn (the "Beltz II" lawsuit). The individual defendants are all present or former Directors of Indemnity (the "Directors"). The allegations of the Beltz II lawsuit arise from the same fundamental, underlying claims as the Sullivan and prior Beltz litigation, i.e., that Indemnity improperly retained Service Charges and Added Service Charges. The Beltz II lawsuit alleges that the retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges was improper because, for among other reasons, that retention constituted a breach of the Subscriber's Agreement and an Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing by Indemnity, breaches of fiduciary duty by Indemnity and the other defendants, conversion by Indemnity, and unjust enrichment by defendants Jonathan Hirt Hagen, Thomas B. Hagen, Elizabeth A. Hirt Vorsheck, and Samuel P. Black, III, at the expense of Exchange. The Beltz II lawsuit requests, among other things, that a judgment be entered against the Defendants certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; declaring Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class; declaring the conduct alleged as unlawful, including, but not limited to, Defendants' retention of the Service Charges and Added Service Charges; enjoining Defendants from continuing to retain the Service Charges and Added Service Charges; and awarding compensatory and punitive damages and interest. On September 23, 2016, Indemnity filed a motion to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On September 30, 2016, the Directors filed their own motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit. On July 17, 2017, the Court granted Indemnity's and the Directors' motions to dismiss the Beltz II lawsuit, dismissing the case in its entirety. The Court ruled that "the Subscriber's Agreement does not govern the separate and additional charges at issue in the Complaint" and, therefore, dismissed the breach of contract claim against Indemnity for failure to state a claim. The Court also ruled that the remaining claims, including the claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Indemnity and the Directors, are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation or fail to state legally cognizable claims. On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Indemnity believes it has meritorious legal and factual defenses and intends to vigorously defend against all allegations and requests for relief in the Beltz II lawsuit. The Directors have advised Indemnity that they intend to vigorously defend against the claims in the Beltz II lawsuit and have sought indemnification and advancement of expenses from the Company in connection with the Beltz II lawsuit. Erie Indemnity Company operates as a managing attorney-in-fact for the subscribers at the Erie Insurance Exchange in the United States. The company provides sales, underwriting, and policy issuance services for the policyholders on behalf of the Erie Insurance Exchange. Its sales related services include agent compensation, and sales and advertising support services; and underwriting services comprise underwriting and policy processing, as well as provides administrative support, information technology, and customer services. The company operates three field offices. Erie Indemnity Company was founded in 1925 and is based in Erie, Pennsylvania. EVINE LIVE: Customer Class Action in New York Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Evine Live Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that a customer had filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On June 26, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an individual, William Horan, against both the Company and Invicta Watch Co. of America, Inc. ("Invicta") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, asserting claims under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York General Business Law Section 349. The claims relate to the warranty provided with the Invicta watch that the plaintiff allegedly purchased through the Company. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached the warranty, failed to disclose material information and\or made false representations concerning the warranty. This case is pled as a putative class action, which means that the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other similarly situated individuals who purchased an Invicta watch through the Company. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. Evine Live said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." Evine Live Inc. is a multiplatform video commerce company that offers a mix of proprietary, exclusive and name brands directly to consumers in an engaging and informative shopping experience through TV, online and mobile devices. The company operates a 24- hour television shopping network, Evine, which is distributed primarily on cable and satellite systems, through which the company offers proprietary, exclusive and name brand merchandises in the categories of jewelry & watches; home & consumer electronics; beauty; and fashion & accessories. EVINE LIVE: TCPA Class Action in California Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Evine Live Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the company is facing a TCPA class action suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On June 29, 2017, a purported class action case was filed by an individual, Betty Gregory, against the Company in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, asserting claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully contacted her on her cellular telephone without her prior express consent. This case is pled as a putative class action, and the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all other individuals who received telephone calls similar to the ones she allegedly received from the Company and the Company's third-party collection vendors. The TCPA provides for recovery of actual damages or $500 for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA, the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the amount provided above. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, injunctive relief, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. Evine Live said "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of this case and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." Evine Live Inc. is a multiplatform video commerce company that offers a mix of proprietary, exclusive and name brands directly to consumers in an engaging and informative shopping experience through TV, online and mobile devices. The company operates a 24- hour television shopping network, Evine, which is distributed primarily on cable and satellite systems, through which the company offers proprietary, exclusive and name brand merchandises in the categories of jewelry & watches; home & consumer electronics; beauty; and fashion & accessories. FAMOUS BOURBON: "Richardson" Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LAWRENCE RICHARDSON, the Plaintiff, v. FAMOUS BOURBON MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. AND FIORELLA'S ON DECATUR, INC., D/B/A JAZZ CAFE, FIORELLA'S CAF AND BEERFEST, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-05848-JTM-DEK (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying a class of: "all persons employed by Defendants since December 2014 who were paid on a "day rate" basis but were not paid at a rate equal to or higher than the federal minimum wage rate and/or who were not paid at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a4jrXqoD Attorneys for Plaintiffs and FLSA Collective Action: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. JACKSON & JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599 5953 Facsimile: (888) 988 6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net - and - Christopher L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C. 639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850 New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 308 1438 Facsimile: (504) 308 1446 E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com FEDCHEX RECOVERY: Faces "Spencer" Suit in S.D. of Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FEDChex Recovery LLC. The case is styled Monique Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FEDChex Recovery LLC and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv- 03850 (S.D. Tex, December 21, 2017). FEDChex Recovery LLC is a Collections Agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq. The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein 6906 Rocky Top Circle Dallas, TX 75252 Tex: (646) 753-0149 Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com FIRST ENERGY: "Ewing" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Linda Ewing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Energy Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-01573 (W.D. Pa., December 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Ohio Prompt Pay Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Linda Ewing worked exclusively for First Energy as a Field Agent during the relevant statutory time period. Throughout her employment with First Energy, Ewing was paid a day rate with no overtime compensation and was classified as an independent contractor. Plaintiff Ewing is resident of and a citizen of Pennsylvania. Defendant FirstEnergy Corporation is a diversified energy company headquartered in Akron, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: (412) 766-1455 Fax: (412)766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com FIVE BOROUGH: Stepanov Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- ZULFIYA STEPANOV, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by FIVE BOROUGH HOME CARE, INC. along with other entities affiliated or controlled by FIVE BOROUGH HOME CARE, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. FIVE BOROUGH HOME CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 161196/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation, "spread of hours" compensation, reimbursement for business expenses borne for the benefit and convenience of the Defendant, as well as damages arising from Defendant's breach of contract, which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs to regularly work in excess of ten hours per day, without providing the proper hourly compensation for all hours worked, overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given week, and "spread of hours" compensation. Five Borough is in the Home Health Care Services business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Fl New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 Facsimile: (212) 943 9082 E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com - and - Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 1517 Voohies Ave, 2nd Fl Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (212) 808 2224 Facsimile: (866) 261 5478 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com GC SERIVCES: Faces "Fligman" Suit in Eastern District of NY ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Serivces Limited Partnership. The case is styled Lea Fligman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. GC Serivces Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07442 (E.D. N.Y., December 21, 2017). GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. GC SERVICES: "Kausar" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RUKHSANA KAUSAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-06027-ES-JAD (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order determining that this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case may proceed as a class action, on behalf of: "(1) all persons with a New Jersey address, (2) to whom GC Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial communication letter to Plaintiff's Complaint that stated: (a) "However, if you do dispute all or any portion of this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter, we will obtain verification of the debt from our client and send it to you." and/or (b) "if within 30 days of receiving this letter you request the name and address of the original creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs from our client, Synchrony Bank", (3) between August 5, 2014 through and including August 24, 2015, (4) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable to GC Services Limited Partnership." The Plaintiff further asks the Court that she be appointed as the class representative and that Ryan Gentile, Esq. be appointed as counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2q9xbVWz The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Gentile, Esq. 110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Telephone: (201) 873 7675 Facsimile: (212) 675 4367 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com GREATBANC TRUST: "McMaken" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL V. MCMAKEN, on behalf of the Chemonics International, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04983 (N.D. Ill.), Mr. McMaken moves the Court to enter an order certifying a class: "all participants in the Chemonics International, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and the beneficiaries of such participants, who were allocated Chemonics International, Inc. stock in the Plan from July 7, 2011 to present." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZXqvuo8C The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Patrick O. Muench, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463 2101 Facsimile: (202) 463 2103 E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com gporter@baileyglasser.com pmuench@baileyglasser.com GTS HOLDINGS: Pierrot Seeks Minimum Wages, OT under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- ROUDT PIERROT, on behalf of himself and others similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GTS HOLDINGS, INC. EMPIRE INTERNATIONAL, LTD, EMPIRE CLS WORLDWIDE CHAUFFEURING SERVICES and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 161206/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), seeks to recover compensation including unpaid minimum wages, overtime, spread-of- hours compensation and withheld gratuities, plus interest, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law, the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, and New Jersey Statutes. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who are presently or were formerly employed by Defendants as chauffeurs who, as part of their employment, picked up and dropped off vehicles at EmpireCLS's Secaucus, New Jersey garage Beginning in December 2008 and, continuing through the present, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the putative class members employed as Garage Chauffers earned minimum wages for work performed in connection with Defendants' luxury transportation company. The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime compensation as required by applicable state law.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative Class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad St, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943 9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com HP INC: Additional Bid to Compel Arbitration Filed in "Forsyth" --------------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that defendants filed additional motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs, in the case Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the California Business and Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide collective class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age or older. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012. Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. New plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the nationwide collective action should be shortened and now starts on December 9, 2014. On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another partial motion to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to several of the plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in plaintiffs. HP Inc. is a leading global provider of personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services. The company sells to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health, and education sectors. HP INC: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Drop Firmware Update Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that HP's motion to dismiss in the case entitled captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation remains pending. Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP, arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain OfficeJet printers. This authentication protocol rejects some third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips. Two of the cases were dismissed, and the remaining cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation. The remaining plaintiffs' operative consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017, alleging eleven causes of action: (1) unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2) fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (3) violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (5) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices -- Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. Section 17.01, et seq.; (6) violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Section 19.86.010, et seq.; (7) violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Ann. 56:8-1, et seq.; (8) violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030, et seq.; (9) violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 502; (10) Trespass to Chattels; and (11) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations and/or Prospective Economic Advantage. The plaintiffs seek to certify a primary class of all persons in the United States who purchased or owned the OfficeJet printers in question, and they alternatively seek to certify subclasses of all such printer purchasers or owners in California, Texas, Washington, and/or New Jersey. On April 21, 2017, HP filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The court held a hearing on July 14, 2017. HP's motion to dismiss remains pending. I.Q. DATA: "Dees" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------ David Dees, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. I.Q. Data International, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-04489 (D. Ariz., December 4, 2017), seeks damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Plaintiff David Dees, is a consumer who at all relevant times resided in the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa, and City of Phoenix. Defendant, I.Q. Data International, Inc. is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged, by use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to collect a "debt". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq. Joseph Panvini, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Tel: (602) 388-8898 Fax: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com INTEL CORP: Appeal in Calif. Shareholders Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a California Court of Appeals heard oral argument in October 2017 on the plaintiffs' appeal on a lower court ruling, and the parties await the appeals court's decision. On August 19, 2010, the company announced that it had agreed to acquire all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. for $48.00 per share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee, and Intel as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08. In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class representative and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial and ordered a bench trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. The California Court of Appeal heard oral argument in October 2017, and the parties await the court's decision. Intel said "Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter. We dispute the class- action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously." Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer, networking, and communications platforms worldwide. It operates through Client Computing Group, Data Center Group, Internet of Things Group, Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group, Intel Security Group, Programmable Solutions Group, and All Other segments. The company is based in Santa Clara, California. ITURAN LOCATION: Israeli Class Action Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- Ituran Location and Control Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the company continues to defend itself in a purported class action suit. On July 13, 2015 the company received a purported class action lawsuit which was filed against the Company in the District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv, Israel, by one plaintiff who is a subscriber of the Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a monopoly under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices Law, 1988, unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated between its customers. The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from customers who are obliged by insurance company requirements to install location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the monthly subscription fees that are charged from customers who are not required by insurance companies to install location and recovery systems in their vehicles. In addition, the plaintiff claims that the Company offers to customers who are not required by insurance companies to install location and recovery systems in their vehicles, a discounted warrantee service to their location and recovery systems. The plaintiff claims in addition to the above, that such actions raise additional causes of action against the Company such as negotiations without good faith, executing contract without good faith, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of consumer protection laws, tort laws, and breach of statutory duty. The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action was estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million (approximately USD 77 million). The Company said, "Our defense against the approval of the class action lawsuit was filed on January 3, 2016. The plaintiff has responded to our defense on February 29, 2016, and a first preliminary hearing took place on January 4th, 2017 A class action lawsuit based on similar claims, against the Company, which description was filed with sect on form 6-K on March 22, 2011, was dismissed by the court on the request of both parties, on March 5, 2012 for a small compensation to the plaintiff and his attorneys, in a total amount of NIS 30,000 (approximately USD 7,900). Such dismissal of a similar class action lawsuit may have a positive effect on the Company's defense against the current lawsuit. Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, at this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success, however based on the documents of the claim, the Company has good defense arguments in respect of claims made by the plaintiff and that the chances that the lawsuit will not be approved as a class action lawsuit are higher than it will be approved. While we cannot predict the outcome of this case, if we are not successful in defending our claim, we could be subject to significant costs, adversely affecting our results of operations." Ituran Location and Control Ltd. is an Israeli company that provides stolen vehicle recovery and tracking services, and markets GPS wireless communications products. Ituran is traded on NASDAQ and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange and is included in the TA- 100 Index. Ituran has over 1,300 employees worldwide and is a market leader in Brazil, Argentina, Israel and the United States. As of February 2015, the company has 817,000 subscribers. Ituran was established in 1994 by the Tadiran conglomerate to develop and operate a service for locating stolen vehicles using a technology that was originally developed for military use at Tadiran Telematics, a subsidiary of Tadiran Communications. JC PENNEY: $97.5MM Deal in Securities Class Suit Awaits Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods ended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the parties have reached an agreement in principle, subject to final court approval, to settle a consolidated securities class action for $97.5 million, which will be funded by insurance. The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired the company's common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff claims that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused the company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The consolidated complaint seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint which was denied by the court on September 29, 2015. Defendants filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on November 12, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on January 25, 2016, and on August 29, 2016, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion for class certification be granted. The district court adopted this report and recommendation granting class certification on March 8, 2017. Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit discussed above, and seeks similar relief. On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit amended the consolidated complaint to include the members of the purported class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June 10, 2015, the Johnson lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus lawsuit. The parties have reached an agreement in principle, subject to final court approval, to settle the consolidated securities class action for $97.5 million, which will be funded by insurance. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 24, 2017. J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding company structure was implemented. The holding company has no independent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries other than JCP. The company is an American department store chain with 1095 locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition to selling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often house several leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's Best Coffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelry repair. JC PENNEY: Awaits Final Court Approval of $4.5MM ERISA Case Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods ended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the court granted preliminary approval on a $4.5 million settlement agreement reached by the parties. JCP and certain present and former members of JCP's Board of Directors have been sued in a purported class action complaint by plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, which was filed on July 8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The class period is alleged to be between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part by the court on September 29, 2015. The parties reached a settlement agreement, subject to final court approval, pursuant to which JCP would make available $4.5 million to settle class members' claims, and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 3, 2017. J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding company structure was implemented. The holding company has no independent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries other than JCP. The company is an American department store chain with 1095 locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition to selling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often house several leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's Best Coffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelry repair. JC PENNEY: Deal in Calif. Suit Pending, Illinois Suit Resolved -------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periods ended July 29, 2017, and ended October 28, 2017, that the parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to final court approval, to resolve a California action for $1.75 million. The California court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 7, 2017. The parties have also reached a settlement agreement to resolve an Illinois action for $5 million. The Illinois court granted final approval of the settlement on August 9, 2017. JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1, 2004 to the present. After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue. On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to a motion by the Company, the California court decertified the class on December 9, 2015. On March 30, 2016, the California court granted JCP's motion for summary judgment. On April 26, 2016, the California plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On May 4, 2016, the California court entered judgment for JCP on all plaintiffs' claims. The Illinois court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in the Illinois lawsuit on April 14, 2015 and the Company answered. On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification, which the Illinois court granted on March 8, 2016. The parties have reached a settlement agreement, subject to final court approval, to resolve the California action for $1.75 million. The California court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on June 7, 2017. The parties have also reached a settlement agreement to resolve the Illinois action for $5 million. The Illinois court granted final approval of the settlement on August 9, 2017. J.C. Penney said "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources." J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is a holding company whose principal operating subsidiary is J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP). JCP was incorporated in Delaware in 1924, and J. C. Penney Company, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 2002, when the holding company structure was implemented. The holding company has no independent assets or operations and no direct subsidiaries other than JCP. The company is an American department store chain with 1095 locations in 49 U.S. states and Puerto Rico. In addition to selling conventional merchandise, JCPenney stores often house several leased departments such as Sephora, Seattle's Best Coffee, salons, optical centers, portrait studios, and jewelry repair. LOUISIANA: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARCUS HAMILTON; WINTHROP EATON; and MICHAEL PERRY, on their own behalf, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated prisoners, the Plaintiffs, v. DARREL VANNOY, Warden of Angola; BURL CAIN, former Warden of Angola; JAMES CRUZE, Warden of Death Row; LESLIE DUPONT, Deputy Warden of Security; and JAMES LEBLANC, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety Corrections, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00194-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order certifying two classes: Due Process Class: "all current and future Death Row prisoners at Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana, as well as other prisoners sentenced to death at Angola who are similarly situated"; and Eighth Amendment Class: "all current and future Death Row prisoners who are now, or will be, on Death Row under the conditions described above for more than five continuous years." The Plaintiffs will also move for an order appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the certified classes. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SqapPV8L Counsel for Plaintiffs: Pieter Van Tol, Esq. Nicole E. Schiavo, Esq. Robin L. Muir, Esq. Garima Malhotra, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 981 3000 Facsimile: (212) 981 3100 E-mail: pieter.vantol@hoganlovells.com nicole.schiavo@hoganlovells.com robin.muir@hoganlovells.com garima.malhotra@hoganlovells.com - and - Betsy R. Ginsberg, Esq. CARDOZO CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 55 5th Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 790 0871 E-mail: betsy.ginsberg@yu.edu - and - Nicholas Trenticosta, Esq. 7100 Saint Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70118 Telephone: (504) 864 0700 Facsimile: (504) 864 0780 E-mail: nicktr@bellsouth.net MARVEL TECHNOLOGY: March Trial Date in Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the court has set a deadline of December 29, 2017, for the conclusion of fact discovery, and a trial date of March 5, 2018. On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. The complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws based on allegations that the Company and certain of its officers and directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh) made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to the Saratoga litigation, discussed below. On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of California granted an unopposed motion to appoint Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On March 19, 2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individual defendants each filed motions to dismiss. The hearing on the motions to dismiss took place on July 29, 2016 and the court took the matter under submission. On October 12, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend and granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. The parties agreed that the plaintiffs would file and serve an amended complaint by November 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed and served the amended complaint on November 28, 2016. The Initial Case Management Conference took place on January 12, 2017. Marvell and co-defendants filed separate Motions to Dismiss on January 17, 2017. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss took place on May 4, 2017, and on May 17, 2017, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss as to Rashkin and Nagesh and denied the Motion to Dismiss as to Sutardja and Marvell. At a Case Management Conference on June 1, 2017, the Court set a deadline of December 29, 2017 for the conclusion of fact discovery and confirmed a trial date of March 5, 2018. Marvell Technology Group Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor provider of high-performance, application-specific standard products. Its core strength of expertise is the development of complex System- on-a-Chip devices, leveraging its technology portfolio of intellectual property in the areas of analog, mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and embedded and standalone integrated circuits. MATTEL INC: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated -------------------------------------------- Mattel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the cases Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System v. Mattel, Inc., et al. and Lathe v. Mattel, Inc., et al., have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. Two stockholders have filed purported class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed June 27, 2017; and Lathe v. Mattel, Inc., et al., filed July 6, 2017) against Mattel, Christopher A. Sinclair, Richard Dickson, Kevin M. Farr, and Joseph B. Johnson alleging federal securities laws violations in connection with statements allegedly made by the defendants during the period October 20, 2016 through April 20, 2017. In general, the lawsuits assert the same or similar allegations, including that the defendants artificially inflated Mattel's common stock price by knowingly making materially false and misleading statements and omissions to the investing public about retail customer inventory, the alignment between point-of-sale and shipping data, and Mattel's overall financial condition. The lawsuits allege that the defendants' conduct caused the plaintiffs and other stockholders to purchase Mattel common stock at artificially inflated prices. By an order dated September 29, 2017, the two actions were ordered consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed. The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs. Mattel believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. Mattel designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of toy products worldwide which are sold to its customers and directly to consumers. Mattel is the owner of a portfolio of global brands with untapped intellectual property potential. Mattel's products are among the most widely recognized toy products in the world. The company is based in El Segundo, California. MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Moodie" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation, E-VERIFILE.COM, INC., a Georgia Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-03471-FMO- AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, with the consent of Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., asks the Court to: 1. approve the terms of the parties' Settlement Agreement; 2. provisionally certify Settlement Class for settlement purposes only; 3. approve the Notice Program set forth in the Settlement Agreement and approve the form and content of the Notices of the Settlement; 4. approve the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement for Class Members to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or to object to the Settlement; and 5. stay the Action pending Final Approval of the Settlement. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lgVoEBvX The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328 Manhattan Beach, CA 90245 Telephone: (877) 500 8780 Facsimile: (877) 500 8781 E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Alina B. Mazeika (303840) MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net amazeika@mahoney-law.net MDC PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have voluntarily dismissed their appeal. On July 31, 2015, North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan ("North Collier") filed a putative class action suit in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants MDC, CFO David Doft, former CEO Miles Nadal, and former CAO Mike Sabatino. On December 11, 2015, North Collier and co-lead plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement Association filed an amended complaint, adding two additional defendants, Mitchell Gendel and Michael Kirby, a former member of MDC's Board of Directors. The plaintiff alleges in the amended complaint violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and other public statements regarding executive compensation, goodwill accounting, and the Company's internal controls. By order granted on September 30, 2016, the U.S. District Court presiding over the case granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. On November 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the U.S. District Court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 21, 2017, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal. MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding company based in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model, in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partner agency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. It has more than 50 partner firms worldwide. MDC PARTNERS: Case Management Judge Appointed in Canada Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a case management judge has been appointed in a class action litigation in Canada. On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming the following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A. LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other Canadian provinces and territories) as well as common law misrepresentation based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose material facts with respect to the SEC investigation. MDC Partners said "The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this suit. A case management judge has now been appointed but a date for an initial case conference has not yet been set." MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding company based in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model, in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partner agency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. It has more than 50 partner firms worldwide. MDC PARTNERS: Seeks to Determine Scope of Class Definition ---------------------------------------------------------- MDC Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the company has served a motion to address the scope of the proposed class definition in a class action lawsuit. On August 7, 2015, Roberto Paniccia issued a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the City of Brantford, Ontario seeking to certify a class action suit naming the following as defendants: MDC, former CEO Miles S. Nadal, former CAO Michael C. Sabatino, CFO David Doft and BDO U.S.A. LLP. The Plaintiff alleges violations of section 138.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (and equivalent legislation in other Canadian provinces and territories) as well as common law misrepresentation based on allegedly materially false and misleading statements in the Company's public statements, as well as omitting to disclose material facts with respect to the SEC investigation. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this Canadian suit on the same basis as which the U.S. class action was previously dismissed. A first case management meeting has been held. The plaintiff has served his material for leave to proceed under the Securities Act. MDC has served a motion to address the scope of the proposed class definition. MDC Partners Inc. is an advertising and marketing holding company based in New York City. MDC is structured as a partnership model, in which it initially acquires a majority stake in its partner agency, leaving a percentage of ownership with the founder. It has more than 50 partner firms worldwide. MDL 2437: USG Still Faces Wallboard Price Fixing Suits ------------------------------------------------------ USG Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in lawsuits, including a class action filed in Canada, related to a conspiracy in fixing wallboard prices. In 2015, USG, United States Gypsum Company, L&W Supply Corporation, and seven other wallboard manufacturers were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in federal court in California by twelve homebuilders alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate the alleged conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job quotes on wallboard. The lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the title In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437. In the second quarter of 2016, the Court dismissed with prejudice the portions of the homebuilders' complaint alleging a conspiracy in 2014 and 2015, ruling that there were insufficient factual allegations to allow such a claim to go forward. The homebuilders' claims alleging a conspiracy prior to 2014 have not been dismissed, and the case proceeds as to those claims. USG has agreed to defend and indemnify L&W Supply Corporation with regard to this matter. Beginning in the third quarter of 2013, class action lawsuits making similar allegations with regard to Canada were filed in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia courts on behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada and naming USG Corporation, United States Gypsum Company, CGC Inc., and other wallboard manufacturers as defendants. USG Corporation said "We believe that the cost, if any, of resolving the homebuilders' lawsuit and Canadian class action litigation will not have a material effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash flows." USG Corporation is a manufacturer of building products and innovative building solutions. The company produces a wide range of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and residential and nonresidential repair and remodel construction as well as products used in certain industrial processes. MICHIGAN: "Salem" Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled AMIRA SALEM and KESHUNA ACUMBY, On behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, & MILLICENT WARREN, the Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-14567-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class of individuals: "any women who are currently, or have formerly been incarcerated at Women's Huron Valley Correctional Facility who were subject to the "chair portion" of the strip search in view of others between November 1, 2010 and to the present and who allege they have suffered a compensable injury as a result of the search; Any women subject to search during 2009-2010 time period before Warden's investigation of feasibility of chair-based strip search; any women subject to search and complaining that they were not given disposable seat covers before the April, 2011 memorandum from the Warden; any women subject to search and complaining that they were not given hand sanitizer before the April, 2011 memorandum from the Warden; any women subject to search and complaining that they were not given disposable seat covers after the April, 2011 memo from the Warden; any women subject to search and complaining that they were not given hand sanitizer after the April, 2011 memo from the Warden; and any women subject to search after December 14, 2011 to present time period after chair-based strip search policy "ended" in writing." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lowE03v4 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq. Hardin Thompson, P.C. 30700 Telegraph Road Suite 1675 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 - and - Racine Miller WE FIGHT THE LAW 17600 Northland Park Court, Suite 210 Southfield, MI 48075 - and - Teresa J. Gorman, Esq. TERESA J. GORMAN, PLLC 363 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 215 Troy, MI 48084 MICROSOFT CORP: Continues to Defend British Columbia Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a six-month oral hearing is expected to begin in summer 2018, in the British Columbia antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits. Antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada. All three have been certified on behalf of Canadian indirect purchasers who acquired licenses for Microsoft operating system software and/or productivity application software between 1998 and 2010. The trial of the British Columbia action commenced in May 2016. The plaintiffs filed their case in chief in August 2016, setting out claims made, authorities, and evidence in support of their claims. A six-month oral hearing is expected to begin in summer 2018, consisting of cross examination on witness affidavits. The Ontario and Quebec cases are inactive. Microsoft develops, license, and support a wide range of software products, services, and devices. The company is based in Redmond, Washington. MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Suit Still Dormant ------------------------------------------------------ Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the Canadian cell phone class action has been dormant for more than three years. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors, alleging adverse health effects from cellular phone use. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. The litigation has been dormant for more than three years. Microsoft develops, license, and support a wide range of software products, services, and devices. The company is based in Redmond, Washington. MIDLAND CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RACHEL HOLMES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC, and ATLANTIC CREDIT & FINANCE INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01752-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eUBIxWuP The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bslatky@ademilaw.com ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Bernard" Suit Seeks Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Jose Bernard and Jose Rojas, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ML AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 24131-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an Order: 1. granting conditional certification of the above styled action as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act; 2. expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within 15 days of the Court Order, of a complete list of each and every person -- and their last known home address, telephone number, and email addresses -- who was ever employed as an automobile salesperson at the auto mall dealership owned and/or operated by the located at or near the Palmetto Expressway and NW 57th Avenue, Miami between November 2014 and the present; 3. requiring Defendants to format and produce on an expedited basis said list, both in hard copy and electronically in an editable Excel spreadsheet, organized alphabetically from "A" to "Z" and with each person's last known home address and telephone number, and email addresses in a separate field corresponding with each name; and 4. permitting Plaintiffs' counsel to mail a Court-Approved Notice to all such persons about their rights to opt into this collective action by filing a consent to Join Lawsuit. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jugtk8HE The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq. ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A. 6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 665 9211 Facsimile: (305) 328 4842 E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com The Defendant is represented by: Susan Potter Norton, Esq. ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 121 Majorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445 7801 Facsimile: (305) 442 1578 E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: "Koons" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2741 ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit filed on July 11, 2017 captioned Beverly Koons, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-02685 was transferred from the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court California Northern District. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06903-VC to the proceeding. The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In re: Roundup Products Liability MDL 2741. According to an order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge John A. Ross. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC. Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob A. Flint, Esq. FLINT LAW FIRM, LLC 222 Park Street, Suite 500 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 205-2017 Facsimile: (618) 307-5790 E-mail: jflint@toverdict.com NCL CORPORATION: Certification of Collective Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled HILDE CRANKSHAW, SEAN FREIXA, and VICTOR PETRENKO, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NCL CORPORATION LTD., a Foreign Corporation, NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD., a Bermuda Company, PRESTIGE CRUISE SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, PRESTIGE CRUISE HOLDINGS, INC., a Foreign Corporation, and PRESTIGE CRUISES INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Foreign Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20415-DPG (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying the case as a collective action; 2. authorizing notice to Potential Opt-Ins of their opportunity to participate in the Settlement and to file any objections to the Settlement; and 3. setting a date for a final approval hearing approximately 75 days after the date of approval of distribution of the notice of settlement. According to the complaint, on July 22, 2015, Sean Freixa filed a complaint against Defendants for their failure to pay him any overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Freixa worked as a Personal Vacation Consultant for Defendant Prestige Services LLC from December 7, 2013 until December 19, 2014. During this time, Freixa's primary job was to sell cruises directly to customers. Throughout his employment as a PVC, Defendants paid Freixa $500 per week in salaried wages, plus commissions in some months on his sales if a minimum number of sales bookings and other requirements were met. Commissions were earned on a monthly basis. If any commissions were earned by Freixa, they were paid to him during the subsequent month for commissions that were actually earned during the preceding month. Defendants did not track Freixa's actual hours worked and Freixa was not paid overtime compensation for hours he worked in excess of 40 hours per week between December 2013 and December 2014. Instead, Defendants have maintained Freixa was not entitled to overtime compensation because he was exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA under the Retail or Service Establishment Exemption, Section 7(i) of the FLSA. A copy of the Consent Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pClctPyH Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Sam J. Smith, Esq. Loren B. Donnell, Esquire BURR & SMITH, LLP 111 2nd Ave. N.E., Suite 1100 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (813) 253 2010 E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com ldonnell@burrandsmithlaw.com - and - Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. One Flagler 14 N.E. 1st Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901 1379 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com - and - Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, Florida 33317 Telephone: (954) 617-6017 Facsimile: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mark J. Neuberger, Esq. Larry S. Perlman, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 482 8400 Facsimile: (305) 482 8600 E-mail: MNeuberger@foley.com lperlman@foley.com NEULION INC: Bid to Consolidate Nevada Class Action Suits Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Neulion, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a motion to consolidate three class action lawsuits relating to the experienced problem during the streaming of the Mayweather vs. McGregor pay per view boxing event is pending. On the night of August 26, 2017, the Company experienced a problem during its streaming of the Mayweather vs. McGregor pay per view boxing event that affected a significant number of UFC.TV users. The Company does not believe the issue was systemic or fundamental to the NeuLion Digital Platform or the Company's underlying technology. The Company has been working in collaboration with the UFC to process refunds for purchasers who were unable to view the fight. On September 1, 2017, the Company was named along with several other parties in a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada that claims to have been filed on behalf of the affected purchasers. The Company has subsequently been named, along with other parties, in two other similar class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (filed September 14, 2017) and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (filed September 13, 2017). A motion to consolidate these three class action lawsuits along with several other class action lawsuits filed against unrelated streaming providers of the same pay per view event is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Neulion said "While the Company disagrees with many of the allegations set forth in the class action lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself (including but not limited to defenses based upon the lack of any contractual relationship between the Company and the affected purchasers), the Company believes that the refund program will render the lawsuits moot." Neulion, Inc. is a provider of enterprise digital video solutions with the mission to deliver and enable the highest quality live and on-demand digital video content experiences anywhere and on any device. The company's flagship solution, the NeuLion Digital Platform, is a proprietary, cloud-based, fully integrated, turnkey solution that enables the delivery and monetization of digital video content. NEW AGE: Has Sent Spam Advertisements, "Abedi" Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Deeba Abedi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Age Medical Clinic PA, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-at-00898 (E.D. Cal., December 4, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for negligently contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone for the purpose of notifying the Plaintiff of the various promotions the Defendant offered on their products by sending hyperlinks to the Defendant's websites, which qualify as spam advertisements and promotional offers, via text messages. New Age Medical Clinic PA provides dental restoring and enhancing services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Nguyen" Suit Seeks to Certify 2 Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled HUU NGUYEN, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-05591-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 22, 2018, to enter an Order: 1. certifying his claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, on behalf of the following classes: Class: "all individuals in California who purchased or leased, from an authorized Nissan dealer, a new Nissan vehicle equipped with a FS6R31Amanual transmission"; CLRA Class: "all members of the Class who are "consumers" within the meaning of California Civil Code Sec. 1761(d)"; 2. appointing Plaintiff as Class representative; 3. appointing Plaintiff's attorney, Capstone Law, APC, to serve as class counsel under Rule 23(g); and 4. directing notice to class members under Rule 23(c). A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xYpj16L8 Attorneys for Huu Nguyen: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Karen L. Wallace, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com O'REILLY AUTO: Court Denies Class Certification in "Davidson" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KIA DAVIDSON, the Plaintiff, v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC et al. the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00603-RGK-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Court denies Davidson's motion for class certification of: Wage Statement Class: "[a]ll persons who worked for [O'Reilly] as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2016 until April 2017"; and Rest Period Policy Class: "[a]ll person who worked for [O'Reilly] as a non-exempt, hourly paid employee in California (excluding Assistant Store Managers and Store Managers) at any time from March 29, 2013 until the date of certification." The Court said, "While Davidson does provide evidence that, for some period of time, O'Reilly had a written rest break policy that violated California law, she provides limited evidence showing how, or even if, that policy was consistently applied to all 21,000 proposed class members. Specifically, Davidson provided the Court with her own declaration stating that she was not aware of receiving any rest period premiums for working shifts between six and eight hours in length; a copy of the written policy at issue; and deposition testimony from O'Reilly's Rule 30(b)(6) designee stating that the policy was provided to managers and that managers are charged with implementing the policy. Although Davidson asserts in her Reply that this constitutes "significant proof," the Court finds that on balance, her evidence fails to implicate any illegal practices. In fact, Davidson's own declaration does not even state that she was ever denied proper rest breaks. Thus, Davison failed to meet her burden. O'Reilly not only maintained a facially defective policy, but also implemented unlawful practices pursuant to the policy." A copy of the Civil Minutes - General is available at no charge at: http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nnNm7z0m OLSON RESEARCH: "Fischbein" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DR. RICHARD E. FISCHBEIN, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. THE OLSON RESEARCH GROUP, INC., and John Does 1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05601-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of: "each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after December 13, 2013 from "Olson Research Group" inviting them to participate for payment or compensation in a "marketing research study" through the website www.olsononlinesystems.com." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=82cxWnhW The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYER LLC 6550 Lakeshore St. West Bloomfield, MI 48321429 Telephone: 248-562-1320 Facsimile: 888-769-1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com - and - Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312 658 5500 Facsimile: 312 658 5555 E-mail: service@classlawyers.com PEOPLE 2.0: "Duran" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------ Desiree Duran, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. People 2.0 North America LLC and Does 1-100, Case No. 2:17-cv-02546 (E.D. Calif., December 4, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code. Plaintiff Desiree Duran was hired by People 2.0 on or around August 6, 2017. Defendant People 2.0 is a temporary services employer (aka "temp agency"). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Wasserman, Esq. William J. Gorham, Esq. Nicholas J. Scardigli, Esq. John P. Briscoe, Esq. MAYALL HURLEY P.C. 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 Tel: (209) 477-3833 Fax: (209) 473-4818 E-mail: rwasserman@mayallaw.com wgorham@mayallaw.com nscardigli@mayallaw.com jbriscoe@mayallaw.com PETMED EXPRESS: Securities Suit Ongoing in Florida -------------------------------------------------- PetMed Express, Inc. continues to defend a shareholder securities class action lawsuit in Florida. According to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on August 30, 2017, a shareholder filed on August 25 a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against PetMed Express, Inc. (the "Company") and the Company's principal executive officers, one of whom is also a director. Relying exclusively on a false and defamatory, anonymous "report" posted on August 23, 2017 on the Aurelius Value website claiming that the Company's growth was due in part to marketing addictive animal drugs to opioid addicts, the plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company denies the complaint's unfounded accusations and intends to defend itself vigorously against the plaintiff's factually and legally meritless allegations. PetMed Express, Inc. is an online pharmacy that sells drugs for pets. Its business directly competes with veterinarians, who derive some of their income from selling pet drugs, which has created problems for the company because it can only fill prescriptions written by a veterinarian. PetMed Express is licensed or authorized to conduct business in all 50 states in the United States and has received Vet-VIPPS accreditation by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP). PHD FITNESS: Faces "Bohr" Suit in Northern District of Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PhD Fitness LLC. The case is styled William Bohr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PhD Fitness LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-09220 (N.D. Ill., December 21, 2017). PhD manufactures, markets, advertises, distributes and sells a line of sport supplement products in South Carolina and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J Siprut, Esq. Siprut PC 17 N. State St. Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 236-0000 Email: jsiprut@siprut.com - and - Ke Liu, Esq. Siprut Pc 17 North State Street Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 236-0000 Email: kliu@siprut.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Minnesota Class Suit Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has entered an order dismissing an amended investor class action complaint. In September and October 2016, investors filed two purported class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota naming the Company and two of its executive officers as defendants. On December 12, 2016, the District Court consolidated the two actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. In a later order, the court set a date of March 14, 2017, for the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended complaint or to designate one of the filed complaints as the operative pleading. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint against the Company and six current or former executives for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who purchased or acquired Polaris securities during the time period from February 20, 2015 through September 11, 2016. The amended complaint alleges that, during the proposed class period, defendants made materially false or misleading public statements about the Company's business, operations, forecasts, and compliance policies relating to certain of its ORV products and product recalls. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks damages in an unspecified amount, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. In May 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court had a hearing on the motion on October 4, 2017. By order entered October 13, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. Polaris Industries Inc. is an American manufacturer of snowmobiles, ATV, and neighborhood electric vehicles. The company also manufactures motorcycles through its Victory Motorcycles subsidiary and through the Indian Motorcycle subsidiary which it purchased in April 2011. The company is based in Medina, Minnesota. QUALITY SYSTEMS: 9th Cir. En Banc Denies Petition for Rehearing --------------------------------------------------------------- Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company's petition for rehearing en banc has been denied. Quality Systems said "On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by one of our shareholders." After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8:13-cv-01818-CJC-JPR, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the litigation described above under the caption "Hussein Litigation," generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected future performance were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20, 2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court denied on January 5, 2015. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173. Oral argument was held on December 5, 2016. On July 28, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision reversing and remanding the District Court's order on our motion to dismiss. On September 5, 2017, the company filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied on September 29, 2017. Quality Systems said "We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and continue to defend against them vigorously, including by evaluating potential challenges to the Ninth Circuit decision. At this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this claim." Quality Systems, Inc., known to its clients as NextGen Healthcare, provides software, services and analytics solutions to the ambulatory care market. The company is a healthcare information technology and services company that delivers the foundational capabilities to organizations that want to promote healthy communities. The company is based in Irvine, California. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Court Certifies California Consumers Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled PHILLIP RACIES, the Plaintiff, v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00292-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification and certifies the following class for both Plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims: "all California consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased Prevagen Regular Strength, Prevagen Extra Strength, or Prevagen Mixed Berry Chewable"; and 2. appointing Phillip Racies as Class representative and the law firms of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C., and Siprut, PC as Class Counsel. The Court sets a case management conference for January 16, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a joint case management statement by January 9, 2018. The joint statement should include a proposed case schedule through trial, as well as a brief discussion of any outstanding issues to resolve before trial. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FWrXOj3C SAL-MARK RESTAURANT: Cruz Submits Proposed Stipulation & Order -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Cruz, the Plaintiff, v. Sal-Mark Restaurant Corp., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00815-GTS-DJS (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff submits to the Court, for review and approval, the parties' agreed-to: 1. Stipulation and Proposed Order; 2. Notice of Lawsuit with Opportunity to Join; and 3. Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yGcUOar7 The Plaintiff is represented by: Pelton Graham, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385 9700 Facsimile: (212) 385 0800 E-mail: WWW.PELTONGRAHAM.COM SERVICE CORP: Dismissal of "Moulton" Suit under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------ Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that plaintiffs in the case, Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others, Case No. 2013-5636 have appealed the case dismissal. The Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans., was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and the Company's subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the suit. The case has continued against its subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors. However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. Service Corporation said "We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of damages." Service Corporation International is North America's largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas. SERVICE CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in "Allard" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled, Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., have reached a settlement agreement. The case Linda Allard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., Case No 16-1033; in the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, was filed in June 2016 as a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the Act). Plaintiff alleges she received telemarketing telephone calls that were made with a prerecorded voice or made by an automatic telephone dialing system in violation of the Act. Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs. The parties reached a settlement of the lawsuit as reported in our Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2017. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and notice to the class. The financial terms of the settlement call for SCI Direct to pay $15.0 million, of which $3.5 million will be paid by its insurer. Service Corporation International is North America's largest provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral service locations and cemeteries unequaled in geographic scale and reach. The company is based in Houston, Texas. SMARTHEAT INC: Settles Class Action Suit for $120,000 ----------------------------------------------------- SmartHeat Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the company had entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class action lawsuit for $120,000. The Company said, "On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et al., which purported to allege federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the proceeding. A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, our former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they were not officers of the Company during the alleged class period." "A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang , SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as defendants. The second amended complaint alleges two counts against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to those sales. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the court, denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff once again filed a motion for class certification. On September 19, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintiff filed a response on October 20, 2014. By Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion, finding that it failed to satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality, adequacy and predominance. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs' theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry as to whether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in price inflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, the injury to all class members could not be established by common proof. In addition to finding a lack of predominance of common issues, the Court expressed substantial concerns about the adequacy of the class representative, and that his claims were typical of other class members. The Court also expressed doubts as to how plaintiffs would establish damages. The Court's denial of class certification was without prejudice, and the Court gave plaintiffs until February 17, 2015 to file a 'far more rigorous, and a far more convincing submission. . .". The pleadings and court orders are publicly available. "The Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class action lawsuit. No findings of any wrongdoings were ever made against SmartHeat, any current or former officer or director of Smartheat or any of the defendants, and the Company and all other defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing. The default judgment previously entered against James Jun Wang was vacated and was dismissed with prejudice. The Company entered into the settlement in order to avoid further cost of defending any of the purported actions. According to the settlement, the Company paid the plaintiffs $120,000. In return, the plaintiffs dismissed all claims against the Company and all of the individual defendants with prejudice. As a result of the settlement, the case will not be allowed to be re-filed." SmartHeat added, "The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants. The Company has and continues to assert that the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits lack merit and no evidence was ever asserted supporting the allegations made in the consolidated lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement in order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further litigation. The Company believes that putting this matter behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and strengthening its business." SmartHeat Inc., formerly known as Pacific Goldrim Resources, Inc., through its operating subsidiaries in China and Germany, designed, manufactured, sold and serviced plate heat exchangers ("PHEs"), PHE Units, which combine PHEs with various pumps, temperature sensors, valves and automated control systems, heat meters and heat pumps for use in commercial and residential buildings. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: New Trial Sought in Arkansas Royalty Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- SouthWestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the plaintiff in the Arkansas Royalty Litigation has moved for a new trial and the court has not yet ruled on that motion. In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company on all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiff had alleged that the Company had underpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering, transportation and compression of natural gas in excess of what is permitted by the relevant leases and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violation of certain Arkansas statutes. Following the verdict, the court entered judgment in favor of the Company on all claims. The plaintiff has moved for a new trial, and the court has not yet ruled on that motion. The plaintiff class in Smith comprises the vast majority of lessors of lands in Arkansas for which leases permit deductions for these types of costs. Most of the remaining lessors are named plaintiffs or members of classes in other pending lawsuits. In particular, two actions on behalf of certified classes of only Arkansas residents pending in state courts in Arkansas (one is set for trial during the third quarter of 2018; the other does not have a trial date) and three cases (all currently stayed) that were filed in Arkansas state court on behalf of a total of 248 individually named plaintiffs, two of which have been removed to federal court, have been assigned to the same court that held the Smith trial. SouthWestern "Management believes that, as the Smith jury concluded, the deductions from royalty payments were calculated in accordance with the leases. The Company currently does not anticipate that these other cases are likely to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company." Southwestern Energy Company is an independent energy company engaged in natural gas, oil and NGL exploration, development and production ("E&P"). The Company is also focused on creating and capturing additional value through its natural gas gathering and marketing businesses ("Midstream Services"). The company is based in Texas. STEIN MART: "Sperling" Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARILYN SPERLING, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. STEIN MART, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv- 01411-AB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will ask the Court on February 9, 2018, for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons who, while in the State of California, and between July 15, 2011, and the present, purchased from Stein Mart one or more items at any Stein Mart store in the State of California with a price tag that contained a "Compare At" price which was higher than the price listed as the Stain Mart sale price on the price tag, and who have not received a refund or credit for each of their purchase(s)." 2. appointing plaintiffs Marilyn Sperling and/or Jared Schuh as representatives of the Class; 3. appointing as counsel for the Class attorneys Douglas Caiafa of Douglas Caiafa, A Professional Law Corporation, Christopher J. Morosoff of the Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff, and Reuben Nathan of Nathan & Associates; and 4. ordering the parties to meet and confer and present this Court, within fifteen days of an order granting class certification, a proposed notice to the certified class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fRKHaZsI The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Caiafa, Esq. DOUGLAS CAIAFA 11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 444 5240 Facsimile: (310) 312 8260 E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com - and - Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF 77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G Palm Desert, CA 92211 Telephone: (760) 469 5986 Facsimile: (760) 345 1581 E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com TERRAFORM POWER: Jan. 31 Hearing on $14.8MM Deal in "Chamblee" -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the Chamblee class action lawsuit is scheduled for January 31, 2018. TerraForm Power, 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 the Chamblee class action have agreed in principle to a settlement of $14.8 million. On April 4, 2016, a securities class action under federal securities laws (Chamblee v. TerraForm Power, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00981-JFM) (the "Chamblee Class Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against the Company and two of its former officers (one of which was also a director of the Company) asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a putative class. The Complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies, including with respect to disclosures regarding SunEdison's internal controls and the Company's reliance on SunEdison. An amended complaint was filed on September 26, 2016 and a former officer and director of the Company were added as defendants. On October 4, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this matter to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 19, 2016, an initial case management conference was held in the multidistrict litigation proceedings in the SDNY. The Court entered an order requiring all parties to the multidistrict litigation to mediate and entered a partial stay of all proceedings through March 31, 2017. On March 24, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding three additional directors and officers of the Company as defendants, as well as additional factual allegations. On June 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. After mediation, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement of $14.8 million conditioned on, among other things, funding of the settlement by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance providers to the satisfaction of the Company. In its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, Terraform Power said the parties have agreed that $13.63 million of the settlement will be covered by the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance providers. On September 11, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted approval of the use of $13.63 million of proceeds to fund the settlement. The Company, the Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance providers and the Company's co-defendants are in the process of finalizing documentation governing the use of the $13.63 million of proceeds from the insurance. On September 14, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the SDNY preliminarily approved the settlement and provided the Company with an express termination right in the event that the settlement is not timely funded with proceeds from the directors' and officers' liability insurance. A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for January 31, 2018. "If a final resolution is achieved on the settlement, the Company's contribution to the settlement amount, net of the amount to be covered by insurance, would be $1.13 million. The Company reserved $1.13 million for its estimated probable loss related to this complaint as of December 31, 2016, which is the amount the Company would be prepared to fund the settlement out of its own funds. If the conditional settlement offer fails for any reason, including because the insurers do not make the requisite contribution to the settlement amount, the Company would continue to vigorously contest this claim," TerraForm Power said. The Company added that it has agreed to issue additional shares of Class A common stock to Orion Holdings for no additional consideration in respect of the Company's net losses, such as out-of-pocket losses, damages, costs, fees and expenses, upon the final resolution of the Chamblee Class Action. The Company and TerraForm Global, Inc. have entered into an agreement pursuant to which TerraForm Global, Inc. has agreed to indemnify and reimburse the Company for certain costs, fees and expenses related to the defense or settlement of the Chamblee Class Action that are not covered by insurance (excluding the $1.13 million settlement contribution). As a result, as of the date hereof, the Company does not expect to incur any material fees or expenses (excluding the $1.13 million settlement contribution) in connection with the Chamblee Class Action that would not be covered by insurance or indemnified and reimbursed by TerraForm Global, Inc. TerraForm Power, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a dividend growth- oriented company formed to own and operate contracted clean power generation assets. The company's business objective is to acquire assets with high-quality contracted cash flows, primarily from owning clean power generation assets serving utility and commercial customers. The company's portfolio consists of renewable energy facilities located in the United States (including Puerto Rico), Canada, Chile and the United Kingdom with a combined nameplate capacity of 2,606.7 MW as of June 30, 2017. TerraForm Power is a holding company and its sole asset is an equity interest in TerraForm Power, LLC, or Terra LLC. TerraForm Power is the managing member of Terra LLC and operates, controls and consolidates the business affairs of Terra LLC. TILLYS INC: $6.2MM Estimated Loss for "Minniti" Case Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Tilly's Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the company recorded an estimated loss provision of $6.2 million in connection with the proposed settlement in the case Lauren Minniti, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:17-cv- 60237-FAM. On January 30, 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). Specifically, the complaint asserts a violation of the TCPA for allegedly sending unsolicited automated messages to the cellular telephones of the plaintiff and others. The complaint seeks class certification and damages of $500 per violation plus treble damages under the TCPA. Tilly's said, "We filed our initial response to this matter with the court in March 2017. The parties attended a mediation in June 2017. In July 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter, subject to court approval and the execution of a final settlement agreement. We recorded an estimated loss provision of $6.2 million in connection with the proposed settlement in the second quarter ended July 29, 2017." * * * Tilly's Inc. also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 29, 2017, that the appeal related to a class action lawsuit in California remains pending. In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, alleging violations of California's wage and hour rules and regulations and unfair competition law. "Specifically, the complaint asserted a violation of the applicable California Wage Order for alleged failure to pay reporting time pay, as well as several derivative claims. The complaint sought certification of a class, unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees. In June 2016, the court granted our demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's," the Company said. The Company added, "Specifically, the court agreed with us that the plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the plaintiff's claims are based." At the hearing on the plaintiff's demurrer, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in July 2016, which brought the same claims as her original complaint but added various factual allegations. In August 2016, we filed a demurrer as to the plaintiff's amended complaint, on the grounds that the plaintiff's amended complaint still failed to state a cause of action against Tilly's, for the same reasons that the court granted our demurrer as to the plaintiff's original complaint. In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining our demurrer, and dismissing all of plaintiff's causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court of Appeal, and the plaintiff's opening brief was most recently due to be filed on July 31, 2017, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, but it was not filed on that date. On August 16, 2017, the clerk of the California Court of Appeal sent a letter to the parties advising of plaintiff's default in filing the opening brief, and setting the deadline for plaintiffs to do so within 15 days, per California Rule of Court Rule 8.220. Accordingly, the plaintiff's opening brief was due to be filed on August 31, 2017. Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do so." Tilly's Inc. is a destination youth culture specialty retailer of casual apparel, footwear and accessories for young men, young women, boys and girls. The company is based in Irvine, California. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Suits over ET Plus System Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in various suits related to ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The Company was served in a lawsuit filed November 26, 2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois, Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St. Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff and to expand the proposed class. The case was brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois and on behalf of cities, villages, incorporated towns, and township governments of the State of Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged that the Company and Trinity Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards and approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also alleged breach of implied warranties, violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for which plaintiffs sought actual damages related to purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for class members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. On September 1, 2017, plaintiffs St. Clair County and Macon County, Illinois voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit with prejudice and without receiving any payment by the Company in connection therewith. There are two pending class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the ET Plus that are currently pending. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015, titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The alleged class in this matter has been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of the modified ET Plus in Canada. The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015, titled Jackson County, Missouri, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by plaintiff for and on behalf of itself and all Missouri counties with a population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St. Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation authority. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these allegedly undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff alleges product liability negligence, product liability strict liability, and negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for supplier's business purposes. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and in the alternative plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is defective, the Company's conduct was unlawful, and class-wide costs and expenses associated with removing and replacing the ET Plus throughout Missouri. The Company believes each of these pending county and municipal class action lawsuits is without merit and intends to vigorously defend all allegations. While the financial impacts of these two county and municipal class action lawsuits are currently unknown, they could be material. Based on the information currently available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable in any one or more of the actions described under "State, county, and municipal actions," therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to any one or more of these actions. Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and services to the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, and construction sectors in the United States and internationally. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a consolidated shareholder class action suit against the Company and other defendants, has been stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion of any appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case. On January 11, 2016, the previously reported cases styled Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) ("Nemky") and Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) ("Isolde"), were consolidated in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, with all future filings to be filed in the Isolde case. On March 9, 2016, the Court appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and United Association Local Union Officers & Employees' Pension Fund as co-lead plaintiffs ("Lead Plaintiffs"). On May 11, 2016, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint alleging defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, James E. Perry, and Gregory B. Mitchell violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and defendants Mr. Wallace and Mr. Perry violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.). On August 18, 2016, Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell filed motions to dismiss Lead Plaintiffs Consolidated Complaint, which remain pending. On March 13, 2017, the Court granted defendant's motion to stay and administratively close proceedings pending Fifth Circuit appeal. The Isolde matter is stayed and remains administratively closed pending the conclusion of any appeal in the Joshua Harman FCA case. Trinity, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Perry, and Mr. Mitchell deny and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Isolde case. Trinity Industries said "Based on the information available to the Company, we currently do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to this shareholder class action; therefore no accrual has been included in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of possible losses with respect to these matters." Trinity Industries, Inc. provides various products and services to the energy, chemical, agriculture, transportation, and construction sectors in the United States and internationally. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. THOMAS AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abby" Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Logan Abby, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals v. The Thomas Agency, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00474-JDL (D. Me., December 4, 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 Thomas Agency operates a credit reporting company located at 207 Larrabee Road #6, Westbrook, ME 04092. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith A. Mathews, Esq. ASSOCIATED ATTORNEYS OF NEW ENGLAND 587 Union Street Manchester, NH 03104 Telephone: (603) 622-8100 Facsimile: (888) 912-1497 E-mail: keith@aaone.law TOYOTA MOTOR: "Salas" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled ALFRED SALAS and GLORIA ORTEGA SALES, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S.A., INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-08629-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify classes and subclasses: 1. Nationwide Class: "consisting of all persons in the United States who purchase or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry XV50 model vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer and still own or lease their vehicles"; 2. California-only sub-class: "consisting of all persons in the United States who purchase or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry XV50 model vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer"; 3. California-only class: "consisting of all persons in the United States who purchase or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry XV50 model vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer"; 4. California CLRA sub-class: "consisting of all the members of the California class who are "consumers" within the meaning of California Civil Code"; and 5. Rule 23(c)4 class: "consisting of all persons in California who purchased or leased a 2012-2015 Toyota Camry XV50 model vehicle from an authorized Toyota dealer". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ocknaws7 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq. Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Karen L. Wallace, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park Easrt, Suite 1000 Los Angeles CA 900067 E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: David L. Schrader, Esq. Esther K. Ro, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22 Floor Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (213) 312 2500 Facsimile: (213) 612 2501 E-mail: david.schrader@morganlewis.com esther.ro@morganlewis.com TRU-FLEX METAL: Adams Pointe Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ADAMS POINTE I, L.P, ADAMS POINTE II, L.P., BAYBERRY NORTH ASSOCIATES L.P., BETTERS REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, L.P., JBCO; ADAMS POINTE III, L.P. ADAMS POINTE NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ADAMS POINTE MASTER ASSOCIATION, L.P., COULTER & GRAHAM, L.P., MICHAEL AND KATHLEEN BICHLER, AND JOHN EVANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO- FLEX LLC, the Defendants; TRU-FLEX METAL HOSE CORP., TRU-FLEX, LLC, and PRO-FLEX LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. RIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORP.; RIDGE MANAGEMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORP.; ADAMS POINTE CONSTRUCTION CORP.; ADAMS POINTE SOUTH VILLAGE OWNERS ASSOC., L.P.; ADAMS POINTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; WARD MANUFACTURING, LLC d/b/a WARDFLEX; UNIQUE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT COMPANY; PRO-FLEX HOLDINGS, LLC (OF TEXAS), Third Party Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00750-CB-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "any and all owners of real property or structures in the United States in which Pro-Flex (TM) CSST is installed"; 2. appointing individually Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives to the extent requested; and 3. appointing as Lead Class Counsel N. Scott Carpenter and Rebecca Bell-Stanton of the firm Carpenter & Schumacher, P.C. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dutbdEs3 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq. N. Scott Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C. Parkway Centre IV 2701 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 570 Plano, Texas 75093 Telephone: 972-403-1133 Facsimile: 972-403-0311 E-mail: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com rstanton@cstriallaw.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (866) 273 1941 Facsimile: (412) 281 4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com Attorneys for Defendants, Tru-Flex, LLC and Tru-Flex Metal Hose Corp.: Daniel R. Bentz, Esq. Thomas M. Pie, Jr., Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. E-mail: DBentz@moodklaw.com tpie@moodklaw.com - and - Attorney for Third-Party Defendants, Unique Industrial Product Co., L.P. And Pro-Flex Holding, LLC: CRAIN, CATON & JAMES, P.C. H. Miles Cohn, Esq. E-mail: mcohn@craincaton.com - and - Attorneys for Defendant, Pro-Flex, LLC Daniel J. Offenbach, Esq. Thomas A. Gamache, Esq. LEAHY, EISENBERG & FRAENKEL, LTD. E-mail: tag@lefltd.com djo@lefltd.com Attorneys for Third-Party Defendant, Ward Manufacturing, LLC d/b/a Wardflex Jacqueline Gorbey, Esq. Thomas Sullivan, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS, LLP E-mail: Jacqueline.gorbey@morganlewis.com Thomas.sullivan@morganlewis.com UNITED STATES: Court Nixed Catholic Benefits Association's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled THE CATHOLIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATION LCA, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. HARGAN, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-00240-R (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge David L. Russell entered an order dismissing case as moot on Dec. 15, 2017. The Defendants are ERIC D. HARGAN, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, in his official capacity as Secretary of U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; STEVEN MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; DOES 1-100. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GCRshTe1 UNITIL CORP: Mass. Appeals Court Drops Town of Lunenburg Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a motion to dismiss for failure to perfect the appeal has been granted by the Massachusetts Appeals Court. The Town filed a notice of appeal, but failed to perfect its appeal with the Court in a timely manner. A motion to dismiss for failure to perfect the appeal was granted by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in August 2017. In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in December 2008. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order denying class certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs' individual claims remain pending. The Company continues to believe that this suit is without merit and will continue to defend itself vigorously. Based upon information furnished by counsel and others, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of this suit will not have a material impact on its financial position, operating results or cash flows. The Town of Lunenburg filed a separate action in the Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts in December 2016 and dismissed the Town's complaint. The Town filed a notice of appeal, but failed to perfect its appeal with the Court in a timely manner. A motion to dismiss for failure to perfect the appeal was granted by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in August 2017. Unitil Corporation, a public utility holding company, engages in the distribution of electricity and natural gas in the United States. It operates through three segments: Utility Gas Operations, Utility Electric Operations, and Non-Regulated. Unitil Corporation was incorporated in 1984 and is headquartered in Hampton, New Hampshire. VAN WYK: Class Certification Bid Nixed as Parties Reach Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Jerome Ratliff Jr., the Plaintiff, v. Van Wyk, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07212 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sara L. Ellis entered an order withdrawing Plaintiff's motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 13, 2017, a Status hearing held on Dec. 13. Parties report that a settlement has been reached in principle. Plaintiff's motion for class certification is withdrawn. Another status hearing is set for Jan. 30, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. If a stipulation to dismiss is filed prior to status date, no appearance is required. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QKxBywKA VOYA FINANCIAL: Faces "Barnes" Suit Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Barnes, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. Voya Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-09493-JFK (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2017), is a class action for breach of contract and conversion to recover amounts that the Defendant charged the Plaintiff and the proposed class in excess of the amounts authorized by the express terms of their life insurance policies. Voya Financial, Inc. operates a financial, retirement, investment and insurance company based in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darren T. Kaplan, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 1359 Broadway, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 999-7370 E-mail: kaplan@stuevesiegel.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Angelica M. Ornelas, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com eak@girardgibbs.com amo@girardgibbs.com - and - Patrick J. Stueve, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Bradley T. Wilders, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MI 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com wilders@stuevesiegel.com - and - John J. Schirger, Esq. Matthew W. Lytle, Esq. Joseph M. Feierabend, Esq. MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC 4520 Main Street, Suite 1570 Kansas City, MI 64111 Telephone: (816) 561-6500 Facsimile: (816) 561-6501 E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com mlytle@millerschirger.com jfeierabend@millerschirger.com WALGREENS BOOTS: Class Certification Bid in Chicago Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains pending. On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. Pursuant to the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in support of the motion on February 5, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss. Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on November 4, 2016 and filed an amended answer on January 16, 2017. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April 21, 2017. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company which operates the second largest chain in the United States. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois. WALGREENS BOOTS: Pennsylvania Class Action Suits Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in class actions filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County and the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As of August 31, 2017, the Company was aware of two putative class action lawsuits filed by purported Rite Aid stockholders against Rite Aid and its board of directors, Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims arising out of the transactions contemplated by the original Merger Agreement (prior to its amendment on January 29, 2017) (such transactions, the "Rite Aid Transactions"). One Rite Aid action was filed in the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania action"), and one action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal action"). The Pennsylvania action primarily alleged that the Rite Aid board of directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions by, among other things, agreeing to an unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose all allegedly material information concerning the proposed merger, and also alleged that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The federal action alleged, among other things, that Rite Aid and its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions. The plaintiffs in the federal action also filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder vote relating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That motion was denied and plaintiffs agreed to stay the litigation until after the Rite Aid Transactions closed. On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs moved to lift the stay to allow plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On August 4, 2017, that motion was granted for the limited purpose of allowing plaintiffs to file a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint in light of the termination of the Merger Agreement. Plaintiffs filed such a motion on September 22, 2017. The Company filed its response on October 6, 2017. Plaintiffs filed their reply, and the motion is fully briefed. The court has not set a hearing date or indicated when it will issue a ruling. The Company was also named as a defendant in eight putative class action lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware actions"). Those actions were consolidated, and plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid shareholder vote relating to the Rite Aid Transactions. That motion was denied and the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions agreed to settle this matter for an immaterial amount. The Delaware actions all have been dismissed. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company which operates the second largest chain in the United States. The company is based in Deerfield, Illinois. WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend RMBS Investors' Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2013-C8 said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from July 18, 2017 to August 17, 2017 that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. continues to defend a class action complaint by institutional investors. On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., ("Wells Fargo Bank") in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint"). In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaint is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the same District Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts, if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint"). On July 11, 2017, certain PIMCO investment funds filed a civil complaint relating to Wells Fargo Bank's setting aside reserves for legal fees and expenses in connection with the liquidation of 11 RMBS trusts at issue in the State Court Complaint. The complaint seeks, among other relief, declarations that Wells Fargo Bank is not entitled to (i) indemnification from, (ii) advancement of funds from, or (iii) taking reserves from trust funds for legal fees and expenses it incurs in defending the claims in the State Court Complaint. With respect to the foregoing litigations, Wells Fargo Bank believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intends to contest the claims vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations or the possible impact of the litigations on Wells Fargo Bank or the RMBS trusts. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN TORRES, CHRISTINE JACKSON, DONALD JACKSON, ASHLEY MCCONNELL, ROXANNE GANT, GERALD THOMAS, and CORY BEADLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00210-PGB-DCI (M.D, Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for class certification of: "all persons residing in the United States who made a credit or debit card purchase at any Wendy's location affected by the Data Breach from October 1, 2015 through June 9, 2016 (the "Nationwide Class")". Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek certification of consumer protection claims under New York, New Jersey, and Tennessee law. According to the complaint, Wendy's failure to implement adequate data security to protect the payment card data and other personally-identifiable information ("PII") of its customers (collectively, "Data") resulted in a widespread data breach. As a result of Wendy's shoddy security practices, this data breach remained undetected for a 9-month period, affected more than 1,000 restaurants, and resulted in the Class members' Data being exposed to and accessed by cyber-criminals (the "Data Breach"). This case is naturally suited for resolution on a class-wide basis, the Plaintiffs contend. Each named Plaintiff and each absent class member was injured by the same Data Breach. Wendy's inadequate data security practices are at the root of each claim. Whether and to what extent Wendy's had an obligation to provide security of its customer's Data and whether such obligations were violated is the same question and answer for each putative class member. The remedies available to Class members will also be similar, and all Class members would be entitled to the same injunctive relief to protect them from future harm. Because Wendy's data security practices uniformly apply to all Class members, common issues will predominate the trial of all claims arising from the Data Breach. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OatUmzDX Attorneys For Plaintiffs And The Proposed Class: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick A. Barthlev MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N Franklin St, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: 813 275 5272 Facsimile: 813 226 5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com pbarthle@forthepeople.com - and - Jean Sutton Martin LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC 2018 Eastwood Road Suite 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 292 6676 Facsimile: (888) 316 3489 E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com - and - Ariana Tadler, Esq. Charles Slidders, Esq. Melissa Clark, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594 5300 Facsimile: (212) 868 1229 E-mail: atadler@milberg.com cslidders@milberg.com mclark@milberg.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488 8854 Facsimile: (281) 488 8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - David G. Scott, Esq. EMERSON SCOTT, LLP 700 Rock Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907 2555 Facsimile: (501) 907 2556 E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com - and - Jeremy M. Glapion GLAPION LAW FIRM 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 455 9737 E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery in SD Cards Class Action Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2017, that discovery is presently stayed until after completion of the pleading stage in the case filed by indirect purchasers of SD cards. In March 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C, Panasonic, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards. The complaint asserts claims under federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and unfair competition laws, as well as common law claims. The complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and fees and costs. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to and incorporate allegations in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al.,. In November 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' federal law claims. In October 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion with leave to amend and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining claims. Discovery is presently stayed until after completion of the pleading stage. Western Digital said "The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter." Western Digital Corporation is a leading developer, manufacturer and provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in virtually every industry. The company is based in San Jose, California. WESTERN DIGITAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2017, that the District Court has denied the defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit. Beginning in March 2015, SanDisk and two of its officers, Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Two complaints are allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between October 2014 and March 2015, and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between April 2014 and April 2015. The complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, damages and fees and costs. In July 2015, the District Court consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In February 2016, the District Court issued an order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund (collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group"). In March 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended complaint. In June 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with leave to amend. In July 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed a further amended complaint. In June 2017, the District Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Western Digital Corporation is a developer, manufacturer and provider of data storage devices and solutions that address the evolving needs of the information technology ("IT") industry and the infrastructure that enables the proliferation of data in virtually every industry. The company is based in San Jose, California. WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: Faces "Gregory Haskin" Suit in S.D. of Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Windhaven Insurance Company. The case is styled Gregory Haskin Chiropractic Clinics, Inc., a Florida corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated other Jeffrey Rabin, Plaintiff v. Windhaven Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-62532-WPD (S.D. Fla., December 21, 2017). The Defendant owns and operates an auto insurance coverage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Perez, Esq. Aronovitz Law 2 South Biscayne Blvd. Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 372-2772 Fax: (305) 397-1886 Email: bp@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 Tel: (978) 621-4636 Email: theo.poulopoulos@gmail.com - and - Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. Aronovitz Law One Biscayne Tower 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 372-2772 Fax: (305) 397-1886 Email: ta@aronovitzlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Ari Gerstin, Esq. Akerman LLP 98 SE 7th Street Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 374-5600 Fax: (305) 349-4656 Email: ari.gerstin@akerman.com - and - Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Akerman LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 374-5600 Fax: 374-5095 Email: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com - and - Ross Elliot Linzer, Esq. Akerman LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 Southeast Seventh Street Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (305) 374-5600 Fax: (305) 374-5095 Email: ross.linzer@akerman.com WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Epstein" Case Has Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an Order and Final Judgment dated December 18 approving the settlement agreement in the class action, Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., Case No. 6:14-cv-01606 (D. S.C.). The Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund serves as lead counsel in the case. Judge Lewis also approved a plan of allocation as part of the settlement. World Acceptance Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative Class Action"), against the Company and certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) the Company made false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the CID from the CFPB (ii) the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015. The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company denied that the claims had any merit and opposed certification of the proposed class. On June 7, 2017, during a court-ordered mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Edna Epstein Putative Class Action. The parties' stipulation setting forth the terms of the settlement was filed with the court on August 25, 2017. The court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement on August 31, 2017. The settlement resolves the claims asserted against all defendants in the action. The settlement stipulation provides for a settlement payment to the class of $16 million, all of which will be funded by the Company's directors and officers (D&O) liability insurance carriers. Neither the Company nor any of its present or former officers have admitted any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the settlement. World Acceptance Corporation engages in small-loan consumer finance business. It serves individuals with limited access to other sources of consumer credit, including banks, credit unions, other consumer finance businesses, and credit card lenders. The Company was founded in 1962 and is headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. Affirms Judgment Favoring Pneumo Abex --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms the appealed judgment entered in favor of Pneumo Abex, LLC, on the negligence claim of Erik Ross Phillips and Tina Landers. Phillips contends that he contracted mesothelioma because of occupational exposure to asbestos in brake linings used in a machine at the facilities of his employer, Champion International Paper Company. Reddaway Manufacturing Company made the brake linings, and Abex sold them to Champion's supplier. At trial, Phillips pursued a negligent failure-to-warn theory under North Carolina law against Reddaway and Abex. For their part, Abex and Reddaway argued (among other things) that even if they were negligent, they are not liable because of the intervening negligence of a third party -- i.e., Champion. The district court submitted Phillips' claims to the jury, with accompanying instructions, using a special verdict form that asked the jury to answer a series of questions concerning each defendant. The two questions that are most pertinent to this appeal are Questions 2 and 3, which read: (2) Was the Plaintiff Erik Ross Phillips injured as a proximate result of any negligence on the part of the Defendant(s) in providing the warnings for the brake lining product at issue? If your answer to Issue 2 is Yes with regard to either or both Defendants, proceed to answer Issue 3. If your answer to Issue 2 is No for both Defendants, then your deliberations have come to an end. . . . (3) Did any negligence on the part of some third party serve to be a superseding or intervening cause of any injury on the part of the Plaintiff Erik Ross Phillips? If your answer to Issue 3 is Yes, then your deliberations have come to an end. . . . As to Reddaway, the jury answered "No" on Question 2. This answer, read in conjunction with the jury's answer to Question 1, reflects the jury's finding that although Phillips had frequent and regular exposure to an asbestos-containing brake lining product of Reddaway in his workplace, he was not injured as a proximate result of any negligence by Reddaway. Regarding Abex, the jury answered "Yes" to Questions 2 and 3. These answers reflect the jury's finding that Phillips (who had frequent and regular exposure to an asbestos-containing brake lining product of Abex in his workplace) was injured as a proximate result of Abex's negligence in providing the warnings for the brake lining product, but negligence on the part of a third party was an intervening cause of his injury that became as a legal matter the proximate cause. Phillips thereafter moved for a new trial against Abex, which the court denied. Phillips now appeals the judgment as to Abex, seeking partial entry of judgment in his favor or, alternatively, a new trial. Phillips primarily argues that the jury rendered a legally inconsistent verdict. In his view, the district court erroneously split the concept of intervening negligence (Question 3) from the concept of proximate cause (Question 2), and the jury's answers to these questions are irreconcilable. As he explains: "On the one hand, [the jury] found that Abex's negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. On the other hand, it found that a third party was the sole proximate cause of his injury... The jury can only find that defendant's negligence proximately caused the injury, or that an intervening cause was the sole cause, but not both." The Fourth Circuit, disagrees with Phillips' argument, explaining that when the use of a special verdict form leads to alleged conflicting jury findings, the court have a duty to harmonize the jury's answers -- considering the answers in light of the jury instructions and view the evidence "in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's decision by a finding of consistency.". The Fourth Circuit finds no inconsistency in the jury's decision. The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that "in order to insulate the negligence of one party, the intervening negligence of another must be such as to break the sequence or causal connection between the negligence of the first party and the injury, so as to exclude the negligence of the first party as one of the proximate causes of the injury. An efficient intervening cause is a new proximate cause. It must be an independent force which entirely supersedes the original action and renders its effect in the chain of causation remote." Given the fact that the parties and the district court viewed intervening negligence as an affirmative defense, the court's decision to have the jury decide Questions 2 and 3 separately is eminently sensible. The jury instructions and the verdict form required the jury to consider first (in Question 2) whether Phillips had proven his negligence claim against the defendants without regard to whether there was any intervening negligence of a third party. Properly instructed on this point, the jury found in Phillips' favor. The jury instructions and verdict form then required the jury to consider (in Question 3) the intervening negligence "defense." Properly instructed on this point, the jury found in Abex's favor. Thus, in accord with North Carolina law, the jury found that a new proximate cause (third-party negligence) overtook the original proximate cause (Abex's negligence), thereby becoming as a legal matter the sole proximate cause of the injury. The appealed case is ERIK ROSS PHILLIPS; TINA LANDERS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and GINA PHILLIPS, spouse, Plaintiff, v. PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, a/k/a Abex Corporation, f/k/a American Brake Shoe Company, f/k/a American Brake Shoe and Foundry Company, American Brakeblok Division, Defendant-Appellee, and ALBANY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; ASTENJOHNSON, INC.; B E & K INC.; BEK CONSTRUCTION, INC.; BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, by its Successor in Interest BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc.; CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a Viacom, Inc., f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CHATTANOOGA BOILER & TANK COMPANY; CLEAVER-BROOKS COMPANY; CRANE CO.; DANIEL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; FLOWSERVE US, INC. as successor to Nordtrom Valves, Inc.; FLUOR DANIEL, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Daniel Construction Company, Inc.; FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION; GARDNER DENVER INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; GRIZZLY INDUSTRIAL, INC.; HENRY VOGT MACHINE COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION, f/k/a Carborundum Company; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; ITT CORPORATION, Kennedy Valve Manufacturing Company, individually, and as successor to Bell & Gossett; KORBER PAPERLINK NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Clark-Aiken Company; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a wholly-owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.; NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION, INC.; NATIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC., f/k/a North Brothers Company; RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION; RILEY POWER, INC., f/k/a Babcock Borsig Power, Inc., f/k/a D.B. Riley, Inc., f/k/a Riley Stoker Corporation; SEPCO CORPORATION; MONTALVO COMPANY; TRANE U.S. INC., f/k/a American Standard, Incorporated; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNIROYAL, INCORPORATED, f/k/a United States Rubber Company, Inc.; VIKING PUMP, INCORPORATED; YARWAY CORPORATION; ZURN INDUSTRIES, LLC; KORBER PAPERLINK GMBH, individually and as successor in interest to E.C.H. Will GmbH, successor in interest to Pemco, Inc., successor in interest to Clark-Aiken Company; E.C.H. WILL GMBH; PEMCO, INC., individually and as successor in interest to Clark-Aiken Company; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, d/b/a Wabtec Corporation; RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORPORATION; REDDAWAY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendants, No. 16-1508, (4th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 14, 2017, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yapdxe36 from Leagle.com. ARGUED: Mona Lisa Wallace, WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellants. Reagan William Simpson, YETTER COLEMAN LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael B. Pross, John S. Hughes, WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA, Salisbury, North Carolina, for Appellants. Timothy W. Bouch, Amy Melvin DiLorenzo, Yancey A. McLeod III, LEATH, BOUCH & SEEKINGS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina; April L. Farris , YETTER COLEMAN LLP, Houston, Texas, for Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Discovery Order vs. Cleaver-Brooks Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ Appellate Court of Illinois for the Fourth District affirms the February 9, 2017 discovery order requiring Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. to produce copies of 5077 of its 90,000 index cards, vacates the February 27, 2017 contempt order, and remands the case for further proceedings. Defendant, Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., a division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., appeals from the trial court's order finding it in "friendly contempt" and assessing a $1 fine for failing to comply with an order requiring it to produce copies of certain documents to Plaintiffs, Larry Salvator, Sr. (now deceased) and his wife, Marcia Salvator, in discovery. In February 2016, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Cleaver- Brooks and 42 other defendants, alleging, in part, Larry Salvator, Sr., sustained injuries caused by the inhalation of asbestos fibers during his work in close proximity to "asbestos- containing boilers, and associated gaskets and insulation" manufactured by Cleaver-Brooks in the 1960s and 1970s. The Plaintiffs alleged theories of negligence based on Cleaver- Brooks's failure to (1) warn the exposure to asbestos caused serious disease, pulmonary fibrosis, malignancies, and death and (2) provide instruction as to safe methods, if any existed, of handling and processing asbestos-containing products. Larry Salvator, Sr., ultimately identified 11 jobsites where he worked with equipment manufactured by Cleaver-Brooks. Due to the nature of Larry Salvator, Sr.'s injuries, plaintiffs sought and received an expedited discovery and trial schedule. In November 2016, plaintiffs served Cleaver-Brooks with a second request for production of documents. In part, plaintiffs requested Cleaver-Brooks to produce "[t]he index cards referenced by [Cleaver-Brooks's corporate representative] at his depositions that he says he uses to perform searches for boilers at job sites [sic]." In December 2016, Cleaver-Brooks filed responses and objections to plaintiffs' second request for production of documents. Cleaver-Brooks objects to any request that relates to periods of time, geographical areas, or activities outside the scope of the allegations of the operative complaint as over broad [sic], irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Any request that is not limited in time and scope to the particular facts of the case, by definition, calls for irrelevant information and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It would also impose an unreasonable burden on Cleaver- Brooks to search out, review, organize and produce information and documents not related to any issue in the case. Further, requiring Cleaver-Brooks to produce information without limitation to the particular facts of the case improperly shifts plaintiffs' burden of proof to Cleaver-Brooks. Cleaver-Brooks states that there are over 90,000 index cards and they are too voluminous to produce. Cleaver-Brooks has agreed to make the index cards available for plaintiffs' inspection in an orderly fashion at a mutually agreeable date and time." The parties thereafter agreed plaintiffs would inspect the 90,000 index cards on January 10, 2017. On January 18 and 19, 2017, Cleaver-Brooks allowed plaintiffs to inspect its 90,000 index cards at its facilities. Plaintiffs tabbed 5077 index cards to be copied and turned over. Cleaver-Brooks suggested issues relating to the index cards were likely to be raised in different ways throughout the course of litigation. Cleaver-Brooks argued, to protect its due process rights, the issue had to be immediately appealed or plaintiffs' motion to compel should be withdrawn. Cleaver-Brooks assured the court its refusal to comply was in good faith because it believed the remaining index cards were not relevant. Plaintiffs indicated they were "not requesting any relief from the court at that time." Cleaver-Brooks maintained it was within the court's discretion to enter an order of friendly contempt without a request from plaintiffs' counsel. Cleaver-Brooks requests the Appellate Court to reverse and vacate the February 9, 2017, discovery order because the trial court abused its discretion in ordering it to produce copies of the 5077 tabbed index cards. Specifically, Cleaver-Brooks argues the court's finding was in error because (1) plaintiffs failed to present any reasonable argument as to why 5064 of the tabbed index cards were relevant or likely to lead to relevant evidence, (2) plaintiffs' "true motive" in seeking the index cards was to conduct an improper "fishing expedition" for the benefit of other plaintiffs within and outside of Illinois; and (3) our courts prohibit discovery orders based on wide, sweeping discovery requests. Plaintiffs disagree, arguing (1) Cleaver-Brooks's appeal is frivolous and brought in bad faith, (2) Cleaver-Brooks waived any relevance objection by producing the index cards on January 18 and 19, 2017, (3) Cleaver-Brooks's boilerplate objections in its discovery responses did not preserve any relevance objection, and (4) the trial court properly concluded copies of 5077 of Cleaver- Brooks's 90,000 index cards were subject to disclosure, as they were relevant and not requested as part of a "fishing expedition." While it appears Cleaver-Brooks intended to preserve its right to review the tabbed index cards for relevance, the record shows Cleaver-Brooks failed to do so. Prior to production, Cleaver- Brooks did not obtain a ruling from the trial court or enter into an agreement with plaintiffs whereby it could review the index cards tabbed by plaintiffs for relevance. Instead, Cleaver-Brooks voluntarily produced the index cards without any reservation. By doing so, Cleaver-Brooks forfeited its relevance objection. Forfeiture aside, the Court finds that Cleaver-Brooks has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in ordering it to produce copies of 5077 of its 90,000 index cards on the basis they were relevant and not requested as part of an improper "fishing" expedition. The Court mentions that the supreme court has stated: "The objectives of pretrial discovery are to enhance the truth-seeking process, to enable attorneys to better prepare for trial, to eliminate surprise, and to promote an expeditious and final determination of controversies in accordance with the substantive rights of the parties." Cleaver-Brooks presented no argument addressing the purposes for which plaintiffs asserted the index cards were relevant. Instead, for the first time on appeal, Cleaver-Brooks takes issue with Plaintiffs' alleged purposes for this evidence. By failing to present argument before the trial court on this issue, Cleaver- Brooks has forfeited the opportunity to do so on appeal. In reaching its decision, the trial court explicitly found the index cards were relevant to establish negligence by showing, through Cleaver-Brooks's corporate representative, "the state of the art, what products were sold, what the company's knowledge was at a particular point in time, [and] if they continued to sell those products after particular points in time." The Appellate Court notes that Cleaver-Brooks failed to address the court's reasoning other than a conclusory statement in its initial brief suggesting the court's reasoning "fails to justify the sweeping discovery that was ordered." Cleaver-Brooks has failed to show the trial court's conclusion was unreasonable. Cleaver-Brooks also argues plaintiffs' "true motive" in seeking the index cards was to conduct an improper "fishing expedition" to benefit other plaintiffs within and outside of Illinois. Cleaver-Brooks raised this argument before the trial court. As additional support for its position, Cleaver-Brooks now cites plaintiffs' (1) refusal to agree to its inspection agreement, (2) comments at the January 27, 2017, hearing, suggesting they could use the index cards in other cases, and (3) refusal to agree to a "confidentiality order" after copies of the tabbed index cards were ordered to be produced. Cleaver-Brooks asserts the trial court's discovery order is based on the type of wide, sweeping discovery requests prohibited by the courts. The Court finds, however, that the plaintiffs requested Cleaver-Brooks, who provided its product to 11 identified jobsites, to produce copies of 5077 of its 90,000 index cards. Thus, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs' discovery request was sufficiently limited and does not amount to the type of wide, sweeping discovery requests prohibited by the courts. The appealed case is LARRY SALVATOR, SR., and MARCIA SALVATOR, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Successor to Buffalo Pumps Inc.; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; BRAND INSULATIONS, INC.; BORG WARNER MORSE TEC, INC., as Successor by Merger to Borg Warner Corp.; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; BURNHAM, LLC; BW/IP, INC.; BRYANT HEATING & COOLING SYSTEMS; CARRIER CORPORATION; CHICAGO GASKET COMPANY; CLEAVER-BROOKS, a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc.; CRANE COMPANY; DAP, INC.; DURO DYNE CORPORATION; FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, f/k/a Duriron Company, Inc., and as Successor to Byron Jackson Pump Division, Durco, And BW/IP International, Inc.; FMC CORPORATION, Successor of Peerless Pumps; GENERAL GASKET CORPORATION; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC; GOULDS PUMPS (IPG), INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; ITT CORPORATION; JOHN CRANE, INC.; JP BUSHNELL PACKING SUPPLY CO.; McMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC; SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA INC., f/k/a Square D; SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY; SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION; STERLING FLUID SYSTEMS (USA) LLC; SUPERIOR BOILER WORKS, INC.; TACO, INC.; TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY; TRANE U.S. INC.; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; VIKING PUMP, INC.; WARREN PUMPS LLC; WEILMCLAIN COMPANY; WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY; YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; and ZURN INDUSTRIES LLC, Defendants, (Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., a Division of Aqua-Chem, Inc., Defendant-Appellant), No. 4-17-0173, (Ill. App. Ct. 4d). A full-text copy of the Memorandum Order dated December 5, 2017 is available at https://is.gd/c2Bjol from Leagle.