/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180329.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 29, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 64 Headlines 3M COMPANY: "St. John" Class Lawsuit in Alabama Still Pending 3M COMPANY: "Stover" Class Action Suit in Alabama Remains Stayed 3M COMPANY: Suit in Lawrence County State Court Remains Stayed 3M COMPANY: Alabama Residents' Federal Court Suit Underway 3M COMPANY: Still Defends 12 Suits over Aqueous Film Forming Foam 3M COMPANY: Faces Class Action over Wolverine's Use of Scotchgard 3M COMPANY: Still Faces 4,270 Bair Hugger Claims 3M COMPANY: Bair Hugger Class Suit in Canada Underway 3M COMPANY: Class Suit over Dental Product Still Pending ABBVIE INC: 2 Consolidated Class Suits on Niaspan Still Pending ABBVIE INC: Medical Mutual Lawsuit v. TRTs Makers Still Pending ABBVIE INC: Has 635 Product Liability Claims on Depakote Risks ABBVIE INC: Still Faces Putative Class Suit by Rubinstein, et al ABBVIE INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Sidney Hillman Suit ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway ALKERMES PLC: Putative Shareholder Class Action in N.Y. Underway ALLEGIANT AIR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal from Indirect Buyers' Class Status Pending ALLERGAN PLC: No Updates on Tentative Accord in Botox(R) Lawsuit ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Still Defends Loestrin(R) 24 Suit ALLERGAN PLC: JPML Moves Restasis(R) Class Lawsuits to E.D.N.Y. ALLERGAN PLC: No Updates on Tentative Settlement in Zymar Suit ALLERGAN PLC: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Mass. Lexapro Suit ALLERGAN PLC: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Wash. Lexapro Case ALLERGAN PLC: Securities & ERISA Suit over Generic Drug Pending ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Still Faces Suit over TCPA Violations ALLERGAN PLC: Still Defends Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Suits ALLERGAN PLC: Class Status Bid in TRT Class Suit Still Pending ALLERGAN PLC: TNS Products Litigation Dismissed in January 2018 ALLERGAN PLC: May 2018 Fairness Hearing on Sales Agents' Pact AMERICAN EXPRESS: Lawsuit over Anti-Steering Rules Still Stayed AMERICAN EXPRESS: Marcus Corp. Antitrust Class Suit Still Stayed AMERICAN INT'L: Supreme Court Won't Hear Starr Appeal AMERIGAS PROPANE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Fregoso Says AMMADIS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Arvizu Says ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Seeks to Dismiss Remaining Farmers' Suit ARGOS USA: "Soileau" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA AVEO PHARMA: Inks Settlement Accord for Securities Class Suit "B" ING THE BEST: Maldonado Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA BEAUTY BASICS: Fails to Pay Aveda Institute Students for Work BIG HEART: Kibbles 'n Bits Dog Food Contaminated, Schirripa Says BIG HEART: Kibbles 'n Bits Dog Food Contaminated, Wiliamson Says BILL ME LATER: Lewis Sues over Automatic Telephone Dialing System BUCKHEAD PARKING: "Stewart" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia CAMPBELL SOUP: Defending Against Suits over Snyder's-Lance Buyout CAMBREX CORP: Appeal from $67,260 Damages Award Still Pending CANADIAN PACIFIC: Quebec Derailment Case Trial Set for Sept. 2019 CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal Ongoing on Nixed Maine Derailment Suit CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces 10 Opioid Class Action Suits at Feb. 2 CARDINAL HEALTH: Has 112 Cordis IVC Filter Lawsuits at Feb. 2 CASSANO'S INC: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, "Lee" Suit Says CBOE EXCHANGE: Violates Commodity Exchange Act, Tomasulo Says CEMEX S.A.B.: Schiro Sues over Unit's Alleged Bribery Payments CHEMOURS COMPANY: Less Than $1.0MM Paid for Medical Monitoring CHEMOURS COMPANY: Defends Suits v. DuPont over IN Superfund Site CHEMOURS COMPANY: GenX Discharge Related Suits Pending CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Faces Credit Unions' Class Action Suit CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Combined "Gordon" and "Lawson" Lawsuit Pending CIVITAS SOLUTIONS: Inks Wage & Hour Class Settlement Accord CLIENT SERVICES: O'Brien Sues over Debt Collection Practices CONSOL ENERGY: Court Consolidates Casey and Fitzwater Lawsuits COST PLUS: Rayford Sues over Improper Bag Tax CUBESMART: Receives Preliminary Court OK on Class Action Accord DELTA AIRLINES: Pimental Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law DOMIX WINE: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA EDS SERVICE: Fails to Pay Wages, Silva Claims ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Late 2018 Trial on 2nd "Brinckerhoff" Complaint ENSIGN GROUP: To Distribute $11-Mil. to Class Members in 1Q 2018 FACEBOOK INC: Price Sues over Cambridge Analytica's Data Access FACEBOOK INC: Yuan Sues over Advertisers' Data Access FACTOR75 LLC: Vasquez-Cossio Sues over Automatic Renewal FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Suits Underway FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Still Defends "Agrawal" Class Suit FREDERIC FEKKAI: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Pitre" Suit in E.D. Louisiana GENERAL MOTORS: "Howard" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan GENERAL MOTORS: "Minarik" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Briefing Schedule Filed in Securities Suit GOPRO INC: Accord in Calif. Securities Suit Awaits Documentation GOPRO INC: Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. Underway GOPRO INC: 2018 Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits Underway GOPRO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Camia Investments Suit HOLOGIC INC: Accrues $9.2MM for Settlement of "ARcare" Lawsuit HOT POT RESTAURANT: "Xie" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Seeks to Drop "Fergus" and "Becker" Complaint IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Continues to Defend "Desanctis" Suit IMPERIAL MARBLE: Schubbe Seeks Unpaid Wages under WARN Act INDIANA: "McQuay" Suit vs IDOC Moved to S.D. Indiana INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Purported Shareholder Class Lawsuit Ongoing INVUITY INC: April 6 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Paciga" Suit J & M INC: Fails to Provide Itemized Wage Statements, Suit Says JEC NY: "Wanghok" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA JOHNSON CONTROLS: Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Lawsuits Continue JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Laufer" Class Suit Underway JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss "Gumm" Class Suit Underway KANGAROO FLEET: Withholds Wages over Citations, Kirklands Say KELLCO MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Still Defends Bahamas Surgery Class Lawsuit KITOV PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in California Class Suit LANNETT CO: To Seek Dismissal of 2nd Amended Shareholder Suit LIONS GATE: Still Faces Consolidated Starz Merger Class Lawsuit LIONS GATE: "Gross" Class Suit in Colorado Remains Stayed LIONS GATE: Settlement in "Levy" Suit Finally Approved LOGON COMPUTER: "Santos" Suit Seeks wages & Overtime under FLSA MALECON RESTAURANT: "Espinal" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Blind Can't Access Website, Thorne Says MAXIMUS INC: Still Defends Putative Shareholder Class Lawsuit MAXLINEAR INC: Vladimir Gusinsky and "Marshall" Suit Concluded MDL 2545: 210 TRT Claims vs. AbbVie Still Pending MDL 2804: "Rees" Suit vs. McKesson Moved to N.D. Ohio METLIFE INC: "Pugh" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California MIDLAND CREDIT: "Spano" Suit Moved to M.D. Pennsylvania MONAT GLOBAL: Products Cause Hair Loss, Merritt Claims MONSANTO COMPANY: Pfleigier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Terry Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MYEONG HYUN: "Lee" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code MYEXPERIAN INC: "Vinsant" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA NAPLES HOTEL: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Williams Says NAVIENT CORPORATION: "Tronson" Suit Moved to Dist. of Minnesota NEW YORK: Upland Asks Court to Quash Subpoena in "Powell" Suit NEWLINK GENETICS: Abramson Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing NILES GRAND: Flores Sues over Use of Biometric Information NIPPON LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Says NOBLE FOOD: "Kirkwood" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Hustig" and "Cook" Class Action Suits OJUS AUTOMOTIVE: "Wilzek" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA OPHTHOTECH CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Class Suits PAUL SMITH: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Has US$1.4MM Liability for Vinyl Clad Accord PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in New York Settled for $26MM PLY GEM HOLDINGS: "Hueso" and "Xiong" Cases Resolved for $1M PLY GEM HOLDINGS: "Morgan" Suit Settled for $900,000 PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Faces "Gazzillo" Class Action Suit in N.Y. POST HOLDINGS: Antitrust Lawsuit on Egg Products Still Ongoing PNC BANK: Pfendler Sues over Home Mortgage Loan Servicing PREMIUM HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Jocson Says REPUBLIC NAIL: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Jimenez Says SAINT LUCY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Moreno Says SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Litvinova Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: 2nd Cir. Denies Bid for Interlocutory Appeal SECURITAS SECURITY: "Boursiquot" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida SENIOR OPERATIONS: Faces "Hartline" Wage-and-Hour Suit SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California SIGMA DESIGNS: Speiser Balks at Silicon Labs Merger Deal SIMONTON BUILDING: Appeal in "Kiefer" Suit Still Pending SLACK INC: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Sullivan Claims SOLVAY PHARMA: Still Faces Class Suits on Patent Case Settlement SOPAPILLAS LLC: Stephens Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay ST LUKES ROOSEVELT: "Edmond" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law STRAIGHT PATH: Gets Initial Court OK on "Zacharia" Settlement SUBARU OF AMERICA: Thompson Sues over Defective Engine Parts SUN LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Claims SUNOCO PIPELINE: Marches Sue over Damage to Home & Property TD AMERITRADE: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Lewis" Class Suit TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces Aequitas Securities Suits TRAFFIC CONTROL: "Ruffin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA TRANS-INDIA PRODUCTS: Orlowski Sues over U.S.-Made Claims TURTABLE LLC: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA TYSON FOODS: Satisfaction of Judgment Filed in "Bouaphakeo" Suit TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Against Maplevale Farms Lawsuit TYSON FOODS: Bid to Amend "Huser" Broiler Chicken Suit Pending TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending TYSON FOODS: Appeal in Philippine Labor Case Underway UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Gets Final Court OK on Shareholder Class Pact UNITED AMERICAN: Parshall Balks at Heritage Merger Deal UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Ashes Sue over Damaged Human Embryos UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Crosses Sue over Damaged Human Embryos UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Pennimans Sue over Damaged Human Embryos UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Lieberman Sues over Insurance UTILQUEST LLC: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA VALIDUS HOLDINGS: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal with AIG WARNER MUSIC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Certification Bid WASHINGTON GAS: Still Defends Suits on Silver Spring Incident WOLF APPLIANCE: Sharp Sues over Defective Ovens ZACKY & SONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages under Labor Code ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Lawsuit over CoolSculpting Ads Still Pending ********* 3M COMPANY: "St. John" Class Lawsuit in Alabama Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 that the St. John class action litigation is still pending in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama. A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama (the St. John case), seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers Compensation Act. