/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 19, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 15 Headlines 1611 NORTH FEDERAL: Perez Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA AEP NVH: "Goings" Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois AGRO CONSTRUCTION: Muniz Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages ALLERGAN INC: Kessler Represents Investors in $290MM Recovery AMADEUS IT: "Gordon" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York AMERICAN FAMILY: Claims in "Riggins" Suit Tossed With Prejudice ANN TAYLOR: Settles False Discount Class Action APPLE INC: Miller et al. Sue over Performance of Older Phones APPLE INC: Schroeder Sues over Slow Down of Older iPhones Models APPLE INC: Shine Lawyers Probes Class Action Over Slowing iPhones APPLE INC: "Honigman" Suit Alleges Breach of Express Warranty APPLE INC: "Mallh" Suit Alleges NY Business Law Violations APPLE INC: "Brody" Suit Alleges NY Business Law Violations ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action Suit BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued over Dividend Conversions Excessive Rates BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Whiteley Seeks to Enjoin Thoma Bravo Merger BAZAARVOICE INC: Stein Seeks to Enjoin Marlin Equity Merger BEAURAYNE BUILDERS: Class Certification Sought in "Valle" Suit BLUE APRON: Sciabacucchi Sues D&Os in Delaware Chancery BUMBLEE BEE: Rodriguez Files Product Mislabeling Suit in Ca. CAPITALA FINANCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action CAPITALA FINANCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CAPITALA FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action CARLISLE DEVELOPMENT: "Serrano" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida CAVIUM INC: "Raul" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Marvell Tech Merger CEDARHURST OF EDWARDSVILLE: "Jamerson" Suit Moved to S.D. Ill. CENTURION GROUP: "Sales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code CHELSEA REALTY: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York CHRISTIAN FAITH: "O'Brien" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA CITGO PETROLEUM: $8MM to Settle Spam Text Class Action CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH: Underpays Workers, Castanon Claims COMMUNITY HOUSING: Fails to Pay All Earned Wages, De Love Says CONE DRIVE: Joint Bid to Certify Workers Class Filed in UAW Suit CONNECTICUT: Faces "Eisenlohr" Suit in Dist. of Connecticut COOKIES UNITED: "Cruz" Suit Seeks OT Premium Pay under FLSA CORECIVIC INC: Sued Over Immigrants' Forced Labor in Detention COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit in New York Alleging False Labeling CRYPTO COMPANY: Brower Piven Files Class Action Suit DAKOTA TRAVEL: Sued by "Leonard" Over Unpaid Overtime DART CONTAINER: Roberts Sues over Collection of Biometric Info DASUYA ENTERPRISES: "Earin" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA DAVID'S BRIDAL: Mendizabal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site DCT ENTERPRISES: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, Rich Says DECISIONHR XIII: "Ladicani" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Monette Says Toothbrush Heads Defective DEV MEDICAL: Wins Prelim. OK of "Moreno" Deal; Hearing on March 6 DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage Healthcare Hits Illegally-faxed Ads DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage Healthcare Seeks to Certify TCPA Class DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Shapiro Sues over Debt Collection Calls DYNEGY INC: "Paskowitz" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations ELECTROLUX HOME: Mauro Says Microwave Oven Handles Defective ENCORE HOSPITALITY: Accused by Ramos-Rios of Not Paying Overtime EXPERIAN INFO: Clements et al. Sue over Antedated Trade Lines FCA US: Faces "Wildin" Suit in Southern District of California FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Bernardez Seeks to Certify Class FLEX FLORIDA: "Bejerano" Suit Alleges Overtime Wage Violations GAS FIREPLACE: Court Approves Class-Action Settlement GOOGLE LLC: Damore and Gudeman Allege Gender & Racial Bias HIG CAPITAL: Faces "Klein" Stockholder Suit in Delaware Ch. Ct. HOBSON PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Waite" Suit Alleges HONEYWELL INTL: Brief Due Feb. 21 in "Pacheco" 4th Cir. Appeal ICOT HEARING: Sued by "Charvat" Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law, Glancy Propose Class Settlement INTEL CORP: "Jones" Suit Alleges Consumer Act Violations INTERCONTINENTAL EXPORT: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Filed JAMES MAYER: Faces "Latteri" Suit in District of New Jersey KOBE STEEL: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action KOBE STEEL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action KOBE STEEL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action LET'S EAT OUT: Morehouse Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA LOS ANGELES, CA: Garris Moves to Certify Landlord, Renter Classes LUCERNE BAKERY: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA LUNG INSTITUTE: "Rivero" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida MARKETSOURCE INC: "Hoel" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA MARKETSOURCE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sabile Says MARKETSOURCE INC: Underpays Account Sales Reps, Nunamacher Claims MAXIMUM BOOTING: "Burke" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia MBTA RAMIREZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action MCBRIDE RESEARCH: Faces "Campbell" Suit in New York State Court MDL 2740: Parker Sues Over Taxotere-Related Hair Loss MDL 2740: Wooten Sues Over Docetaxel Injection-Related Hair Loss MICHIGAN: Rhodes, et al. Sue over Right to Vote MICHIGAN: Jones Moves for Certification of Prisoners Class MIDLAND CREDIT: "Colontorres" Suit Moved to N.D. New York MONSANTO CO: Bootheel Farmers File Lawsuit Over Herbicide Damage NATIONAL CREDIT: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Woodard Claims NEIMAN MARCUS: Enters Agreement to Settle "Rubenstein" Class Suit NEWSTAR FINANCIAL: Sharpenter Suit Challenges Sale to First Eagle NIKE INC: Operates Blind-Inaccessible Web Sites, Mendizabal Says NONGSHIM CO: Ramen Price-Fixing Class Suit Headed for U.S. Trial NORTHSTAR REALTY: Brief in "Boothe" 4th Cir. Appeal Due Jan 26 NOVAN INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action OSI SYSTEMS: "Kerbs" Suit Alleges Securities Fraud PATRIOT NATIONAL: "Cole" Seeks Unpaid Benefits Due to Closure PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Sgarlata Sues Over PI Data Breach PETEZA PROSE: Kile Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages PHEAA: Morris et al Sue over Collection of Student Loans PIER 1 IMPORT: Pier 1 Settles Class Action for $3.5-Mil. PREET GOURMET: "Cano" Sues Over Unpaid Spread-of-Hours, Overtime PREFERRED CARE: "Assael" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida PRODUCERS SERVICE: "Casarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages PURDUE PHARMA: 2 Puerto Rico Towns File Opioid Antitrust Suit QBE: Settles Class Action for $132.5-Mil. QUDIAN INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action QUDIAN INC: "Maia" Sues Over Share Price Drop QUDIAN INC: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action QUEENS LAND: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says ROUND LAKE PARK, IL: Willoughby Moves for Class Certification SANOFI US: Faces "Arnett" Suit over Taxotere and Docetaxel Risks SECURITY NATIONAL: Gregory Haskin Sues over Reimbursements SELECTMEN OF HINGHAM: Faces "Belezos" Suit in D. Massachusetts SHERATON OPERATING: "Kim" Suit Moved to C.D. California SIGNET JEWELERS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit SNS TRANSPORTATION: Reyes Sues over Unpaid Wages & Overtime SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Hofer Says SOUTHWEST HAZARD: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Barajas Claims SUBWAY 273: "De La Torre" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida SWISSPORT USA: "Courtney" Wants to Stop Capture of Biometric Info TAMNINE LLC: "Cullum" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages TATA CONSULTANCY: Termination Class Certified in "Buchanan" Suit TATA CONSULTANCY: US Judge Expands Bias Case to Class-Action Suit TENHOP LLC: "Murphy" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime THOMAS HANNA: "Raiford" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA TOLL BROS: "Lopez" Suit Alleges ADA Violations TONG SHEN: "Rojas" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Feller" Suit TUCKER ENERGY: "McElroy" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA WISCONSIN: Certification of Class Sought in "Campos" Suit WYNDHAM HOTELS: "Macias" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for Spring 2018 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$209.8-Mil. Liability at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Face PI Claims at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 223 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,150 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 103 Cases Pending at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2,742 Claims v. Metropolitan Life at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $281MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Sept. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Suits v. Dixie Group Still Ongoing ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closed Due to Asbestos Leaking on Ceiling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition on Asbestos-Filled Fertilizer Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighter Dies of Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Council Escape Suspension on Asbestos Mess ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Hall Renovation to Include Asbestos Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Begins in Elementary School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Awarded $22M Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closed After Asbestos Damages in Tiles ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Corps Use Asbestos Despite Proof of Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found Again in Kids Cosmetic Products ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation on Asbestos-Contaminated Plant Begins ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK School Remains Closed After Asbestos Find ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. Starnes Joins Gori Julian Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bechtel Corp. Wins Asbestos Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Didn't Notify About Asbestos in S.D. Bldg. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nova Scotia Plant Asbestos Removal Costs $40MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Indicates Legacy Uses of Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Gets Six-Figure Sum for Husband's Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Machakos Urged Policy for Asbestos Disposal ********* 1611 NORTH FEDERAL: Perez Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- MYNOR PEREZ, and other similarly situated individuals v. 1611 NORTH FEDERAL CORP. d/b/a Mario's Catalina Restaurant a/k/a Catalina's Restaurant and MARIO FLORES and DANIEL J. O'FLAHERTY, Case No. 0:17-cv-62389-DPG (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. 1611 North Federal Corp., doing business as Mario's Catalina Restaurant, also known as Catalina's Restaurant, is a Florida company having its main place of business in Broward County, Florida. The Corporate Defendant operates as an organization that sells and markets its services and goods to customers from throughout the United States. The Individual Defendants are Florida residents and are owners and/or officers of the Corporate Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com AEP NVH: "Goings" Suit Moved to Northern District of Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE GOINGS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AEP NVH OPCO, LLC, d/b/a APPLIED ACOUSTICS INTERNALTIONAL, and UGN, INC. f/k/a UNITED GLOBE NIPPON, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2017-CH-14954 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Dec. 28, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv- 09340 to the proceeding.[BN] AEP NVH is in the Automotive Tires business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Haley Jenkins, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP 205 N. Michigan, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 E-mail: hjenkins@stephanzouras.com kbowers@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: Kerryann M. Haase, Esq. James P. Fieweger, Esq. Michelle L. Dama, Esq. MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP 444 West Lake Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 222 0800 Facsimile: (312) 222 0818 E-mail: khminton@michaelbest.com jpfieweger@michaelbest.com mldama@michaelbest.com AGRO CONSTRUCTION: Muniz Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALMA LIZBETH MUNIZ and other similarly situated individuals v. AGRO CONSTRUCTION, INC. a Florida Profit Corporation and LOUIS AGRO, Individually, Case No. CACE-17-022069 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., December 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Agro Construction, Inc., has its main place of business in Broward County, Florida. Louis Agro is a corporate officer of, and exercised operational control over the activities of the Corporate Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com ALLERGAN INC: Kessler Represents Investors in $290MM Recovery ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers representing shareholders of Allergan Inc. disclosed they had settled a lawsuit resolving insider trading claims against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Bill Ackman and his Pershing Square family of hedge funds stemming from Valeant's 2014 attempt to takeover Allergan, Inc. In settling the claims, Valeant and Pershing Square agreed to jointly pay a total of $290 million for all involved investors. Allergan stockholders alleged that in February 2014, Valeant tipped Pershing Square founder Bill Ackman about its plan to launch a hostile bid for Allergan. Armed with this nonpublic information, Pershing then bought 29 million shares of Allergan stock from unsuspecting investors, who were unaware of the takeover bid that Valeant was preparing in concert with the hedge fund. When Valeant publicized its bid in April 2014, Allergan stock shot up by $20 per share, earning Pershing $1 billion in profits in a single day. Valeant's bid spawned a bidding war for Allergan. The company was eventually sold to Actavis PLC for approximately $66 billion. Stockholders filed suit in 2014 in federal court in the Central District of California, where Judge David O. Carter presided over the case. Judge Carter appointed the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System ("Iowa") and the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ("Ohio") as lead plaintiffs, and appointed Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP as lead counsel. The court denied motions to dismiss the litigation in 2015 and 2016, and in 2017 certified a class of Allergan investors who sold common stock during the period when Pershing was buying. Earlier in December, the Court held a four-day hearing on dueling motions for summary judgment, with investors arguing that the Court should enter a liability judgment against Defendants, and Defendants arguing that the Court should throw out the case. A ruling was expected on those motions within coming days. The settlement resolves both the certified stockholder class action, which was set for trial on February 26, 2018, and a more recently-filed action brought on behalf of investors who traded in Allergan derivative instruments. Defendants are paying $250 million to resolve the certified common stock class action, and an additional $40 million to resolve the derivative case. Lee Rudy, a partner at Kessler Topaz and co-lead counsel for the common stock class, commented: "This settlement not only forces Valeant and Pershing to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars, it strikes a blow for the little guy who often believes, with good reason, that the stock market is rigged by more sophisticated players. Although we were fully prepared to present our case to a jury at trial, a pre-trial settlement guarantees significant relief to our class of investors who played by the rules." Kessler Topaz is one of the world's leading advocates for institutional investors from around the world. The firm has recovered billions of dollars for clients resulting from securities class actions, shareholder derivative suits, antitrust litigation and other complex litigation in jurisdictions around the globe. [GN] AMADEUS IT: "Gordon" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Gordon, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amadeus IT Group SA, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-mc- 00171, was transferred the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square) on Jan. 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-mc-00006-LAK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. Amadeus IT operates as a transaction processor for the travel and tourism industry worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for Non-Party James Filsinger: Benjamin D Greenberg, Esq. Shawn J Larsen-Bright, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY (WA) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100 Seattle, WA 98104-7043 Telephone: (206) 903 8800 E-mail: greenberg.ben@dorsey.com larsen.bright.shawn@dorsey.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Claims in "Riggins" Suit Tossed With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Stephen R. Bough entered an order in the lawsuit styled DARNITA RIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:14-cv-04171-SRB (W.D. Mo.): -- granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; -- dismissing with prejudice the Plaintiff's claims; -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's Second Renewed Motion to Certify Class. The matter involves an insurance dispute regarding the interpretation of Plaintiff Donita Riggins' homeowner's policy. The parties agree as to the facts relevant to the Court's decision. Plaintiff brings a purported class action asserting two claims against Defendant. In Count I, the Plaintiff asks for declaratory judgment "that [Defendant's] depreciation of labor costs [are] contrary to its written policy of insurance issued to the named [P]laintiff and members of the [P]laintiff Class[.]" In Count II, the Plaintiff alleges that "[b]y depreciating labor in the calculation of the named [P]laintiff's [actual cash value] payments, [Defendant] breached its obligations to the [P]laintiff under her written insurance policy." In his order, Judge Bough opines that there is no per se breach of contract of the Plaintiff's insurance policy and, thus, the Court must grant summary judgment. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YCUG2mHR ANN TAYLOR: Settles False Discount Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Bryan Cave, writing for JD Supra, reports that fashion retailer Ann Taylor has settled a false discounting class action in New York federal court alleging that prices at its outlet stores were listed as "marked down" from prices that never applied to the items. The named plaintiffs claim they were misled into believing they were getting a large discount, and would not have made the purchase if they knew the items were not heavily discounted. The class action is just one of a growing number of deceptive pricing actions filed against retailers. As we previously reported, retailers can also face an action by the Federal Trade Commission or public prosecutors for such practices. This growing trend and Ann Taylor's potential $6.1 million exposure should put retailers on notice of the repercussions associated with using phantom prices in an effort to advertise discounts. The settlement has received preliminary approval from District Judge Paul Oetken, and provides both monetary and injunctive relief to a class of more than a million consumers who purchased one or more items between May 5, 2012, and May 4, 2016, from Ann Taylor Factory and LOFT Outlet stores. If approved, the settlement would consist of 425,000 vouchers to Ann Inc. stores valuing $5.1 million, $500,000 for class members who opt for a cash award of $5 instead of a voucher worth $12, and $500,000 for administrative costs. Ann Inc. will have 60 days to change the labeling of its merchandise and comply with federal and state laws regarding pricing and advertising. The retailer must also pay $1,500 to each named plaintiff and up to $1,525,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. A final approval hearing is set for March 15, 2018. The case is Siobhan Morrow and Ashley Gennock, et al. v. Ann Inc., No. 16-cv- 3340-JPO, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] APPLE INC: Miller et al. Sue over Performance of Older Phones ------------------------------------------------------------- MARK MILLER, CHRIS SPEARMAN, and CRAIG STANFORD, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv- 00889-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks to recover damages and other harm, including, but not limited to, loss of use and enjoyment of their iPhones, loss of value, and losses in the form of costs to upgrade or otherwise replace their iPhones. According to the complaint, Apple promised that its recent iOS 10 and iOS 11 software updates to the iPhone 6 and iPhone 7 models would improve those devices' performance and it strongly encouraged its customers to accept those updates. But Apple didn't tell its customers that it had intentionally designed those software updates to slow the devices' processing speed to correct a battery defect. Apple then happily took its customers' money when the customers, dissatisfied with their now-slower devices, purchased new and more expensive iPhones. Apple came clean only this month under public pressure, admitting its software updates slowed processor speed. Now Plaintiffs and Class Members must either purchase new phones for hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars or continue to struggle with their slowed devices. The Plaintiffs assert a class action on behalf of owners of the iPhone SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s Plus, and the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus whose devices were harmed by Apple's updating of their devices' software to iOS 10.2.1, 10.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.3 -- iOS 10 Update -- and to iOS 11.0.1, 11.02, 11.03, 11.1.1, 11.1.2, 11.2, and 11.2.1 -- iOS 11 Update -- those updates were released between January 23, 2017 and December 13, 2017. The Defendant intentionally and tortuously interfered with Plaintiffs' and Class Members' peaceful use and enjoyment of their iPhones by materially impairing their iPhones' performance and functionality by reducing the Affected Phones' processing speed. The Plaintiffs and Class Members never consented to Defendant interfering with their iPhones and, indeed, could not so consent, because Defendant never informed them that the iOS 10 and iOS 11 Update would decrease their phones' processing speed. Defendant's interference was done with neither just cause nor legal excuse. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth C. Johnston, Esq. Robert W. Gifford, Esq. JOHNSTON PRATT PLLC 1717 Main Street, Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 974 8000 Facsimile: (972) 474 1750 E-mail: kjohnston@johnstonpratt.com rgifford@johnstonpratt.com APPLE INC: Schroeder Sues over Slow Down of Older iPhones Models ---------------------------------------------------------------- PETER A. SCHROEDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04750-JMS-MPB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks injunctive relief and damages arising from Defendants' unlawful failure to inform consumers that updating their iPhone versions prior to the iPhone 8 (Legacy Devices) to iOS 10.2.1 (and/or later to iOS 11.2) would dramatically and artificially reduce the performance of the Legacy Devices. According to the complaint, Apple also failed to inform consumers that phone performance would be restored -- by as much as 70% -- if affected individuals simply replaced the phone's lithium-ion battery. Replacing the battery at an Apple store costs approximately $79. The cost of the new iPhone X is over $1,000. Batteries "wear" over time. The lithium-ion battery used by Apple slowly diminishes its ability to hold a charge with time and use. However, normal lithium-ion battery wear does not reduce performance; a weakening battery has no effect on performance unless there is software that links the two. And that is precisely what Apple did. In rolling out iOS 10.2.1, Apple claimed to provide "bug fixes and improve the security of [the] iPhone or iPad" and "improve power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on the iPhone." What Apple purposefully failed to disclose, however, was that the update would act as a latent time-bomb that slowly eroded the phone's performance to the frustration of the user -- the software update throttled the iPhone's performance. The effect of Apple's actions was to purposefully reduce device performance with time, and deprive consumers of material information concerning the cause of the decline in performance of the Legacy Devices. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] Counsel for the Plaintiff and Proposed Class: Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636 6481 Facsimile: (317) 636 2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com APPLE INC: Shine Lawyers Probes Class Action Over Slowing iPhones ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Duke, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that Queensland-based law firm Shine Lawyers is investigating a class action against Apple Inc to get compensation for users of older iPhones affected by updates that slow down their smartphones. In mid-December, when Reddit members discovered that Apple had issued updates that caused older iPhones to slow, the tech giant issued a formal statement that these updates were to prolong the life of devices. Class actions were then filed across the United States against Apple, claiming it defrauded iPhone users by slowing their phones without warning to make up for poor battery performance. A case was also filed in Israel. Now, Australia might have its own class action with Shine Lawyers saying the firm was considering taking its own legal action against the technology giant and encouraging affected Australian iPhone users to come forward. Shine Lawyers class action expert Jan Saddler said there were several cases that could be brought against Apple for iPhone 6, 6S, SE and 7 defects. "In Australia, we will be looking at a class action for strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and a violation of consumer trust," she said. "There was no express consent among iPhone users to have their phones slowed down." While it would take "some investigation" to determine whether the legal action would proceed, with different laws in Australia to the United States, Ms Saddler said the firm would have made a decision on whether to commence the action by early 2018. She said the company had "misled millions of consumers globally into believing that their iPhones were malfunctioning, causing them to upgrade to newer and more costly devices" and that slowing down the devices gave the company an "unfair sales advantage over their competitors". These actions could contravene Australian Consumer Law and so the action would be "likely" to go ahead, she said. What compensation might result from a class action if successful is difficult to discern, but she said it would not be unreasonable for class action members who had upgraded due to a slowing phone to seek compensation for the cost of the replacement. In some cases, the cost of a smartphone upgrade can exceed $1000. Tech commentator Peter Griffin told Stuff legitimate reasons existed for the Apple updates, but the reason for a class-action lawsuit was the lack of transparency. He said there was a lot of mistrust that technology companies make things with "built in obsolescence", that companies only make a phone or computer to last a certain amount of time so people are "locked into an upgrade". He also said it was expensive and difficult to change the battery in the iPhone without going to a third party agent, which would void the warranty. An Apple spokeswoman previously issued a statement about the slowing of iPhones, saying lithium-ion batteries became less capable in cold conditions, when they had low battery charge or when they aged over time "which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components". She said a feature was released in 2016 to smooth out the peaks when needed in certain older devices to prevent them from unexpectedly shutting down. Apple would not provide further comment. [GN] APPLE INC: "Honigman" Suit Alleges Breach of Express Warranty ------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Honigman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-00046 (E.D. N.Y., January 4, 2018), is a class action complaint for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violations of the New York General Business Law. This is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated who acquired, in the United States and its territories and its protectorates, Apple's iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8 and 8 Plus and experienced reduced functionality on their devices due to Apple's iOS updates. Plaintiff Marc Honigman is a citizen and resident of the State of New York. Mr. Honigman believes that the slowdown of his iPhone 6 occurred in connection with the download of iOS 10 software. Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software. Apple manufactures, designs, produces, and sells several types of electronic products, including, among others, personal computers, portable music players, cellular phones, and other communication devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Avital O. Malina, Esq. ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: (631) 367-7100 Fax: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com amalina@rgrdlaw.com APPLE INC: "Mallh" Suit Alleges NY Business Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Victor Mallh, et al., on behalf of himself and similarly situated others v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00051 (E.D. N.Y., January 4, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for deceptive or misleading practices in violation of the New York General Business Law. Plaintiff Victor Mallh brings this action, inter alia, to address misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendant Apple Inc. in connection with its iPhone software updates. The Plaintiff and similarly situated others bring this matter to address Apple's failure in its duty to warn iPhone SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, and iPhone 7 Plus users such as the Plaintiffs that certain iOS updates could negatively and significantly impact iPhone performance. Plaintiff Victor Mallh is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Queens County, New York. Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software. Apple manufactures, designs, produces, and sells several types of electronic products, including, among others, personal computers, portable music players, cellular phones, and other communication devices. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Hermina, Esq. HERMINA LAW GROUP Laurel Lakes Executive Park 8327 Cherry Lane Laurel, MD 20707 Tel: (301) 776-2003 Fax: (301) 490-7913 E-mail: law@herminalaw.com - and - Gregory Allen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY ALLEN 120 W. Wilson Avenue Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (203) 535-4636 E-mail: greg@gjallenlaw.com APPLE INC: "Brody" Suit Alleges NY Business Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Yisroel Brody, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00080 (E.D. N.Y., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, breach of implied contract and violations of the New York's General Business Law. Plaintiff brings this class action case against Apple for its fraudulent and deceptive interference into the operation and performance of its iPhone devices which were updated to any of the 2017 operating system software updates, and its failure to disclose that Apple has been purposely slowing down the processing and operations of class iPhones through such updates. Plaintiff Brody resides in Brooklyn, New York and is the owner of an iPhone 6. Defendant Apple is a California corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple is the designer and manufacturer of the iPhone and iOS software. Apple manufactures, designs, produces, and sells several types of electronic products, including, among others, personal computers, portable music players, cellular phones, and other communication devices. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Jay I. Brody, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Tel: (845) 356-2570 ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as ALICIA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-13730-KM-MAH (D.N.J., Dec. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Kevin McNulty. Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management company that is committed to establishing unmatched standards of performance. ARS is a strategic partner to many of the largest credit issuers in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (347) 526 4093 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com ari@marcuszelman.com AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego Employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Automobile Club of Southern California alleging that the company failed to lawfully provide meal and rest periods and reimburse their California Field Sales Agent employees for all their business expenses incurred while working for the company. The class action lawsuit against Automobile Club of Southern California is currently pending in the Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2017- 00960268-CU-OE-CXC. The lawsuit filed against Automobile Club of Southern California by the San Diego labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik alleges the company does not have a policy or practice which provides legally compliant thirty-minute uninterrupted meal breaks and paid rest breaks to their Field Sales Agent employees in California. The lawsuit further alleges that the failure of Automobile Club of Southern California to provide the legally required meal and rest period is evidenced by the company's records. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the employees were not reimbursed for all their necessary business expenses incurred on Defendant's behalf. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Automobile Club of Southern California call (858) 952-0354 to speak to Attorney Nicholas De Blouw. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is a labor law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. [GN] BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued over Dividend Conversions Excessive Rates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Edwin Scheibel, in his own capacity and in a representative capacity on behalf of the ERISA plan in which he is a participant or beneficiary, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, and BNY MELLON, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10231 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2017), is a civil enforcement action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and against the Bank of New York Mellon and BNY Mellon, National Association on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, an ERISA employee benefit plan in which he is a participant. The Benefit Plan is responsible for the retirement benefits of more than 100,000 Plan participants. The Plaintiff also brings this action as a class action on behalf of a class of participants, beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of similarly-situated employee benefit plans. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants appropriated excessive, unauthorized, and undisclosed markups in the course of executing foreign currency transactions associated with the Plans' holding of American Depositary Receipts issued by Defendants. Defendants' breach of their fiduciary duty when they conducted the FX currency conversions -- ADR FX Dividend Conversions -- increased their revenues and profits by millions of dollars annually at the expense of the Plans, their participants and beneficiaries, and the Class. According to the complaint, when Defendants converted foreign dividends and interest for ADR assets of ERISA Plans into U.S. dollars, Defendants selected a transaction rate at or near the rate at which the currency traded that day that was virtually the worst for the ERISA Plans. This scheme increased Defendants' profits at the expense of their ERISA clients. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, which does business as BNY Mellon, is an American worldwide banking and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: T. David Copley, Esq. Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. T. David Copley, Esq. Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 1900 Facsimile: (206) 623 8986 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com dcopley@kellerrohrback.com bleland@kellerrohrback.com BARRACUDA NETWORKS: Whiteley Seeks to Enjoin Thoma Bravo Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT WHITELEY, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARRACUDA NETWORKS, INC., JEFFRY R. ALLEN, MICHAEL D. PERONE, WILLIAM JENKINS, JR., JOHN H. KISPERT, CHET KAPOOR, and STEPHEN P. MULLANEY, the Defendants, Case No. 18CV321523 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to enjoin a proposed merger transaction or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from breach of fiduciary duties by Defendants. The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Barracuda Networks, Inc., against the Defendants, for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to affiliates of Thoma Bravo, LLC, namely Project Deep Blue Holdings, LLC, as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin a stockholder vote in which Thoma Bravo will acquire each outstanding share of Barracuda common stock for $27.55 per share in cash, with a total valuation of approximately $1.6 billion. According to the complaint, the terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a November 27, 2017 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. On December 27, Barracuda filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule Prem14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction. Notably, the Preliminary Proxy reveals that the Proposed Transaction was entered into without a proper market check and with no oversight by an independent special committee of the Company Board. The Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to the Proposed Transaction which undervalues Barracuda and is the result of a flawed sales process. Post-closure, Barracuda stockholders will be frozen out of seeing the return on their investment of any and all future profitability of Barracuda. Further, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Company Board Members and executive officers will be able to exchange large, illiquid blocks of Company stock for massive payouts, in addition to receiving cash in exchange for all outstanding and unvested options and/or other types of restricted stock units. Moreover, certain Directors and other insiders will also be the recipients of lucrative change in-control agreements, triggered upon the termination of their employment as a consequence of the consummation of the Proposed Transaction. Those large paydays upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, have clearly tainted the motivations of the Board in approving it, the lawsuit alleges. In violation of their fiduciary duties, Defendants caused to be filed the materially deficient Preliminary Proxy on December 27, 2017, with the SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders to vote their Barracuda shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient and deprives Barracuda stockholders of the information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The Preliminary Proxy omits and/or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process leading to the Proposed Transaction; (b) the Company's financial projections; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness opinions provided by the Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC. Barracuda Networks is a company providing security, networking and storage products based on network appliances and cloud services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com BAZAARVOICE INC: Stein Seeks to Enjoin Marlin Equity Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- SHIVA STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAZAARVOICE, INC., THOMAS J. MEREDITH, GENE AUSTIN, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, KRISTA BERRY, STEVE H. BERKOWITZ, JEFFREY HAWN, and ALLISON M. WING, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00067-UNA (D. Del., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger transaction unless and until material information is disclosed to Bazaarvoice's stockholders or, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The case is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the other ordinary stockholders of Bazaarvoice, Inc., except Defendants and their affiliates, against Bazaarvoice, the members Bazaarvoice's board of directors for their violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between Bazaarvoice and certain affiliates of Marlin Equity Partners. According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement (the "Proxy") to be filed on December 26, 2017 with the SEC and disseminated to Company stockholders. The Proxy recommends that Company stockholders vote in favor of a proposed transaction whereby Bazaarvoice will merge with and into BV Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BV Parent, LLC, which is beneficially owned by affiliates of Marlin, with the Company continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. Pursuant to the terms of the definitive agreement and plan of merger the companies entered into each Bazaarvoice common share issued and outstanding will be converted into the right to receive $5.50 in cash. The consideration Bazaarvoice stockholders stand to receive in connection with the Proposed Transaction and the process by which Defendants propose to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally unfair to Plaintiff and the other common stockholders of the Company. Defendants have now asked Bazaarvoice's stockholders to support the Proposed Transaction in exchange for inadequate consideration based upon the materially incomplete and misleading representations and information contained in the Proxy, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial projections that were prepared by the Company and relied upon by the Board in recommending the Company's stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. The financial projections were also utilized by Bazaarvoice's financial advisor, GCA Advisors, LLC, in conducting the valuation analyses in support of the fairness opinion. The special meeting of Bazaarvoice stockholders to vote on the Proposed Transaction is scheduled for January 29, 2018. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 545 4600 Facsimile: (212) 686 0114 E-mail: gmn@whafh.com melwani@whafh.com cooper@whafh.com - and - Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482 3182 E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com BEAURAYNE BUILDERS: Class Certification Sought in "Valle" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Fredy Reyes, Jose Gutierrez, and Edwin Bonilla move for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned OSCAR VALLE, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. BEAURAYNE BUILDERS LLC, GALINDO Z CONSTRUCTION LLC, ELDRED ROBERT, JR, and JOSE GALINDO, Case No. 3:17-cv-00274-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.). The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or practice" pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oPWERgdr The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534-5005 Facsimile: (504) 272-2956 E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com whbeaumont@gmail.com emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com BLUE APRON: Sciabacucchi Sues D&Os in Delaware Chancery ------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SCIABACUCCHI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW B. SALZBERG, JULIE M.B. BRADLEY, TRACY BRITT COOL, KENNETH A. FOX, ROBERT P. GOODMAN, GARY R. HIRSHBERG, BRIAN P. KELLEY, KATRINA LAKE, STEVEN ANDERSON, J. WILLIAM URLEY, MARKA HANSEN, SHARON MCCOLLAM, ANTHONY WOOD, RAVI AHUJA, SHAWN CAROLAN, JEFFREY HASTINGS, ALAN HENRICKS, NEIL HUNT, DANIEL LEFF, and RAY ROTHROCK, the Defendants, and BLUE APRON HOLDINGS, INC., STITCH FIX, INC. and ROKU, INC., the Nominal Defendants, Case No. 2018-0931 (Del. Ch., Dec. 29, 2017), is a class action, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23, on behalf of himself and all other persons who purchased stock of: -- Blue Apron pursuant to any registration statement (the "Blue Apron Class"), -- Stitch Fix pursuant to any registration statement (the "Stitch Fix Class"), and -- Roku pursuant to any registration statement (the "Roku Class"). Excluded from each Class are Defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any Defendant, and their successors in interest. The Complaint seeks judgment declaring as invalid a provision included in each of the Companies' respective certificates of incorporation, purporting to require any claim under the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, for the last 19 years, there has been a lively debate in the federal district courts about whether class actions filed in state court and asserting only claims under the Securities Act may be removed to federal court. Although the lower courts have not been unanimous, the vast majority of courts -- including 33 in a row in the Ninth Circuit -- have refused to allow removal. In June 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, a case that will likely resolve this question conclusively for class actions. No matter what happens in Cyan, however, there has been no dispute that stockholders have the right to file an individual action in state court, asserting claims under the Securities Act and that such an action could not be removed. In June 2017, Snap, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in California, went public with a certificate of incorporation that included a provision stating that "[u]nless the Company consents in writing to the selection of an alternative forum, the federal district courts of the United States of America shall be the exclusive forum for the resolution of any complaint asserting a cause of action arising under the Securities Act of 1933." In the wake of the Snap initial public offering ("IPO"), several other Delaware corporations -- including Blue Apron, Stitch Fix, and Roku -- have gone public with substantively identical Federal Forum Provisions in their organizing documents. The Plaintiff is, and has been at all relevant times, a stockholder of Blue Apron common stock, Stitch Fix common stock, and Roku common stock. Sciabacucchi purchased shares of Blue Apron common stock on June 29, 2017 pursuant to its registration statement filed with the SEC on June 1, 2017 (as amended). Sciabacucchi purchased shares of Stitch Fix common stock on December 4, 2017, pursuant to its registration statement filed with the SEC on October 19, 2017 (as amended) (the "Stitch Fix Registration Statement"). Sciabacucchi purchased shares of Roku common stock on November 14, 2017, pursuant to its registration statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 (as amended) (the "Roku Registration Statement"). [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt M. Heyman, Esq. Melissa N. Donimirski, Esq. GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472 7300 - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Joel A. Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398 5600 BUMBLEE BEE: Rodriguez Files Product Mislabeling Suit in Ca. ------------------------------------------------------------ MIGUEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. BUMBLEE BEE FOODS, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-02447-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal., December 6, 2017), seeks to enjoin Bumble Bee's alleged misleading practices and to recover restitution and damages relating to the sale of its canned fish product called "Premium Select Medium Red Smoked Salmon Filets in Oil." Through various labeling statements and design elements, Bumble Bee falsely suggests that BB Medium Red Smoked Salmon is high- quality, wild-caught salmon, when it is actually low-quality, farm-raised Chilean salmon that has been colored, Mr. Rodriguez alleges. He adds that Bumble Bee also falsely and unlawfully represents that the product is smoked salmon, when it is actually unsmoked salmon to which smoke flavor has been added. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. Founded in 1899, Bumble Bee is North America's largest branded shelf-stable seafood company, offering products under several lines, including its most popular Bumble Bee brand, which Bumble Bee touts as having "established significant consumer awareness and loyalty based on the quality, nutritional value, and affordability of its products."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com CAPITALA FINANCE: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Capitala Finance Corp. and certain of its officers, on behalf of a class who purchased or otherwise acquired Capitala securities between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017, both dates inclusive. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cpta. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent in both underwriting and portfolio management due to the waiving of its incentive fee, (2) such loss of talent negatively impacted the quality of Capitala's investment portfolio, and (3) consequently, Capitala's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/cpta or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Capitala you have until February 26, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN] CAPITALA FINANCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Capitala Finance Corp. from January 4, 2016 through August 7, 2017, both dates inclusive ("Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Capitala Finance investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Capitala Finance class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1261.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent in both underwriting and portfolio management due to the waiving of its incentive fee; (2) such loss of talent negatively impacted the quality of the Company's investment portfolio; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 26, 2018. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1261.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Since 2014, Rosen Law Firm has been ranked #2 in the nation by Institutional Shareholder Services for the number of securities class action settlements annually obtained for investors. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com, kchan@rosenlegal.com [GN] CAPITALA FINANCE: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Capitala Finance Corp. (NASDAQ:CPTA) securities between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 26, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On January 4, 2016, Capitala announced that Capitala Investment Advisors, LLC ("Capitala Investment Advisors"), the affiliate that manages the Company's investment activities, had agreed to waive its quarterly incentive fee. On August 7, 2017, Capitala disclosed that six of its investments were on non-accrual status -- twice as many as in the previous quarter. On August 8, 2017, the Company disclosed that Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent in underwriting and portfolio management since waiving its incentive fee, which had caused an increase in the number of the Company's non-accrual investments. On this news, Capitala's share price fell $3.82 per share, or approximately 30%, over the next three trading days to close at $8.99 on August 10, 2017. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that Capitala Investment Advisors had been losing professional talent, which negatively impacted the quality of Capitala's investment portfolio. Consequently, Capitala's public statements were materially false and misleading throughout the Class Period. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Capitala securities and suffered a loss, continue to hold shares purchased prior to the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities litigation. For additional information concerning the Capitala lawsuit, please go to www.bespc.com/cpta. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Tel: 212-355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com E-mail: walker@bespc.com [GN] CARLISLE DEVELOPMENT: "Serrano" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Rodolfo Valdes Serrano, Ricardo Ruiz Piloto, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. Carlisle Development Group, LLC and Matthew Greer, the Defendants, Case No. 17-028162-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20068-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez. Carlisle Development Group began operating in 1998 and quickly grew into one of the largest tax credit affordable housing developers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Scott Stephan Allen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-1802 Telephone: (305) 577 7600 Facsimile: (305) 373 4466 E-mail: allens@jacksonlewis.com CAVIUM INC: "Raul" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Marvell Tech Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY RAUL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAVIUM, INC. SYED B. ALI, BRAD W. BUSS, EDWARD H. FRANK SANJAY MEHROTRA, MADHAV V. RAJAN, ANTHONY S. THORNLEY, MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD., KAUAI ACQUISITION CORP., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00139 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the stockholder vote on a Proposed Merger and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Merger unless and until the material information is disclosed to Cavium stockholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the other public holders of the common stock of Cavium against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed sale of Cavium to Marvell Technology Group Ltd. According to the complaint, on November 20, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Marvell, a Bermuda exempted company, and Kauai Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Marvell, providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Cavium, with Cavium surviving as a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Marvell. In connection with the Proposed Merger, each share of Cavium common stock issued and outstanding will have the right to receive $40.00 in cash and 2.1757 Marvell common shares for each Cavium share. The consummation of the Proposed Merger is subject to certain closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders of Cavium. The Company expects the Proposed Merger to close in mid-calendar 2018. On December 21, 2017, to convince Cavium shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a joint materially incomplete and misleading registration statement, which was filed by Marvell on Form S-4 with the SEC, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. While Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's stockholders in the S-4, they have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the S-4 incomplete and misleading. It is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Cavium is a fabless semiconductor company based in San Jose, California, specializing in ARM-based and MIPS-based network, video and security processors and SoCs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc G. Reich, Esq. Adam T. Hoover, Esq. REICH RADCLIFFE & HOOVER LLP 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 975 0512 Facsimile: (949) 208 2839 E-mail: mgr@reichradcliffe.com adhoover@reichradcliffe.com - and - Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP 821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 493 9780 Facsimile: (516) 280 7376 E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com CEDARHURST OF EDWARDSVILLE: "Jamerson" Suit Moved to S.D. Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled DICHA JAMERSON (nee PUCKETT), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CEDARHURST OF EDWARDSVILLE HOLDINGS, LLC; CEDARHURST OF EDWARDSVILLE OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST MEMORY CARE OF EDWARDSVILLE, LLC; CEDARHURST OF COLLINSVILLE HOLDINGS, LLC; CEDARHURST OF COLLINSVILLE, LLC; CEDARHURST OF COLLINSVILLE OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST OF GREENVILLE HOLDINGS, LLC; CEDARHURST OF GREENVILLE OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST OF GREENVILLE REAL ESTATE, LLC; CEDARHURST OF JACKSONVILLE HOLDINGS, LLC; CEDARHURST OF JACKSONVILLE, LLC; CEDARHURST OF JACKSONVILLE OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SHILOH COTTAGES, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SHILOH, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SHILOH OPERATOR, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SPARTA HOLDINGS, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SPARTA, LLC; CEDARHURST OF SPARTA OPERATOR, LLC; and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 2017L 001582, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit Madison County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Dec. 29, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01401-MJR-DGW to the proceeding. Cedarhurst of Edwardsville offers Memory Care that is specifically designed to meet the needs of people living with Alzheimer's and related memory loss.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Driscoll, Esq. Christopher J. Quinn, Esq. THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 4050 St. Louis, MI 63012 Facsimile: (314) 932 3233 The Defendants are represented by: Gregory C. Mollett, Esq. Abby L. Risner, Esq. Clark W. Hedger, Esq. GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C. 10 S. Broadway, Suite 2000 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 345 4785 Facsimile: (314) 345 5465 E-mail: gcm@greensfelder.com alr@greensfelder.com ch1@greensfelder.com CENTURION GROUP: "Sales" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SALES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE CENTURION GROUP, INC., a California corporation; STEVEN LEMMER, an individual; DANIEL CAMPBELL, an individual; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC689346 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover penalties permitted by California Labor Code Section 2699 on account of Defendants': (i) failure to provide mandated timely meal periods and rest periods; (ii) failure to pay all wages due and owing; and (ii) failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements to employees. Plaintiff also seeks waiting time penalties for violations of the California Labor Code, Wage Orders and Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The Centurion Group Inc. operates as a facility maintenance contractor. It provides custodial services, such as general cleaning, carpet cleaning and extraction, floor polishing and buffing, stripping and waxing, and tile scrubbing and cleaning; and interior and exterior painting, and general painting and texturing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Crosner, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. Alfredo Nava, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 433 N. Camden Dr., Ste. 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 496 4818 Facsimile: (310) 510 6429 E-mail: mike@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com alfredo@crosnerlegal.com CHELSEA REALTY: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Realty Group, LLC. The case is captioned as Edwin Zayas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Chelsea Realty Group, LLC and Barragh, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10189-JGK (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John G. Koeltl.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC 2501 Jody Court North Bellmore, NY 11710 Telephone: (516) 783 9662 Facsimile: (646) 435 4376 E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com CHRISTIAN FAITH: "O'Brien" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- ELISSA O'BRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTIAN FAITH PUBLISHING, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00024 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 8, 2018), is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, brought on behalf of all persons who worked remotely from their homes, selling publishing services, for Defendants, at any time during the past three years and up until the date of entry of judgment, and were misclassified as independent contractors and denied proper overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant from February 2017 until December 11, 2017, remotely out of her home, using her telephone and computer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily S. Alcorn, Esq. GILBERT McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354 1144 E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com CITGO PETROLEUM: $8MM to Settle Spam Text Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Celia Ampel, writing for the Daily Business Review, reports that Citgo Petroleum Corp. agreed to pay $8 million to settle a spam- texting class action that zipped from filing to final approval in just over a year. West Palm Beach resident Matthew Gottlieb brought the case after receiving text messages advertising a chance to win free gas for a year through the Club Citgo mobile app. The Houston-based company sent the texts to about 93,000 people who signed up for Citgo-sponsored sweepstakes, according to the plaintiff. The lawsuit alleged that Citgo sent the text messages using auto- dialing software in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Gottlieb also claimed he and other recipients did not give their consent to receive the messages just because they entered contests. "You would go to [Coral Sky] Amphitheatre in West Palm Beach for a Dave Matthews concert, and you would see a sign saying, 'For a seat upgrade, text Citgo,' " said one of Gottlieb's attorneys, Jeff Ostrow, Esq. -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert in Fort Lauderdale. Ostrow's colleagues Scott Edelsberg -- edelsberg@kolawyers.com -- and Avi Kaufman -- Kaufman@kolawyers.com -- also worked on the case, along with co-counsel Andrew Shamis -- ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com -- of Shamis & Gentile in Miami. Gottlieb, who is on the Do Not Call list, received three text messages in late 2016 and filed his lawsuit in November of that year. "His privacy was wrongfully invaded, and plaintiff has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of unwanted text messages forcing him to divert attention away from his work and other activities," the lawsuit claimed. Class counsel reviewed more than 100,000 pages of documents from Citgo and collected information from the defendant's text- messaging vendors, mGage and Black Canyon. "We learned that they're using computer software that a lot of companies are using, and right now there's a lot of litigation out there as to whether that's an auto-dialer," Edelsberg said. In a Northern District of Georgia case involving an Atlanta nightclub, a judge ruled in 2016 that mGage did not meet the Federal Communications Commission's definition of "auto-dialing" because the platform required human involvement. The same question is being examined in other TCPA lawsuits across the country. In Gottlieb's case, the court did not decide the auto-dialing issue because the case settled so quickly. U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in Fort Pierce moved things along by setting the trial for Dec. 4, 2017, putting the case on a one-year schedule instead of letting it stretch three or four years, Ostrow said. "The court wasn't interested in entertaining any extensions," he said. "So we got a lot of work done." The parties had two all-day sessions with mediator David Lichter of the Lichter Law Firm in Aventura. The case settled in July, and Rosenberg gave final approval Nov. 23. Citgo agreed to pay $8 million to the class, which includes anyone who received the texts, regardless of whether they were on the Do Not Call list. The company will also foot the bill for about $300,000 in settlement administration fees. Class counsel will receive one-third of the payout, or about $2.67 million, in attorney fees. "What they're having to pay far outweighs what they got out of the campaign," Ostrow said. "From a business perspective, I don't believe they'll ever engage in a business practice like this again." Citgo and its Miami lawyers, Martin Goldberg, Esq. -- mgoldberg@lashgoldberg.com -- and Greg Weintraub, Esq. -- gweintraub@lashgoldberg.com -- of Lash & Goldberg, did not respond to a request for comment. Chicago attorneys Scott Solberg, Esq. -- ssolberg@eimerstahl.com -- and James Kylstra, Esq. -- jkylstra@eimerstahl.com -- of Eimer Stahl also represented Citgo. [GN] CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH: Underpays Workers, Castanon Claims -------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL CASTANON, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITRUS VALLEY HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages for all hours worked and overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have uniformly and systematically failed and continue to fail to pay all wages owed for time worked, failed and continue to fail to pay all overtime compensation owed for time worked in excess of either eight hours in one work day or 40 hours in one work week, failed and continue to fail to provide meal periods, failed and continue to fail to provide rest periods, failed and continue to fail to indemnify employees for all necessary expenditures incurred in direct consequence of the discharge of work duties, and failed and continue to fail to timely furnish complete and accurate itemized wage. Citrus Valley Health Partners, Inc. operates a network of hospitals and a hospice center that provide health care services to the residents of the East San Gabriel Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Maria L. Weitz, Esq. Neil M. Larsen, Esq. Alexander Gamez, Esq. BOUCHERLLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 4903 Telephone: (818) 340 5400 Facsimile: (818) 340 5401 E-mail: ray@boucher.la weitz@boucher.la larsen@boucher.la gamez@boucher.la - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609 0807 Facsimile: (818) 609 0892 COMMUNITY HOUSING: Fails to Pay All Earned Wages, De Love Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELO DE LOVE, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No. CGC-17-563450 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other similarly situated current and former employees in California for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged failures to provide all rest and meal periods, pay all wages earned for all hours worked, indemnify for business expenses, fairly compete, provide accurate written wage statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of employment. Community Housing Partnership is a nonprofit organization in San Francisco, California, that provides housing, job training and other services to formerly homeless people. Founded in 1990, it owns and operates 14 residential buildings and collaborates with other organizations in its goals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Caroline T. Ahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582 3086 Facsimile (818) 582 2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com caroline@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com CONE DRIVE: Joint Bid to Certify Workers Class Filed in UAW Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit captioned INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, and its LOCAL 21, and SALLY KANTZ, DUANE LAUTNER, GEORGE SNYDER, and EDWARD VAN LEISHOUT, as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated v. CONE DRIVE OPERATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-01304-JTN (W.D. Mich.), jointly ask that the Court: 1. conditionally certify this class action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 2. conditionally appoint the Named Plaintiffs and Class Counsel as representatives of the Class. The class is defined as: All former bargaining unit employees of Defendant Cone Drive Operations, Inc., or its predecessors in interest (together "Cone Drive"), who were hired on or before October 26, 2002, and retired from Cone Drive's Traverse City facility by April 1, 2011, and the spouses, eligible surviving spouses, and eligible dependents of the same. The lawsuit is a proposed class action lawsuit for breach of a collectively bargained employee benefit plan. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint and alleged that members of a proposed class of retired unionized employees have a vested contractual right to certain retiree health insurance benefits. The Defendant filed an answer denying liability. Following limited discovery and extended settlement discussions, the parties have reached a proposed settlement of the claims raised in the complaint. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TG3EmfsY The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Fayette, Esq. PINSKY, SMITH, FAYETTE & KENNEDY, LLP 146 Monroe Center, NW, Suite 805 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Telephone: (616) 451 -8496 E-mail: mfayette@psfklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Timothy J. Ryan, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 61 Commerce Ave. SW, 5th Floor Grand Rapids, MI 49503-4124 Telephone: (616) 940-0240 E-mail: Ryan@jacksonlewis.com CONNECTICUT: Faces "Eisenlohr" Suit in Dist. of Connecticut ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Connecticut. The case is captioned as Pamela Dudgeon Eisenlohr and S. D. E., minor, Brought by next friend and parent, Pamela Dudgeon Eisenlohr and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. State of Connecticut; State of CT Judicial Branch; State of Connecticut Attorney General; and Office of the State's Attorney Connecticut, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02174-SRU (D. Conn., Dec. 19, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Connecticut is a U.S. state in southern New England that has a mix of coastal cities and rural areas dotted with small towns. Mystic is famed for its Seaport museum filled with centuries-old ships, and the beluga whale exhibits at Mystic Aquarium. On Long Island Sound, the city of New Haven is known as the home of Yale University and its acclaimed Peabody Museum of Natural History.