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Equity LifeStyle, DAs Continue Discussions ----------------------------------------------------------- Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., continues to be involved in settlement discussions with District Attorneys' offices regarding alleged asbestos-related violation on its properties in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "In November 2014, we received a civil investigative subpoena from the office of the District Attorney for Monterey County, California ("MCDA"), seeking information relating to, among other items, statewide compliance with asbestos and hazardous waste regulations dating back to 2005 primarily in connection with demolition and renovation projects performed by third-party contractors at our California Properties. We responded by providing the information required by the subpoena. "On October 20, 2015, we attended a meeting with representatives of the MCDA and certain other District Attorneys' offices at which the MCDA reviewed the preliminary results of their investigation including, among other things, (i) alleged violations of asbestos and related regulations associated with approximately 200 historical demolition and renovation projects in California; (ii) potential exposure to civil penalties and unpaid fees; and (iii) next steps with respect to a negotiated resolution of the alleged violations. "No legal proceedings have been instituted to date and we are involved in settlement discussions with the District Attorneys' offices. We continue to assess the allegations and the underlying facts, and at this time we are unable to predict the outcome of the investigation or reasonably estimate any possible loss." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/qFOCl0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Had $908MM Claim Reserves at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation had US$908 million reserves for asbestos claims net of reinsurance recoverable as of September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were US$908 million and US$912 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$428 million and US$444 million, as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were US$175 million and US$179 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of US$35 million and US$40 million, as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. "Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are appropriately established based on available facts, technology, laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding theories of liability; availability and collectability of recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other contractual agreements. "Courts have reached different and sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up costs represent insured property damage. Further, insurers and claims administrators acting on behalf of insurers are increasingly pursuing evolving and expanding theories of reinsurance coverage for asbestos and environmental losses. Adjudication of reinsurance coverage is predominately decided in confidential arbitration proceedings which may have limited precedential or predictive value further complicating management's ability to estimate probable loss for reinsured asbestos and environmental claims. Management believes these issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. "In addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the uncertainties and factors, management believes it is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such additional net loss reserves that may be required." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/5BDhBe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Faces 1,500 Cases at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 1,500 cases were outstanding at September 30, 2017, for which Standard Motor Products, Inc., may be responsible for any related liabilities in connection to its former brake business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "In 1986, we acquired a brake business, which we subsequently sold in March 1998 and which is accounted for as a discontinued operation. When we originally acquired this brake business, we assumed future liabilities relating to any alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by the seller of the acquired brake business. In accordance with the related purchase agreement, we agreed to assume the liabilities for all new claims filed on or after September 2001. Our ultimate exposure will depend upon the number of claims filed against us on or after September 2001 and the amounts paid for indemnity and defense thereof. At September 30, 2017, approximately 1,500 cases were outstanding for which we may be responsible for any related liabilities. Since inception in September 2001 through September 30, 2017, the amounts paid for settled claims are approximately US$23.5 million. "In evaluating our potential asbestos-related liability, we have considered various factors including, among other things, an actuarial study of the asbestos related liabilities performed by an independent actuarial firm, our settlement amounts and whether there are any co-defendants, the jurisdiction in which lawsuits are filed, and the status and results of settlement discussions. As is our accounting policy, we consider the advice of actuarial consultants with experience in assessing asbestos-related liabilities to estimate our potential claim liability. The methodology used to project asbestos-related liabilities and costs in our actuarial study considered: (1) historical data available from publicly available studies; (2) an analysis of our recent claims history to estimate likely filing rates into the future; (3) an analysis of our currently pending claims; and (4) an analysis of our settlements to date in order to develop average settlement values." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ns4cd9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Standard Motor Liability Upped to $35.2MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Standard Motor Products, Inc., increased its asbestos liability to $35.2 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "We are responsible for certain future liabilities relating to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products. In accordance with our accounting policy, our most recent actuarial study as of August 31, 2017 estimated an undiscounted liability for settlement payments, excluding legal costs and any potential recovery from insurance carriers, ranging from US$35.2 million to US$54 million for the period through 2060. Based on the information contained in the actuarial study and all other available information considered by us, we have concluded that no amount within the range of settlement payments was more likely than any other and, therefore, in assessing our asbestos liability we compare the low end of the range to our recorded liability to determine if an adjustment is required. "Based upon the results of the August 31, 2017 actuarial study, in September 2017 we increased our asbestos liability to US$35.2 million, the low end of the range, and recorded an incremental pre-tax provision of US$6 million in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations. In addition, according to the updated study, future legal costs, which are expensed as incurred and reported in earnings (loss) from discontinued operations in the accompanying statement of operations, are estimated to range from US$44.3 million to US$79.6 million for the period through 2060. "We will continue to perform an annual actuarial analysis during the third quarter of each year for the foreseeable future. Based on this analysis and all other available information, we will continue to reassess the recorded liability and, if deemed necessary, record an adjustment to the reserve, which will be reflected as a loss or gain from discontinued operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ns4cd9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NRG Energy Still Assessing Liability at Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that it is analyzing the scope of potential liability related to its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, LLC. NRG Energy states, "The Company, through its subsidiary, Midwest Generation, may be subject to potential asbestos liabilities as a result of its acquisition of EME. The Company is currently analyzing the scope of potential liability as it may relate to Midwest Generation. The Company believes that it has established an adequate reserve for these cases." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/y32SNC ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Still Has Less Than 500 Cases at Sept 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tenneco Inc. is still facing not more than 500 active and inactive cases by claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "For many years we have been and continue to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. Our current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A small number of claims have been asserted against one of our subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The substantial majority of the remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive products although a significant number of those claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other than automotive. "We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that claimants were exposed to asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages. "As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business. "In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us. To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/42kqos ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Faces Asbestos Suits at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc., still defends itself against a number of asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits. Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). "The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. "No judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes that it has good and valid defenses to each of these claims and intends to defend them vigorously." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/mWhA9t ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Had $25.1MM Libby Costs at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- W. R. Grace & Co. had total estimated liability of US$25.1 million at September 30, 2017, for response costs related to a vermiculite mine and surrounding area in Libby, Montana, as well as at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "Grace purchased a vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, in 1963 and operated it until 1990. Vermiculite concentrate from the Libby mine was used in the manufacture of attic insulation and other products. Some of the vermiculite ore contained naturally occurring asbestos. "Grace is engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "EPA") and other federal, state and local governmental agencies in a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") of the Libby mine and the surrounding area. In its 2017 Annual Project Update for the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, the EPA announced a narrowing of its focus from the former "OU3 Study Area" to a smaller Operable Unit 3 or "OU3." Within this revised area, the RI/FS will determine the specific areas requiring remediation and will identify possible remedial action alternatives. Possible remedial actions within OU3 are wide- ranging, from institutional controls such as land use restrictions, to more active measures involving soil removal, containment projects, or other protective measures. Grace expects the RI/FS and a record of decision to be completed by the end of 2019. When meaningful new information becomes available, Grace will reevaluate estimated liability for the costs for remediation of the mine and surrounding area and adjust its reserves accordingly. "The EPA is also investigating or remediating formerly owned or operated sites that processed Libby vermiculite into finished products. Grace is cooperating with the EPA on these investigation and remediation activities, and has recorded a liability to the extent that its review has indicated that a probable liability has been incurred and the cost is estimable. These liabilities cover the estimated cost of investigations and, to the extent an assessment has indicated that remediation is necessary, the estimable cost of response actions. Response actions typically involve soil excavation and removal, and replacement with clean fill. The EPA may commence additional investigations in the future at other sites that processed Libby vermiculite, but Grace does not believe, based on its knowledge of prior and current operations and site conditions, that liability for remediation at such other sites is probable. "Grace accrued US$0.5 million in the three months ended September 30, 2017, for future costs related to vermiculite-related matters, which reflects provision for an agreed-upon remedy at a former vermiculite processing site. Grace's total estimated liability for response costs that are currently estimable for the Libby mine and surrounding area, and at vermiculite processing sites outside of Libby at September 30, 2017, and December 31, 2016, was US$25.1 million and US$31.2 million, respectively. It is probable that Grace's ultimate liability for these vermiculite-related matters will exceed current estimates by material amounts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/fOm7uL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Consolidated Edison Accrues US$8MM Liability ------------------------------------------------------------- Consolidated Edison, Inc., had accrued liability of US$8 million for asbestos suits at September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company also deferred US$8 million as regulatory assets related to asbestos suits at September 30, 2017. On the other hand, subsidiary Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (CECONY) had accrued liability of US$7 million for asbestos suits and deferred US$7 million as asbestos-related regulatory assets at September 30, 2017. The Company states, "Suits have been brought in New York State and federal courts against the Utilities and many other defendants, wherein a large number of plaintiffs sought large amounts of compensatory and punitive damages for deaths and injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos at various premises of the Utilities. The suits that have been resolved, which are many, have been resolved without any payment by the Utilities, or for amounts that were not, in the aggregate, material to them. The amounts specified in all the remaining thousands of suits total billions of dollars; however, the Utilities believe that these amounts are greatly exaggerated, based on the disposition of previous claims. "At September 30, 2017, Con Edison and CECONY have accrued their estimated aggregate undiscounted potential liabilities for these suits and additional suits that may be brought over the next 15 years. These estimates were based upon a combination of modeling, historical data analysis and risk factor assessment. Courts have begun, and unless otherwise determined on appeal may continue, to apply different standards for determining liability in asbestos suits than the standard that applied historically. As a result, the Companies currently believe that there is a reasonable possibility of an exposure to loss in excess of the liability accrued for the suits. The Companies are unable to estimate the amount or range of such loss. "In addition, certain current and former employees have claimed or are claiming workers' compensation benefits based on alleged disability from exposure to asbestos. CECONY is permitted to defer as regulatory assets (for subsequent recovery through rates) costs incurred for its asbestos lawsuits and workers' compensation claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/OGDzFc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Unit Had US$80.0MM Reserves at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, had reserved US$80 million at September 30, 2017, for asbestos- related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, Generation had reserved approximately US$80 million and US$83 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of September 30, 2017, approximately US$22 million of this amount related to 227 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining US$58 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is necessary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/CY7KqS ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Expects Additional Exposure at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that there is a reasonable possibility that it may have additional exposure to estimated future asbestos- related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and the increases could have a material adverse effect on future results of operations and cash flows of the Company and its subsidiaries Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth Edison Company, PECO Energy Company and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. The Company states, "On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding current and former employees from suing their employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to asbestos. Since the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling in November 2013, Exelon, Generation, and PECO have experienced an increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former PECO employees, all of which have been reserved for on a claim by claim basis. Those additional claims are taken into account in projecting estimates of future asbestos-related bodily injury claims. "On November 4, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court found that the provisions of the Illinois' Workers' Compensation Act and the Workers' Occupational Diseases Act barred an employee from bringing a direct civil action against an employer for latent diseases, including asbestos-related diseases that fall outside the 25-year limit of the statute of repose. The Illinois Supreme Court's ruling reversed previous rulings by the Illinois Court of Appeals, which initially ruled that the Illinois Worker's Compensation law should not apply in cases where the diagnosis of an asbestos related disease occurred after the 25-year maximum time period for filing a Worker's Compensation claim. Since the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling in November 2015, Exelon, Generation, and ComEd have not experienced a significant increase in asbestos-related personal injury claims brought by former ComEd employees. "There is a reasonable possibility that Exelon may have additional exposure to estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims in excess of the amount accrued and the increases could have a material adverse effect on Exelon's, Generation's, ComEd's, PECO and BGE's future results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/CY7KqS ASBESTOS UPDATE: BGE Still Defends Asbestos Claims at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Exelon Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that its subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, still faces asbestos-related claims. The Company states, "Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases. "Most asbestos claims which have been resolved relating to BGE and certain Constellation subsidiaries have been dismissed or resolved without any payment and a small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or Generation's financial results. Presently, there are an immaterial number of asbestos cases pending against BGE and certain Constellation subsidiaries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/CY7KqS ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enpro Has $44.4MM Asbestos Coverage at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enpro Industries, Inc., had US$44.4 million of insurance coverage to cover asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments at September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "The historical business operations of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC ("GST LLC") and The Anchor Packing Company ("Anchor") resulted in a substantial volume of asbestos litigation in which plaintiffs alleged personal injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos fibers. Those subsidiaries manufactured and/or sold industrial sealing products, predominately gaskets and packing, that contained encapsulated asbestos fibers. Anchor was an inactive and insolvent indirect subsidiary of EnPro's then-direct subsidiary, Coltec Industries Inc ("Coltec"). Our subsidiaries' exposure to asbestos litigation and their relationships with insurance carriers had been managed through another subsidiary, Garrison Litigation Management Group, Ltd. ("Garrison"). GST LLC, Anchor and Garrison are collectively referred to as "GST." "On June 5, 2010 (the "GST Petition Date"), GST LLC, Anchor and Garrison filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "GST Chapter 11 Case") in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina (the "Bankruptcy Court"). The filings were the initial step in a claims resolution process for an efficient and permanent resolution of all pending and future asbestos claims through court approval of a plan of reorganization to establish a facility to resolve and pay all GST asbestos claims. On March 17, 2016, we announced that we had reached a comprehensive consensual settlement to resolve current and future asbestos claims which contemplated the joint plan of reorganization (the "Joint Plan") which was filed with the Bankruptcy Court. This settlement contemplated that Coltec would, subject to the receipt of necessary consents, undergo a corporate restructuring (the "Coltec Restructuring") in which all of its significant operating assets and subsidiaries, which included each of the Company's major business units, would be distributed to a new direct subsidiary of the Company, which would also assume all of Coltec's non-asbestos liabilities. The Coltec Restructuring was completed on December 31, 2016, and included the merger of Coltec with and into OldCo, LLC ("OldCo"), an indirect subsidiary of EnPro. As further contemplated by the settlement, on January 30, 2017 (the "OldCo Petition Date"), OldCo filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition with the Bankruptcy Court (the "OldCo Chapter 11 Case"). On February 3, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order for the joint administration of the OldCo Chapter 11 Case with the GST Chapter 11 Case. The Joint Plan was consummated on July 31, 2017. "During the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the related OldCo Chapter 11 Case, certain actions proposed to be taken by GST or OldCo not in the ordinary course of business were subject to approval by the Bankruptcy Court. As a result, during the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the OldCo Chapter 11 Case, we did not have exclusive control over these companies. Accordingly, as required by GAAP, GST was deconsolidated beginning on the GST Petition Date and OldCo was deconsolidated beginning on the OldCo Petition Date. "As a result of the initiation of the GST Chapter 11 Case and the OldCo Chapter 11 Case, the resolution of asbestos claims against these companies was subject to the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. The filing of the GST Chapter 11 Case automatically stayed the prosecution of pending asbestos bodily injury and wrongful death lawsuits, and initiation of new such lawsuits, against GST. Further, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order enjoining plaintiffs from bringing or further prosecuting asbestos products liability actions against affiliates of GST, including EnPro, Coltec and all their subsidiaries, during the pendency of the GST Chapter 11 Case, subject to further order. As a result, except as a result of the resolution of appeals from verdicts rendered prior to the GST Petition Date and the elimination of claims as a result of information obtained in the GST Chapter 11 Case, the numbers of asbestos claims pending against our subsidiaries had not changed since the GST Petition Date. "At September 30, 2017, we had US$44.4 million of insurance coverage we believe is available to cover GST asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments, including contributions to the Trust. GST has collected insurance payments totaling US$152.3 million since the GST Petition Date. We consider the US$44.4 million of available insurance coverage remaining to be of high quality because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. Of the US$44.4 million, US$8.3 million is allocated to claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the Chapter 11 Case and submitted to insurance companies for reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims. There are specific agreements in place with carriers covering US$29.4 million of the remaining available coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that all of the US$44.4 million of insurance proceeds will ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due. Based on those agreements and policies, some of which define specific annual amounts to be paid and others of which limit the amount that can be recovered in any one year, we anticipate that US$19.2 million will be received either through settlements or in reimbursements of GST's plan funding as payments are made by the asbestos trust. "GST LLC has received US$8.8 million of insurance recoveries from insolvent carriers since 2007, and may receive additional payments from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent carrier collections are included in the US$44.4 million of anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability policies that cover OldCo, as the successor to Coltec, and certain of its other subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other covered subsidiaries and their assignees." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/z2dVs9 ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Sept30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to face several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes that contained asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly- owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Oe7gxz ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Fuels Inc. continues to face claims over an alleged asbestos exposure resulting from the operation of the White Mesa Mill, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "In November 2012, the Company was served with a Plaintiff's Original Petition and Jury Demand in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecified damages from the disease and injuries resulting from mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was contributed to by being exposed to asbestos products and dust while working at the White Mesa Mill. "The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, and therefore does not believe it will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In January, 2013, the Company filed a Special Appearance challenging jurisdiction and certain other procedural matters relating to this claim. No other activity involving the Company on this matter has occurred since that date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/n9WM6m ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 Claims Pending at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 27,000 pending claims at September 30, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. As of September 30, 2017, there were approximately 27 thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries, including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. "Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation. Frequently, the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state a specific claim amount. After filing a complaint, the plaintiff engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of defendants in the case. Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect all damages from one defendant. Rather, they seek to spread the liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants. As a result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/I0THzo ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Has US$875.5MM Liability at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc. had recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$875.5 million as of September 30, 2017, for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential recoveries. As of September 30, 2017, we have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$875.5 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of US$374.3 which represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$501.2 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/I0THzo ASBESTOS UPDATE: GBP3.8MM for North East Asbestos Victims --------------------------------------------------------- Mike Kelley of Chronicle News reported that asbestos victims and their families in this region have shared in GBP3.8 million compensation pay outs over the last 17 months thanks to the help of campaigners. The cash was secured by the Northern TUC Asbestos Support and Campaign Group (ASCG) between April 2016 and September 2017 for claimants in the North East and North Cumbria. The group, launched in 2010, is a partnership between Northern TUC, Macmillan Cancer Support, trade unions and West View Advice and Resource Centre, provides support, advice and information to people living with the effects of asbestos exposure, their families and carers. People helped by the group have asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer as well as other workplace cancers. Beth Farhat, Northern TUC Regional Secretary said: "Results like these are amazing and highlight the need for groups like the ASCG. "We are also looking to develop this area of work further and widen the scope of the group to help even more people -- taking the service directly into workplaces, briefing and training union reps." Asbestos is the biggest cause of workplace deaths. Last year 5,000 people were likely to die prematurely as a result of asbestos exposure, around three times the number of road accident deaths. Most of those who die do so as a result of mesothelioma, a kind of cancer that can be caused by very low levels of exposure which is always fatal. Almost all of the people who are dying today were exposed to asbestos decades ago, so asbestos is now often seen as being a problem of the past as its importation and use have been banned since 1999. That is not the case. The dangers of asbestos are still with us. Asbestos-containing materials can be found in around half a million non-domestic premises, and probably around a million domestic ones. Ms Farhat said: "Unfortunately, the legacy of asbestos is going to be with us for some time to come so it is imperative that there is free access to good quality, easily accessible support and guidance for those who need it." Val Evens, Manager of West View Advice and Resource Centre Limited, said: "We welcome the opportunity to extend our services and partnerships to incorporate the Northern TUC and the Macmillan Industrial Benefits Adviser. "We know that through working together with our partners we will ensure this valuable service continues helping people suffering from industrial cancers right across the north east." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Materials Removed in Minister's Home -------------------------------------------------------------- Solomone Rabulu and Mere Naleba of Fiji Times Online reported that a team from the Ministry of Labour is removing materials that contain asbestos at the State House. This was confirmed by the Minister for Labour, Jone Usamate. Mr Usamate said materials containing asbestos from the old Nausori Market had also been successfully removed under great supervision and the focus now was on clearing asbestos from the State House which the President, Jioji Konrote, occupies. "I understand that the asbestos have been removed under great supervision from the Nausori Market," said Mr Usamate. "We had the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Unit that had the requirements in place. We also had the Nausori Town Council to gather consultants and help the team remove the asbestos from the place." Asbestos are bundles of fibre that are used by construction companies to strengthen cement and plastics as well as for insulation, roofing, fireproofing, and sound absorption. However, asbestos have been classified as a cancer-causing substance that has been banned in several countries around the world. Studies have shown that people exposed to asbestos may have an increased risk of developing lung cancer and a cancer of the thin membrane that lines the chest and the abdomen known as mesothelioma. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiji Lacks Asbestos Awareness ---------------------------------------------- Alisi Vucago of The Tiji Times Online reported that there is not enough awareness in Fiji and the region on the health implications of asbestos exposure, says Ken Takahashi, the director and Professor for Asbestos Disease Research Institute at the University of Sydney. In an interview with Fiji Times Online today, Mr Takahashi said the fact that an asbestos symposium hosted in Pacific Harbour today was the first of its kind, speaks of the fact that the country and the region needed to start organising similar kinds of effort, including general awareness raising, training of workers and education of children. He said first, there was a need to know how much of asbestos was coming into Fiji and in what way. "Now we do know that some very well-known buildings in Fiji have used asbestos as construction materials and I think we should consider that as a tip of the iceberg. It is very likely that asbestos has been used in other public buildings as well as residential buildings and unless proven otherwise, we should suspect that," Mr Takahashi said. "I also emphasised in my talk that it's not only in construction materials, asbestos can be used in wide range of industrial applications because they are heat resistant, good friction materials so the country has to first look into these sources of asbestos used in the country and take it from there. "Once you identify the sources, you'll know how to deal with them. Of course you have to think about detecting the disease, but I think that is secondary to finding the sources. "Once you know the sources, you will know the people who might be exposed and then you are able to target a certain section of the population who may be at risk of developing the disease and from that, you may be able to find asbestos-related diseases." Mr Takahashi said since the exposure of the asbestos situation was not well recognised in the region, he realised that medical expertise was non-existent. "But I can tell you that even in developed countries like Australia and Japan, there are misdiagnosis as many cases are mistaken for other diseases or they may even not be detected at all. So it takes a long time for countries to acquire the expertise," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Endanger Children Playing Xmas Decors --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Povtak of Asbestos.com reported that the organization representing education worker unions in the United Kingdom has cautioned its members to avoid disturbing asbestos and endangering children when displaying Christmas decorations in school classrooms. The Joint Union Asbestos Committee (JUAC) through the Department of Education issued a directive to staffs throughout the U.K., reminding them nearly 90 percent of schools still contain some toxic asbestos products. JUAC said putting staples and pins into walls or ceilings to help display holiday decorations often releases microscopic asbestos fibers that can cause serious health issues for those nearby. "This activity should not be taking place in schools where asbestos is known to be present," the Department of Education insisted. JUAC advised school staffs to: * Determine whether your building contains asbestos and exactly where it is located. * Not pierce the walls and ceilings of classrooms, corridors or halls with staples or pins to hang Christmas decorations if asbestos is suspected. * Find alternative ways to display holiday decorations and other artwork. "Any school built before 2000 is likely to contain asbestos," the JUAC directive said. "Nearly 90 percent of schools still contain asbestos and children are known to be most vulnerable because of the long latency of asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma." Even with Asbestos Ban, the Problem Remains The U.K. is among 61 countries that have banned the toxic mineral, but still has one of the world's highest incidence rates of asbestos-related disease, stemming from ubiquitous use for decades that remains a threat today. Asbestos was used in U.K. school construction in various forms until 1999, when the full ban took effect. It was utilized to better fireproof the construction, primarily in ceiling and floor tiles, along with certain drywall products. The Health and Safety Executive, the U.K.'s governmental agency that oversees school remodeling projects that may include asbestos, said "as long as asbestos is in good condition, well- managed and unlikely to be damaged or disturbed, it is not a significant risk to the health of teachers and pupils." Asbestos becomes dangerous when it ages or is disturbed, sending microscopic fibers into the air. When they are inhaled or ingested, the fibers eventually could lead to serious problems such as asbestosis, lung cancer or mesothelioma. Teachers and Students Getting Exposed More than 250 former staff and students in the U.K. the past six years have filed claims with the Department of Education, citing asbestos-related diseases traced to various schools. Asbestos also has been a problem in older schools throughout the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates asbestos-containing materials are in many of the approximately 132,000 secondary and primary schools across the country. The EPA also insists those materials pose very little risk if they remain in good condition and undisturbed. Problems have arisen, though, when an improper abatement is attempted or maintenance work is done without the necessary precautions. Too often, untrained and unlicensed workers are performing older- school maintenance. Although asbestos is difficult to identify in products, some places it is commonly found include: * Chipped paint * Damaged drywall, plaster or wallboard * Aging floor tiles and ceiling panels * Older air-conditioning and heating equipment EPA regulations require schools to develop and regularly update a plan describing the type and location of any asbestos materials. It also requires regular asbestos inspections. The EPA estimates almost half of all schools today were built between 1950 and 1969, a time when asbestos use was at its peak. It is especially prevalent in schools throughout New England. The EPA recently awarded $631,000 in grants to five New England states to help manage their asbestos-in-schools problem. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Foundry Job Exposed Husband to Asbestos -------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo of Madison-St. Claire Record reported that a couple alleges the husband's employment at a foundry exposed him to asbestos. Ellis Blamble and Bertha Blamble filed a complaint in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Agco Corp., Beazer East Inc., Cleaver-Brooks, et al., alleging negligence. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various times during plaintiff Ellis Blamble's work from 1957 to 2000 at Ford Foundry, he was exposed to asbestos fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. They also allege that he was secondarily exposed to asbestos through his father, a farmer. The suit states that on Oct. 10, Ellis was diagnosed with lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused. The plaintiffs holds Agco Corp., Beazer East Inc., Cleaver- Brooks., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos fibers. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek damages of more than $50,000. They are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Neyland Couple Sue for Asbestos-Related Injuries ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lhale Castillo of Madison-St. Claire Record reported that a couple is seeking more than $50,000 in damages from multiple companies over allegations of injuries sustained by asbestos exposure. Andre Neyland and Casandra Neyland filed a complaint on Dec. 6 in the St. Clair County Circuit Court against Alfa Laval Inc., Ameron International Corp., Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC alleging negligence. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various times during Andre Neyland's career from 1974 to 2016, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. The suit states that on or about June 14, 2016, he first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused. The plaintiffs holds Alfa Laval Inc., Ameron International Corp., Borg-Borg-Warner Morse TEC LLC, et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos fibers. The plaintiffs seek damages of more than $50,000. They are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Asbestos Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Harris Martin Publishing reported that a Ohio federal court has denied Honeywell International Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case, finding that the plaintiff has established a question of material fact as to whether bystander exposure to asbestos fibers in the defendant's brake linings caused her to develop mesothelioma. In the Dec. 13 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio found there was enough evidence for a jury to determine whether the Bendix brakes were a substantial factor in her development of the asbestos-related disease. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Letter Suspected to Contain Asbestos Sent to DHB ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Houlahan of Otago Daily Times reported that a poison pen letter with a difference has been sent to the Southern District Health Board, a sample of material possibly containing asbestos. The unwanted delivery has prompted a warning from health officials for people not to handle hazardous materials themselves, but to call in a health protection officer first. That precaution was not taken by the correspondent, who instead opted to send the potentially deadly material by mail to the DHB for testing. "We appreciate that people are trying to do the right thing by getting asbestos tested," DHB medical officer of health Marion Poore said. "But we need to take precautions to protect the health and safety of our staff and community." WorkSafe New Zealand was notified of the incident, but a spokesman said the incident did not meet its criteria for further investigation. Asbestos was a commonly used building material but is now known to cause a wide range of serious health issues, including deadly illnesses. Unsuspecting homeowners run the risk of exposure to asbestos when disturbing or removing building materials. "It is important to seek advice from a health protection officer prior to collecting samples to help ensure any samples are collected and submitted safely," Dr Poore said. The Southern DHB website page on asbestos now has a warning in bold type not to send asbestos samples in the post. Health protection officers are available to provide advice in Otago and Southland. Professionals such as builders, roofers and flooring companies are expected to remove samples in accordance with Worksafe guidelines and submit them to a lab for testing. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study Points Accurate Mesothelioma Testing ----------------------------------------------------------- Mesothelioma.net reported that one of the most challenging aspects of treating malignant pleural mesothelioma is the fact that the condition is generally so far advanced by the time it is diagnosed. The condition does not begin to manifest symptoms until decades after exposure to asbestos has taken place, and by that time the cancerous tumors have often taken hold deep within the chest cavity and infiltrated vital organs. But now a collaborative study conducted by the University of Amsterdam and several Belgian universities has shown successful preliminary results from the use of breath analysis tests in screening for malignant mesothelioma. If the tools is developed further, it could be used on those with a known exposure to asbestos in order to help identify illness much earlier, providing extended survival times. The technology that is being tested for use in detecting early stage malignant pleural mesothelioma uses a technology that is broadly known as breathomics. Breathomics uses gas chromatography-mass spectrometry technology, as well as technology known as "e-Nose". In the test conducted in Europe, 64 study participants were selected, with 16 healthy individuals chosen as controls, 19 people with a known history of exposure to asbestos but in whom no symptoms had yet presented, 15 people identified as being ill with asbestos-related diseases other than mesothelioma, and 14 who had already been confirmed as having malignant pleural mesothelioma. Each provided breath samples for analysis of compounds found within their exhaled breath. The results were remarkable: the technology was able to distinguish between mesothelioma and other asbestos-related illnesses in those who were already sick, as well as providing accurate predictions on who was likely to develop mesothelioma at a later date and who was not. The scientists involved in the research concluded, "This study shows accurate discrimination of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma from asymptomatic asbestos-exposed persons at risk by GC-MS and eNose analysis of exhaled volatile organic compounds and provides proof-of- principle of breath analysis for malignant pleural mesothelioma screening." Though more testing will need to be done before this technology is widely available, the results are encouraging. ********* 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, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, 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. * * * End of Transmission * * *