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding additional defendants, including BFI Waste Management Systems of Alabama, LLC; BFI Waste Management of North America, LLC; the City of Decatur, Alabama; Morgan County, Alabama; Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur; and Morgan County, Alabama, d/b/a Decatur Utilities. In 2005, the judge -- in a second purported class action lawsuit filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those compounds (the "Chandler case") -- granted the Company's motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of class certification issues in the St. John case. Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is lifted. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M COMPANY: "Stover" Class Action Suit in Alabama Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The "Stover" purported class action case filed in 2009 in Alabama remains stayed, according to 3M Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin County (the "Stover case") seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the St. John case, which is a purported class action lawsuit filed in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M COMPANY: Suit in Lawrence County State Court Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 that the class action filed in the state court in Lawrence County, Alabama, is still stayed. In August 2016, a group of over 200 plaintiffs filed a class action against West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority), 3M, Dyneon, Daikin, BFI, and the City of Decatur in state court in Lawrence County, Alabama. Plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence, Morgan and other counties who are or have been customers of the Water Authority. They contend defendants have released PFCs that contaminate the Tennessee River and, in turn, their drinking water, causing damage to their health and properties. In January 2017, the court in the St. John case stayed this litigation pending resolution of the St. John case, which is a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M COMPANY: Alabama Residents' Federal Court Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company is facing a purported class suit filed by residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama, related to contaminated water supplied by the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority, according to 3M Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. In November 2017, a purported class action was filed against 3M, its subsidiary Dyneon, Daikin America, and the West Morgan-East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (Water Authority) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The plaintiffs are residents of Lawrence and Morgan County, Alabama who receive their water from the Water Authority. They assert various common law claims, including negligence, nuisance, wantonness, and fraudulent concealment, and they seek injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, compensatory and punitive damages for their alleged personal injuries. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants own and operate manufacturing and disposal facilities in Decatur that have released and continue to release PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals into the groundwater and surface water of their sites, resulting in discharge into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs also contend that the defendants have discharged into the Decatur Utilities Dry Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, which, in turn, discharges wastewater containing these chemicals into the Tennessee River. The plaintiffs contend that, as a result the alleged discharges, the water supplied by the Water Authority to the plaintiffs was, and is, contaminated with PFOA, PFOS, and related chemicals at a level dangerous to humans. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M COMPANY: Still Defends 12 Suits over Aqueous Film Forming Foam ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company is defending against 12 purported class actions as of December 31, 2017 related to Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF), according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. 3M manufactured and marketed Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) for use in firefighting at airports and military bases from approximately 1963 to 2000. As of December 31, 2017, twelve purported class actions have been filed against 3M and other defendants in various state and federal courts in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New York alleging that certain PFCs used in AFFF contaminated the soil and groundwater where AFFF was used at current or former airports and air force military bases located in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and New York. An individual complaint also has been filed in federal court Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that contaminated groundwater has caused various injuries, including loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, and remediation costs. Some cases seek funds for medical monitoring. Several companies have been sued along with 3M, including Ansul Co. (acquired by Tyco, Inc.), Angus Fire, Buckeye Fire Protection Co., Chemguard, National Foam, Inc., United Technologies Corp. In March 2017, plaintiff residents of Suffolk County, Long Island filed a class action complaint in state court in Suffolk County New York, naming the County and 3M and other alleged manufacturers of AFFF products. The action was removed to the Eastern District of New York. In August 2017, three class action complaints were filed in state court in New York against 3M and other defendants including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Plaintiffs allege PFC contamination of the local water supply linked to AFFF at Stewart Air National Guard Base and Stewart International Airport. The Port Authority is the leaseholder of the airport. All three cases have classes for diminution of property and medical monitoring. In September 2017, co-defendant Tyco removed all three cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In October 2017, a class action complaint was filed in Suffolk County, New York against 3M and others regarding PFCs allegedly released at the Suffolk County Firematics Training Facility. In November 2017, co-defendant National Foam removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In December 2017, a complaint was filed by a group of 26 plaintiffs in Suffolk County, New York against 3M and others regarding PFCs allegedly released at Gabreski Airport. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M COMPANY: Faces Class Action over Wolverine's Use of Scotchgard ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company is defending itself against a 12-count class action related to 3M Scotchgard used in Wolverine World Wide and Waste Management's operations, according to 3M's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On December 1, 2017, eight plaintiffs filed a 12-count class action against 3M, Wolverine World Wide and Waste Management, Inc., alleging negligence, trespass, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, battery, products liability, public and private nuisance, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment. Each count was filed against each defendant. The action arises from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of materials and wastes related to their shoe manufacturing operations. Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing process and that chemicals from 3M's product have contaminated the environment after being disposed of near drinking water sources. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M COMPANY: Still Faces 4,270 Bair Hugger Claims ------------------------------------------------ 3M Company is defending itself against about 4,270 plaintiffs as of December 31, 2017 related to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system, according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. As of December 31, 2017, the Company is a named defendant in lawsuits involving approximately 4,270 plaintiffs (compared to approximately 1,260 plaintiffs at December 31, 2016), most of which are pending in federal or state court in Minnesota, in which the plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The complaints seek damages and other relief based on theories of strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud, deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising acts. One case, from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee is a putative nationwide class action. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted the plaintiffs' motion to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district proceeding during the pre-trial phase of the litigation. The federal court has set a trial-ready date in May 2018 in one of the two federal court bellwether cases. At a joint hearing before the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota State court, on the parties' motion to exclude each other's experts, and 3M's motion for summary judgment with respect to general causation, the federal court did not exclude the plaintiffs' experts and denied 3M's motion for summary judgment on general causation. In January 2018, the state court, in hearing the same arguments, excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending before the state court in Minnesota. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M COMPANY: Bair Hugger Class Suit in Canada Underway ----------------------------------------------------- 3M Company still defends itself against a putative class action in Canada related to the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system, according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. In June 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for all Canadian residents who underwent various joint arthroplasty, cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient warming system. The representative plaintiff seeks relief (including punitive damages) under Canadian law based on theories similar to those asserted in the MDL in the U.S. The Bair Hugger product line was acquired by 3M as part of the 2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading manufacturer of patient warming solutions designed to prevent hypothermia and maintain normal body temperature in surgical settings. No liability has been recorded for this matter because the Company believes that any such liability is not probable and estimable at this time. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. 3M COMPANY: Class Suit over Dental Product Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- 3M Company still defends a potential class suit in Minnesota related to the Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM dental restorative material, according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 In September 2011, 3M Oral Care launched Lava Ultimate CAD/CAM dental restorative material. The product was originally indicated for inlay, onlay, veneer, and crown applications. In June 2015, 3M Oral Care voluntarily removed crown applications from the product's instructions for use, following reports from dentists of patients' crowns debonding, requiring additional treatment. The product remains on the market for other applications. 3M communicated with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as well as regulators outside the United States. 3M also informed customers and distributors of its action, offered to accept return of unused materials and provide refunds. As of December 31, 2017, there is one lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota that names 29 plaintiffs and seeks certification of a class of dentists in the United States and its territories, and alternatively seeks subclasses in 13 states. The complaint alleges 3M marketed and sold defective Lava Ultimate material used for dental crowns to dentists and, under various theories, seek monetary damages (replacement costs and business reputation loss), punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunction from marketing and selling Lava Ultimate for use in dental crowns, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. 