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. COOKIES UNITED: "Cruz" Suit Seeks OT Premium Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- FELIPE CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COOKIES UNITED, LLC and UNITED BAKING CO., INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-07557-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover overtime premium pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and by the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective, proper overtime wages as required by law for morning and afternoon breaks of 15 minutes each, for a total break time of at least one half hour daily, and by failing to compensate employees when they were required. These violations arose out of the Defendant's uniform, company-wide policies, pattern and/or practice of violating wage and hour law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Moser, Esq. MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C. Three School Street, Suite 207B Glen Cove, NY 11542 Telephone: (516) 671 1150 Facsimile: (516) 882 5420 CORECIVIC INC: Sued Over Immigrants' Forced Labor in Detention -------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Morrissey, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that immigrants in detention in San Diego are suing a private prison company, alleging exploitation and forced labor that their attorneys say breaks human trafficking laws. The class-action lawsuit, filed December 27 in San Diego federal court, alleges that immigrants at Otay Mesa Detention Center are paid at most $1.50 per day, and sometimes not paid at all, for their work as kitchen staff, janitors, barbers and various other roles. It further alleges that the facility doesn't provide all of the basic necessities that detainees need for daily life, like soap, which means they have to work in order to buy those items at the commissary. Sometimes, the lawsuit says, facility staff threatened to put detainees in solitary confinement or take away visitation rights if they said they didn't want to work. CoreCivic, the company that contracts with the government to operate the facility, said that it does not comment on pending litigation and has not yet been served with the lawsuit. "Our complaint alleges CoreCivic illegally enriches itself on the backs of a captive workforce," said Korey Nelson, Esq. -- knelson@burnscharest.com -- partner at Burns Charest, a law firm with offices in Dallas and New Orleans that specializes in complex class action suits. Otay Mesa Detention Center holds detainees in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for those with pending cases in immigration court. A spokeswoman for ICE deferred to CoreCivic when asked about the case. ICE is not named as a defendant. While work programs that pay little are common in prisons, the complaint argues that there is a legal difference for those in the immigration system. The complaint hinges on the fact that immigration court is a civil court system, not a criminal one. That means that, unlike people in jail or prison, those going through the immigration court system cannot be detained as punishment. ICE has authority to detain someone only if the agency believes that person won't show up in court or if the agency suspects the person would be dangerous to society if released. Because of the distinction between civil detention and criminal detention, there are different legal standards for what can be expected of those held in the two systems, explained Chris Morris, Esq. a local civil rights attorney. "They're supposed to treat you better than jail," said Morris, who is not affiliated with the lawsuit. "If it's in any level a punishment, that's a problem." A separate area of the Otay Mesa facility holds people charged with federal crimes who are in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service. The lawsuit does not include them. Tony Cerone, senior adviser to the local chapter of the ICE union, said that all work at the facility outside of cleaning individual quarters and pod common areas is voluntary. "Detainees are required to keep their quarters and the common area clean," Cerone said. "They don't get maid service." He said some of the detainee jobs at the facility are so popular that they have waiting lists. "Kitchen workers get extra food to consume and can make special concoctions while working," Cerone said. "Many detainees enjoy getting out of the units and getting the perks that go along with it." ICE's detention standard, which sets conditions that contracting companies like CoreCivic must meet, says that work beyond making their beds, stacking loose papers, keeping the floor free of debris and refraining from hanging items from lighting fixtures and furniture is voluntary and should be compensated by a minimum of $1 per day. The lawsuit argues that by creating conditions where detainees feel forced to work and paying far less than minimum wage, CoreCivic is breaking state and federal human trafficking laws. "This labor is not voluntary in any meaningful sense," the complaint says. It alleges that CoreCivic makes an "exponentially" higher profit because of cheap or free detainee labor. Other lawsuits with similar allegations have been filed against private prison companies that operate immigration facilities in Colorado and Washington state, as well as in Adelanto. The five detainees named in the Otay Mesa complaint are all asylum seekers, meaning they say they are afraid they will be persecuted if they return to their home countries. Two are a father and stepson pair from El Salvador who live in Bakersfield and were held at the San Diego facility from May through November. The two men, according to the complaint, were told that they had to waive any rights to worker's compensation when they started working in the facility's kitchen. Juan Jose Merino-Rodas, the stepson, was badly burned on his arm during his work in the kitchen. The complaint alleges that he was denied worker's compensation and required to return to work one day later. The other three people named in the case are women, from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras. All three are still detained, according to the complaint. The woman from Honduras, Jennye Pagoada-Lopez, has spoken out before about conditions in detention. Pagoada-Lopez said that when she came to the San Ysidro Port of Entry to ask for asylum, she was pregnant and that she miscarried while in border officials' custody. She spoke out about medical care at the facility because she has a blood condition that she worried was not being adequately treated by the facility's staff. She spoke out again after her unit was temporarily evacuated in the middle of the night because a detainee cleaning crew used a noxious chemical that made many of them ill. [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suit in New York Alleging False Labeling ---------------------------------------------------------------- THE PRESERVE AT CONNETQUOT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, KIMBERLY- CLARK CORPORATION, THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, TARGET CORPORATION, WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC. and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-07050 (E.D.N.Y., December 4, 2017), seeks to recover for the harm being caused by the Defendants' alleged deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution and sale of wipes labeled as "flushable." Purportedly flushable wipes include all moist wipe products marketed and labeled as safe to flush, safe for plumbing, safe for sewer systems and/or biodegradable. The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners Association, Inc., brings this action on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated entities that own and/or operate sewage or wastewater treatment plants or facilities, including homeowners associations, municipalities and wastewater districts. The Plaintiff alleges that the Flushable Wipes do not break up into small pieces or disintegrate during or soon after flushing and, thus, are not flushable under any definition of the term -- even under Defendants' own industry guidelines that were specifically designed for their products to pass. Costco, a Washington corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. Headquartered in Issaquah, Washington, Costco offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories, including Kirkland Signature, its generic line, under which Costco manufactures and sells Kirkland Signature Moist Flushable Wipes. CVS, a Delaware corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides integrated pharmacy health care services in the United States. Headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, CVS offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories, including Total Home, its generic line. Kimberly-Clark, a Delaware corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and health care products worldwide. Kimberly-Clark is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Procter & Gamble, an Ohio corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells branded consumer packaged goods. Target, a Minnesota corporation, operates general merchandise stores in the United States. Target is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Walgreens, an Illinois corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates a network of drugstores in the United States. Headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois, Walgreens provides consumer goods and services, pharmacy, and health and wellness services through drugstores, as well as through mail, and by telephone and online. Wal-Mart, a Delaware corporation, is a retail business offering a range of merchandise categories. Headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, Wal-Mart offers candy, snack foods, tobacco, alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages, and cleaning and institutional supplies; appliances, electronics, health and beauty aids, hardware, office supplies, toys, seasonal items, and automotive supplies; and dry and institutionally packaged foods. The Defendants are involved with the manufacturing, distributing, advertising, marketing and/or sale of the Flushable Wipes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Vincent M. Serra, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com vserra@rgrdlaw.com CRYPTO COMPANY: Brower Piven Files Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of The Crypto Company securities during the period between August 21, 2017 through December 18, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until February 20, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Crypto securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that Crypto unlawfully engaged in a scheme to promote and manipulate the company's stock. According to the complaint, on December 19, 2017, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission suspended the Company's trading due to concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace about compensation paid for promotion of the Company and statements in filings about plans of company insiders to sell their shares until January 3, 2018. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Crypto securities purchased on or after August 21, 2017 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven Telephone: 410-415-6616 Email: hoffman@browerpiven.com piven@browerpiven.com [GN] DAKOTA TRAVEL: Sued by "Leonard" Over Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Tina Leonard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dakota Travel Nurse Home Care, Inc., Jamie Fleck and Beverly Unrath, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00266 (D. N.D., December 14, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation as well as for liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Dakota Wage Law. Defendants are in the business of in-home healthcare, private duty nursing and in-home care as a home health agency where Leonard began working for Defendants on or about December 6, 2016 as a home health care provider often working up to eighty hours per week without the appropriate overtime compensation. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel. (440) 498-9100 Fax (216) 621-1094 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com DART CONTAINER: Roberts Sues over Collection of Biometric Info -------------------------------------------------------------- LAQUANDERIA ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. DART CONTAINER CORPORATION OF ILLINOIS, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-09295 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages pursuant to Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Complaint alleges that Dart violated the BIPA by using face geometry scanning technology at a facility in Chicago, Illinois, for the purpose of having workers at that facility clock-in and clock-out for shifts. The Plaintiff alleges that Dart violated BIPA by obtaining a scan of her facial geometry without first obtaining her informed consent, and by not having a publicly available retention policy regarding biometric information such as facial geometry scans. The Plaintiff alleges that the putative class consists of "hundreds, if not thousands, of members of the Class." Dart Container Corporation of Mason, Michigan, United States, is the world's largest manufacturer of foam cups and containers, producing about as many as all competitors combined. Dart Container is privately held by the Dart family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. William P. Kingston, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275 7895 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Hayes Ryan, Esq. Brian H. Myers, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP One North Franklin, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312 619 4913 Facsimile: 312 565 6511 E-mail: HayesRyan@grsm.com BMyers@grsm.com DASUYA ENTERPRISES: "Earin" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL SMITH AND TIFFANY EARIN, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DASUYA ENTERPRISES, LLC; MINAKSHI PANDIT; AND HANU KAUSHAL, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-17895-CJB-JVM (E.D. La., Dec. 28, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, employment with the Defendants was less than ideal. The work environment was permeated by hostility, and was a place where the Defendants showed a fundamental lack of respect for their employees and an indifference to workplace safety and their working environment. Not surprisingly, the Defendants also flouted their obligations under the FLSA by refusing to pay the employees proper wages, including minimum wages and overtime. Specifically, under the Defendants' wage compensation system, the Defendants did (and do) not pay Plaintiffs and the members of the collective action class time and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Rather, the Defendants merely paid Plaintiffs and the members of the collective straight time for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Furthermore, the Defendants unlawfully required Plaintiffs and the FLSA Plaintiffs to work "off the clock" and did not pay them minimum wage for these hours. Finally, Defendants made unlawful and unexplained deductions from Plaintiffs' pay. The Defendants operate Subway stores in the New Orleans and Jefferson Parish area.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett 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 DAVID'S BRIDAL: Mendizabal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA MENDIZABAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DAVID'S BRIDAL, INC. and CLAYTON, DUBILIER & RICE, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-09494 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2017), accuses the Defendants of failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or visually-impaired people. Ms. Mendizabal is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her computer. David's Bridal, Inc., is a Florida business corporation both registered and licensed to do business in New York. Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, Inc., is a Delaware corporation both registered and licensed to do business in New York. The Defendants operate http://www.davidsbridal.com/and its Web site, and advertises, markets, distributes, and sells wedding dresses, prom gowns, and other related formalwear products in the state of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C. 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (718) 425-8954 E-mail: Joseph@Jmizrahilaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com DCT ENTERPRISES: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, Rich Says ------------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL RICH, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. DCT ENTERPRISES OF OKLAHOMA, INC., MATT O'DONNELL and JASON OPIE, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv- 00020-W (W.D. Okla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Papa John's pizza franchise stores in Oklahoma and other states. Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. Instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks. The Plaintiff further brings an individual claim under the FLSA to recover unpaid compensation at time and a half owed for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek and a wage claim under Oklahoma law for recovery of unpaid wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff A. Taylor, Esq. THE OFFICES AT DEEP FORK CREEK 5613 N. Classen Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286 1600 Telecopy: (405) 842 6132 DECISIONHR XIII: "Ladicani" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Mayda Mercedes Ladicani, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Decisionhr XIII, Inc.; James J. Dauria, individually; Michael J. Zanakis, individually, jointly, and severally liable; and North Miami Motorsports, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 17-27358-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Jan. 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20073-RNS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas Barry Melamed, Esq. BANKER LOPEZ GASSLER PA 1200 South Pine Island Road, Suite 170 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 703 3597 Facsimile: (954) 533 3051 E-mail: service-dmelamed@bankerlopez.com DEN-MAT HOLDINGS: Monette Says Toothbrush Heads Defective --------------------------------------------------------- RENAE MONETTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEN-MAT HOLDINGS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2017-00049950-CU-NP-NC (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 27, 2017), alleges that DEN-MAT knew, through internal sources, testing, and consume complaints available online, that its toothbrush heads were defective. Owners of the products publicly complain about these brush heads. Yet despite this knowledge, DEN-MAT failed to disclose and actively concealed the brush heads defects from Class Members and the public, and continued to force consumers to pay for out of warranty changes, without remedying the internal issue. The Plaintiff purchased this product for personal and family use. The Defendant's representatives did not mention their knowledge of the defect, and did not suggest any repairs that could be made. The Plaintiff paid out-of-pocket brush head replacement, as suggested by Defendant' representatives to remedy the issue, for a charge of over $400. To date, Plaintiff's toothbrush continues to be inoperable, and has not been or remedied whatsoever by the multiple replacements that she paid out-of-pocket for. As a result of DEN-MAT's alleged misconduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages. DenMat is a worldwide dental lab products manufacturer of dental supplies including impressions, pharmaceuticals, restoratives, curing lights, dental labs, lesion detection, soft-tissue lasers, magnification, illumination, oral hygiene, whitening, instruments and dental events offering CE credits.[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. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com DEV MEDICAL: Wins Prelim. OK of "Moreno" Deal; Hearing on March 6 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber granted the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the lawsuit titled Ernestina Moreno et al. v. DEV Medical Associates S.C., Case No. 1:16-cv-09519 (N.D. Ill.). Final approval hearing is set for March 6, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3OdA3BM8 DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage Healthcare Hits Illegally-faxed Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- Advantage Healthcare, Ltd., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. DNA Diagnostics Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-09001 (N.D. Ill., December 14, 2017), seeks statutory damages for each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees and all other relief. The complaint says Defendant faxed two advertisements about its DNA testing services. Advantage Healthcare did not expressly consent to receive any advertisement them. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Robert M. Hatch, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 658-5500 Fax: (312) 658-5555 Email: service@classlawyers.com DNA DIAGNOSTICS: Advantage Healthcare Seeks to Certify TCPA Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned ADVANTAGE HEALTHCARE, LTD., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons v. DNA DIAGNOSTICS CENTER, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-09001 (N.D. Ill.), moves for entry of an order certifying this class: Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after October 12, 2013 offering laboratory testing services available through 1-800-DNA-CENTER (1-800-362-2368) that did not inform the fax recipient that he or she may make a request to the sender of the advertisement not to send any future facsimile advertisements and that failure to comply with the request within 30 days in unlawful. Advantage Healthcare tells the Court that it files this motion soon after the filing of its Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt by the Defendant to moot Plaintiff's individual claims in the class action. However, in this case, the Plaintiff contends, additional discovery is necessary for the court to determine whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to represent. As a result, the Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable. The case involves common fact questions about the Defendant's fax campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DCXZAawF The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. David. M. Oppenheim, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com tod@bockhatchllc.com david@classlawyers.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Shapiro Sues over Debt Collection Calls --------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL A. SHAPIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60035-BB (S.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The case also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, arising from Defendant's knowing and willful violations of the TCPA. The Defendant is a nationwide debt collector providing collection services to banking, student loan, health care, and retail businesses. This case arises from Defendant's transmission of automated and prerecorded debt collection calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and others, without consumers' prior express consent. Various lawsuits have been filed against Defendant for violating the TCPA. Nevertheless, Defendant continues to violate the statute and consumers' privacy rights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Telephone: (954) 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE P.C. 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08083 Telephone: (856) 797 9951 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com rschmierer@denittislaw.com DYNEGY INC: "Paskowitz" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Paskowitz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dynegy Inc., Pat Wood, III, Robert C. Flexon, Hilary E. Ackermann, Paul M. Barbas, Richard Kuersteiner, Jeffrey S. Stein, John R. Sult, and Vistra Energy Corp., Case No. 4:18-cv-00027 (S.D. Tex., January 4, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October 30, 2017, pursuant to which Dynegy Inc. will be acquired by Vistra Energy Corp. On December 13, 2017, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The complaint says the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Plaintiff is, and has been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner of Dynegy common stock. Defendant Dynergy Inc. began operations in 1984 and incorporated in Delaware in 2007. Defendant is a holding company that conducts substantially all of its business operations through its subsidiaries. Dynegy's primary business is the production and sale of electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services from its fleet of 50 power plants in 12 states totaling approximately 31,000 megawatts of generating capacity. Defendant Vistra Energy is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices at 6555 Sierra Drive, Irving, Texas 75039. Vistra Energy's common stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "VST." Vistra Energy is a party to the Merger Agreement. The Individual Defendants are directors of Dynergy. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Tel: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Mauro Says Microwave Oven Handles Defective ------------------------------------------------------------ DEAN MAURO, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01397- TJM-DEP (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 30, 2017), seeks to redress a defective condition present in Electrolux Over-The-Range Microwave Ovens with stainless steel handles bearing part number 5304481502 that were warranted, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendants throughout the State of New York. The Microwaves are designed for installation on a vertical wall directly above the cooking surface of the range, but when the cooking surface below is in operation the Microwave's STAINLESS STEEL HANDLE heats to excessive temperatures rendering the handle unfit for use with a bare hand and exposing anyone who touches it to a substantial risk of permanent and/or serious injury. This Handle Defect is unreasonably dangerous and renders the Microwaves' handles unfit to use when opening the Microwave door -- its intended and ordinary purpose. As a result of the hollow handle construction comprised of thin walls of stainless steel, the STAINLESS STEEL HANDLES with the Handle Defect heat to temperatures in excess of those permitted under ASTM Standard C1055-03 (Reapproved 2014). As a result of this Handle Defect and Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff brings claims for: New York General Business Law sections 349, 350; negligence; strict liability-design defect and failure to warn; negligent failure to warn; violations of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2301, et seq. ("MMWA"); breach of implied warranty of merchantability; and unjust enrichment. Electrolux Home manufactures and sells household appliances in North America. It offers products in the categories of kitchen that include cooktops, wall ovens, ranges, warmer drawers, ventilators, microwaves, dishwashers, refrigerators, and small kitchen appliances; laundry; vacuums and homecare; and filters. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Zweig, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 752 5455 Facsimile: (917) 210 3980 E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. Charles J. Kocher, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496 8282 Facsimile: (215) 496 0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com ckocher@smbb.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com - and - Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq. Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: tony@hbsslaw.com jeniphr@hbsslaw.com ENCORE HOSPITALITY: Accused by Ramos-Rios of Not Paying Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL RAMOS-RIOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ENCORE HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC685624 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 5, 2017), accuses the Defendants of failure to pay overtime wages and pay minimum wages, among other failures. Encore Hospitality Services, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company, authorized to conduct business in the state of California, and does conduct business in the California. Encore Hospitality maintains offices and facilities in California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Braunson C. Virjee, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com EXPERIAN INFO: Clements et al. Sue over Antedated Trade Lines ------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA CLEMENTS, EDUARDO LUCIO, STEVEN LOSS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC, and TXU Energy Retail Company, LLC and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv- 00390 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2017), is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging that Defendant Experian has been and is continuing to report a TXU account on a Experian credit report that antedates the report by more than seven years and six months, in violation of the FCRA. Additionally, Experian continues to report the antedated trade lines even after some Plaintiffs' disputed the same and as such failed to properly investigate Plaintiffs' dispute. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that Experian has failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in its reporting of antedated TXU trade lines. If Experian had proper procedures in place, it would not allow antedated trade lines to report on Plaintiffs' Experian credit reports over seven years and six months from the original delinquency date. Experian is one of the largest credit reporting agencies in the United States, and is engaged in the business of assembling and disseminating credit reports concerning hundreds of millions of consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis McCarty, Esq. Jonathan Raburn, Esq. MCCARTY & RABURN, PLLC P.O. Box 1448 Cedar Hill, TX 75106-1448 Telephone: (817) 704 3375 Facsimile: (817) 887 5069 - and - Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695 3282 Facsimile: (732) 298 6256 FCA US: Faces "Wildin" Suit in Southern District of California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case is captioned as Ryan Wildin and Sarah Wildin, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02594-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. FCA US LLC is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian-American automobile manufacturer registered in the Netherlands with headquarters in London, U.K., for tax purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan L Lurie, Esq. WEISS AND LURIE 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 23rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 208 2800 Facsimile: (310) 209 2348 E-mail: jordan.lurie@capstonelawyers.com FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: Bernardez Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ALAN BERNARDEZ and TAWANNA PITTMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS USA, LLC d/b/a MEDASSIST, Case No. 3:17-cv-00613-DJH-DW (W.D. Ky.), pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act moves for entry of an order: (1) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective, defined as: All current and former Patient Service Representatives, Floaters/Trainers, and/or Team Leads employed by Defendant Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC d/b/a MedAssist at any time during the period of three years preceding the commencement of this action through the date on which conditional certification is granted; (2) approving Plaintiffs' proposed "Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms and authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to circulate the court-approved Notice via first-class mail and e-mail to the proposed FLSA collective as well as send a text message informing them of their right to opt in to the case; (3) directing Defendant to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, job titles, dates of employment and locations of employment in an electronic and importable format such as an unrestricted Excel spreadsheet within 14 calendar days of the entry of the order; and (4) allowing putative FLSA collective members an opt-in period of 60 days from circulation of the court-approved Notice to file their written consent forms. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bvJuBfpT The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com - and - Trent Taylor, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (800) 274-5297 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com FLEX FLORIDA: "Bejerano" Suit Alleges Overtime Wage Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Dionys Bejerano, Jorge L. Granados Millan, and all others similarly situated v. Flex Florida Corp. dba Best Awnings and Felix G. Arbucias, Case No. 1:18-cv-20049 (S.D. Fla., January 5, 2018), is brought against Defendants for overtime wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as awning installers and awning welders. Defendants provide aluminum and retractable awnings, cabanas, canvas, carport, deck & patio covers, canopies & other shade structures. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 GAS FIREPLACE: Court Approves Class-Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- Dan Fumano, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a "hard- fought" five-year class action lawsuit has drawn to a close this month, with a B.C. Supreme Court judge approving a settlement agreement between gas fireplace manufacturers and plaintiffs representing children who suffered burns. In the settlement, three defendant companies agreed to retrofit screens and provide barriers, free of charge, for gas fireplaces installed over a 14-year period some of which, court heard, had caused injury to young children. The defendants did not admit any liability or guilt in the settlement, which was approved this month by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Sewell. "This proceeding has been hard-fought from the beginning," says the notice of application filed Dec. 4 by lawyers representing the plaintiffs, seeking the judge's approval of a settlement agreed upon after years of sometimes contentious legal wrangling. This month's settlement follows a partial settlement in 2015 which was approved, according to court filings, only after several lawyers for both sides "engaged in a protracted, at times difficult and ultimately successful arm's-length negotiation over a period of many months." This month's settlement covers the remaining defendant corporations who did not agree to the 2015 settlement. Mike Wagner, Esq. -- mwagner@farris.com -- a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said this week: "We went toe-to-toe against huge corporations and got a good result on behalf of consumers." "Class actions tend to take longer than you think when you start them, but this was really an odyssey for us," said Wagner, of the firm Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy. This month's settlement is largely the same as the 2015 agreement, but also requires the defendant companies to make a charitable donation of $25,000 to the B.C. Children's Hospital, to be matched by a donation from Farris. The lawsuit involved gas fireplaces installed between 2001 and 2014 from manufacturers including Lennox, Montigo and Miles Industries. The class-action comes to a close almost exactly five years after it was commenced in December 2012 by Charity and Craig Cantlie, a month after the Vancouver couple's one-year-old son Owen seriously burned his hand when he touched a gas fireplace. Craig Cantlie said December 28: "The wheels of justice go slow sometimes . . . but it's nice that's there's been a positive settlement to it all." "Realistically, it's probably the best outcome we could have hoped for," Cantlie said. "We got in this to hopefully just make a change." In recognition of the Cantlies' time and service to the case, they were each awarded a $4,000 honorarium in the 2015 settlement. They decided not to keep the money, but instead to donate all $8,000 to the B.C. Professional Firefighters' Burn Fund for the creation of the Owen Cantlie Bursary, Craig Cantlie swore in an affidavit filed this month, writing: "The Owen Cantlie Bursary will be awarded annually to support the educational pursuits of young burn victims." The bursary has been awarded twice so far to young burn victims to support their educations, Cantlie said. In support of the class action, Dr. Cynthia Verchere, medical director of the burn program at B.C. Children's Hospital, swore in an affidavit she had personally treated or supervised the treatment of "well over 100 children from British Columbia whose hands and/or faces were burned through contact with gas fireplaces," and co-authored a study documenting more than 600 serious burns suffered by Canadian children from glass-fronted gas fireplaces. That study reported a "greater than 20-fold increase over 20 years" in the number of burns from glass-fronted fireplaces, demonstrating "a growing risk from glass-fronted fireplace burns, likely due to the increasing popularity of household gas fireplace units." Reached by phone this week, Verchere said: "I just kept seeing these kids come into my clinic (with burns) . . . There's lots of things that we just can't prevent, but for something that's completely preventable, it just seemed to me to be a big problem." Canadians who own a fireplace from the settling defendant companies are encouraged to contact the settlement administrator at 1-800-801-2521 or through the website www.gasfireplaceclaim.ca, so they can get more information and find out whether they can get a free screen or barrier. The defendants have also agreed to pay legal fees for Farris' work on behalf of the plaintiffs, which came to approximately $1.8 million between the two settlements. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: Damore and Gudeman Allege Gender & Racial Bias ---------------------------------------------------------- JAMES DAMORE and DAVID GUDEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 18CV321529 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to stop Google from repeating discrimination practices against other employees or prospective employees now, and in the future. The Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action ("Political Class Period"); (ii) due to their male gender by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action ("Gender Class Period"); and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action ("Race Class Period") (Political Class Period, Gender Class Period, and Race Class Period referred to collectively, as "Class Periods"). These violations also subject Google to claims for violation of California's Business and Professions Code. Throughout the Class Periods, and in violation of California law, Google employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google's employment policies and its business, such as "diversity" hiring policies, "bias sensitivity," or "social justice," were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights. Google's open hostility for conservative thought is paired with invidious discrimination on the basis of race and gender, barred by law. Google's management goes to extreme -- and illegal -- lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race and/or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and male employees and potential employees at Google. According to the lawsuit, Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination -- Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics. According to the lawsuit, Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google's illegal employment practices, they were openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google's view or the "Googley way," as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers -- and they did so. According to the lawsuit, Google employs illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas -- in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others. Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with "boos" during companywide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the Class Periods. Google is an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products. These include online advertising technologies, search, cloud computing, software, and hardware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq. Ravdeep S. Grewal, Esq. Gregory R. Michael, Esq. DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 433 1700 Facsimile: (415) 520 6593 E-mail: harmeet@dhillonlaw.com rgrewal@dhillonlaw.com gmichael@dhillonlaw.com HIG CAPITAL: Faces "Klein" Stockholder Suit in Delaware Ch. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- MELVYN KLEIN v. H.I.G. CAPITAL, L.L.C.; H.I.G. SURGERY CENTERS, LLC; H.I.G. BAYSIDE DEBT & LBO FUND II; BCPE SEMINOLE HOLDINGS LP; BAIN CAPITAL INVESTORS, LLC; BAIN CAPITAL PRIVATE EQUITY, LP; MICHAEL DOYLE; MATTHEW LOZOW; ADAM FEINSTEIN; TERESA DELUCA; and BRENT TURNER, Defendants, and SURGERY PARTNERS, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2017-0862 (Del. Ch. Ct., December 4, 2017), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of similarly situated stockholders, asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and, in the alternative, against Bain Capital for aiding- and-abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by the other Defendants. The action arises from a conflicted three-part transaction involving Surgery Partners, the Company's former majority stockholder (HIG) and the Company's current majority stockholder (Bain Capital), according to the complaint. On May 9, 2017, the Company entered into three linked transactions, all of which were approved by HIG via written consent: a. The NSH Acquisition. Surgery Partners agreed to acquire National Surgical Healthcare ("NSH") from Irving Place Capital for approximately $760 million; b. The HIG Share Sale. HIG agreed to sell all of its common shares of Surgery Partners -- representing a 54% stake in the Company -- to Bain Capital at a price of $19 per share for a total purchase price of approximately $502.7 million (the "HIG Share Sale"); and c. The Bain Capital Share Issuance. Surgery Partners agreed to issue and sell to Bain Capital 310,000 shares of a newly created class of Series A Preferred Stock (the "Preferred Stock"), at a price per share of $1,000 (i.e., a total price of $310 million) (the "Bain Capital Share Issuance"). H.I.G. Capital, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company. H.I.G. Capital is a private investment management firm that focuses on private equity, venture capital, debt/credit, real estate and public equity investments. H.I.G. Surgery Centers, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and is an affiliate of and managed by H.I.G. Capital, LLC. H.I.G. Bayside Debt & LBO Fund II is a Delaware limited partnership and is an affiliate of and managed by H.I.G. Capital, LLC. BCPE Seminole Holdings LP is a Delaware limited partnership and an affiliate of Bain Capital Private Equity, LP. Bain Capital Investors, LLC, is the sole member of BCPE Seminole GP LLC, which is the general partner of BCPE Seminole Holdings LP. Bain Capital Private Equity, LP, is a Delaware limited partnership. Bain Capital Private Equity is an investment advisory firm focused on researching and advising on private equity investments, including leveraged acquisitions and recapitalizations, investments in growth companies, turnarounds and traditional buyouts in a wide variety of industries. BCI is the general partner of Bain Capital Private Equity GP LLC, which, in turn, is the general partner of Bain Capital Private Equity, LP. Surgery Partners, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, providing surgical services across 29 states. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Surgery Partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kurt M. Heyman, Esq. Melissa N. Donimirski, Esq. HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 472-7300 E-mail: kheyman@hegh.law mdonimirski@hegh.law - and - Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Joel A. Fleming, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jason@blockesq.com joel@blockesq.com HOBSON PROPERTIES: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Waite" Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM WAITE, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED UNDER 29 USC 216(B) v. HOBSON PROPERTIES, d/b/a U-LOC-IT SELF STORAGE, 377 SELF STORAGE, OAK HILL STORAGE, and PHILIP RAY HOBSON, Individually, Case No. 3:17-cv-03278-M (N.D. Tex., December 4, 2017), alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate of pay when he was required to work in excess of 40 hours in a given week. Hobson Properties is a corporation that does business throughout this District. Hobson Properties owns and operates various properties and businesses, including U-Loc-It Self Storage, 377 Self Storage, and Oak Hill Storage. Philip R. Hobson is an owner or officer of Hobson Properties and its associated properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER LAW PC 1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 288-8519 Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 E-mail: jay@thewagelawyers.com HONEYWELL INTL: Brief Due Feb. 21 in "Pacheco" 4th Cir. Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- Augustine Pacheco and Vicki Hansen, for themselves and others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff - Appellees, v. Honeywell International Inc., the Defendant - Appellant, Case No. 18-1006 (8th Cir, Jan. 2, 2018), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class action, Case No. 0:17-cv-05048-SRN (D. Minn., Nov 7, 2017). Appellant brief is due on Feb. 21, 2018. Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief. Vicki Hansen and Augustine Pacheco's response were due Jan 8, 2018.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff - Appellees: John G. Adam, Esq. LEGGHIO & ISRAEL 306 S. Washington, Suite 600 Royal Oak, MI 48607 Telephone: (248) 398 5900 - and - Katrina E. Joseph, Esq. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 120 9422 Ulysses Street, N.E., Suite 120 Blaine, MN 55434 Telephone: 763-267-6146 Attorneys for Honeywell International, Inc.: Kenneth Winn Allen, Esq. Kathleen Ann Brogan, Esq. Craig Scott Primis, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005-0000 - and - Donald Marion Lewis, Esq. Jeremy D. Robb, Esq. Joseph George Schmitt, Esq. NILAN & JOHNSON 400 One Financial Plaza 120 S. Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Business: 612-305-7500 Personal: 612-338-1838 ICOT HEARING: Sued by "Charvat" Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Charvat, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Icot Hearing Systems, LLC D/B/A Listenclear and Icot Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 00245 (S.D. Ga., December 14, 2017), seeks statutory damages for each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees and all other relief. Defendants market hearing aids under the Listenclear brand via telemarketing. They attempted to call Charvat despite being on the Do-Not-Call Registry using auto-dialers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 513-6651 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@broderick-law.com IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law, Glancy Propose Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of American Depository Shares of iDreamSky Technology Limited: Summary Notice Of Pendency And Settlement Of Action And Settlement Hearing TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY LIMITED ("IDS") AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADS") BETWEEN AUGUST 7, 2014 AND MARCH 13, 2015, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on April 3, 2018, at 4:00 p.m. before the Honorable J. Paul Oetken, United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 706, New York, New York, 10007, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $4,150,000.00 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to thirty three and one-third percent (33 1/3%) plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $30,000, and an award of no more than $10,000, in aggregate, or $2,000 each, to Lead Plaintiff and named plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs"), should be approved; (4) whether an order should be entered barring and enjoining Lead Plaintiff and all Class Members from instituting, commencing, assisting, maintaining or prosecuting, either directly, indirectly, or in a representative capacity, any action in any court or tribunal asserting any Released Claims and (5) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated November 28, 2017 (the "Stipulation"). If you purchased IDS ADSs during the period from August 7, 2014 to March 13, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in IDS ADSs. If you have not received a Notice of (I) Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action; (II) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses; and (III) Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: iDreamSky Technology Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than March 20, 2018 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request ("Request for Exclusion"), you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion, postmarked no later than March 5, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Co-Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the Notice and filed and served so that it is received no later than March 13, 2018, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 CO-LEAD COUNSEL: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Keith Lorenze The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Joshua L. Crowell, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 COUNSEL FOR IDS: Scott D. Musoff, Esq. Robert A. Fumerton, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 COUNSEL FOR THE UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS: Peter Eric Kazanoff, Esq. Sarah Emily Phillips, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Co-Lead Counsel: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. Keith Lorenze, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel.: 215-600-2817 Joshua L. Crowell, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel.: (619) 238-1333 [GN] INTEL CORP: "Jones" Suit Alleges Consumer Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Carl Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Intel Corp. and Does 1-10, Case No. 5:18-cv-00105 (N.D. Calif., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendant for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Business & Professional Code, Song-Beverly Warranty Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of consumers who purchased computers containing an Intel x89-64x series of CPUs. Defendant Intel's x86-64x CPUs suffer from a security defect, which causes the CPUs to be exposed to troubling security vulnerabilities by allowing potential access to extremely secure kernel data (the "Defect"). Plaintiff Carl Jones resides in Santa Clara County, California. Plaintiff Jones purchased an MSI GT80 series laptop computer in this State online through Amazon.com for the sum certain of $3,047.91 on or about January 22, 2016. Defendant Intel Corp. is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing CPUs. Defendants design, manufacture, develop and ship their products to purchasers, resellers and distributors in and from California, maintain a direct sales force and customer service department in California, sell their products through retail outlets in California, and create the specifications for their products in and/or disseminates them from California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. Kenneth A. Remson, Esq. WESTERMAN LAW CORP. 1875 Century Park East, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 698-7880 Fax: (310) 698-7452 E-mail: jwesterman@jswlegal.com kremson@jswlegal.com - and - Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA 16870 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Tel: (619) 308-5034 Fax: (855) 274-1888 E-mail: alan@clgca.com INTERCONTINENTAL EXPORT: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Filed ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Saulton, writing for The Marietta Times, reports that two filings, one to dismiss and one to amend the original complaint in the Intercontinental Export Import fire, were filed December 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. In the motion to dismiss, attorneys for the Surnaik Holdings of West Virginia claim due to the hasty filings of claims there are a number of legal flaws. All cases related to the fire at the former Ames plant in Parkersburg were removed to U.S. District Court in November from Wood County Circuit Court to become class action suits. Attorneys for Surnaik Holdings claim the speed in which the claims were made, two days after the fire began in October and a week before it was extinguished, marked an uncertain beginning of the litigation. "Plaintiffs' hasty filing necessitated an equally hasty 'investigation of the factual and legal bases,'" the filing states. "As a result, plaintiffs' limited allegation and bare legal conclusions fail to provide defendants fair notice of the claims against them." The defendants claim the tort claims are barred by the economic loss rule, the trespass claim fails for lack of tangible interference, there is no claim for private nuisance and they lack standing to assert public nuisance, according to the court filing. The negligence claims cannot proceed because there are no plausible allegations to present or reasonably certain future injury and the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief does not constitute a cause of action, according to the court filing. "Accordingly, the array of defendants that plaintiffs sue just two days after the fire started now asks this court to hold the pleading accountable to the law," the filing states. "It cannot withstand the scrutiny." Parkersburg attorney David A. Sims, Esq. one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said he does not expect the court to grant the motion to dismiss. "We are preparing a response to the filing by the defendants in the case," he said December 28. "Motions to dismiss are rarely granted, even in federal court, and we don't anticipate this one being any different." At the same time a third amended class action complaint was filed to add defendants. In addition to IEI, SirNaik LLC, Surnaik Holdings of West Virginia LLC, Polymer Alliance Services LLC and Green Sustainable Solutions LLC and DuPont, the suit adds Evergreen Transportation, Green Research Center LLC, Kuraray America, Inc., SABIC Innovative Plastics U.S, LLC and individuals Upendra Naik, Saurabh Naik, Rajiv Naik and Shraddha Naik. Evergreen Transportation and Green Research Center LLC are companies listed as joint ventures of SirNaik LLC, Surnaik Holdings of West Virginia LLC, Polymer Alliance Services LLC, Green Sustainable Solutions LLC, Green Research Center LLC, IEI and John Does 1-25 and John Doe Corps. 26-50. In the amended suit, the individuals known as the Naik defendants are listed as being in joint ventures with DuPont, Kuraray America, Inc., and SABIC Innovative Plastics U.S., LLC, known as "manufacturer defendants." It is not specified as to what ventures in which they are involved. [GN] JAMES MAYER: Faces "Latteri" Suit in District of New Jersey ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Mayer. The case is captioned as LORAINE LATTERI, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JAMES MAYER and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-13707-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., Dec. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Jose L. Linares.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273 7117 Facsimile: (201) 273 7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com KOBE STEEL: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kobe Steel, Ltd. and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Kobe American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of Kobe Steel on the open market in the U.S., during the period May 29, 2013 through October 12, 2017, and were damaged thereby. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/kbsty. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose the quality of its products and integrity of its operations by emphasizing that it offers "excellent products and services" with "special attention to product safety" as it has "an organizational culture that is highly sensitive to compliance issues." The lawsuit claims that the Company withheld data on many of its aluminum, copper, iron and steel products, and knowingly sold products that failed quality control tests. On October 8, 2017, Kobe Steel stated that it "has discovered that in its Aluminum & Copper Business, including group companies, a portion of the products traded with customers did not comply with the product specifications which were agreed between the Company and its customers. Data in inspection certificates had been improperly rewritten etc., and the products were shipped as having met the specifications concerned." Following this news, shares of Kobe ADRs dropped $2.37 per share or roughly 40% during that week. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/kbstyor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Kobe you have until February 26, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwit, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Tel.No.: 212-697-6484 Email: peretz@bgandg.com [GN] KOBE STEEL: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing investors nationwide, disclosed that a class action has been filed against Kobe Steel, Ltd. and certain of its officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. In October of 2017, Kobe issued several statements admitting that it had "improperly rewritten" the data inspection certificates for thousands of tons of its copper and aluminum shipped to its customers, which include Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co., among others. On this news, the Company's stock plunged, causing hundreds of millions in losses to investors. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Aude v. Kobe Steel, Ltd, et al., 17-cv-10085), alleges that between May 29, 2013 and October 12, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the defendants repeatedly misrepresented the quality of the Company's products, knowing that Kobe had falsified data on many of its copper, aluminum, iron, and steel products, misrepresenting that such products had passed quality control tests. If you purchased Kobe American Depository Receipts during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 26, 2018. As a member of the class, you may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an absent class member. If you wish to become involved in the litigation or have questions about your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at bradley@blockesq.com, or by visiting www.blockesq.com/kobe. Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information relevant to this investigation is assured. Block & Leviton LLP is a Boston-based law firm representing investors nationwide. The firm's lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50 years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf. Block & Leviton's investigations into corporate wrongdoing were recently covered by the New York Times. The court in which the case is pending is located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. CONTACT: Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq. Block & Leviton LLP Tel.No.: (617) 398-5600 Email: bradley@blockesq.com [GN] KOBE STEEL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kobe Steel Ltd. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kobe Steel's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 29, 2013 and October 12, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Kobe Steel securities between May 29, 2013, and October 12, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until February 26, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Kobe Steel is one of Japan's largest steel manufacturers and a major supplier of aluminum and copper products. The Company's other business segments include wholesale power supply machinery, construction machinery, real estate and electronic materials. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company falsified data on many of its aluminum, copper and steel products sold to customers; (ii) the Company sold products that in reality failed quality control tests in violation of laws and regulations; (iii) the Company's financial performance relied on selling products that did not meet quality standards in violation of laws and regulations; (iv) the Company would incur significant costs and lose customers if customers became aware of the substandard quality of products they purchased; (v) the Company's compliance initiatives, corporate governance and risk management activities were ineffective and inadequate at preventing product data manipulation, fraud and other related misconduct; (vi) the Company's internal reporting systems failed to foster employee participation and adequately address employee concerns, and there was an excessive propensity by senior management, including the Individual Defendants, to hyper-emphasize profitability at all costs, that promoted a pervasive culture of corner-cutting, and looking the other way in the face of compliance violations, as long as profits were achieved, which deterred employees from making claims over product quality for fear of retribution and/or management failing to properly investigate claims; and (vii) as a result of the foregoing, Kobe Steel's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and class members suffered significant losses and damages. On October 8, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled "Improper conduct concerning a portion of the aluminum and copper products manufactured by Kobe Steel." The press release disclosed that certain of Kobe Steel's products "did not comply with the product specifications" and "[d]ata in inspection certificates had been improperly rewritten etc., and the products were shipped as having met the specifications concerned." On this news, Kobe Steel's ADR price fell $0.62, or over 10% from its previous closing price, to close at $5.30 per share on October 9, 2017. On October 10, 2017, before the U.S. market opened, Reuters published an article entitled, "Kobe Steel's data-fabrication stuns Japanese manufacturers," which disclosed that several major manufacturers had confirmed use of the affected Kobe Steel products. On this news, Kobe Steel's ADR price fell $1.30, or over 24% from its previous closing price, to close at $4.00 per share on October 10, 2017. On October 12, 2017, post-market, Bloomberg published an article entitled, "Kobe Steel Scandal Expands Into Core Business Overseas," which reported that the Company's fake data scandal included its core business of providing steel to numerous international companies. On October 13, 2017, Kobe Steel issued a press release entitled, "Report on improper conduct concerning Kobe Steel and its group of companies." The press release provided updated information about an investigation into the falsified data and related wrongdoing and listed numerous nonconforming products the Company had identified to date. On the same day, several media outlets reported that the number of impacted customers had more than doubled from the initial estimates of 200 customers. Following these news, Kobe Steel's ADR price fell $0.40, or over 10% from its previous closing price, to close at $3.55 per share on October 13, 2017. Subsequent news reports and the Company's own internal investigation revealed that Kobe Steel's lack of quality controls and data tampering was a result of, among other things, wholly inadequate and ineffective corporate governance and compliance initiatives. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] LET'S EAT OUT: Morehouse Seeks to Recover Overtime Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- TIAUNA MOREHOUSE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LET'S EAT OUT, INCORPORATED, Case No. 5:17- cv-02025-UJH-LSC (N.D. Ala., December 4, 2017), is brought on behalf of those employees, who were paid by the hour but were denied compensation for all hours worked, denied payment for overtime, denied minimum wage, and suffered illegal deductions from their pay for the three years preceding the filing of the original complaint and through the final disposition of this matter. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Let's Eat Out, Incorporated, is a foreign for-profit corporation, licensed to and doing business in Alabama. LEO operates food service franchises throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Hughes, Esq. HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP 2121 14th Street Tuscaloosa, AL 35401 Telephone: (205) 523-0463 Facsimile: (205) 344-6188 E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com - and - Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Garris Moves to Certify Landlord, Renter Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Switzer and Jason Teague, two of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled BRANDI GARRIS, JOHN SWITZER and JASON TEAGUE v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES and LOS ANGELES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT DEPARTMENT, f/k/a LOS ANGELES HOUSING DEPARTMENT, Case No. 2:17-cv-01452-MWF-E (C.D. Cal.), move for an order certifying the matter to proceed as a class action. The Plaintiffs ask that the Court define two Classes as follows: (1) The Landlord Class: All landlords who, between October 9, 2014 and class certification, owned a residential rental property subject to the Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201, and paid a fee pursuant to Section 161.352. (2) The Renter Class: All renters who, between October 9, 2014 and class certification, rented a residential rental unit subject to the Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201, and reimbursed their landlords for a fee the landlord paid pursuant to Section 161.352. Excluded from both Classes are the Defendants, their employees, agents and attorneys, the Court, and any landlords or renters whose units were only inspected pursuant to an administrative warrant or exigent circumstances. The Plaintiffs seek certification of both Classes for claims arising under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The Plaintiffs also seek appointment of Mr. Teague as class representative for the Landlord Class and Mr. Switzer as class representative for the Renter Class. The Plaintiffs further ask that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan be appointed as class counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on January 22, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KfRc3oNa The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dominic Surprenant, Esq. Michael Lombardo, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: dominicsurprenant@quinnemanuel.com mikelombardo@quinnemanuel.com LUCERNE BAKERY: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- VILMA M. MENDOZA, and other similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff (s), v. LUCERNE BAKERY, INC. and JORGE J. ROMERO, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24731-JEM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2017), is brought by Plaintiff as a collective action on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after October 2014, without being properly compensated. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a bakery and coffee shop attendant, cahier, and cleaning person from August 2014 through September 24, 2017, or more than 3 years. The Plaintiff was paid as a tipped employee $5.15 an hour plus tips received from customers. These tips were collected in a jar, and at the end of the week, were distributed to employees participating in the tip sharing agreement. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff worked a regular schedule of 6 days per week, from Monday to Saturday; from 1:00 PM to 6:00 PM (5 hours daily), or 30 hours weekly. However, within the period from August 2015, to February 2017, Plaintiff worked every week more than 40 hours. For at least 65 weeks Plaintiff worked in the morning shift, and then her regular afternoon shift. The Plaintiff worked weeks of 46, 54, 56, and 62 hours. Plaintiff did not take bona fide lunch breaks. The Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours every week, but she was not compensated adequately for overtime hours. The Defendant is a bakery/coffee shop located at 7415 Coral Way, Miami, Florida 33155.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446 1500 Facsimile: (305) 446 1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com LUNG INSTITUTE: "Rivero" Suit Moved to Middle District of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Tammy Rivero and Howard Bennett, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lung Institute, LLC and Regenerative Medicine Solutions, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 16-CA7765 Div F, was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit - Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) on Dec. 29, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-03113-SDM-MAP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday. The Lung Institute treats chronic lung disease with stem cell therapies to offer an alternative to traditional treatments.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Ben A. Vinson, Jr., Esq. VINSON LAW LLC 505 E Jackson St Suite 207 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 839 5708 Facsimile: (813) 831 5043 E-mail: ben@vinsonlawoffice.com Attorneys for Lung Institute, LLC Megan R. Stelljes, Esq. Naikang Tsao, Esq. Nicholas E. Williams, Esq. Foley & Lardner, LLP 150 E Gilman St PO Box 1497 Madison, WI 53701-1497 Telephone: (608) 257 5035 E-mail: ntsao@foley.com nwilliams@foley.com MARKETSOURCE INC: "Hoel" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- SIVI HOEL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC. (MARYLAND), the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05547-LMM (N.D. Ga., Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs of reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Marketsource had a common pay practice and policy of denying its Account Managers overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without any good faith basis under the FLSA for doing so. From the time Plaintiff was hired in April 2012 until her last date of employment or about March 2016, Marketsource treated Plaintiff and all others in the putative class as salaried exempt employees. Sometime in or about November, 2016, Defendant announced it was changing everyone in these positions to hourly, non-exempt employees because of alleged "changes in the Federal Law". At no time did Defendant offer to pay Plaintiff or the classes of similarly situated employees overtime wages for all their hours worked prior to November 2016; and Defendant never made any inquiry about the overtime hours Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated worked prior to this date. Further, Defendant never discussed the exemption previously claimed and the rights of the Plaintiff and the classes of similarly situated to overtime pay, the applicable and proper overtime rates they were now entitled to be paid for overtime hours worked, and the fact that bonuses were required to be included in the calculation of the regular rate and overtime rates of pay. Marketsource required its Account Managers to work in excess of 40 hours a week, and knew by communications with Account Managers, review of records and assessment of the territories assigned that the position required over 40 hours routinely in order to meet job requirements. Defendant knew that, for Plaintiff and the classes of similarly situated account managers meet metrics and goals that they had to work overtime hours, including travel times which would compel them to work from early in the morning until late at night, as well as on the weekends and days off. Defendant willfully misclassified Plaintiff and the Class of similarly situated present and former account managers as exempt employees on a uniform basis, without regard to any individualized analysis of the work performed. MarketSource Inc. provides outsourced sales solutions for organizations. It offers retailer solutions, such as direct sales, experiential demo days, consumer engagement, and merchandising audit and enhancement; and manufacturer and services solutions.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman Esq. FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC 1201 Peachtree Street NW 400 Colony Square, suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (813) 639 9366 Facsimile: (813) 639 9376 E-mail: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com MARKETSOURCE INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Sabile Says ---------------------------------------------------------- DANA RHEA SABILE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETSOURCE INC. (MARYLAND), the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-05546-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Dec. 29, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Account Representatives were paid on a salary basis and classified as Exempt employees up through November, 2016, and thereafter, were reclassified to hourly, non- exempt employees but, as Plaintiff contends, were still not paid a premium for all overtime hours worked, and were underpaid the lawfully required rate. Account Representatives routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as the job commanded, and with the encouragement, urging and knowledge of management, but even after Defendant's changing of all Account Reps to non-exempt status and payment of some overtime wages, Account Representatives were unable to claim all the overtime hours worked and continued to be permitted to suffer to work off the clock. Although Marketsource may have paid some overtime compensation to the Account representatives from on or about November 2016 to the present, its procedures and pay practices also precluded Account Representatives from being able to record and report all their overtime hours, and encouraged Account Reps to work off the clock. Marketsource carelessly, recklessly and willfully failed to institute systems in place to track and record all the work hours for Account Representatives prior to 2016, and even after the change to hourly, non-exempt status on or about November 2016 they willfully continued to avoid instituting an actual, contemporaneous and accurate time tracking system. Marketsource as well, upon information and belief, has failed to include the Account Representatives' bonuses in the calculation of the regular overtime rates of pay. By failing to include all income earned in the calculation of their 'regular rate', Marketsource underpaid Account Representatives at artificially low overtime rates -- withholding millions of dollars in overtime wages. Further, by underpaying the overtime due and also not paying overtime wages throughout the past 3 to 5 years for account representatives, Marketsource also has breached its obligations to Account Representatives under the company 401(k) Plan by underfunding the individual plans and underfunding the corporate match funding. MarketSource Inc. provides outsourced sales solutions for organizations. It offers retailer solutions, such as direct sales, experiential demo days, consumer engagement, and merchandising audit and enhancement; and manufacturer and services solutions.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff and Classes: Mitchell L. Feldman Esq. FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC 1201 Peachtree Street NW 400 Colony Square, suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (813) 639 9366 Facsimile: (813) 639 9376 E-mail: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com MARKETSOURCE INC: Underpays Account Sales Reps, Nunamacher Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- GLENN NUNAMACHER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARKETSOURCE, INC., (MARYLAND), the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00057-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida's Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, Marketsource had a common pay practice and policy of denying its Account Sales Reps (ASR) minimum wages for all hours worked up to 40 hours per work week, without any good faith basis under the FLSA or the FMWA for doing so, first by requiring and permitting Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated to suffer to work off the clock. Even when Defendant did provide the opportunity to clock work hours, when factoring in the costs of business related expenses: gasoline, maintenance on vehicles, mileage, automobile insurance, cellular telephone and cellular service and data plan costs, Plaintiff and the class of similar situated fell short of being paid minimum wages for each work week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN WILLIAMS PLLC 6940 W. Linebaugh Ave, No. 101 Tampa, FL 33625 Telephone: (877) 946 8293 Facsimile: (813) 639 9376 E-mail: mitch@feldmanwilliams.com MAXIMUM BOOTING: "Burke" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled James E. Burke and Logistics and Distribution Services, Inc., Individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Maximum Booting Company, LLC; Kenneth P. McElwaney, doing business as: Maximum Booting Company; JDN Realty Corporation; DDR Property Management LLC; Cymona West; and XYZ Company, the Defendants, Case No., 17EV004847 was removed from the State Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) on Dec. 31, 2017. The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-05553-WSD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge William S. Duffey, Jr.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Charles Patrick, Esq. KEVIN PATRICK LAW, LLC 2860 Piedmont Road, Suite 195 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 566-8964 E-mail: kevin@patricktriallaw.com - and - Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq. Michael L. Werner, Esq. Robert Neil Friedman, Esq. THE WERNER LAW FIRM, P.C. 2860 Piedmont Rd, NE Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 564 4329 E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com mike@wernerlaw.com Robert@wernerlaw.com Attorneys for Maximum Booting Company, LLC and Kenneth P. McElwaney, doing business as: Maximum Booting Company: Brynda Rodriguez Insley, Esq. Kenneth James Bentley, Esq. INSLEY & RACE The Mayfair Royal 181 14th Street, N.E., Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 876 9818 Facsimile: (404) 876 9817 E-mail: binsley@insleyrace.com kbentley@insleyrace.com Attorneys for JDN Realty Corporation, DDR Property Management LLC, and Cymona West: Jeffrey Robert Daniel, Esq. Kenneth Drew Jones, Esq. HALL BOOTH SMITH, P.C. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2900 Atlanta, GA 30303-1775 Telephone: (404) 954 -5000 E-mail: jdaniel@hallboothsmith.com kjones@hallboothsmith.com MBTA RAMIREZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Meghna Chakrabarti, writing for WBUR News, reports that a Texas federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against MBTA General Manager Luis Ramirez. The lawsuit, filed by shareholders of Global Power Equipment Group in May 2017, alleged that Ramirez violated federal securities laws while he was CEO of the Dallas- based company. In a decision filed December 27, Chief District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the Northern District of Texas, found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Ramirez and other former Global Power executives had knowingly acted "with intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud." Ramirez and the MBTA both declined to comment on the ruling. Ramirez served as Global Power's CEO from July 2012 to March 2015. It was his last job leading a large organization prior to his appointment to head the MBTA. The Baker administration celebrated Ramirez as the "turnaround" specialist the MBTA needed, pointing to his record at Global Power and as a former executive at GE. But Ramirez's tenure at Global Power was marred with controversy. The company filed erroneous financial statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission under his leadership. Immediately following Ramirez's resignation in March 2015, the company had to announce that it would refile several years of SEC statements. That announcement triggered a massive drop in Global Power's share price and put the company at risk of bankruptcy. Investors sued. Jeffrey Block, the Boston attorney who represents the shareholders, told WBUR in August that "we allege Mr. Ramirez didn't take proper steps to report errors. And in fact, the company reported those financials with errors in place." Plaintiffs also alleged that Ramirez attempted to hide the company's financial problems. Judge Lynn disagreed. "These allegations do not support the contention that . . . Ramirez knew that financial reports, at the time they were published, were false," she wrote in her dismissal ruling. Global Power investors also alleged that Ramirez misrepresented the company's severe accounting troubles because his compensation was tied to Global Power's financial performance. Lynn cut down that argument, citing previous federal securities cases. "Incentive compensation 'can hardly be the basis for which an allegation of fraud is predicated' because if the Court were to hold otherwise, 'the executives of virtually every corporation in the United States would be subject to fraud allegations,'" she wrote in the ruling. The majority of federal securities class action lawsuits are dismissed, according to NERA, an economics consulting firm. The group's recent analysis found that between 2000 to 2016, more than 70-percent of shareholder class action suits were dismissed by federal judges. Lawyers for Global Power's shareholders declined to comment to WBUR about the dismissal, saying they are reviewing the judge's decision. The ruling, however, did leave open the possibility for further litigation. Glynn wrote that plaintiffs have the opportunity to address questions she raised in her ruling and file an amended complaint by January 15. The SEC is also investigating the company's financial reporting. The SEC does not comment on ongoing inquiries. The status of the Global Power investigation is unknown. [GN] MCBRIDE RESEARCH: Faces "Campbell" Suit in New York State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against McBride Research Laboratories, Inc. The case is captioned as CAMPBELL, KATHLEEN INDIVIDUALLY ON BEHALF OF HERSELF & ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. MCBRIDE RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC. D/B/A DESIGN ESSENTIALS, the Defendant, Case No. 26761/2016 (N.Y. Sup., Ct., Dec. 27, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison Y. Tuitt. McBride Research was launched in 1990. Cornell McBride envisioned a program that combined direct distribution of premium, quality hair care solutions with the education and knowledge to effectively use them in the salon and at home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 85 Civic Center Plaza, Ste 104 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483 7100 MDL 2740: Parker Sues Over Taxotere-Related Hair Loss ----------------------------------------------------- CAROLYN PARKER v. SANOFI S.A.; AVENTIS PHARMA S.A; SANOFI U.S. SERVICES INC. F/K/A SANOFI-AVENTIS, U.S. LLC; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, separately, and doing business as WINTHROP U.S.; SANDOZ, INC.; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC F/K/A HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC.; HOSPIRA INC.; ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; PFIZER INC.; EAGLE PHARMACEUTICAL, INC. and NORTHSTAR RX, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv- 14984 (E.D. La., December 6, 2017), alleges that the warning and precautions in the Taxotere Label do not warn against permanent hair loss, and the adverse reactions do not state that use of Taxotere could cause permanent hair loss. The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation styled In Re: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:16- md-02740-KDE-MBN. The actions in the litigation involve product liability suits alleging, inter alia, that Defendants Sanofi S.A., Aventis Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC manufactured, marketed, distributed, supplied, promoted and sold Taxotere(R), which is defective and unreasonably dangerous in that it causes permanent hair loss (alopecia); that Sanofi knew or should have known of the risk of alopecia associated with Taxotere(R) usage; that Sanofi marketed, distributed and/or sold Taxotere(R) without adequate warnings concerning its risks; and that as a direct and proximate result of using Taxotere(R), women across the nation have suffered serious injuries, physical and mental pain and suffering, as well as economic loss. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. Aventis Pharma S.A. manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products under various brands such as NUXEPTIL. Aventis Pharma was incorporated in 1982 and is based in Antony, France. Sandoz, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. Sandoz, a subsidiary of Novartis AG, develops, produces and markets generic pharmaceuticals, including generic Clobetasol, throughout the United States. Based in Lake Forest, Illinois, Hospira is in the business of manufacturing and selling prescription drugs and medical devices. Accord Healthcare, Inc., a generic pharmaceutical company, provides products in the areas of oncology, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, urology, psychiatry, diabetology, pain management, and gastroenterology. Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York City. Pfizer and/or its predecessors in interest are engaged in the business of research, designing, testing, formulating, inspecting, labeling, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, distributing, producing, processing, promoting, and selling drugs. Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Delaware is a specialty pharmaceutical company. Eagle develops and distributes injectable products, primarily in the critical care and oncology areas. Northstar Rx LLC operates as a subsidiary of McKesson Corporation. McKesson provides pharmaceuticals and medical supplies in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia Murphy, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: lymurphy@baronbudd.com MDL 2740: Wooten Sues Over Docetaxel Injection-Related Hair Loss ---------------------------------------------------------------- KIMELIA WOOTEN and ELTON WOOTEN JR. v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC. f/k/a SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; SANDOZ, INC., ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION d/b/a MCKESSON PACKAGING; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC f/k/a HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC.; HOSPIRA INC.; SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE, SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. f/k/a CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD.; PFIZER INC.; ACTAVIS LLC f/k/a ACTAVIS INC.; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-14439-KDE-MBN (E.D. La., December 4, 2017), alleges injury -- permanent hair loss -- as a result of using Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection and Docetaxel Injection Concentrate. The Defendants expressly warranted to the Plaintiffs and their healthcare providers that Taxotere, Docefrez, Docetaxel Injection, and Docetaxel Injection Concentrate were safe and fit for use for the purposes intended, that they did not produce any dangerous side effects in excess of those risks associated with other forms of treatment for cancer, that the side effects they did produce were accurately reflected in the warnings, and that they were adequately tested, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs argue that the Products do not conform to the Defendants' express warranties, because the drugs are not safe, were not adequately tested, and have numerous serious side effects, which are in excess of those risks associated with other forms of treatment. The lawsuit is part of the multidistrict litigation styled In Re: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2:16- md-02740-KDE-MBN. Sanofi is a global healthcare company, focused on patient needs and engaged in the research, development, manufacture and marketing of therapeutic solutions. Sandoz, Inc. is a Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. Sandoz, a subsidiary of Novartis AG, develops, produces and markets generic pharmaceuticals, including generic Clobetasol, throughout the United States. Accord Healthcare, Inc., a generic pharmaceutical company, provides products in the areas of oncology, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, urology, psychiatry, diabetology, pain management, and gastroenterology. McKesson Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. The Doe Defendants will be identified through discovery, but are not presently known. Based in Lake Forest, Illinois, Hospira is in the business of manufacturing and selling prescription drugs and medical devices. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. manufactures and distributes pharmaceuticals. Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York City. Pfizer and/or its predecessors in interest are engaged in the business of research, designing, testing, formulating, inspecting, labeling, manufacturing, packaging, marketing, distributing, producing, processing, promoting, and selling drugs. Actavis Pharma, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey. Actavis is a pharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Debra Humphrey, Esq. MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS LLP 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 950 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 702-5000 Facsimile: (212) 818-0164 E-mail: dhumphrey@bernllp.com MICHIGAN: Rhodes, et al. Sue over Right to Vote ----------------------------------------------- DEBRA RHODES, GLORIA MOUNGER, THOMAS WILLIAMS, LAURA DENNIS, VIVIAN WORDLAW, and for all similarly situated voters of the Thirteenth Congressional District in the State of Michigan, the Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD D. SNYDER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17- cv-14186-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks temporary and permanent mandatory injunctive and declaratory relief based upon the violation, by Defendant Governor Richard D. Snyder, of the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution. This action, in the interest of the public, seeks to protect civil rights and liberties of the highest order, specifically, the constitutional right to legislative representation and the fundamental right to vote, both secured by the Constitution of the United States. The Plaintiffs, who are electors in the Thirteenth Congressional District, seek an order requiring the Governor of the State of Michigan to cease deprivation, upon the people of the Thirteenth Congressional District, of the constitutional right to congressional representation and the fundamental right to vote for said representative. The Congressional seat in question was vacated on December 5, 2017, and, at the Defendant's discretion, will remain vacant until a general election scheduled on the date as the normally- scheduled election date for that seat on November 6, 2018. As a result, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from the latest action of systemic discrimination, by the Governor of the State of Michigan toward regions of the state containing primarily people of color, where the Governor has created a substantial delay in filling the congressional vacancy, based on the race or color of the residents, contrary to the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution. The Plaintiffs seek declaration that Michigan Compiled Law section 168.633, which provides direction to the Governor on whether to fill a vacancy, is impermissibly overboard and grants discretion to the Governor so wide that it is contrary to the requirement of the United States Constitution. Michigan is a midwestern U.S. state bordering 4 of the Great Lakes. It contains more than 11,000 inland lakes, spread across its lower and upper peninsulas. Its largest city, Detroit, is famed as the seat of the U.S. auto industry, which inspired Diego Rivera's murals at the Detroit Institute of Arts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Gilmore, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL GILMORE P.O. Box 211156 Detroit, MI 48221 Telephone: (313) 231 3329 E-mail: Gilmore.Esq@gmail.com MICHIGAN: Jones Moves for Certification of Prisoners Class ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Curtis Lewis Jones v. Kenneth McKee, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00094-PLM-TPG (W.D. Mich.), moves for certification of prisoners class. Kenneth McKee is the director of the Correctional Facilities Administration. The CFA is responsible for the operation of the state's prisons, including the Special Alternative Incarceration Facility. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the civil action against certain officials of the Michigan Department of Corrections alleging, among other things, that they have failed to provide winter boots and/or shoes to a particular class of prisoners, who are indigent, to protect the prisoners from the harsh Michigan winter conditions. The Plaintiff, who appears pro se, also asks the Court to appoint counsel to represent him and the proposed class members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z0MktkxH MIDLAND CREDIT: "Colontorres" Suit Moved to N.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Luis Colontorres, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2017EF3222, was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Onondaga, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in Syracuse on Jan. 8, 2018. The Northern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-00035-FJS-TWD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 70 Clinton Avenue, Suite 3 Newark, NJ 07114 Telephone: (862) 227 3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Joseph Adam Hess, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C. 88 Pine Street, 21st Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 376 6400 Facsimile: (212) 376 6490 E-mail: JAHESS@MDWCG.COM MONSANTO CO: Bootheel Farmers File Lawsuit Over Herbicide Damage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Bliss, writing for Southeast Missourian, reports that the operators of two Southeast Missouri soybean farms have filed a class-action lawsuit against St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., alleging their crops were damaged by exposure to dicamba herbicide. The 35-page suit was filed December 27 in Mississippi County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs in the case are McIvan Farms Inc., which operates in Mississippi County, and Steve and Vickie Jackson, who are partners of V & S Jackson Farms in Dunklin County. Dicamba, a Monsanto product, is a type of herbicide designed for use on genetically modified soybeans and cotton. While it can be an effective tool for farmers battling weeds, improper use can be devastating to crops not designed to withstand it. According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, dicamba herbicide sprayed on fields can drift onto adjacent farm fields and damage crops that are not dicamba-resistant. St. Louis attorney Don Downing, Esq. who represents the plaintiffs, said Monsanto has been hit with numerous lawsuits over the use of dicamba. Downing said damage has been widespread. In 2017, there were thousands of complaints across the nation, according to the suit. The federal Environmental Protection Agency reported more than 3.6 million acres of soybeans planted in the United States were damaged by dicamba in 2017 alone, he wrote in the suit. As of late October, the Missouri Department of Agriculture had received more than 300 dicamba-related complaints as compared with 27 in 2016 and three in 2015. The majority of complaints came from Southeast Missouri, primarily Mississippi, Scott, Stoddard, New Madrid and Dunklin counties, the suit states. It is estimated at least 325,000 acres of soybeans were damaged by the herbicide, Downing said in the suit. Nationally, more than 2,000 "dicamba-related injury investigations have been or are being conducted," according to the lawsuit. The four-count suit alleges Monsanto's dicamba crop system is "ultrahazardous" and accuses the company of negligence, defective design of the seed and (herbicide) trespass. The suit seeks unspecified punitive damages. Downing, who grew up in Kennett, Missouri, said a judge will have to decide whether to allow the litigation to proceed as a class- action case on behalf of all Missouri farmers whose crops were damaged by the herbicide. If the judge does not allow the case to proceed as a class-action suit, more farmers will file individual lawsuits against Monsanto, Downing predicted. Monsanto developed seed genetically engineered to be resistant to dicamba, which "meant that the new dicamba formulations would be sprayed over the top of crops after their emergence from the ground," according to the suit. The suit alleges that as a result, dicamba was sprayed on fields much later in the growing season, "in months that are hot and humid -- and in the vicinity of susceptible nonresistant crops also emerging." The suit states that "from the early stages of Monsanto's development of a crop system using dicamba, weed scientists and others warned of harm from large-scale dicamba use in summer months." Downing wrote in the suit Monsanto decided to sell dicamba- resistant cotton seeds, starting in 2015, rather than wait for the EPA to register a "supposed low volatility" dicamba herbicide for in-crop use. Monsanto's "public stance" was dicamba herbicides were not to be sprayed over the top of crops, the suit states. "Monsanto representatives, however, advised farmers to do just the opposite -- to spray existing dicamba products over the top of their crops in 2015," the lawsuit alleges. In 2016, Monsanto put its "own financial interests ahead of safety and moved forward with commercialization of dicamba- resistant soybeans," the suit alleges. But Michael Aide of Southeast Missouri State University's agriculture department told the Southeast Missourian earlier this year Monsanto advised farmers not to use the old herbicide recommendations. "Some farmers ignored it," Aide said. Monsanto has yet to file a response to the lawsuit in Mississippi County court. [GN] NATIONAL CREDIT: Debt Collection Violates FDCPA, Woodard Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Melisa Woodard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company, and Reviver Financial, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 3:17-cv-02032-HNJ (N.D. Ala., December 5, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Ms. Woodard alleges that demanding payment of a debt that is no longer owed, due to a bankruptcy, is false and deceptive or misleading, in violation of Section 1692e of the FDCPA. National Credit Adjusters, LLC, is a Kansas limited liability company, which acts as a debt collector. Reviver Financial, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company that acts as a debt collector. Reviver is a bad debt buyer that buys large portfolios of defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, which it then collects upon through other collection agencies, like its sister company, NCA, Ms. Woodard asserts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974-2900 Facsimile: (708) 974-2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com - and - Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq. BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C. 225 Pratt Avenue Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 539-9899 Facsimile: (256) 713-0237 E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com NEIMAN MARCUS: Enters Agreement to Settle "Rubenstein" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James Otero denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class in the lawsuit entitled Linda Rubenstein v. The Neiman Marcus Group LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-07155-SJO-JPR (C.D. Cal.). According to the Court's civil minutes, the Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement, filed December 13, 2017. Judge Otero ordered the Plaintiff to file her Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement within 60 days of the date of the Order. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sjdmQ9A3 NEWSTAR FINANCIAL: Sharpenter Suit Challenges Sale to First Eagle ----------------------------------------------------------------- TED SHARPENTER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NEWSTAR FINANCIAL, INC., CHARLES N. BRALVER, TIMOTHY J. CONWAY, BRADLEY E. COOPER, BRIAN L.P. FALLON, FRANK R. NOONAN, MAUREEN P. O'HARA, and RICHARD E. THORNBURGH, Case No. 1:17-cv-12379 (D. Mass., December 4, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction, pursuant to which NewStar will be acquired by affiliates of First Eagle Investment Management, LLC. On October 16, 2017, NewStar's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with First Eagle Holdings, Inc. ("Parent"), FE Holdco, LLC ("FE Holdco"), and FE Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of NewStar will receive $11.44 per share in cash and one contractual contingent value right. NewStar is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal executive offices in Boston, Massachusetts. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. NewStar is an internally-managed, commercial finance company with $7.3 billion of assets managed across two complementary business lines: middle market direct lending and asset management. The Company's direct lending activities are focused on meeting the complex financing needs of companies and private investors in the middle markets through specialized lending groups that offer a range of flexible debt financing options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Telephone: (781) 453-0100 E-mail: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com - and - RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 NIKE INC: Operates Blind-Inaccessible Web Sites, Mendizabal Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA MENDIZABAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NIKE, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-09498 (S.D.N.Y., December 4, 2017), arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Ms. Mendizabal is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who requires screen-reading software to read Web site content using her computer. Nike, Inc., is an Oregon business corporation registered to do business in New York. The Company operates two separate Web sites, http://www.Nike.com/,and http://www.Converse.com/,and advertises, markets, distributes, and sells Men and Women clothing and footwear products in the state of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. JOSEPH H. MIZRAHI LAW P.C. 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 299-6612 Facsimile: (718) 425-8954 E-mail: Joseph@Jmizrahilaw.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com NONGSHIM CO: Ramen Price-Fixing Class Suit Headed for U.S. Trial ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in San Francisco has refused to dismiss antitrust class action litigation accusing two big South Korean ramen producers of conspiring to fix prices in the United States, clearing the way for a trial. U.S. District Judge William Orrick on December 28 rejected efforts by market leader Nongshim Co and Ottogi Corp to dismiss claims brought by food retailers and distributors, and by consumers in 23 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. Lawyers in the United States for Nongshim and Ottogi did not immediately respond on December 29 to requests for comment. Mark Kindall, Esq. -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- a lawyer for the consumers, said he was "obviously very pleased with the resolution and the judge's determination that this case is ready to go to a jury." The plaintiffs accused ramen makers of coordinating six price increases from 2001 to 2008 in a scheme hatched at a meeting at the Renaissance Seoul Hotel, causing them to overpay for their noodles from early 2003 through January 2010. In a 59-page decision, Orrick said there was "ample (although hotly disputed) evidence" that the defendants conspired to fix ramen prices in South Korea. Although calling it a "much closer question," Orrick found sufficient evidence that this alleged conspiracy affected ramen prices in the United States, including ramen made there. "That there may have been minor differences (according to plaintiffs) between the products destined for the U.S. market and destined elsewhere does not, on this record, make the products so fundamentally different that the differences undermine plaintiffs' ability to sue," Orrick wrote. A trial is scheduled for Feb. 23. The litigation began in 2013. Ramen noodles are typically sold in packages, cups or bowls, with seasoning and dehydrated vegetables, to which consumers add boiling water. In court papers, Nongshim and Ottogi have said they acted independently when setting prices. They also accused the plaintiffs of improperly piggybacking off since-abandoned findings by the Korea Fair Trade Commission of a price-fixing conspiracy in South Korea. Another Korean ramen maker, Samyang Foods Co, reached $1.5 million of settlements with the plaintiffs in 2016. "We are pleased to have cleared the last hurdle before trial, and our clients look forward to presenting their case to a jury," Christopher Lebsock, a lawyer for the retailers and distributors, said in an email. The case is In re: Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 13-04115. [GN] NORTHSTAR REALTY: Brief in "Boothe" 4th Cir. Appeal Due Jan 26 -------------------------------------------------------------- JACK BOOTHE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE B. DVORES, Appellant and NORTHSTAR REALTY FINANCE CORP., DAVID T. HAMAMOTO, JUDITH A. HANNAWAY, WESLEY D. MINAMI, LOUIS J. PAGLIA, GREGORY RUSH, and CHARLES W. SCHOENHERR, the Defendant - Appellees, Case No. 18- 1001 (4th Cir, Jan. 2, 2018), is an appeal filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the fourth Circuit from a lower court decision in a fraud class action, Case No. 1:16-cv- 03742-JKB (D. Md., Nov. 18, 2016). Opening brief is due Jan. 26, 2018. Informal response brief, if any, is due 14 days after informal opening brief is filed.[BN] Attorneys for Jack Boothe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated: Yelena Trepetin, Esq. BROWER PIVEN 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, MD 21153 Personal: (410) 332 0030 Attorneys for Appellant Lawrence B. Dvores: Lawrence B. Dvores, Esq. 28 Sherbrooke Parkway Livingston, NJ 07039 Personal: 973-535-5000 Pro Se Attorneys for Defendant - Appellee Northstar Realty Finance Corp.; David T. Hamamoto; Judith A. Hannaway; Wesley D. Minami Louis J. Paglia; Gregory Rush; and Charles W. Schoenherr. Andrew Gendron, Esq. VENABLE, LLP 750 East Pratt Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Personal: (410) 244 7439 NOVAN INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased Novan, Inc. securities between September 26, 2016 and August 1, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period") and/or pursuant to its September 26, 2016 initial public offering. Novan investors have until January 2, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Novan investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On January 27, 2017, the Company announced that its two "replicate" Phase 3 clinical trials for its topical acne treatment had yielded different results. The Company revealed that one trial showed statistical significance for all three co- primary endpoints and the other trial showed statistical significance for only one co-primary endpoint. On this news, shares of Novan fell 74% to a close of $4.86 per share on January 27, 2017. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Novan had initiated and conducted two identical Phase 3 clinical trials for its lead product candidate SB204; (2) in fact, the two SB204 Phase 3 clinical trials were not identical; and (3) consequently, Novan's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased shares of Novan, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Tel.No.: 215-638-4847, 888-638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN] OSI SYSTEMS: "Kerbs" Suit Alleges Securities Fraud -------------------------------------------------- Eric Kerbs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OSI Systems, Inc., Deepak Chopra, Ajay Mehra and Alan Edrick, Case No. 17-cv-08991 (C.D. Cal., December 14, 2017), seeks damages, including interest, awarding reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. OSI designs and manufactures specialized electronic systems and components and provides related services in diversified markets, including homeland security, healthcare, defense, and aerospace. The complaint says OSI failed to disclose that it obtained a major turnkey contract in Albania through corruption or bribery and transferred 49% of its project company in Albania, S2 Albania SHPK, for consideration of less than $5.00, that its Mexico turnkey contract was materially overpriced and was based on false representations about the capabilities and equipment, that its business experienced material accounting problems, that its financial statements were not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that these practices caused the Company to be vulnerable to potential civil and criminal liability and adverse regulatory action. Plaintiff purchased OSI common stock and lost when the stock price declined $24.55 per share, or 29.2%, to close at $59.52 per share on December 6, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 Email: lking@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com - and - Justin B. Farar, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 620 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 575-8670 Facsimile: (310) 575-8697 Email: jfarar@kaplanfox.com - and - Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com PATRIOT NATIONAL: "Cole" Seeks Unpaid Benefits Due to Closure -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle L. Cole and Andrea Scarlett, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Patriot National, Inc. and Guarantee Insurance Co., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv- 62461 (S.D. Fla., December 14, 2017), seeks unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay, accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions and other benefits for 60 days, that would have been covered and paid under the then-applicable employee benefit plans had that coverage continued for that period, civil penalties, pursuant to the relevant state wage payment laws, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Plaintiffs are former employees who worked for Patriot National, Inc. and were terminated without cause, as part of, the mass reduction in force or layoffs and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations. Patriot National is a national insurance technology firm which provides general agency services, technology outsourcing, software solutions, specialty underwriting and policyholder services, claims administration services and self-funded health plans to its insurance carrier and other clients. It reportedly provided Guarantee, its largest customer, with $30 million in exchange for a 10-year services contract. Guarantee agreed to enter into state-supervised receivership after a financial audit found the company overstated its level of capitalization in 2016. In August 2017, Guarantee entered into a consent order barring it from writing new business while implementing a plan of reorganization. On November 27, 2017, Guarantee was ordered liquidated by the Second Judicial Circuit Court in Leon County, Florida while the New York Stock Exchange commenced proceedings to delist the common stock of Patriot National from the NYSE the following day. Trading in Patriot National's common stock was suspended immediately. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Bierman, Esq. Michael S. Kantor, Esq. WEISS SEROTA HELFMAN COLE & BIERMAN P.L. 200 E. Broward Blvd., Suite 1900 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 763-4242 Fax: (954) 764-7770 Email: mbierman@wsh-law.com LPimienta@wsh-law.com mkantor@wsh-law.com falonso@wsh-law.com - and - Charles A. Ercole, Esq. Lee D. Moylan, Esq. Sally E. Veghte, Esq. KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP 1835 Market Street, Suite 1400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-2700 Email: cercole@klehr.com lmoylan@klehr.com sveghte@klehr.