3M is a diversified global manufacturer, technology innovator and marketer of a wide variety of products and services. ABBVIE INC: 2 Consolidated Class Suits on Niaspan Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. continues to face lawsuits, including two consolidated purported class actions, related to a 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Lawsuits are pending against AbbVie and others generally alleging that the 2005 patent litigation settlement involving Niaspan entered into between Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a company acquired by Abbott in 2006 and presently a subsidiary of AbbVie) and a generic company violates federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits consist of four individual plaintiff lawsuits and two consolidated purported class actions: one brought by three named direct purchasers of Niaspan and the other brought by ten named end-payer purchasers of Niaspan. The cases are consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the MDL Rules as In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2460. In October 2016, the State of California filed a lawsuit regarding the Niaspan patent litigation settlement in Orange County Superior Court, asserting a claim under the unfair competition provision of the California Business and Professions Code seeking injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories (Abbott). ABBVIE INC: Medical Mutual Lawsuit v. TRTs Makers Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. still defends itself against a putative class action suit filed by Medical Mutual of Ohio against several manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs), according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs), including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payers who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel. The claims asserted include violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. * * * AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a similar lawsuit, Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al., filed in the same court in October 2015 on behalf of the same putative class members and a putative class of consumers, was voluntarily dismissed in September 2017. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories (Abbott). ABBVIE INC: Has 635 Product Liability Claims on Depakote Risks -------------------------------------------------------------- Over ninety percent of the approximately 635 Depakote claims are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and the rest are pending in various other federal and state courts, according AbbVie Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Plaintiffs in the product liability cases generally allege that AbbVie did not adequately warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily various birth defects, arising from use of Depakote. Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and punitive damages. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories (Abbott). ABBVIE INC: Still Faces Putative Class Suit by Rubinstein, et al ---------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. still defends itself against a putative class action suit captioned Rubinstein, et al. v Gonzalez, et al., according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action lawsuit, Rubinstein, et al. v Gonzalez, et al., on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc (Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against AbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the defendants made and/or are responsible for material misstatements in violation of federal securities laws in connection with AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. * * * AbbVie said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that in June 2016, a lawsuit, Elliott Associates, L.P., et al. v. AbbVie Inc., was filed by five investment funds against AbbVie in the Cook County, Illinois Circuit Court alleging that AbbVie made misrepresentations and omissions in connection with its proposed transaction with Shire. Similar lawsuits were filed between July and September 2017 against AbbVie and in some instances its chief executive officer in the same court by twelve additional investment funds. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories (Abbott). ABBVIE INC: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Sidney Hillman Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit. In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit providers alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive business practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and attorneys' fees. In February 2017, the court dismissed this lawsuit with prejudice and in October 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal. AbbVie Inc. is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories (Abbott). The company is based in North Chicago, Illinois. ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that its motion to dismiss a class action suit related to misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris is "now fully briefed and pending before the court." On December 29, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action against the Company and certain former employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris. On April 12, 2017, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On July 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended putative class action complaint against the Company and seven current or former employees. The complaint alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris, including alleged misrepresentations regarding sales practices, management changes, and related investigations, between January 30, 2014 and May 26, 2017, and that the Company's stock price dropped upon the purported disclosure of the misrepresentations. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September 12, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on November 13, 2017, and defendants' filed a reply brief in further support of their motion on December 28, 2017. Defendants' motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and pending before the court. The Company said, "Given the early stages of this litigation, management does not currently believe that a loss related to this matter is probable or that the potential magnitude of such loss or range of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated." Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on serving patients and families affected by rare diseases through the innovation, development and commercialization of life-changing therapies. The company is based in New Haven, Connecticut. ALKERMES PLC: Putative Shareholder Class Action in N.Y. Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alkermes Public Limited Company is facing a putative class action filed in New York by a purported stockholder, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On November 22, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned Gagnon v. Alkermes plc, et al., No. 1:17-cv-09178. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Alkermes securities during the period of February 24, 2015 to November 3, 2017, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's marketing practices related to VIVITROL. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, unspecified damages for alleged inflation in the price of securities, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Alkermes plc, a biopharmaceutical company, researches, develops, and commercializes pharmaceutical products to address unmet medical needs of patients in various therapeutic areas in the United States, Ireland, and internationally. It was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLEGIANT AIR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT under Labor Code --------------------------------------------------------------- LAYLA BASILIALI, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC698316 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 15, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiff and the Employees in the Class to work off the clock and failed to record accurate time worked by these Employees, including by not paying them for all hours worked, failed to pay them at the appropriate overtime rates for all hours worked, failed to reimburse business expenses, and provided Plaintiff and the Class members with inaccurate wage statements that prevented Plaintiff and the Class from learning of these unlawful pay practices. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and the Class with lawful meal and rest periods, as employees were not provided with the opportunity to take uninterrupted and duty-free rest periods and meal breaks as required by the Labor Code. Allegiant Air is an American low-cost airline that operates scheduled and charter flights. The 9th largest commercial airline in the US, it is wholly owned by Allegiant Travel Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 8380 Facsimile: (818) 230 0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlavv.com alvin@yeremianlaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC 5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (310) 652 2242 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com ALLERGAN PLC: Appeal from Indirect Buyers' Class Status Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a district court's order granting class certification to indirect purchasers remains pending in the Asacol(R) Litigation, according to Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Two class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, and three more on September 21, 2015, in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the indirect purchasers' complaint. A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2016. On July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion in part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on purported reverse payments and dismissing several of indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on state laws. On August 15, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The Company filed an answer to the second amended complaint on October 4, 2016. Complaints were also filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of Asacol(R) in federal court in New York on April 26, 2016, and on June 29, 2016, in each case making similar allegations to the complaints filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs. Those matters have been consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases in the federal court in Massachusetts. On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' consolidated complaint and oral argument on the motion was held on December 16, 2016. On February 10, 2017, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company has reached a tentative agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs to settle their claims. The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims. On November 9, 2017, the court issued a decision denying the Company's summary judgment motion and granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. Trial was set to being on January 22, 2018. However, on January 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an order granting the Company's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) to appeal the district court's decision to certify the proposed class. The appellate court thereafter issued a decision staying the trial in the district court. The appeal will be fully briefed by the end of March 2018. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: No Updates on Tentative Accord in Botox(R) Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a tentative settlement of the Botox(R) Litigation in California has been reached. A class action complaint was filed in federal court in California on February 24, 2015, and amended May 29, 2015, alleging unlawful market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code, and violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. In the complaint, plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble damages. On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Oral argument on the class certification motion was heard on January 13, 2017. On June 13, 2017, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. In September 2017, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were heard by the court on October 27, 2017. On November 30, 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Still Defends Loestrin(R) 24 Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Chilcott Limited continues to defend itself against the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation, according to Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court against Warner Chilcott and certain affiliates alleging that Warner Chilcott's 2009 patent lawsuit settlements with Watson Laboratories and Lupin related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe were unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that Watson and Lupin improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors and by direct purchasers in their individual capacities. After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued an order transferring all related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral argument was held on December 7, 2015. On February 22, 2016, the First Circuit issued its decision vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the district court. On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on January 13, 2017. On July 24, 2017, the court issued its decision denying the motion to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: JPML Moves Restasis(R) Class Lawsuits to E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that after a hearing on January 25, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred all related Restasis(R) class action cases to the federal court for the Eastern District of New York. Between November 7, 2017, and January 17, 2018, fourteen putative class actions were filed in federal district courts against Allergan alleging that the company unlawfully harmed competition by engaging in conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of Restasis(R). Nine of the complaints were filed on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, and five were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct purchasers. One direct purchaser subsequently voluntarily dismissed its suit. The complaints challenge Allergan's conduct in prosecuting and obtaining patents covering Restasis(R), listing those patents in the FDA's Orange Book, asserting those patents against potential generic competitors in patent-infringement litigation, filing citizens petitions with the FDA concerning generic companies' drug applications for generic Restasis(R), and transferring patents to the sovereign Native American Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. Both the end-payors and the direct purchasers allege that these actions violated federal antitrust laws, and the end-payors further allege violations of state antitrust and consumer- protection laws and unjust enrichment. All plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. After a hearing on January 25, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) transferred all related Restasis(R) cases to the federal court for the Eastern District of New York. After the JPML issued the transfer order, another plaintiff asserting the same allegations filed suit on behalf of a putative class of end-payors. Allergan has not yet answered the complaints or filed motions to dismiss. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: No Updates on Tentative Settlement in Zymar Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that a tentative settlement has been reached for the Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Litigation. On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan, Inc.'s ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. In the complaint, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of treble damages and disgorgement of profits. Following the court's denial of Allergan Inc.'s motions to dismiss, Allergan Inc. filed an answer to Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015. On March 27, 2017, the Company and Apotex settled this matter. On April 26, 2017, this matter was dismissed. On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)). On September 18, 2014, Allergan, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co- defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 19, 2015, the court granted Allergan, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit oral argument was held on June 13, 2016. On September 7, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's granting of Allergan, Inc.'s motion to dismiss and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The Third Circuit denied the Company's petition for a rehearing on October 4, 2016. On October 18, 2017, the parties reached a tentative settlement. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Mass. Lexapro Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that on January 30, 2018, the court has granted in full Forest's motion for summary judgment in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) class action in the federal district court in Massachusetts. Forest and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in multiple federal court actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) all of which have been consolidated in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL proceeding in the federal district court in Massachusetts. On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in Minnesota which sought to certify a nationwide class of third- party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint on December 12, 2014, and the court thereafter issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the motion. A motion for class certification was filed in February 2016, and denied on June 2, 2016. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition requesting leave to appeal the denial of class certification which the First Circuit denied on December 7, 2016. On January 19, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the Company's statute of limitation affirmative defense and the Company filed a cross motion for summary judgment on February 23, 2017. In addition, plaintiff in the action filed a second motion for class certification on February 28, 2017. Forest filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint which was granted in full on January 30, 2018. Allergan plc said, "Plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the court's decision." Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Wash. Lexapro Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that on January 30, 2018, the court has granted in full Forest's motion for summary judgment in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) class action filed in the federal district court in Washington. On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint on December 19, 2014. On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint. Forest moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 9, 2016, the court denied Forest's motion. On March 3, 2017, plaintiffs in this action filed a motion for class certification, which motion was denied by the court. On September 15, 2017, Forest filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of the complaint which was granted in full on January 30, 2018. Allergan plc said, "Plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether they will appeal the court's decision." Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Securities & ERISA Suit over Generic Drug Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc continues to defend itself in the Generic Drug Pricing Securities and ERISA Litigation, according to Allergan and Warner Chilcott Limited's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On November 4, 2016, a class action was filed by a putative class of Allergan shareholders in federal court in California against the Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former officers made materially false and misleading statements. The complaint alleges generally that between February 2014 and November 2016, Allergan and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's internal controls over its financial reporting and failed to disclose that its Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal, anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages. On February 2, 2017, the actions were consolidated in the federal district court in New Jersey. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 1, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint on July 17, 2107. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on September 15 and the Company filed its reply on October 6, 2017. Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint on November 28, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 22, 2018. A complaint was filed in California state court, premised on the same alleged underlying allegations, by an individual opt-out plaintiff on February 2, 2018. The Company has not yet responded to the California state court complaint. On February 14, 2017, a separate complaint was filed in the federal district court in California that is premised on the same alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the securities litigation but that asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA). A similar lawsuit was filed in the federal district court in New Jersey on March 7, 2017. The ERISA complaints assert claims on behalf of a putative class of individuals who participated in the Company's retirement plans and seek an unspecified amount of damages and other injunctive relief. On June 26, 2017, the Company filed a motion to stay or transfer venue in the California ERISA matter to the District of New Jersey, after which time plaintiffs agreed to stipulate to the transfer. The Company's motion to consolidate the matters was granted on August 21, 2017, and a consent discovery order entered. On October 23, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint which the Company moved to dismiss on February 2, 2018. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Still Faces Suit over TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that Forest continues to face legal actions related to alleged breaches of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in a putative class action in federal court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") and was filed on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the FCC. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed. On October 31, 2015, another class action complaint was filed in Missouri state court against Allergan USA, Inc., Warner Chilcott Corporation and Actavis, Inc., now known as Allergan Finance LLC, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Missouri Consumer Fraud and Protection Act and conversion on behalf of a putative nationwide class of plaintiffs to who defendant Warner Chilcott Corporation sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Defendants removed this action to the federal district court for the Western District of Missouri on December 10, 2015 and responded to the complaint on February 8, 2016. On February 17, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendants Allergan USA, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. from the litigation. In the wake of the Court of Appeals decision on the Petition, the parties reached an agreement to settle the action against Warner Chilcott. In a related matter, on June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. Warner Chilcott filed a similar petition with the FCC. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on Forest's and several other similar petitions. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting Forest and several other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Forest and other petitioners intervened in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation. Oral argument before the appellate court took place on November 8, 2016. On March 31, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued a decision which held that the FCC regulation at issue was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. Plaintiffs have filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Still Defends Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that lawsuits, including putative class actions, related to prescription opioid drug remain ongoing. The Company has been named as a defendant in approximately 290 matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers and additional suits may be filed. On May 31, 2017, the State of Ohio filed a lawsuit in Ohio state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Ohio action parallels the allegations in a complaint filed by the City of Chicago in Illinois state court on June 2, 2014, and seeks monetary and equitable relief. Since the filing of the complaint by the State of Ohio, additional cases have been filed, including cases filed by the States of Oklahoma and New Mexico, but mainly by political subdivisions of states (i.e., counties and municipalities) in state and federal courts across the country. In addition, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas on behalf of Arkansas residents who were prescribed an opioid product or were prescribed an opioid product and were treated for an overdose or addiction against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. The claims in the additional cases largely parallel the claims in the California, Chicago, Mississippi and Ohio matters. The Company is aware that other states and political subdivisions are considering filing comparable actions against, among others, manufacturers and parties that promoted prescription opioid pain relievers. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: Class Status Bid in TRT Class Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- In the Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains pending, according to Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws including the federal RICO statute and state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the Company's Androderm(R) product. This matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after which plaintiff amended its complaint. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on February 3, 2016. The Court dismissed plaintiff's substantive RICO claims against the Company for mail and wire fraud for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to replead. The court also dismissed plaintiff's state law statutory claims and common law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. The Court declined to dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) and its claims for negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on April 7, 2016. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on May 5, 2016. On August 2, 2016, the court dismissed all claims in the Third Amended Complaint against the Company except plaintiff's RICO conspiracy claim. On August 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal, which the court denied on September 8, 2016. Discovery is in the early stages. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on November 6, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: TNS Products Litigation Dismissed in January 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- After the parties reached a settlement on the TNS Products Litigation on January 12, 2018, the case was dismissed on January 16, 2018, according to Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On March 19, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in California on behalf of a putative class of consumers. The complaint alleges violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law, and deceit. On June 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On June 23, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On September 5, 2014, the court granted-in-part and denied-in- part Allergan's motion to dismiss. On September 8, 2014, the court set trial for September 1, 2015. On November 4, 2014, Allergan and SkinMedica filed a motion to dismiss. On January 7, 2015, Allergan and SkinMedica's motion to dismiss was denied. On February 19, 2015 plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. On May 27, 2015, the case was stayed pending the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another matter involving similar legal issues. On January 12, 2018, the parties reached a settlement. On January 16, 2018, the matter was dismissed. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ALLERGAN PLC: May 2018 Fairness Hearing on Sales Agents' Pact ------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that in a lawsuit by certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal district court in New York, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 1, 2018. A fairness hearing has been set for May 4, 2018. In July 2012, Forest was named as defendants in an action brought by certain former Company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal district court in New York. The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and former female sales representatives employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current, former, and future female sales representatives who were not compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during the applicable liability period. The second amended complaint also includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part, striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the Company has opposed. On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to conditionally certify a collective action. On April 3, 2017, the parties agreed to settle this matter. On February 1, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set a fairness hearing for May 4, 2018. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Lawsuit over Anti-Steering Rules Still Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II) remain stayed pending resolution of an appeal in Ohio v. American Express Co., according to American Express Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2018 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company said, "Individual merchant cases and a putative class action, which were consolidated in 2011 and collectively captioned In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), are pending in the Eastern District of New York against us alleging that our anti-steering provisions in merchant card acceptance agreements violate U.S. antitrust laws. The individual merchant cases seek damages in unspecified amounts and injunctive relief. "Further proceedings are anticipated." American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in Three World Financial Center in New York City. The company is a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company and known for its credit card, charge card, and traveler's cheque businesses. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Marcus Corp. Antitrust Class Suit Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., is still stayed pending resolution of an appeal in Ohio v. American Express Co., according to American Express Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2018 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company said, "In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in another putative class action filed in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York, captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Co., et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. "Further proceedings are anticipated." American Express Company, also known as Amex, is an American multinational financial services corporation headquartered in Three World Financial Center in New York City. The company is a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company and known for its credit card, charge card, and traveler's cheque businesses. AMERICAN INT'L: Supreme Court Won't Hear Starr Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2018, denied the petition for certiorari in the case, Starr International Company Inc. v. United States, Docket No. 17-540 (U.S.). The issue raised by Starr: "Whether a private party with Article III standing may be barred from asserting constitutional claims for money damages against the federal government because of the equitable doctrine of 'third-party prudential standing.'" The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit intact. American International Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that Starr International Company, Inc. has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on October 6, 2017. The Company said, "On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) filed a complaint against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes defined below and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. "In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG. On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow SICO to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO describing the process by which our Board considered and refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's determination. "On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative claims in the SICO Treasury Action due to our Board's refusal of SICO's demand and denied the United States' motion to dismiss SICO's direct, non-derivative claims. "On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1) persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September 22, 2008 (the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class); and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG's June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders (the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class). SICO has provided notice of class certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class periods have opted into the classes. "On June 15, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims issued its opinion and order in the SICO Treasury Action. The Court found that the United States exceeded its statutory authority by exacting approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity in exchange for the FRBNY Credit Facility, but that AIG shareholders suffered no damages as a result. SICO argued during trial that the two classes are entitled to a total of approximately US$40 billion in damages, plus interest. The Court also found that the United States was not liable to the Reverse Stock Split Class in connection with the reverse stock split vote at the June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. "On June 17, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment stating that "the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail on liability due to the Government's illegal exaction, but shall recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class shall not prevail on liability or damages." SICO filed a notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO's unconstitutional conditions claim, the June 26, 2013 dismissal of SICO's derivative claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The United States filed a notice of cross appeal of the Court's July 2, 2012 opinion and order denying in part its motion to dismiss, the Court's June 26, 2013 opinion and order denying its motion to dismiss SICO's direct claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. "On May 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: (i) vacated the Court of Federal Claims judgment on the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class and remanded with instructions for dismissal of that class, and (ii) affirmed the finding of no liability with respect to the Reverse Stock Split Class. "On October 6, 2017, SICO filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. "In the Court of Federal Claims, the United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action. "AIG believes that any indemnification obligation would arise only if: (a) SICO prevails on its appeal and ultimately receives an award of damages; (b) the United States then commences an action against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United States is successful in such an action through any appellate process. If SICO prevails on its claims and the United States seeks indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses thereto. "A reversal of the Court of Federal Claim's June 17, 2015 decision and judgment and a final determination that the United States is liable for damages, together with a final determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition and results of operations." Counsel for Petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Esq. George W. Hicks, Jr., Esq. Andrew C. Lawrence, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 - and - David Boies, Esq. Counsel of Record BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Michael J. Gottlieb, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Aaron E. Nathan, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 - and - Robert J. Dwyer, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 - and - Clifford M. Sloan, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 371-7000 - and - John L. Gardiner, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 The United States government is represented by: NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General MARK B. STERN KAREN SCHOEN Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov Telephone: (202) 514-2217 American International Group, Inc. provides insurance products for commercial, institutional, and individual customers primarily in the United States, Europe, and Japan. American International Group, Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in New York, New York. * * * Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg's Starr International Co., refusing to revive its bid to sue the federal government over the $85 billion bailout of American International Group Inc. a decade ago. The justices, without comment, left intact a federal appeals court ruling that said Starr, one of AIG's largest shareholders, doesn't have the legal right to sue the government. The 2008 bailout saved what was then the country's biggest insurer from imminent collapse in the midst of a national housing crisis. The lawsuit sought compensation for what Greenberg's lawyers said were onerous bailout terms that gave the government 80 percent of AIG's equity. The government later sold its stock for almost $18 billion. "If the decision below is allowed to stand, one of the largest government seizures of private property in history will effectively escape judicial review," the appeal said. Starr's lawyer, David Boies, said he was disappointed the court wouldn't hear the case, faulting the government for "disproportionate and unfair treatment of AIG's shareholders." The appeals court said Starr was trying to press claims that "belong exclusively to AIG," which declined to participate in the case. The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal without a hearing. "The court of appeals correctly held that the asserted claims challenging the terms of the government's rescue of AIG belong to AIG as a whole, not to shareholders individually," U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. The government said it stepped in only after private banks determined it was too risky to lend money to AIG, whose credit had been downgraded by the three major rating agencies. The terms included a 12% interest rate. AMERIGAS PROPANE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wage, Fregoso Says -------------------------------------------------------------- HESSE FREGOSO JR;, as an individual and behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC697973 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover all overtime wages and minimum wage under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a "Driver" at the Indio, California location beginning in approximately January 16, 2017 until approximately October 17, 2017. While working for Defendants, Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of eight hours per workday, in excess of 12 hours per workday and/or more than 40 hours per workweek, but did not receive overtime compensation equal to one and one-half times and/or equal to two times his regular rate of pay for working overtime hours. Specifically, Plaintiff received "On-Call" pay, "Safety Bonus," and/or other forms of pay not excludable as a matter of law when calculating an employee's regular rate. Despite Defendants' payment of Incentive Pay to Plaintiff, Defendants failed to include all forms of Incentive Pay when calculating Plaintiffs regular rate of pay, thereby causing Plaintiff to be underpaid all of his required overtime wages. Rather, Plaintiff was only paid one and a half times (or two times in the case of double-time hours) his base hourly rate, which was not equal to his regular rate, as Defendants failed to include the various forms of Incentive Pay earned during corresponding time periods that were required to be included in the regular rate. In addition to miscalculating Plaintiffs regular rate of pay, which resulted in the underpayment of Plaintiffs overtime wages, Defendants regularly, systematically, and impermissibly failed to pay Plaintiff and non-exempt employees for all hours worked for all hours worked, including, but not limited to, all hours worked when he was "On-Call". Further, Defendant's maintained uniform practices of instructing Plaintiff and other non-exempt drivers to only record the hours for which they were scheduled to work, not actual hours worked. For example, Plaintiff was scheduled to work 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., and would often work until 8:30 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., but Defendants specifically instructed him to record that he stopped working at 6:30 p.m. As a result of Defendants' policy and/or practice that fail to compensate for all hours worked, Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees were deprived of all required minimum wages and overtime wages earned. Amerigas Propane markets retail propane to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and motor fuel propane customers in the United States. It offers propane for various uses, including home heating, space heating, water heating, pool and spa heating, drying, cooking, grilling, and motor fuel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott M. Lidman, Esq. Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq. LID MAN LAW, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segunao, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 322-4772 Facsimile: (424) 322-4775 E-mail: slidman@lidmemlaw.com enguyen@lidmanlaw.com - and - Paul K. Haines, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segunao, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com AMMADIS INC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage & OT, Arvizu Says -------------------------------------------------------- MIRIAM AVELAR ARVIZU, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMMADIS, INC., a California corporation dba Gaucho Grill; ADRIAN E. AMOSA, an individual; LUCIANA MIORIN AMOSA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC698605 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from November 1, 2016 through April 6, 2017. The Plaintiff and the Class were paid on an hourly basis. The Complaint alleges these labor violations: -- When Class Members clock out for the end of their shift, and then when more customers arrive, Defendants require that Class Members stay and continue working off the clock; -- When an employee on the next shift is late or calls-in sick, Defendants require Class Members to continue working off the clock; -- Defendants direct Class Members to work while they are punched for their meal periods; -- When an employee is about to work more than eight hours in a day, or 40 hours in the week, Defendants instruct Class Members to punch out, and then punch back in and continue working under another employee's timecard/name. Defendants then pay the employee who did not work, and direct him/her to pay the Class Member from the wages that Defendants paid him/her; -- Defendants did not provide the Class with lawful meal periods. Defendants only allowed Class Members to take a meal period if they worked more than six hours per day. Class Members did not waive their meal periods; -- Defendants maintained control over the Class Members during their meal periods; meal periods were taken on-site. If Class Members were not actively involved in eating, Defendants would interrupt them and ask them to work. Meal periods were unlawful since they were less than 30 minutes. The Defendants do not have a policy or practice of paying the Class a premium for missed meal; -- Defendants do not have a policy or practice of providing the Class lawful, ten-minute rest periods. They do not have a policy or practice of paying the Class a premium for missed rest periods; -- Defendants have a policy of not paying Class Members all wages earned upon the termination of employment. They do not provide final paychecks to Class Members unless they sign a general release of claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Boyajian, Esq. Amaras Zargarian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. BOYAJIAN, APC 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (424) 744 8441 Facsimile: (866) 396 2777 ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Seeks to Dismiss Remaining Farmers' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Archer-Daniels-Midland Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that with regards to lawsuits related to Syngenta Corporation, the Company remains a defendant only in certain state court actions by farmers and other parties pending in Illinois state court, which the Company has moved to dismiss as well. The Company is a party to numerous lawsuits pending in various U.S. state and federal courts arising out of Syngenta Corporation's (Syngenta) marketing and distribution of genetically modified corn products, Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure Duracade, in the U.S. First, the Company brought a state court action in Louisiana against Syngenta in 2014, alleging Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products before the products were approved in China. In December 2017, the Company and Syngenta reached a confidential settlement of this action. Second, the Company is a party in a number of purported class actions filed beginning in 2013 by farmers and other parties against Syngenta in federal and state courts, again alleging that Syngenta was negligent in commercializing its products. The federal actions were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, and some state actions were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL in Minnesota state court. In the fourth quarter of 2015, Syngenta filed third-party claims against the Company and other grain companies in these MDLs seeking contribution in the event Syngenta is held liable in these lawsuits. In September 2017, Syngenta filed similar third- party claims against the Company in Iowa state court. In September 2017, Syngenta and the farmer plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement, subject to court approval, of all claims by those plaintiffs, and as noted above, in December 2017, the Company and Syngenta reached a confidential settlement of all claims. Third, the Company and other grain companies have been named as defendants in numerous individual and purported class action suits filed by farmers and other parties in state and federal courts beginning in the fourth quarter of 2015, alleging the Company and other grain companies were negligent in failing to screen for genetically modified corn. On September 6, 2016, the court in the Minnesota state MDL dismissed all claims against the Company, and on January 4, 2017, a federal court in the Southern District of Illinois similarly dismissed all of the pending complaints against the Company in Southern Illinois. Some parties are expected to appeal some or all of these dismissals. Currently, the Company remains a defendant only in certain state court actions by farmers and other parties pending in Illinois state court, which the Company has moved to dismiss as well. The Company denies liability in all of the actions in which it has been named as a third-party defendant or defendant and is vigorously defending itself in these cases. All of these actions are in pretrial proceedings. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the final outcome of this matter with any reasonable degree of certainty, but believes the outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Archer-Daniels-Midland Company procures, transports, stores, processes, and merchandises agricultural commodities, products, and ingredients. The Company was founded in 1898 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. ARGOS USA: "Soileau" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH SOILEAU, JR., Individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARGOS USA, LLC d/b/a ARGOS CEMENT, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00848 (S.D. Tex., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, back pay, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and taxable costs of court under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's hours of operation exceeded 40 hours a week. Since Plant Supervisors were involved in opening and closing the plant, Defendant required that they work over 40 hours a week. The Plaintiff would often arrive at work before sunrise. The Plaintiff and the other Plant Supervisors main job function consist of mixing cement. The Plaintiff and the Class Members performed the same jobs and did not engage in any contract negotiations. The Plaintiff would receive orders for a batch of concrete. The Plaintiff would enter the ticket order information into the computer system: project information, ticket information, customer number, delivery address, instructions from the sales department, and the designated mix designed. The computer system would access the company's database and provide the exact mixture for the type and amount of concrete ordered by the customer. The Plaintiff would then press start and the machine would assemble the concrete mixture and insert them into the cement truck for mixture and delivery. The Plaintiff would monitor the mixing process to make sure that the process is completed. Argos USA operates as a cement and ready-mixed concrete company in the United States. The company manufactures, packs, and distributes Portland, blended, specialty, masonry, and mortar bagged cement products; and sustainable products, value- added/specialty products, associated/extra concrete.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM 2537 South Gessner, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223 8855 Facsimile: (713) 623 6399 E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com service@tranlawllp.com AVEO PHARMA: Inks Settlement Accord for Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has entered into a definitive stipulation of settlement on January 29, 2018 related to a securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. On December 26, 2017, the Company entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with class representatives Robert Levine and William Windham (the "Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement of a securities class action lawsuit (the "Class Action"), purportedly brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock, US$0.001 par value per share (the "Common Stock"), between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013 (the "Class"), filed in 2013 and pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") against the Company and certain of its former officers (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David Johnston, and William Slichenmyer, together, the "Individual Defendants" and, collectively with the Company and the Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC. The Company said, "On January 29, 2018, in accordance with the MOU, the Parties entered into a definitive stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation of Settlement") that reflects terms consistent with those set forth in the MOU. Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, we are required to (i) use our best efforts to cause certain of our and the Individual Defendants' insurance carriers to, within fifteen business days following preliminary approval of the Stipulation of Settlement by the Court provided certain conditions are met, provide the Class with a cash payment of US$15,000,000 (the "Settlement Cash"), including the cash amount of any attorneys' fees or litigation expenses that the Court may award Plaintiffs' counsel and costs Plaintiffs incur in administering and providing notice of the proposed settlement and (ii) issue and deliver to the Class warrants for the purchase of 2,000,000 shares of our Common Stock (the "Settlement Warrants" and, collectively with the Settlement Cash, the "Settlement Payment"), within ten business days after the entry of the Final Judgment by the Court provided certain conditions are met (the "Proposed Issuance Date"). The Settlement Warrants are required to be exercisable from the date of issue until the expiration of a one-year period after the date of issue at an exercise price of US$3.00, which was the closing price for our Common Stock on The Nasdaq Capital Market on December 22, 2017, the trading day prior to the execution of the MOU. In consideration of the Settlement Payment, the plaintiffs have agreed, on the Effective Date, to dismiss the Class Action with prejudice and to release all claims against the Company and the Individual Defendants by the Class. "The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to the satisfaction of conditions including the filing of the Stipulation of Settlement with the Court, the provision of notice to the Class, and the final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement by the Court. The Stipulation of Settlement provides that the settlement will be effective on the first date on which all of the following conditions have been met (the "Effective Date"): (i) the Court has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and directing notice of the settlement to the Class; (ii) we and certain of our and the Individual Defendants' insurance carriers have timely delivered the Settlement Payment; (iii) the Court has approved the Stipulation of Settlement and has entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement, and such judgment is no longer subject to further appeal or other review (the "Final Judgment"); and (iv) our right to terminate the Stipulation of Settlement has expired. "We have agreed to use our best efforts to issue and deliver the warrants by the Proposed Issuance Date. We plan to issue the warrants pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement under the exemption from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), provided by Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act. "The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admission of wrongdoing. AVEO and the Individual Defendants have always maintained and continue to believe that they did not engage in any wrongdoing or otherwise commit any violation of federal or state securities laws or other laws. However, given the potential cost and burden of continued litigation, we believe the settlement is in our best interests and the best interests of our stockholders." * * * Aveo said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that two class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and certain of its former officers and directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013. This consolidated amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 2015, and the lead plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint bringing similar allegations, and which no longer named Mr. DePinho as a defendant. The company moved to dismiss again, and after a second round of briefing and oral argument, the court ruled in company's favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. They also filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the district court's judgment, which the company has opposed. On January 3, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal and judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their appeal on February 8, 2017. On February 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, on behalf of shareholders who purchased common stock between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, alleging claims similar to those alleged in the prior complaints, namely that the company and certain of its former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for our TIVO-1 clinical trial in an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval from the FDA. On March 2, 2017, the company filed an answer to the third amended complaint, and the parties initiated discovery. On June 29, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on July 27, 2017, the company filed its response. On July 18, 2017, the Court entered an order referring the case to alternative dispute resolution. The parties mediated on September 12 and 13, 2017. On October 5, 2017, the parties jointly moved for a 45 day stay in discovery as they continue to explore the possibility of settlement. The Court granted the stay on October 11, 2017. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops targeted therapies for cancer and related diseases. The Company was formerly known as GenPath Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and changed its name to AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in March 2005. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was incorporated in 2001 and is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "B" ING THE BEST: Maldonado Seeks Monetary Damages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. "B" ING THE BEST, INC., a Florida corporation, WADES WINNERS, INC., a Florida corporation, and CARLTON A.R. WADE, a/k/a Ricky Wade, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80358-RLR (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2018), seeks monetary damages to redress the deprivation of rights secured to Plaintiff, under the maximum hour provision of Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, prior to his hire by Defendants, Plaintiff lived in Las Vegas, Nevada. In or about July or August of 2017, Defendant Wade, acting as an agent for the corporate Defendants, offered Plaintiff with the position as maintenance and repairman for the Defendants' restaurants in Palm Beach and Martin County. Plaintiff advised that he would only accept the job if the Defendants agreed to not only pay for his moving expenses, but also compensate Plaintiff at a rate equal to or greater than the rate of pay he was receiving in Nevada, which at the time was approximately $880 per week. The Defendants agreed to these terms and hired Plaintiff to work at their Florida locations to begin on or about August 21, 2017. However, despite Defendants' representations, when Plaintiff arrived in Florida after having relocated from Nevada, the Defendants changed the terms of the deal and now required Plaintiff, as a condition of employment, to execute an agreement that he needed to remain with the company for two years or he would have to repay the $2,185.00 in moving expenses that the Defendants paid in relocating the Plaintiff to Florida. As Plaintiff was not caught between the quintessential rock and a hard place, he signed the agreement again with the understanding that he would be receiving a weekly compensation commensurate with the $880.00 he was earning in Nevada. Instead, Plaintiff was paid $807.69 per week based on a 45-hour week and as part of his job, he was now required to use his own vehicle to make the runs between the Defendants' restaurants when Defendants had originally represented to him that he would be provided a company vehicle. So not only was Plaintiff paid less than what he was promised, he also incurred wear and tear on his vehicle and had to pay for additional gasoline expenses for the benefit of the Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Pancier, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A. 9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 Telephone: (954) 862 2217 Facsimile: (954) 862 2287 BEAUTY BASICS: Fails to Pay Aveda Institute Students for Work ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MELINA GOODE TUCKER, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEAUTY BASICS INC., a Louisiana Corporation; NEILL CORPORATION, a Louisiana Corporation; and THE ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00642 (D.C., March 20, 2018), Plaintiff seeks to represent former and current students at the Aveda Institutes. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants systemically and uniformly utilize and exploit the labor of Plaintiff and members of the classes to perform services for and sell retail products to members of the general public, rather than providing the training and education hours necessary to pass State Board licensing tests. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide the educational benefits advertised, represented, warrantied and contracted. The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act, and the District of Columbia Wage Payment Law. Defendant Beauty Basics Inc., a Louisiana Corporation is a school management company that owns and operates eight cosmetology schools in the Southern United States under the name "Aveda Institute" and/or "Aveda Institute South". The schools operate in partnership with Defendants Neill Corporation and The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. The institutes serve as a significant retail platform for Neill and Aveda.