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Sgarlata Sues Over PI Data Breach -------------------------------------------------- RONALD SGARLATA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., DANIEL H. SCHULMAN, JOHN D. RAINEY JR., and HAMED SHAHBAZI, Case No. 3:17-cv-06956 (N.D. Cal., December 6, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that, among other things, TIO Networks Corp.'s data security program was inadequate to safeguard the personally identifiable information of its users. On February 14, 2017, PayPal announced an agreement to purchase TIO Networks Corp. for $233 million. TIO is a bill-pay management company that processed roughly $7 billion in bill payments on behalf of 14 million customers in 2016. On July 18, 2017, PayPal announced the completion of the TIO Acquisition. On November 10, 2017, PayPal suspended its TIO services, pending a security review, stating that it had discovered security vulnerabilities on the TIO platform and that the TIO data security program did not meet PayPal's standards. On December 1, 2017, post-market, PayPal disclosed that personally identifiable information -- including names, addresses, bank-account details, and Social Security numbers -- for roughly 1.6 million TIO users had potentially been compromised as a result of the previously announced security vulnerabilities. PayPal is incorporated in Delaware, and the Company's principal executive offices are located in San Jose, California. The Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. PayPal operates as a technology platform company that provides online payment systems through a variety of services on behalf of consumers and merchants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com PETEZA PROSE: Kile Sues to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MORGEN KILE, Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PETER D'ANDREA, an Individual, PETEZA PROSE, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, 5 STAR PIZZA INC., a Tennessee Corporation, and JOHANAS ROBERSON, an Individual, Case No. 1:17-cv-01225 (W.D. Tenn., December 4, 2017), is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid wages, minimum wages, and overtime wages. Peteza Prose, LLC, is a Tennessee Limited Liability Company with a Domino's Franchise in Ripley, Lauderdale County, Tennessee, and owns multiple Domino's Pizza franchises in Tennessee and Virginia. 5 Star Pizza Inc., is a Tennessee Corporation that owns multiple Domino's Pizza franchises in Tennessee and Virginia. Peter D'Andrea, a resident of Knox County, Tennessee, is a co- owner/principal of Peteza Prose, LLC and 5 Star Pizza, Inc. Johanas Roberson is a manager or principal of Peteza Prose. The Defendants own and operate approximately 32 Domino's franchise restaurants in Tennessee and are doing business as Peteza Prose. The primary function of the Defendants' restaurants is to sell food and beverage items to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 759-1745 E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com - and - William A. Wooten, Esq. EVANS PETREE, P.C. 120 Court Square East Covington, TN 38019 Telephone: (901) 475-1050 Facsimile: (901) 475-0032 E-mail: wwooten@evanspetree.com PHEAA: Morris et al Sue over Collection of Student Loans -------------------------------------------------------- ADAM MORRIS, ARTHUR BURKLE, DENISE GRAHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE AGENCY, D/B/A FEDLOAN SERVICING, D/B/A AMERICAN EDUCATION SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00031-CDJ (E.D. Pa., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to enjoin unlawful actions of the Defendant to distribute false and misleading information regarding borrowers' loans, process borrowers' payments incorrectly, and delay applications for PSLF, TEACH grant and IDR programs. PHEAA acts as a middleman between the Department of Education and the borrowers of federally-owned loans. PHEAA is responsible for not only collecting loan payments, but also offering payment plans and administering federal programs designed to help borrowers effectively manage the increasing cost of higher education. This includes several Alternative Loan Repayment Programs ("ALRPs"), which provide qualifying borrowers with relief from student loan debt by adjusting their payments to a reasonably affordable amount based on their income, occupation, and family size. Borrowers enrolled in an ALRP can also apply to have their federal loans forgiven after a certain number of payments and/or meeting other criteria. In February 2012, the Department of Education made PHEAA solely responsible for administering two ALRPs: the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program and the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) grant program. Congress specifically designed the PSLF and TEACH programs to make higher education more affordable for public servants by providing financial assistance to reduce the burden of their student loans. This included complete forgiveness of federal student debt for borrowers who committed to ten years of qualifying public service employment. PHEAA implemented a scheme during the Class Period to boost revenue by extending the duration of loans in its portfolio through at least three unlawful means: 1. PHEAA delayed or failed to process applications under the PSLF and TEACH programs. 2. PHEAA delayed or failed to process applications for federal Income Driven Repayment ("IDR") plans, including specifically the new Revised Pay As You Earn ("REPAYE") program created in 2015. 3. PHEAA improperly placed borrowers making timely loan payments into deferment or forbearance status -- a designation typically reserved for situations where the borrower seeks relief from its payment obligations due to financial hardship. According to the lawsuit, reports published by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau describe complaints from borrowers nationwide of identical, widespread misconduct by PHEAA in its exploitation of the PSLF, TEACH, and IDR programs. These unlawful acts not only caused borrowers to deal with inconvenience and headaches but also to suffer measurable financial harm when: (a) the duration of their loans were extended; (b) interest accrued on the principal balance of loans during unrequested periods of deferment or forbearance; (c) monthly payments under IDR programs were billed at inaccurate levels; and (d) they were charged additional fees due to delay in processing their applications for the PSLF, TEACH, and IDR programs. The lawsuit contends that PHEAA's comprehensive strategy to increase loan duration and generate greater servicing fees during the Class Period was hugely successful. Financial statements show that PHEAA's revenue from servicing federally-owned student loans has increased each year, a direct result of the unlawful acts alleged in this Complaint. This increase in revenue comes at the expense of borrowers, like Plaintiffs and the Class, who were subjected to one or more of PHEAA's illegal tactics while their loans were serviced by FedLoan. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class have either lost out on months or years of qualifying loan payments that would have brought them closer to loan forgiveness under the PSLF, TEACH, and IDR programs; been overcharged; or otherwise disadvantaged when they were unable to utilize federal programs designed to make their education more affordable.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Christian Levis, Esq. Roland R. St. Louis, III, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, New York 10601 Telephone: 914-997-0500 Facsimile: 914-997-0035 E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com clevis@lowey.com rstlouis@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: 914 733 7268 Facsimile: 914 997 0035 E-mail: achristina@lowey.com PIER 1 IMPORT: Pier 1 Settles Class Action for $3.5-Mil. -------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Cave, writing for JDSUPRA, reports that Pier 1 Import has agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of about 9,300 retail store associates in California. The lawsuit alleged the company owed workers pay for when they are scheduled to call the store to ask if they should report for work or stay home. California requires employers to provide "reporting time pay" to employees. Employers must provide a few hours of pay when an employee reports to work for a scheduled shift but is dismissed a short time later because business is slow. The complaint alleged that Pier 1 violated this law by requiring employees to call in one to two hours before the scheduled shift. Employees complained that the call-in shifts were mandatory, and required employees to schedule their time around the possibility that they may work after a call-in shift. Pier 1 Import has since discontinued the scheduling practice at issue, which it called a "Flex Shift" policy. Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted preliminary approval of the settlement on December 12, 2017. Class members will have an opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out before Judge Drozd decides whether to grant final approval. [GN] PREET GOURMET: "Cano" Sues Over Unpaid Spread-of-Hours, Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Larios Cano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Preet Gourmet Inc., Famous Golden Pizza Inc., Manjinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-09788, (S.D. N.Y., December 14, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, New York Labor Law and spread-of-hours and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a pizzeria, located at 504 E. 138th St. Bronx, NY 10454 under the name "Golden Pizza" where Cano was employed as a counter attendant and pizza maker. Larios worked in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com PREFERRED CARE: "Assael" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Steven F. Assael, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Preferred Care Partners, Inc. and iCare Health Solutions LLC, Defendants, Case No. CACE-17020761, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on Dec. 29, 2017. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-62584-KMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge K. Michael Moore. Preferred Care Partners, Inc. provides Medicare advantage health plans. It offers Medicare advantage plans in various Florida counties, including Broward, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Miami-Dade, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Seminole, and Volusia counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq. Michael James Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A. 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 417 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889 3359 Facsimile: (954) 889 5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com mpascucci@ELPLawyers.com - and - Steven Saul, Esq. 3263 Barbados Ave Cooper City, FL 33026 Telephone: (954) 629 6564 Facsimile: (954) 629 6564 Attorneys for Defendants: Craig Hamilton Smith, Esq. Dwayne Antonio Robinson, Esq. Paige Spencer Comparato, Esq. Allen Paige Pegg, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459 6500 Facsimile: (305) 459 6550 E-mail: craig.smith@hoganlovells.com dwayne.robinson@hoganlovells.com allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com PRODUCERS SERVICE: "Casarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Casarez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Producers Service Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-01086, (S.D. Ohio, December 14, 2017), seeks actual damages in the amount of unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Producers Service Corporation provides products and services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a viable business. Cesarez worked for Defendant as a non-management oilfield operations employee, specifically as an equipment operator, from approximately July of 2016 through November of 2016. Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Fax: (614) 744-2300 Email: rderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. Sean Short, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com sean@sanfordlawfirm.com PURDUE PHARMA: 2 Puerto Rico Towns File Opioid Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- MUNICIPALITY OF SABANA GRANDE, and MUNICIPALITY OF CAYEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO- MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLS; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC.; MALLINCKRODT PLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and MCKESSON CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02380-JAG (D.P.R., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants' illegal conduct and to hold Defendants responsible for the harm that conduct has caused the cities and towns of Puerto Rico relating to opioid manufacture and distribution. Since morphine was first isolated for medicinal use, physicians have understood that opioids are risky medications that leave patients prone to addiction and overdose. That is why heroin was made illegal in 1924, and it is why the first synthetic opioids (Percocet and Vicodin) were prescribed only for short-term pain. But after Purdue created and patented oxycodone in the 1990s, it marketed the drug as safe, non-addictive, and appropriate for chronic pain -- even though it had no legitimate scientific evidence to support these claims. And as other opioid manufacturers likewise invented proprietary opioid formulations, they also marketed their drugs as safe, non-addictive, and appropriate for chronic pain. According to the complaint, the opioid manufacturers ran a decades-long misinformation campaign to convince doctors and patients everywhere that prescription opioids are a miracle cure for chronic pain, and should be prescribed widely -- whether to treat recurring pain from work injuries, joint pain from arthritis, or neck pain resulting from a car accident. To win over those who might be skeptical of the drug makers' claims, the manufacturers hired well-regarded doctors, who styled themselves as pain management experts, to advocate for use of opioids all across the country. They also sponsored "pain advocacy" groups, which acted as fronts for the drug companies' message. These same tactics were used by cigarette manufacturers, who used industry-funded scientists and front groups to try to convince the public that cigarettes were safe, despite a wealth of scientific evidence to the contrary. Doctors believed the misinformation that was carefully and systematically presented to them over the years. Believing that the opioids were indeed safe and effective for chronic pain, doctors prescribed the opioid manufacturers' products in larger and larger numbers. Meanwhile, the opioid manufacturers knew that their claims lacked scientific basis and that, in fact, their prescription opioids were highly addictive and ultimately ineffective at treating long-term pain. Pain patients develop tolerance to the drugs over time and are forced to take stronger and stronger doses, until they become so sedated that they risk falling asleep at the wheel of their car or having their central nervous system (and breathing) shut down. As doctors prescribed more and more prescription opioids, and the manufacturers continued to conceal and obscure the truth about their drugs, the rates of opioid addiction and overdose skyrocketed. Addicted individuals spent their life savings fueling their drug addiction and were often forced to switch to a cheaper opioid: heroin. Rates of heroin addiction skyrocketed as well. Rather than seeing a national crisis, pharmaceutical distributors saw an opportunity for massive profits. They sent prescription opioids to any and every prescriber or pharmacy who placed orders, even though they are required by federal law to stop shipment on suspicious orders and report them to law enforcement. Stopping suspicious shipments would mean losing out on millions of dollars in illicit profits, and so the opioid distributors did nothing. They stood aside and allowed select prescribers and pharmacies to divert massive amounts of prescription opioids into the black market. The opioid epidemic has enriched both opioid manufacturers and distributors. But it has destroyed communities, and left state and local governments to bear much of the costs. For example, state-funded healthcare costs surged as overdose patients were increasingly admitted to emergency rooms across the country. So did law-enforcement and criminal-justice costs, as police and jails struggled to cope with an increased number of drug offenders. And as addicted parents are unable to care for their children, the government has often been forced to pay the cost of raising them. With many of Puerto Rico's cities and towns dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, the worst national disaster in Puerto Rico's history, Plaintiffs believe that a class action will be the most efficient and effective manner of prosecuting Defendants' illegal conduct. They ask that the Court certify this case as a class action on behalf of all of Puerto Rico's municipalities, and award the class-member municipalities damages and injunctive relief according to proof. Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas Sanders, Esq. SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC 1311 Ponce de Leon Ave. Suite 600 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (516) 741 5600 Facsimile: (516) 741 0128 E-mail: dsanders@thesandersfirm.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq. Aaron Blumenthal, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 505 14th Street, Ste. 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350 9700 Facsimile: (510) 350 9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com ajd@classlawgroup.com ab@classlawgroup.com QBE: Settles Class Action for $132.5-Mil. ----------------------------------------- Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that insurance giant QBE has agreed to pay $132.5 million to settle a class action launched by shareholders who were angry about a plunge in its share price in 2013. QBE was sued by shareholders in 2015 after a swingeing profit downgrade two years earlier wiped $5 billion from the company's market capitalisation. The settlement is the third-largest shareholder claim in Australian history, following class actions against shopping centre owner Centro and its auditor PwC ($200 million) in 2012 and pokies machine maker Aristocrat ($144.5 million) in 2008. Shareholders had alleged QBE engaged in false and misleading conduct and breached its continuous disclosure obligations ahead of the downgrade. They claimed to have purchased shares at an inflated price due to QBE's alleged misleading conduct. Investors who had purchased shares between August 20, 2013 and December, 6, 2013 were eligible to participate in the action. QBE stunned the market in December 2013 when it flagged a loss of $250 million for the financial year due to write-downs of its US business and unexpectedly large claims brought by its customers. Analysts had been expecting QBE's profit to be more than $1 billion. QBE's shares plunged 22 per cent in a single day following the shock announcement. Its shares continued to fall the following day, taking shareholder losses to 30 per cent. QBE has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of its settlement, which is subject to court approval. It came ahead of a Federal Court trial due next year before Justice Bernard Murphy. Lawyers for QBE and Maurice Blackburn, which was acting for shareholders, spent the days before and after Christmas nutting out the final details of the settlement and agreed to the final terms on December 28 evening. "QBE has agreed to pay $132.5 million in full and final settlement of the proceedings including interest and the applicant's costs," the company said in an ASX statement. "The settlement will not have a material impact on 2017 second half earnings." The amount that will go towards Maurice Blackburn's fees is not known. The action was funded by International Litigation Fundings Partners (ILFP). The cut the funder will take will be determined by the court when the settlement is approved. As a result of an earlier judgment in the case, ILFP is expected to seek a lower share of the settlement proceeds. Maurice Blackburn class actions principal Andrew Watson said the firm was very happy with the result. "A settlement like this shows that our class action system does function to provide significant returns for claimants and to those who allege they are the victims of corporate misconduct," Mr Watson said. "These settlements send a very strong signal to corporate Australia of the need to ongoing scrupulousness in relation to their compliance with continuous disclosure and corporate governance obligations." [GN] QUDIAN INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Qudian Inc. ("Qudian") (NYSE:QD) American Depository Shares pursuant to the October 17, 2017 Initial Public Offering and/or between October 18, 2017 and November 20, 20. Click here to learn about the case: http://www.wongesq.com/pslra- sbm/qudian-inc. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO failed to disclose that: (1) Qudian engaged in unethical business and accounting practices; (2) Qudian failed to maintain adequate control to ensure the protection and safety of its users' personal information; and (3) as a result, Qudian was exposing detailed user data to leakages and online resale. If you suffered a loss in Qudian you have until February 12, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra- sbm/qudian-inc. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Vincent Wong, Esq. Law Offices of Vincent Wong Tel.No.: 212-425-1140 Fax: 866-699-3880 Email: vw@wongesq.com [GN] QUDIAN INC: "Maia" Sues Over Share Price Drop --------------------------------------------- Carlos Maia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Qudian Inc., Min Luo, Chao Zhu, Li Du, Shilei Li, Yi Cao, Lianzhu Lv, Carl Yeung, Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China International Capital Corporation Hong Kong Securities Limited, UBS Securities LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Needham & Company, LLC, and Nomura Securities International, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-9796, (S.D. N.Y., December 14, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 Qudian is an online provider of credit products in China. Plaintiff purchased Qudian American Depository Shares in the Company's October 17, 2017 initial public offering. Qudian was involved in security breaches and unauthorized access to its customers confidential information. Plaintiff sustained damages when the value of Qudian American Depository Shares declined substantially subsequent to this incident, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com QUDIAN INC: Klein Law Firm Files Class Action --------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Qudian Inc. (NYSE:QD) who purchased American Depositary Shares pursuant to the October 17, 2017 Initial Public Offering and/or between October 18, 2017 and November 20, 2017. The action, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges that the Company violated federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO failed to disclose that: (1) Qudian engaged in unethical business and accounting practices; (2) Qudian failed to maintain adequate control to ensure the protection and safety of its users' personal information; and (3) as a result, Qudian was exposing detailed user data to leakages and online resale. Shareholders have until February 12, 2018 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. You may choose to be an absent class member. If you suffered a loss during the class period and wish to obtain additional information, please contact Joseph Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or visit http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-sbm/qudian-inc. Joseph Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Joseph Klein, Esq Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 Website: www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] QUEENS LAND: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Gonzalez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO GONZALEZ, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. QUEENS LAND BUILDER, INC; KINGS LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC.; NING WANG, an individual; HONG CHEN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC685765 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., December 5, 2017), alleges violations of the California Labor Code in connection with unpaid overtime, meal period premiums, rest period premiums and minimum wages. Queens Land Builder, Inc., and Kings Land Development, Inc., are corporations organized and existing under the laws of the state of California and conduct business in California. The Individual Defendants are residents of the County of Los Angeles, California, and are principals, officers or employees of the Defendant Corporations. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the identities of the Doe Defendants. Queens Land Builder is a home building contractor, offering wine cellar design, custom home construction, custom home design, and residential construction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Cody Payne, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 E-mail: amir@protectionlawgroup.com heather@protectionlawgroup.com ROUND LAKE PARK, IL: Willoughby Moves for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RAYMOND WILLOUGHBY, DAMIEN WARD, and DAN COOPER, Individually, and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, a Municipal Corporation, CHIEF MICHAEL BEHAN, in his Official Capacity on behalf of VILLAGE OF FOX LAKE, VILLAGE OF ROUND LAKE, a Municipal Corporation, VILLAGE OF ROUND LAKE BEACH, a Municipal Corporation, VILLAGE OF ROUND LAKE PARK, a Municipal Corporation, CITY OF McHENRY, a Municipal Corporation, COMMANDER GEORGE FILENKO, Individually, JOHN DOE POLICE OFFICERS, JOHN DOE DEPUTY SHERIFFS, JOHN DOE STATE POLICE AGENTS, and JOHN DOE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS AGENTS, Case No. 1:17-cv-02800 (N.D. Ill.), move for entry of an order that the case may be maintained as a class action on behalf of: all persons that were stopped, questioned, arrested, or otherwise detained and deprived of their liberty as purported suspects in the nationally-publicized murder investigation of Fox Lake police lieutenant Charles Joseph Gliniewicz from September 1, 2015 and continuing through September 5, 2015. The Plaintiffs further seek an order appointing their attorneys as class counsel. On the morning of September 1, 2015, Fox Lake Police Lieutenant Charles Joseph Gliniewicz committed suicide by shooting himself twice in a secluded area in or near Fox Lake, Illinois. Prior to taking his own life, Mr. Gliniewicz sent a radio transmission to the Fox Lake police department, fictitiously stating that he was in pursuit of three individuals that he described only as two "male whites" and one "male black." Mr. Gliniewicz's actions are now universally believed to have been motivated by a probe of the Fox Lake police department by its Village Manager, which was then on the verge of discovering that he had embezzled funds from a Village program he spearheaded that specializes in education and training for youths in the community with an interest in law enforcement (commonly known as the "Explorer program"). Fox Lake police personnel responded to the scene of Mr. Gliniewicz's call for assistance and discovered his deceased body. In the ensuing days, numerous individuals were stopped, detained, arrested, searched, and/or otherwise deprived of their liberty in conjunction with the investigation into Gliniewicz's fictitious "murder," the Plaintiffs assert. The Plaintiffs contend that the individuals were arrested and/or detained for questioning in conjunction with the death of Lt. Gliniewicz, except for those persons that were: (a) detained pursuant to probable cause for another offense; (b) already in custody at the time they were questioned; or (c) were the subject of credible information that he/they was/were involved in Mr. Gliniewicz's death provided by third parties are the persons that comprise the putative class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fpF0W5CS SANOFI US: Faces "Arnett" Suit over Taxotere and Docetaxel Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, BRENDA ARNETT, the Plaintiff, v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC. f/k/a SANOFI- AVENTIS U.S. INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; SANDOZ, INC., ACCORD HEALTHCARE, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION d/b/a MCKESSON PACKAGING; HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, LLC f/k/a HOSPIRA WORLDWIDE, INC.; HOSPIRA INC.; SUN PHARMA GLOBAL FZE, SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC. f/k/a CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL LABORATORIES LTD.; PFIZER INC.; ACTAVIS LLC f/k/a ACTAVIS INC.; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-17837-KDE-MBN (E.D. La., Dec. 27, 2017), seeks to recover damages from direct and proximate result of the breaches of warranty over Taxotere (Docetaxel) Products. According to the complaint, the Defendants published and disseminated Taxotere safety labels and Patient Information leaflets, which expressly stated that "[o]nce you have completed all your treatments, hair generally grows back." Defendants' Patient Information leaflets contained this statement until at least 2010. Defendants made representations that the risk of permanent hair loss associated with Taxotere use was no higher than its competitor's alternatives. The lawsuit says Defendants' representations were false. Defendants knew these representations were false. Defendants disclosed these risks in other markets, such as Europe (in 2005) and Canada (in 2012), but the same warning was not provided to American consumers until late 2015. Defendants' representations were made to induce Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' healthcare providers to purchase and use Taxotere for Defendants' own financial gain. Plaintiffs' physicians and others similarly situated relied upon these representations before prescribing Taxotere. Defendants' misrepresentations were made to potential prescribers and/or purchasers or users as members of the public at large. Defendants' representations were material, and directly and adversely impacted the risk-benefit analysis taken by plaintiffs' physicians and others similarly situated prior to the administration of Taxotere. As purchasers or users, Plaintiffs and/or their healthcare providers reasonably relied on the misrepresentations Plaintiffs were persons who would reasonably be expected to use, consume, or be affected by the Taxotere, Docetaxel Injection, Docetaxel Injection Concentrate, and Docefrez. As a result of the foregoing acts and omissions, Defendants caused Plaintiffs' injuries as alleged.[BN] SECURITY NATIONAL: Gregory Haskin Sues over Reimbursements ---------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY HASKIN CHIROPRACTIC CLINICS, INC., a Florida corporation, a/a/o Noman Maqsood, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-17-023577 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Dec. 28, 2017), seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendant's failure to pay proper amount of reimbursements to the Plaintiff and the Class for certain medical services provided to the Defendant's insureds. Specifically, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the Class, seeks the determination that the Defendant engaged in an improper uniform business practice of reducing by 2% their payments of all claims submitted by Plaintiff and the Class for medical services provided and billed under CPT codes 98940, 98941 and 98942, in violation of the Defendant's insurance policies and the Florida Motor Vehicle No-Fault Law. According to the complaint, on July 21, 2014, Noman Maqsood was involved in a motor vehicle accident, and as a result, sustained bodily injuries related to the operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. Maqsood was a contracting party and/or a named insured and/or an omnibus insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by Security National, which policy was in full force and effect and provided Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") benefits coverage as required by Florida law. Security National Insurance Company operates as a stock property and casualty insurer. It covers private passenger auto physical damage, private passenger auto liability, commercial automobile liability, and commercial auto physical damage. The company was incorporated in 1989 and is based in Davie, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tod Aronovitz, Esq. Barbara Perez, Esq. ARONOVITZ LAW 2 South Biscayne Boulevard One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 372 2772 Facsimile: (305) 397 1886 E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com bp@aronovitzlaw.com - and - Theophilos Poulopoulos, Esq. SCHILLER, KESSLER & GOMEZ, PLC 7501 W. Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319 Telephone: (954) 933 3000 Facsimile: (954) 667 5805 E-mail: theo@injuredinflorida.com SELECTMEN OF HINGHAM: Faces "Belezos" Suit in D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Board of Selectmen of Hingham. The case is captioned as Nicholas G. Belezos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Board of Selectmen of Hingham, Massachusetts in their official capacity, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-12570-FDS (D. Mass., Dec. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick P. Zotos, Esq. PATHOGENICS, INC. 28 Old Coach Road Cohasset, MA 02025 Telephone: (781) 836 4295 E-mail: fzotos@pathogenics.com SHERATON OPERATING: "Kim" Suit Moved to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Kim, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sheraton Operating Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC684546, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Dec. 27, 2017. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-09247-FMO-E to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J Ackermann, Esq. ACKERMANN AND TILAJEF PC 1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 277 0614 Facsimile: (310) 277 0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com - and - David S. Winston, Esq. WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C. 1180 S Beverly Dr. Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (424) 288 4568 Facsimile: (424) 532 4062 E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP PC 1180 South Beverly Drive Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 824 3828 Facsimile: (310) 862 6851 E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Truxler, Esq. William J. Dritsas, Esq. Michael W Kopp, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall Suite 2350 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 448 0159 Facsimile: (916) 558 4839 E-mail: ctruxler@seyfarth.com wdritsas@seyfarth.com mkopp@seyfarth.com SIGNET JEWELERS: Brower Piven Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Signet Jewelers Limited (NYSE:SIG) ("Signet" or the "Company") securities during the period between August 24, 2017 and November 21, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until February 13, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Signet securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's efforts to convert IT systems in connection with the credit portfolio transition were negatively impacting sales, the magnitude of in-store process changes related to the new credit program were negatively impacting sales, and the Company was experiencing systems and process disruptions associated with the outsourcing of its credit portfolio. According to the complaint, following a November 21, 2017 press release announcing that store sales were down five percent due to systems and process disruptions, the value of Signet declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Signet securities purchased on or after August 24, 2017 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. [GN] SNS TRANSPORTATION: Reyes Sues over Unpaid Wages & Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTO REYES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SNS TRANSPORTATION SERVICES INC., a California Corporation, dba AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and straight time wages and overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants failed to pay minimum and straight time wages, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide meal periods, failed to authorize and permit rest periods, failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failed to indemnify necessary business expenses, failed to pay vested vacation wages at termination, failed to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, and failed to furnish accurate wage. SNS Transportation is in the Trailer Repair business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Justin F. Marquez, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 232 3128 Facsimile: (213) 232 3125 E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, Hofer Says --------------------------------------------------------------- GREG HOFER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys 13 11 General Act ("PAGA"), the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17887504 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2017), alleges that the airline's flight attendants were not paid for all hours worked because those hours were not recorded. Defendants provide retail air transportation both throughout the State of California and on a national and international basis and is purported to be the world's largest low-cost air travel carrier. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a Flight Attendant within the State of California from 1994 through the present. The Defendants continue to employ Flight Attendants at multiple airport locations throughout California. The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and class members were entitled to receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were not receiving certain wages for overtime compensation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. THE BAINER LAW FIRM Harrison St., Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 922 1802 Facsimile: (510) 844 7701 E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com SOUTHWEST HAZARD: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Barajas Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO BARAJAS, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST HAZARD CONTROL, INC.; SHCCA, INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. RG17884833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., December 5, 2017), accuses the Defendants of failing to pay wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. Southwest Hazard Control, Inc., is an Arizona corporation operating within the state of California. SHCCA, Inc., is a California corporation operating within California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. Southwest Hazard Control provides environmental abatement and remediation services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. Ari J. Stiller, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Facsimile: (818) 990-2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com ari@kingsleykingsley.com SUBWAY 273: "De La Torre" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Ivett De La Torre, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. Subway 273, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation; Steven Bracken, individually; and Timothy Johnson, individually, Case No. 17-0928163-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami Dade County, Florida, to the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Jan. 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20067- JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com Attorneys for Subway 273, Inc.: Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2130 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 808 2143 Facsimile: (305) 808 2101 E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com SWISSPORT USA: "Courtney" Wants to Stop Capture of Biometric Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY COURTNEY and DOMONIQUE BOONE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. SWISSPORT USA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2017CH16020 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., December 5, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's capture, collection, use and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Choosing to shun more traditional timekeeping methods to track its employees, the Defendant has instead implemented an invasive program that captures, collects, stores, and uses Plaintiffs' and other workers' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in the form of finger scans, which capture a person's fingerprint, and which Defendant then uses to identify that same person in the future, according to the complaint. Swissport is an aviation services company, which provides ground and cargo handling services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. William P. Kingston, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com TAMNINE LLC: "Cullum" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Karen Cullum, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Tamnine LLC and Ayman Nasser, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00858 (E.D. Tex., December 14, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees, costs and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tamnine operates convenience stores in Northeast Texas, where Cullum worked as a convenience store clerk at their Seven Points location. Defendants did not pay Plaintiff overtime rates for hours worked over 40 per week, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100 Southlake, TX 76092-4322 Tel: (817) 416-5060 Fax: (817) 416-5062 Email: chris@crmlawpractice.com TATA CONSULTANCY: Termination Class Certified in "Buchanan" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order in the lawsuit styled BRIAN BUCHANAN, et al. v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, Case No. 4:15-cv-01696-YGR (N.D. Cal.): 1. granting in part -- as to amending to add Seyed Amir Masoudi and Nobel Mandili as named plaintiffs -- the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, and denying in part as to adding Steven Webber. The Plaintiffs shall file a fourth amended complaint, and the Defendant shall respond by January 22, 2018; 2. denying the Defendants' motion to exclude the expert opinion of Dr. David Neumark; 3. denying the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as premature as to Plaintiff Christopher Slaight and denying as to Plaintiff Brian Buchanan; 4. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the proposed Termination Class and denying as to the proposed Hiring Class; 5. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Kotchen & Low, as class counsel. A case management conference is scheduled for January 29, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiffs Brian Buchanan and Christopher Slaight bring this putative class action against Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. for alleged discrimination in employment practices. The Plaintiffs bring causes of action for disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plaintiffs allege that TCS discriminated against them in their hiring, employment, and/or termination practices based on race and national origin. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that TCS maintains a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination in its United States workforce whereby TCS treats persons, who are South Asian or of Indian national origin more favorably than those who are not South Asian or of Indian national origin. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7fQeaq1f TATA CONSULTANCY: US Judge Expands Bias Case to Class-Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Varun Aggarwal, writing for The Hindu Business Line, reports that India's largest software exporter Tata Consultancy Services Limited (TCS) suffered a setback in a US court on December 27 as its plea to dismiss a two-year-old suit against it was denied by a federal judge in Oakland, California. The suit accused the company of violating anti-discrimination laws by favouring Indians. In a further blow, the judge expanded the anti-discrimination lawsuit into a class-action suit. This means that the former employees who meet the conditions for suing as a group -- having common complaints -- can do so. TCS said in a statement that it would defend its position and that it expects a positive outcome. "In vindication of our position that TCS is an Equal Opportunity Employer, District Court in California has denied Class Certification on a litigation against the company alleging . . . . discrimination in hiring against people of non-South Asian origin. The same court has, however, granted Class certification in respect to discrimination in practices related to termination of employees. This part of the litigation will move to the next phase of trial," a TCS spokesperson said. TCS claimed it is an equal-opportunity employer operating in over 50 countries, including the US, and employee-nationals from over 100 countries. It said there were no discriminatory practices in any part of the company. The lawsuit dates back to April 2015, when former TCS employee Steven Heldt filed a civil complaint in the US District Court in San Francisco claiming he experienced "substantial anti-American sentiment" and was fired after working at several of the company's US offices for 20 months because he was a Caucasian American. Heldt accused TCS of threefold discrimination: hiring 95 per cent of its workers, most of them from India, on H-1B, L-1 and B-1 visas; hiring a disproportionate number of local South Asian workers; and discriminating against non-South Asians in promotions and firings. Under pressure from the US government to restrict H-1B visas, TCS has been hiring locally in the US. It recruited over 11,500 outside India during 2016-17, including graduates from engineering and B-schools in the US. [GN] TENHOP LLC: "Murphy" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------- Angela Murphy on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tenhop, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv- 00143, (W.D. Tenn., December 14, 2017), seeks compensation for all unpaid and underpaid wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates a franchise of International House of Pancakes located at 5800 S. Collins Street, Suite 104, Arlington, Texas 76018-2305, where Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a server. Defendant allegedly pays its servers at a tipped hourly rate that is lower than the $7.25 per hour statutory minimum wage and uses its servers' reported tips to meet its minimum wage and overtime obligations. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. MARTIN & GARRISON LLC 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2202 Fax: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com THOMAS HANNA: "Raiford" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN RAIFORD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THOMAS HANNA D/B/A HANNA'S RURAL SANITATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00005 (E.D. Tex., Jan. 8, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant provides residential and commercial garbage services in Texas. It conducts business throughout the United States and does more than $500,000.00 per year in business. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during the three years prior to the filing of this suit, from November 2015 to June 2016, as a salaried, overtime-exempt employee. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was misclassified by Defendant as an exempt employee. Plaintiff's duties made him a non-exempt employee under the FLSA: The Plaintiff was primarily responsible for performing maintenance, service, and repair work on Defendant's trucks. Plaintiff's job duties included fabricating new or replacement parts, assembling component parts by hand or using small tools, and ordering parts and supplies. The Plaintiff and Class Members were not lawfully compensated for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek at the rates required by the FLSA because Defendant misclassified them as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA. Plaintiff and Class Members routinely worked more than 40 hours per week but were not paid time-and-one-half their regular rates of pay for all their excessive hours. The Defendant knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern or practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with respect to Plaintiff and Class Members. Defendant received complaints from Plaintiff or Class Members regarding these excessive hours and the failure to compensate for all hours worked but failed to redress these concerns, necessitating this lawsuit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Braziel, Esq. Travis Gasper, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 749 1400 Facsimile: (214) 749 1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com gasper@l-b-law.com TOLL BROS: "Lopez" Suit Alleges ADA Violations ---------------------------------------------- Victor Lopez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Toll Bros., Inc. and Toll Brothers Real Estate, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00104-AJN (S.D. N.Y., January 5, 2018), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against the Defendants for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. Plaintiff Victor Lopez is a resident of New York, New York. Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA. Defendants advertise, market, distribute, and/or sell real estate, mortgages, real estate brokers, home building services and other types of real-estate related services in the State of New York and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradly G. Marks, Esq. THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC 175 Varick St. 3rd Floor New York, NY 10014 Tel: (646) 770-3775 Fax: (646) 867-2639 E-mail: bmarkslaw@gmail.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com TONG SHEN: "Rojas" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Rojas Calixto, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Tong Shen Trading Inc., Qin Lin, and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:18-cv-00075 (E.D. N.Y., January 5, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Jorge Rojas Calixto was continuously employed by Defendants to work as a non exempt warehouseman, stock person, driver's helper, and delivery person for Defendants' wholesale produce business from in or about 2013 until on or about September 5, 2017. The Defendants own and operate a wholesale produce business in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue- 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Feller" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Christina A. Snyder granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled GORDON FELLER ET AL. v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:16-cv- 01378-CAS-AJW (C.D. Cal.). These Class and Subclasses are certified: * National Class: All persons who own an in-force Policy for which the MDR increase imposed by Transamerica beginning August 1, 2015, has resulted or will result in higher Monthly Deduction charges than those applicable under the rate schedule in effect before that date. * California Subclass: All California residents who own an in-force Policy for which the MDR increase imposed by Transamerica beginning August 1, 2015, has resulted or will result in higher Monthly Deduction charges than those applicable under the rate schedule in effect before that date. * California Senior Subclass: All California residents who own an in-force Policy for which the MDR increase imposed by Transamerica beginning August 1, 2015, has resulted or will result in higher Monthly Deduction charges than those applicable under the rate schedule in effect before that date, and who were age 65 or older when the MDR increase was imposed on them. Judge Snyder also appointed these individuals as class representatives: (1) Donna White, Gail Thompson, and Erick Schneck, as Trustee of the Schneck Trust, for the National Class; (2) Gail Thompson for the California Subclass; and (3) Gail Thompson for the California Senior Subclass. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mfYFkhwe TUCKER ENERGY: "McElroy" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ Brandon McElroy, Robert Harrington, Averil Owens and Michael Rider, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tucker Energy Services, Inc., and Tucker Energy Services USA, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00010 (W.D. Tex., January 4, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are employees who are or were hourly-paid oilfield workers for Defendants, who, during the applicable time period, work/worked for Defendants and are/were denied their rights under applicable federal wage and hour laws. Defendants are privately owned multinational oil and gas services corporation providing innovative technology solutions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com WISCONSIN: Certification of Class Sought in "Campos" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled EFRAIN CAMPOS, JUAN NIETO, STANLEY NEWAGO, AND SIX UNNAMED PLAINTIFFS v. MICHAEL DITTMAN, LINDA ALSUM O'DONOVAN, DAVE KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M. WEBER, KEVIN W. PITZEN and BRAD HOMRE, CINDY O'DONNELL, Case No. 3:17-cv-00545- jdp (W.D. Wisc.), ask the Court to issue certification for the class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Pro se Plaintiffs Efrain Campos, Juan Nieto, and Stanley Newago are inmates in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) currently housed at the Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI). They bring this proposed class action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Defendants, who are CCI and DOC officials. Michael Dittmann is the warden of Columbia Correctional Institution. All of the Plaintiffs' rights were violated in the same manner as Badger State Industries employees at Columbia Correctional Institution, according to Motion. The Plaintiffs contend that they exercised their First Amendment rights and by exercising that right the Defendants retaliated against them and further terminated them without due process of law as explained in the complaint dated November 15, 2017. The Plaintiffs tell the Court that the class here is three named and six unnamed BSI workers, who have exhausted all administrative remedies to satisfy the exhaustion requirement and to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7xHxIgrj WYNDHAM HOTELS: "Macias" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Humberto Macias, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 17-27386 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on Jan. 8, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-20063-DPG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles. Wyndham Hotel Group is the world's largest and most diverse hotel business, with a global portfolio of more than 8,100 hotels and over 705,700 rooms in 79 countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephanie Leigh Adler-Paindiris, Esq. Amanda Ann Simpson JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 390 N Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Orlando, FL 32801-1641 Telephone: (407) 246 8440 Facsimile: (407) 246 8441 E-mail: adlers@jacksonlewis.com Amanda.Simpson@jacksonlewis.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial in Case vs. E-Source Set for Spring 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Vertex Energy, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2017, that the asbestos-related lawsuit versus its subsidiary is set for trial in the spring of 2018. The Company states, "E-Source Holdings, LLC ("E-Source"), the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Operating, was named as a defendant (along with Motiva Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth (60th) Judicial District, Jefferson County, Texas, on April 22, 2015. Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole Environmental, Inc. ("Whole"), made certain allegations against E-Source and Motiva. The claims include Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit actions relating to asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed for defendants at Motiva's facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County, Texas. The plaintiff alleges it is due monies earned. Defendants have denied any amounts due to plaintiff. The suit seeks damages of approximately US$864,000, along with pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, the fair value of certain property alleged to be converted by defendants and reimbursement of legal fees. E- Source has asserted a counterclaim against Whole for the filing of a mechanic's lien in excess of any amount(s) actually due, as well as a cross-claim against Motiva. Under the terms of E- Source's contract with Motiva, Motiva was to pay all sums due to any sub-contractors of E-Source. In management's opinion, any monies due to Whole, should be paid by Motiva. E-Source seeks to recover the balance due under its contract with Motiva of approximately US$1,000,000. The case is set for trial in the spring of 2018. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in the complaint. The Company has no basis of determining whether there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/0DetKp ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$209.8-Mil. Liability at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Enstar Group Limited recorded US$209.8 million for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at September 30, 2017, determined using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos-related exposures, 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 acquired Dana Companies, LLC ("Dana") on December 30, 2016. Dana continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business and is separately managed. "Other liabilities included US$209.8 million and US$220.5 million for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, determined using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos- related exposures. Other liabilities also included US$2.2 million and US$2.3 million for environmental liabilities associated with Dana properties at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. "Other assets included US$126.4 million and US$133.0 million at September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, for estimated insurance recoveries relating to these liabilities. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of the insurance agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these recoveries is based on an assessment of the right to recover under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers. The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs were paid in full." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/EoZcLE ASBESTOS UPDATE: HII Continues to Face PI Claims at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. is still facing asbestos- related claims alleging various injuries, 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, "HII and its predecessors-in-interest are defendants in a longstanding series of cases that have been and continue to be filed in various jurisdictions around the country, wherein former and current employees and various third parties allege exposure to asbestos containing materials while on or associated with HII premises or while working on vessels constructed or repaired by HII. "The cases allege various injuries, including those associated with pleural plaque disease, asbestosis, cancer, mesothelioma, and other alleged asbestos related conditions. In some cases, several of HII's former executive officers are also named as defendants. In some instances, partial or full insurance coverage is available to the Company for its liability and that of its former executive officers. "The average cost per case to resolve cases during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, was immaterial individually and in the aggregate. The Company's estimate of asbestos-related liabilities is subject to uncertainty because liabilities are influenced by numerous variables that are inherently difficult to predict. Key variables include the number and type of new claims, the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms made by state and federal courts, and the passage of state or federal tort reform legislation. Although the Company believes the ultimate resolution of current cases will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows, it cannot predict what new or revised claims or litigation might be asserted or what information might come to light and can, therefore, give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of asbestos related litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/cv4zlc ASBESTOS UPDATE: 223 Cases vs. CECO Still Pending at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- CECO Environmental Corp. is still facing 223 pending asbestos- related cases 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, "Our subsidiary, Met-Pro Technologies LLC ("Met-Pro"), beginning in 2002, began to be named in asbestos- related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management's opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro's products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company's experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company's position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30, 2017 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were US$1.2 million, of which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses; US$1.1 million have been paid by the Company's insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately US$27,000. "Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 223 cases pending against the Company as of September 30, 2017 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 229 cases that were pending as of December 31, 2016. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, 39 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 40 cases and settled five cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the discovery stage of litigation, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations, liquidity or financial condition." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/MGCPLI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harsco Corp. Has 17,150 PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harsco Corporation continues to defend against 17,150 pending asbestos personal injury actions 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. Harsco Corp. states, "The Company is named as one of many defendants (approximately 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past several decades. In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as defendants, among others, many manufacturers, distributors and installers of numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained asbestos. "The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit. The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or processor of asbestos fibers. Any asbestos-containing part of a Company product used in the past was purchased from a supplier and the asbestos encapsulated in other materials such that airborne exposure, if it occurred, was not harmful and is not associated with the types of injuries alleged in the pending actions. "At September 30, 2017, there were 17,150 pending asbestos personal injury actions filed against the Company. Of those actions, 16,752 were filed in the New York Supreme Court (New York County), 111 were filed in other New York State Supreme Court Counties and 287 were filed in courts located in other states. "The complaints in most of those actions generally follow a form that contains a standard damages demand of US$20 million or US$25 million, regardless of the individual plaintiff's alleged medical condition, and without identifying any specific Company product. "At September 30, 2017, 16,721 of the actions filed in New York Supreme Court (New York County) were on the Deferred/Inactive Docket created by the court in December 2002 for all pending and future asbestos actions filed by persons who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant condition or discernible physical impairment. The remaining 31 cases in New York County are pending on the Active or In Extremis Docket created for plaintiffs who can demonstrate a malignant condition or physical impairment. "The Company has liability insurance coverage under various primary and excess policies that the Company believes will be available, if necessary, to substantially cover any liability that might ultimately be incurred in the asbestos actions. The costs and expenses of the asbestos actions are being paid by the Company's insurers. "In view of the persistence of asbestos litigation in the U.S., the Company expects to continue to receive additional claims in the future. The Company intends to continue its practice of vigorously defending these claims and cases. At September 30, 2017, the Company has obtained dismissal in 27,931 cases by stipulation or summary judgment prior to trial. "It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos- related actions in the U.S. due to the unpredictable nature of this litigation, and no loss provision has been recorded in the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements because a loss contingency is not deemed probable or estimable. Despite this uncertainty, and although results of operations and cash flows for a given period could be adversely affected by asbestos- related actions, the Company does not expect that any costs that are reasonably possible to be incurred by the Company in connection with asbestos litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/8XFNj3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 103 Cases Pending at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., has 103 cases arising from asbestos exposure, involving a total of approximately 587 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2017. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by us. There are 103 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 587 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,680 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state court. We do not expect these claims will be re- opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. "Based on information available to us, including: * facts concerning historical operations, * the rate of new claims, * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and * our prior experience in the defense of these matters, we believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/TgvGVj ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2,742 Claims v. Metropolitan Life at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 2,742 new asbestos-related claims during the nine months ended 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, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. "Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. "As reported in the 2016 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 4,146 asbestos-related claims in 2016. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 2,742 and 3,267 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. "The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/p6kd0A ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Had $281MM Loss Reserves at Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of US$281.0 million, or 95.9%, of total net A&E reserves at September 30, 2017, all of which was for assumed 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, "On July 13, 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to Clearwater Insurance Company. Concurrently with the closing, we entered into a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of Clearwater. Per the retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of the liabilities associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies, which had been reinsured by Bermuda Re. As consideration for entering into the retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash of US$140.3 million, an amount equal to the net loss reserves as of the closing date. Of the US$140.3 million of net loss reserves retroceded, US$100.5 million were related to A&E business. The maximum liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty will be US$440.3 million, equal to the retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million. We will retain liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty. "Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that our A&E reserves represent management's best estimate of the ultimate liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant amount. "Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence, the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net three year asbestos survival ratio was 5.6 years at September 30, 2017. These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be indicative of the timing of future payments." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/3KWi6l ASBESTOS UPDATE: Houston Wire Still Faces PI Suits at Sept. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Wire & Cable Company remains a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos that may be in certain wire and cable, 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. Houston Wire states, "The Company, along with many other defendants, has been named in a number of lawsuits in the state courts of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota alleging that certain wire and cable which may have contained asbestos caused injury to the plaintiffs who were exposed to this wire and cable. These lawsuits are individual personal injury suits that seek unspecified amounts of money damages as the sole remedy. It is not clear whether the alleged injuries occurred as a result of the wire and cable in question or whether the Company, in fact, distributed the wire and cable alleged to have caused any injuries. The Company maintains general liability insurance that, to date, has covered the defense of and all costs associated with these claims. In addition, the Company did not manufacture any of the wire and cable at issue, and the Company would rely on any warranties from the manufacturers of such cable if it were determined that any of the wire or cable that the Company distributed contained asbestos which caused injury to any of these plaintiffs. In connection with ALLTEL's sale of the Company in 1997, ALLTEL provided indemnities with respect to costs and damages associated with these claims that the Company believes it could enforce if its insurance coverage proves inadequate." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/yb62Ue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Suits v. Dixie Group Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Dixie Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017 that discovery is still ongoing in two mesothelioma-related lawsuits filed against multiple parties including the Company. The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to two lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15- L-374 and styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525. "Both lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee or the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by the Company. "Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases. We have denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time. "In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D. Watts, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of "special closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending" to all remaining defendants." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/ozVWoy ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closed Due to Asbestos Leaking on Ceiling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martha Schick -- martha.schick@globe.com -- of Globe reported that Crocker Elementary School was closed from Jan. 2 to 5 due to a water leak that damaged ceiling tile containing asbestos, according to a note sent out from Fitchburg Superintendent Andre Ravenelle. Ravenelle wrote that cancelling classes for a week will allow for proper planning of the temporary relocation of our students and staff. The school is working with the appropriate agencies and licensed experts and will remain closed until cleaning and remediation has been completed, Ravenelle wrote. The water leak took place while the school was closed for the holidays and did not affect any students, according to the note to guardians. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Demolition on Asbestos-Filled Fertilizer Site -------------------------------------------------------------- Danica MacLean of Northern Advocate reported that it's time for new growth on an old Whangarei fertilizer storage site. Whangarei District Council is planning to redevelop the old Ballance fertilizer site on Port Rd but it is yet to decide exactly what kind of development will take its place. Contractors will begin dismantling the building and clearing the site from late January. Council property manager Mike Hilbert said the former fertilizer storage facility contains a lot of asbestos. Removing it was always going to require very careful, well- planned, well-executed work, so we have been planning that for some time. He said a class A asbestos removal contractor has been signed on for the work. The job will include removing all the asbestos cladding and asbestos containing material, demolition of the site buildings down to the concrete slab and a site tidy-up. The building's asbestos sheeting will be coated with a PVA/water mixture, to enclose fibres, before being wrapped in plastic and trucked to Puwera Landfill for disposal. Mr Hibbert said all work would be performed in accordance with the legislation. He said the council was now satisfied the site could be cleared in a way that ensured the safety of the public. The $700,000 contract has been let to demolition specialists Ceres New Zealand. Mr Hibbert said disruption to traffic on Port Rd will be minimal, with trucks making left turns only and barriers used to keep the public safe. Asbestos air monitoring will be carried out at several locations around the site boundary and all works will be monitored by a licensed asbestos assessor. To protect the environment, all runoff will be captured or treated to prevent sediment or asbestos entering the harbour. Dust will be controlled with water misting as required and plastic drop sheets will be laid below work areas to prevent asbestos entering soils. Following demolition, an environmental site assessment will investigate soil and groundwater conditions beneath the site and identify whether any remediation works are required. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighter Dies of Mesothelioma ------------------------------------------------- Jake Ryan of The Sun reported that the grandad-of-two had received an MBE for his service after joining the fire brigade aged just 17. John, who had been the station's mascot aged 5, had pretended to be 18 in order to join the fire brigade. But during his service he had been exposed to lethal asbestos dust in fire-retardant blankets and gloves coated in the deadly material. In April 2012 John, from Penzance, Cornwall, complained to his GP about breathlessness and was diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer in his lungs. Doctors were unable to treat the mass in his lung and he died a year later -- leaving his unwell wife Phyllis without a carer. But Cornwall Council, responsible for John's fire station, have now paid out compensation which his family are using for Phyllis's care. John's trawlerman son Treve, who has two children Stuart and Jordan, said: "It was his life's passion and he made life-long friends while he did it. "It's been incredibly difficult for her to lose my father. They were married for 48 years and completely dedicated to each other." John had left school at 15 to work as a farm labourer before joining the fire service at 17. Dushal Mehta of Fieldfisher law firm had found witness evidence about working conditions from former colleagues and fire station log books to show John had been exposed to asbestos. Dushal said: "Tragically, mesothelioma affects people like John who have worked hard all their life in a job they love, unknowingly being exposed to fatal asbestos dust and then their reward is this terrible illness. Mesothelioma can take 30 years to appear and in the past, mostly affected people such as labourers, construction workers and shipbuilders, who physically handled the stuff. But we're now seeing more and more cases of civil servants such as teachers, nurses and fireman affected by this cruel disease. A spokeswoman for Cornwall Council said: "Our thoughts are with the family of Mr Nicholls. Historical cases such as this are an issue for many local authorities and their insurers and relate to building materials containing asbestos which were widely used in the past." ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Council Escape Suspension on Asbestos Mess ---------------------------------------------------------------- Damien Madigan of Blue Mountain Gazette News reported that Blue Mountains City Council has escaped suspension after the local government minister backed down on threats to appoint an administrator over its management of asbestos. The minister, Gabrielle Upton, announced her decision on December 22 after earlier issuing council with notice to suspend it for three months. The decision has placed pressure on Ward 4 Liberal councillor Brendan Christie who had publicly urged the minister to suspend council for six months, not three months. He was joined by Ward 1 Liberal councillor Kevin Schreiber in voting against council's submission to avoid suspension at an extraordinary council meeting before Christmas. "Minister, if you back down [on the suspension notice] and something happens, it is on you and I will seek your resignation for it," Cr Christie told the council meeting on December 19. Blue Mountains mayor Mark Greenhill described Cr Christie's remarks as extraordinary but hoped he would re-examine his view and continue to serve on council. "I think we should all be prepared to take this challenge forward as a team. I'd rather see him part of that team. [But] if he genuinely hasn't got the answers and doesn't think he can be part of the journey then that's a matter for him," he said. But Cr Christie indicated he has no plans to quit council, repeating his call for council to be placed in the hands of an administrator. "I'll continue to pursue a robust and bold policy agenda to ensure our community receives the highest level of support and service we deserve," he said. "Asbestos in many ways is symptomatic of a council that needs large scale renewal at the operational level and the most effective way to deliver that renewal is through the appointment of a temporary administrator. The minister has made the decision not to take this action. I'll continue to work with my colleagues and hold the council to account to ensure we are delivering and building on the service our community rightfully expect and deserve. "Today it was asbestos, yesterday it was cancelled Anzac Day marches, Australia Day under threat, a wasteful Badgerys [airport] campaign, dangerous dogs and the whole Wayzgoose [cafe] fiasco. These issues are systemic, ongoing and as many residents have expressed to me, not representative of the values or quality of service they expect, especially when they're paying ballooning council rates," he said. Despite not suspending Blue Mountains council, Ms Upton said she remained "seriously concerned that the safety of its community and workforce has been compromised by inadequate processes to deal with asbestos." "Councillors cannot wash their hands of the problems under their watch. Blue Mountains City Council is now facing extra oversight from the Office of Local Government as well as investigations from SafeWork and the NSW Environment Protection Authority." The minister instead issued a Performance Improvement Order "to hold the council to account and make sure it takes the necessary action to address its poor record on asbestos management". Councillors had suggested this course of action at the December 19 council meeting. "Consistent with the council's request and recommendation, the minister has foreshadowed the issuing of a Performance Improvement Order," the mayor said in a statement after the minister's decision. "This approach is considered to be a more targeted and effective response to the minister's concerns, recognising the seriousness of asbestos management and reflects the council's intention to place the safety of its staff and community at the centre of its operations and organisational culture." Cr Greenhill thanked the minister "for her consideration of our submission and for her decision to not proceed with suspending the elected councillors of Blue Mountains City Council." ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Hall Renovation to Include Asbestos Removal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Hill of The Register-Guard reported that after two years of planning, the renovation and expansion of the 50-year- old Florence City Hall is scheduled to begin. The $2.4 million construction project will add 2,400 square feet to the civic building on Highway 101. The current building is 9,100 square feet. The remodeling and addition to City Hall will enhance customer service, building security, accessibility for people with disabilities and the work space for employees, according to city officials. "We're going to make it a little more modern and efficient from the way we currently do business," city spokeswoman Megan Messmer said. Officials said the project also will improve the streetscape along Highway 101, with the hope of spurring redevelopment and attracting more visitors. City employees will temporarily move out of City Hall starting Jan. 8. During the renovation, day-to-day municipal services in City Hall will move to the city's public works building at 2675 Kingwood St. Those services include utility payments, business licenses and code enforcement. The Florence Events Center, 715 Quince St., will serve as the temporary meeting place for the City Council, city committees and other events. The total project cost is about $4.3 million, including expenses to conduct an initial study, hire an architect, remove asbestos, and buy furniture and equipment. The cost also includes funds for unexpected expenses and interest payments. Most of the City Hall expansion will be for a new council chambers and a large conference room. Moving the council chambers into the semi-circular addition at the front of City Hall will free space to bring employees closer together and prevent residents from having to walk across the building to pay bills, file paperwork or ask questions, Messmer said. The chamber's occupancy of about 80 people will remain unchanged. The project also will put a new roof on the building and install new carpets, windows and siding. Planning started in 2015. A consulting firm studied the possibility of building a City Hall elsewhere. But the firm concluded the current site was adequate to serve a population twice the size of Florence's 8,900 residents. The study cost the city nearly $27,000. The city hired architect HGE Inc., based in Coos Bay, last January for $162,000. In December, city officials signaled their intent to award the construction contract to Par-Tech Construction based in Oregon City. The contractor is scheduled to complete the project before the end of 2018. With new furniture and equipment and expenses for permits and asbestos removal, the total project cost is $3 million. The city will finance the project for 20 years, with the annual debt service payments costing about $216,000. More than 20 employees, about one-third of the city's total workforce, work in City Hall. The building is home to the city manager's office and the finance and planning departments. The city houses the police department, the municipal court and jail, the 911 dispatch center and the public works department in separate buildings. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Abatement Begins in Elementary School --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Erb -- merb@newsandsentinel.com -- of The Parkersbury News and Sentinel reported that Wood County Schools will be working on multiple facilities in 2018 as part of the district's $41 million bond project. In 2017, Wood County voters approved the facilities bond which will be used to construct a new elementary school in Williamstown, expand the high school in Williamstown, and complete roof replacements on more than a dozen Wood County Schools facilities. In December, the board was awarded $7.4 for million by the state School Building Authority for expansion and improvement of the Wood County Technical Center. The money will supplement $1.5 million in bond money for the Center. Assistant Superintendent Mike Fling said the early part of 2018 will be putting items out for bid for the various projects. "We anticipate the Williamstown Elementary School project to go to bid around the third week of January," he said. "It will be out for bid for about three weeks, with the bid awarded in mid- February and construction to begin in mid-March." Demolition of the former Fenton Art Glass plant is continuing, though right now it is mostly asbestos abatement inside the building, Fling said. Fencing has been put up around the property in anticipation of demolition. The new elementary school will occupy the parking lots which surround the Fenton Gift Shop and factory. A playground will be constructed where the plant warehouse now stands. Fling said officials are still negotiating the purchase of two properties adjacent to Williamstown High School. "Once those properties have been purchased, demolition of those properties can begin and then we'll move on with the process of building there," he said. Roof replacements began this past summer, and Fling said more will happen in the summer of 2018. "It's all done over the summer when students are not in the buildings," he said. "We typically try to set aside 10 weeks to complete those projects." Fling said the district will announce which schools will have their roofs replaced in 2018. Officials are staggering the roof replacements. "We're breaking them down by square feet rather than a number of buildings," he said. "Last summer we were able to put down just over 300,000 square feet. We have a total of about 10 million square feet of roofing on our buildings, so our goal is to complete 300,000 square feet or more each summer over a three- year period." Fling said the expansion of the Wood County Technical Center, which shares a campus with Parkersburg South High School, is still in the design phase, but officials hope to build a two- story addition to the building as well as making changes and improvements to the current facility. The new construction likely will take place while classes are in session, he said, but the disruption should be minimal and the project should proceed at a quick pace. "I anticipate we will be able to move quickly there, as we don't need to purchase any property, he said. "Since there is now SBA money involved, the SBA is also part of the design and development process." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Exposed to Asbestos Awarded $22M Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Povtal of Asbestos.com reported that a California jury recently awarded $22 million to the estate of a man exposed to asbestos-containing talc that was used in paint manufacturing, expanding the liability of those supplying the toxic ingredient. Plaintiff Richard Booker, who worked as a paint maker throughout his career, died of mesothelioma in 2016. The lawsuit claimed Booker was exposed to asbestos while working for Dexter Midland Chemical Co. and Walter N. Boysen Paint Co. The lucrative award includes $4.6 million in punitive damages, along with the initial judgement of $17.57 million for malice on the part of Vanderbilt Minerals and Imerys Talc America Inc. The jury ruled the two companies shared responsibility for marketing, selling and distributing the talc product. Talc is a clay mineral composed of hydrated magnesium silicate, used in paints for its ability to resist heat and deter grease and oil absorption. It also is used as an ingredient in ceramics, insecticides, roofing materials, rubber, talcum powder and the pulp and paper industry. There is an ongoing debate about the safety of talc, with thousands of lawsuits linking talc to ovarian cancer. Additionally, several talc products in the past contained traces of asbestos dust, stemming from their naturally occurring proximity to each other on the earth's surface. Exposure Can Lead to Multiple Problems Asbestos exposure can lead to a number of serious health problems, including asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. The $22 million award comes in the wake of multiple lawsuits filed against Colgate Palmolive for its Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder. The company resolved 43 cases in 2017 involving asbestos- contaminated talc, according to Bloomberg News. There are hundreds more yet to be settled. The latest settlement involved a Pennsylvania woman who developed mesothelioma, blaming it on the talcum powder used more than 20 years before. The majority of the asbestos-contaminated talc lawsuits today have involved talcum powder, which has been used for generations by millions of Americans to dry, perfume and protect their skin. Researchers have debated for decades the possible connection between contaminated talc and various cancers. Since the 1970s, federal laws have required commercial talc to be free of any asbestos, although interpretation of those laws has wavered. Talcum powder products are now considerably safer than they once were, but cancers emerging today often stem from exposure decades ago. The majority of lawsuits involve ovarian cancer. Talc Mined Alongside Asbestos Mesothelioma is a rare and aggressive cancer with no definitive cure. Asbestos exposure is the overwhelming cause. Booker's case was held in the Superior Court of California for Alameda County. The jury ruled Booker died from mesothelioma caused by various forms of asbestos found in the talc used during his career in paint manufacturing. "Plaintiffs allege the talc contained fibrous minerals, including but not limited to anthophyllite, tremolite, chrysotile, and other asbestos minerals, transitional fibers, and asbestiform talc," Booker's original filing said. The jury cited its ruling on the basis of negligence, product design defect and a failure to warn. Imerys, which continues to insist its product is safe, is the world's leading talc producer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Closed After Asbestos Damages in Tiles -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that a Massachusetts elementary school will be closed after a pipe burst over the holiday break and damaged ceiling tiles that contained asbestos. Fitchburg Superintendent Andre Ravenelle says the closure of Crocker Elementary School will allow the district to plan for a temporary relocation of students and staff. A statement from Ravenelle says the district is working with the appropriate agencies and experts on cleaning, remediation and testing. ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Corps Use Asbestos Despite Proof of Cancer -------------------------------------------------------------- RT reported that US corporations have been using asbestos despite evidence it causes cancer in workers, and millions of dollars are being spent on lobbying to cover this up, according to Farron Cousins, executive editor of Trial Lawyer magazine. Asbestos has been used all over the world for more than 100 years in all types of manufacturing, from insulation to paper products. Its use in America is now back on the rise in spite of decades of evidence proving that the substance can lead to death. After the public became aware of the deadly nature of asbestos, the US government claimed it had taken action to reduce the risk of exposure. Average Americans believe that asbestos is no longer widely used, and the product has been banned for decades. In the late 70s, new rules were drafted in the US that would limit the amount of asbestos in the country, and these rules were finalized in 1989. A 10-year investigation resulted in more than 100,000 pages of clear evidence confirming a link between asbestos exposure and cancer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found Again in Kids Cosmetic Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Faber of EWG reported that once again, experts have found asbestos in cosmetics marketed to kids. Claire's stores pulled 17 products from their shelves after researchers found asbestos in glitter, eye shadow and other cosmetics marketed to children. The findings by the Scientific Analytic Institute echo those of a study released last summer, which found asbestos in eight products sold by Justice. Experts say talc used to make the cosmetics can be contaminated with asbestos. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, which causes diseases that kill an estimated 15,000 Americans a year. Tiny asbestos fibers in cosmetics can be inhaled by a child, become lodged in their lungs, and eventually cause mesothelioma, an incurable cancer. There is no law that prohibits the presence of asbestos in cosmetics. Asbestos has been banned by more than 50 nations, but its use remains legal in the U.S. The Food and Drug Administration encourages companies to carefully select talc mines to avoid asbestos contamination, but it does not have the power to regulate products that contain talc. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., have championed legislation to regulate cosmetics and other personal care products. Their bills would require the FDA to review and restrict, or even ban, the most dangerous ingredients. But so far, Congress has failed to act on the Personal Care Products Safety Act, even though the bill is broadly supported by cosmetics companies and a recent FDA report found the rise in cosmetics imports poses new risks. If asbestos in kids' cosmetics won't force Congress to act, what will? ASBESTOS UPDATE: Renovation on Asbestos-Contaminated Plant Begins ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mollie Cahillane of DailyMail.com reported that ghostly pictures reveal the rusting remains of a 20th century power plant filled with potentially deadly asbestos before a planned $270 million renovation began. The atmospheric shots show the desolate metal stairways, rusting infrastructure and water-filled passages. Exterior images show missing windows and crumbling brick of the fenced off five storey-plant. The spooky pictures were taken at Riverside Power Plant, in Savannah, Georgia by an urban explorer known only as Abandoned Southeast. ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK School Remains Closed After Asbestos Find ------------------------------------------------------------- The Mail reported that a primary school will remain closed following the Christmas holidays after asbestos was found on site. Pupils at St James Catholic Primary School, in Millom, won't return to the school until January 8 after asbestos was found following building work. Work to remove the asbestos is planned to begin tomorrow (3), with the school hall and other areas needed to be blocked off and closed. Pupils were set to return to the school on January 4 following the Christmas holidays. In a letter to parents head-teacher Nerissa Nicholas said: "We are very sorry about this and apologize for the inconvenience this will cause many of you. "We have made the decision in the interests of the health and safety of the children which is, as always, our first concern. "We have, in consultation with the project manager, our governing body and the contractors, decided we have no alternative but to close the school to children on Thursday and Friday." Mrs Nicholas also confirmed staff at the school would be attending training during the closed days. ASBESTOS UPDATE: J. Starnes Joins Gori Julian Asbestos Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gori Julian & Associates, P.C., announced that James "Alex" Starnes has joined Gori Julian & Associates, P.C. as an attorney. Starnes will be working at the Edwardsville office of Gori Julian & Associates in the practice area of asbestos litigation. Starnes received his undergraduate degree from the University of Missouri Columbia where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science. He then later attended Southern Illinois University School of Law where he received his Juris Doctor. He clerked for a circuit court judge and also interned with the St. Clair County State's Attorney. Starnes also did pro bono work for the Madison County Public Defender. Starnes, a cancer survivor, seeks to be a zealous and effective advocate for individuals and families affected by asbestos lung cancer and mesothelioma. About Gori Julian & Associates Gori Julian & Associates was formed in 2008 by Randy Gori and Barry Julian and since has recovered more than $3 billion in compensation for those suffering as a result of asbestos exposure. Serving clients throughout the United States, the firm has offices in Edwardsville, Ill., St. Louis, New York, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Washington, D.C. and Orlando. Although the attorneys at Gori Julian & Associates concentrate on asbestos- related injuries, they also handle catastrophic injury cases, pharmaceutical and medical device litigation and occupational disease injury matters. For more information on the areas of law practiced by the attorneys at Gori Julian & Associates, or to contact an attorney at the firm, visit http://www.gorijulianlaw.comor call toll free at 888.362.6890. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bechtel Corp. Wins Asbestos Ruling --------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald of Risk Management reported that a divided Florida state appeals court ruled in favor of Bechtel Corp. in an asbestos liability case, reversing a lower court decision that Bechtel's failure to contact former employees as potential witnesses could be inferred in a negative light by a jury. Richard Batchelor, who worked at Juno Beach, Florida-based Florida Power and Light Co.'s Turkey Point power plant from 1974 to 1980, and his wife, Regina, had filed suit against San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. and subsidiary Bechtel Construction Company, among others, in 2015 after he was diagnosed with terminal mesothelioma, according to the Dec. 27 ruling by the Florida Court of Appeal in Miami in Bechtel Corp. et al. v. Richard Batchelor, et al. A jury entered a verdict of $15.4 million for Mr. Batchelor and $6 million for his wife, and found construction and engineering firm Bechtel 60% liable. In its 2-1 ruling, the appeals court said the Miami trial court judge's instruction to the jury "constituted reversible error." The trial court judge had told the jury that if it found Bechtel's failure to produce others employed at the plant between 1974 and 1980 to be unreasonable they were "permitted to infer that the evidence would have been unfavorable to Bechtel." The appeals court ruled, however, that "Mailing postcards to locate retirees who had worked over thirty years ago and could then be interviewed to prepare a corporate witness is a time- consuming effort with no guarantee of success. "In the absence of an order compelling Bechtel to undertake such an extraordinary effort on the eve of trial, which involved so little promise of results, the trial court erred in imposing the sanction of an adverse inference jury instruction." The Batchelors had also contended that Bechtel was guilty of premises liability because it had been in control of the plant's operations and maintenance. In ruling in favor of the company, the majority appeals court ruling said, "instead of direct evidence, Batchelor, as he may, relies on inferences." But, it added that "given Batchelor's own undisputed testimony that the plant was serviced by four hundred (Florida Power & Light) employees per day, plus contractors, Bechtel's presence was still a fraction of the presence of (Florida Power & Light's) own work force over those six years," said the ruling, in instructing the lower court to enter judgment for Bechtel. The minority opinion said the trial court had "properly determined" there was sufficient evidence introduced to permit the jury to decide whether Bechtel had "possession and control" of those portions of the premises where Mr. Batchelor was exposed to asbestos during the relevant time period. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the adverse inference issue, the minority ruling said, also. ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Didn't Notify About Asbestos in S.D. Bldg. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Sneve and Jonathan Ellis of Argus Leader reported that South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources did not notify residents and neighbors of the former Copper Lounge building they might have been exposed to asbestos that was illegally removed from the building. Mike Fodness and his family lived in a residence above the former Copper Lounge before it fell down when Hultgren Construction removed a load bearing wall from the first floor on Dec. 2, 2016. His daughter, Emily, was sleeping at the time of the event and was trapped in rubble for hours before being dug out by first responders. During a City Council hearing, Fodness told the council that he didn't learn about the asbestos until after it was first reported by the Argus Leader. Tim Kant, who owned the adjoining Eastwold Smoke Shop, said that he was never told about the asbestos exposure either. In the aftermath of the Copper Lounge collapse, a DENR investigation found that Hultgren Construction had illegally removed asbestos from the basement of the building before trucking it through town in two loads to the city landfill where it was illegally dumped. Hultgren Construction and the building owner at the time of the offense, CLP Investments, were fined $20,000 for the offenses by DENR. But both entities were deemed insolvent and did not pay the fine. Kant said that he got calls from the state following the collapse asking about the location of the asbestos. "Everybody knew that it was down there -- there's no doubt about it," he said. DENR spokesman Kim Smith said in an email that only Norm Drake, the manager of CLP Investments, and Aaron Hultgren, were notified about the DENR investigation that resulted in the unpaid penalties. "They in turn advised their attorney," Smith said. The department, Smith added, does not post notices of violation on its website. That practice is common among other state and federal regulatory agencies. Fodness made an impassioned plea for the city to sever its ties with Legacy Developments, which was the developer on the Copper Lounge project. Fodness was supporting an effort by two city councilors to revoke a contract the city has with Legacy Developments to build a $50 million parking ramp and hotel. Legacy Developments' officers include Hultgren and Drake. "My family was not informed that we were exposed to potential cancer causing asbestos," Fodness said. "Not by Hultgren Construction, nor by Legacy ... nor any other shell company that Norm and Aaron wish to create. Nor by the state and, most troubling, my own city of Sioux Falls." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nova Scotia Plant Asbestos Removal Costs $40MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Withers of CBC News reported that facing a potential price tag of $40 million, Nova Scotia Power says it's finding ways to lower the cost of removing asbestos insulation from two of its coal-fired electrical generating plants. The company told regulators in a Dec. 28 filing that it's tackling a large portion of the expense: staging and enclosing work areas to meet Nova Scotia Labour Department guidelines. Nova Scotia Power's 500,000 customers have a stake in the exercise, as they ultimately will foot the bill. "Nova Scotia Power's review of its asbestos-management practices included examining how to minimize these costs and has resulted in modifications to the application of these practices," Mark Peachey, the utility's manager of capital filings, told regulators. The company said there is no set end date for this work at Trenton and Point Tupper. It expects it will continue over the next five to 10 years. Response from Nova Scotia Power Spokesperson Tiffany Chase said the company does not yet know how much its new plan will save. "We are currently developing estimates based on the new practices and validating them with a third party. We expect to have all the estimates complete by March of this year," Chase said in a written statement to CBC News. The company said the program is supported by joint occupational health and safety committees, which have had input into the revised practices. Trenton cleaning cost $2.1M in 2016 alone The Nova Scotia Department of Labour and Advanced Education said it is not normally consulted unless there are questions around its guidelines. "It is positive when anyone commits to managing the safe removal of asbestos using our guidelines," spokesperson Lisa Jarrett said in a statement. The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board started asking questions after the cost of removing asbestos at Nova Scotia Power's Trenton generating plant for the 2016 year when it jumped from a budgeted $154,000 to $2.1 million. The company said it was forced to address an unexpected discovery of asbestos in areas of the plant that are prone to vibration. To integrate more intermittent wind power onto the grid, Trenton and other plants are being shut down and restarted more frequently, increasing vibrations and the risk of asbestos disturbance. Nova Scotia Power told the Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board it must remove about 2,225 metres of asbestos insulation at Trenton and 1,524 metres from its Point Tupper plant at the Strait of Canso. It was used primarily on high-temperature piping, boiler and duct work. The company estimated the total removal and encapsulation costs for each plant at between $15 and $20 million, which means the entire project could cost $40 million. The board told Nova Scotia Power to complete a review of the way it deals with asbestos by Dec. 31. In response, Nova Scotia Power has developed a new risk matrix that prioritizes removing asbestos from pipes that vibrate, such as steam lines. The aim is to maximize removals during regularly scheduled maintenance downtime. Could use longer contracts Nova Scotia Power says it has subdivided areas with asbestos into 25 distinct abatement areas. "This approach introduces cost efficiencies by allowing the utilization of larger enclosures to deal with all piping in an abatement area at the same time, instead of completing an asbestos abatement on one section of insulation as it is found," Peachey told the board. The utility is also considering multi-year contracts with third- party companies, if that's cheaper than awarding on a project-by- project basis. The power company says its revised asbestos management plan will be completed in the first half of 2018. It will be put into practice first at Trenton during a planned outage this fall and during a planned outage at Point Tupper in 2019. A third plant -- Tufts Cove in Dartmouth -- has a small amount of asbestos remaining. Abatement there will be completed in 2018 at an estimated cost of $200,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Indicates Legacy Uses of Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------ MESOTHELIOMA.net reported that with asbestos well established as the single cause of malignant mesothelioma, as well as numerous other asbestos-related diseases, there is considerable interest in the outcome of the ongoing risk evaluation being conducted under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt raised health advocates hopes recently when, during a meeting with the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Environment Subcommittee, he indicated that the agency may be rethinking its original decision to only review "current and prospective uses." According to Pruitt, the agency is currently discussing also including the "legacy installed" building materials that have been blamed for so many dangerous exposures in recent years. The question of these materials that are already in place gets to the heart of health concerns about asbestos, and the risks of people who are exposed to it being diagnosed with mesothelioma at a later date. According to asbestos abatement experts, asbestos in deteriorating buildings is "the most prevalent source of asbestos exposure to the general public." Safety concerns about the residents of those buildings, renovators, demolition specialists and those disposing of the asbestos-contaminated materials would all be ignored under the EPA's current interpretation of the TSCA, which gives the agency renewed authority to control the use of asbestos, or even to ban it outright. When questioned about this by New Jersey's Representative Frank Pallone, Jr., Mr. Pruitt said, "You raise a meaningful concern." He indicated that the agency's personnel are currently reconsidering their current stance, and may decide to include legacy uses in their review. The TSCA was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2016 by President Barack Obama. The law provided the EPA with the ability to select chemicals that are currently in use and review their safety under new reviews based exclusively on their health impact. Though there have been attempts to ban asbestos in the past, the powerful chemical lobbies have stopped them repeatedly, thus allowing asbestos use to continue. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Gets Six-Figure Sum for Husband's Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITV News reported that the widow of a former music teacher has received a six-figure sum after her husband was exposed to asbestos in the classroom. Julie Shaw's husband Bryan taught at Leicester Grammar School for 21 years until 2012. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare and incurable form of cancer, in 2011. He died from the disease four years later. It is believed Mr Shaw was unknowingly exposed asbestos when he worked at the St Nicholas building, the school's former site in St Martins, Leicester. According to solicitor firm Slater and Gordon Lawyers, who represent Mrs Shaw, it is thought that asbestos was not properly cleared when it was removed from piping in the music practice room in 1985. The couple pursued a legal case against Leicester Grammar School Trust, which Mrs Shaw continued after her husband's death. The case has now been settled out of court, in an undisclosed sum of money to Mrs Shaw. The school trust said it has not accepted liability at any stage, and the matter was passed to its insurers. Chris King, Head Teacher of Leicester Grammar School, said: Bryan Shaw, a former teacher at Leicester Grammar School, brought a legal case against the Trust claiming that the cause of his mesothelioma lay in a source in a building occupied by the school prior to 2008. Exceptionally in such cases, cause and effect do not have to be proven by the claimant. At no stage did the Trust accept liability and the Trust did not pay any money to the Shaw family. The matter was passed to our insurance company who we believe settled the case without it going to court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Machakos Urged Policy for Asbestos Disposal ------------------------------------------------------------ Hivisasa reported that the county government of Machakos has been urged to come up with a policy to govern the disposal of asbestos which has been said to cause cancer. In the 1960s, asbestos was widely used in the roofing of government buildings, schools, and hospitals. Jeremiah Simba, Semi-arid Regions Environment director, warned that the material posed a serious health crisis. He urged that they be disposed of at designated places. ********* 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, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. 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 * * *