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher T. Nace, Esq. PAULSON & NACE, PLLC 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 810 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463 1999 Facsimile: (202) 223 6824 E-mail: ctnace@paulsonandnace.com - and - Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 2815 Townsgate Rd., Suite 130 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270 7100 Facsimile: (805) 270 7589 E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com BIG HEART: Kibbles 'n Bits Dog Food Contaminated, Schirripa Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE SCHIRRIPA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC. and THE J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 02345 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), alleges that the Kibbles 'n Bits dog food contains pentobarbital, a barbiturate drug used as a sedative and anesthetic for animals. Pentobarbital is now most commonly used to euthanizing dogs and cats. Pentobarbital is a Class II controlled substance and there is no safe or set level for pentobarbital in pet food. If it is present, the food is adulterated. The ingestion of pentobarbital by a pet can lead to numerous adverse health issues. Pentobarbital residue from euthanized animals will continue to be present in pet food, even if it is rendered or canned at high temperature or pressure. Pentobarbital is routinely used to euthanize animals, and the most likely way it could get into dog food would be in rendered animal products. Rendered products come from a process that converts animal tissues to feed ingredients, including tissues from animals that have been euthanized, decomposed or were diseased. Pentobarbital from euthanized animals survives the rendering process and could be present in the rendered feed ingredients used in pet food. The FDA's testing of dry dog food confirmed some samples contained pentobarbital. The FDA concluded that pentobarbital was entering pet foods from euthanized, rendered cattle or horses because of the lack of dog and cat DNA. Defendants knew the real risk that pentobarbital may appear in the Contaminated Dog Food if the manufacturing and sourcing were not properly monitored. Indeed, this is not the first time that the Kibbles 'n Bits line of food has been determined to include pentobarbital: "Back in 2001 analyses by the FDA found residue of the sedative in popular brands like Nutro, Gravy Train and Kibbles 'n Bits." Consumers have increasingly become more aware and cautious about the products they purchase. Additionally, Defendants knew that a consumer would be feeding the Contaminated Dog Food multiple times each day to his or her dog. This leads to repeated exposure of the barbiturate to the dog. Defendants wrongfully advertised and sold the Contaminated Dog Food without any label or warning indicating to consumers that these products contained any level of Pentobarbital or that Defendants utilized animals that have been euthanized as a protein or meat by-product source. Instead, the advertising and labels intentionally omit any reference to the food being Adulterated. Defendants' claim that the Contaminated Dog Food is "100 percent complete and balanced nutrition" without any mention that the Contaminated Dog Food is in fact adulterated with Pentobarbital. Big Heart Pet Brands is a producer, distributor and marketer of branded pet products for the U.S. retail market. They are based in San Francisco, CA. Big Heart Pet Brands was previously the pet food division of Del Monte Foods prior to their 2014 sale to Del Monte Pacific Limited.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul B. Maslo, Esq. Salvatore C. Badala, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 360 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 397 1000 Facsimile: (646) 843 7603 E-mail: pmaslo@napolilaw.com sbadala@napolilaw.com - and - Anne Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS & THORNTON 4701 Von Karman Ave, Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 748 1000 Facsimile: (949) 315 3540 E-mail: aa@andrewsthornton.com BIG HEART: Kibbles 'n Bits Dog Food Contaminated, Wiliamson Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHY WILIAMSON, MARK JOHNSON, and NORMAN TODD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BIG HEART PET BRANDS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01663 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2018), alleges that the Kibbles 'n Bits dog food contains pentobarbital, a barbiturate drug used as a sedative and anesthetic for animals. Pentobarbital is now most commonly used to euthanizing dogs and cats. Pentobarbital is a Class II controlled substance and there is no safe or set level for pentobarbital in pet food. If it is present, the food is adulterated.3 The ingestion of pentobarbital by a pet can lead to numerous adverse health issues. Pentobarbital residue from euthanized animals will continue to be present in pet food, even if it is rendered or canned at high temperature or pressure. Pentobarbital is routinely used to euthanize animals, and the most likely way it could get into dog food would be in rendered animal products. Rendered products come from a process that converts animal tissues to feed ingredients, including tissues from animals that have been euthanized, decomposed or were diseased. Pentobarbital from euthanized animals survives the rendering process and could be present in the rendered feed ingredients used in pet food. The FDA's testing of dry dog food confirmed some samples contained pentobarbital. The FDA concluded that pentobarbital was entering pet foods from euthanized, rendered cattle or horses because of the lack of dog and cat DNA. Defendants knew the real risk that pentobarbital may appear in the Contaminated Dog Food if the manufacturing and sourcing were not properly monitored. Indeed, this is not the first time that the Kibbles 'n Bits line of food has been determined to include pentobarbital: "Back in 2001 analyses by the FDA found residue of the sedative in popular brands like Nutro, Gravy Train and Kibbles 'n Bits." Consumers have increasingly become more aware and cautious about the products they purchase. Additionally, Defendants knew that a consumer would be feeding the Contaminated Dog Food multiple times each day to his or her dog. This leads to repeated exposure of the barbiturate to the dog. Defendants wrongfully advertised and sold the Contaminated Dog Food without any label or warning indicating to consumers that these products contained any level of Pentobarbital or that Defendants utilized animals that have been euthanized as a protein or meat by-product source. Instead, the advertising and labels intentionally omit any reference to the food being Adulterated. Defendants' claim that the Contaminated Dog Food is "100 percent complete and balanced nutrition" without any mention that the Contaminated Dog Food is in fact adulterated with Pentobarbital. Big Heart Pet Brands is a producer, distributor and marketer of branded pet products for the U.S. retail market. They are based in San Francisco, CA. Big Heart Pet Brands was previously the pet food division of Del Monte Foods prior to their 2014 sale to Del Monte Pacific Limited.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0981 E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Steven M. Mckany, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525 3990 Facsimile: (619) 525 3991 E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333 8844 Facsimile: (612) 339 6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com jbourne@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com - and - Charles Laduca, Esq. Katherine Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789 3960 Facsimile: (202) 789 1813 E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Joseph Depalma, Esq. Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623 3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com scruzhodge@litedepalma.com BILL ME LATER: Lewis Sues over Automatic Telephone Dialing System ----------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BILL ME LATER, INC. DBA PAYPAL CREDIT, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00578 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, on March 15, 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -8820, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (866) 528-3733 confirmed to be Defendant's number. Defendant's call constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's call was placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -8820 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about July 26, 2003. Defendant placed a call soliciting its business to Plaintiff on her cellular telephone ending in -8820 on or around March 15, 2017. Such a call constitutes solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's services. Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attempt to solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA. Bill Me Later, Inc. provides PayPal Credit, a line of credit from Comenity Capital Bank that allows users to buy now and pay later.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com wheeler@toddflaw.com BUCKHEAD PARKING: "Stewart" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Michael Stewart, Individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Buckhead Parking Enforcement, LLC, McDonald's Corporation, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation, Suso 3 Newnan LP, and Slate Properties, LLC, Case No. 18SC-0099-B, was removed from the Superior Court of Forsyth County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Gainesville) on Mar. 16, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00035-RWS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard W. Story. McDonald's is an American fast food company, founded in 1940 as a restaurant operated by Richard and Maurice McDonald, in San Bernardino, California, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq. Robert Neil Friedman, Esq. WERNER WETHERINGTON, P.C. - GA. 2860 Piedmont Rd., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 564 4329 E-mail: matt@wernerlaw.com Robert@wernerlaw.com Attorneys for McDonald's Corporation: Lennon Haas, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP-ATL 999 Peachtree Street, Suite 1000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 420 9558 Facsimile: (678) 420 9301 E-mail: haasl@ballardspahr.com - and - Todd David Wozniak, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP - ATL Terminus 200, Suite 2500 3333 Piedmont Road, NE Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (678) 553 7326 Facsimile: (678) 553 7327 E-mail: wozniakt@gtlaw.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Defending Against Suits over Snyder's-Lance Buyout ----------------------------------------------------------------- Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 28, 2018, that the company is facing four class action suits related to the acquisition of Snyder's-Lance, Inc. Four securities class action lawsuits (collectively, the Actions) related to the pending acquisition of Snyder's-Lance have been filed by purported shareholders of Snyder's-Lance. The Actions, captioned Shaev v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv- 00039 (the Shaev Action), Sciabacucchi v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00049-RJC-DCK (the Sciabacucchi Action), Kendall v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00051 (the Kendall Action), and Daniel v. Snyder's-Lance, Inc., et al., No. 3:18-cv-00058 (the Daniel Action), were filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on January 25, 2018, January 29, 2018, January 30, 2018, and January 31, 2018, respectively. The Actions name as defendants Snyder's-Lance and the members of the Snyder's-Lance board of directors, and allege that the defendants filed a materially incomplete and misleading Schedule 14A in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and SEC Rule 14a-9. Additionally, the Sciabacucchi Action names Campbell Soup Company as a defendant, and alleges that Campbell Soup Company violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Kendall Action seeks to enjoin the shareholder vote on the pending acquisition, and the Shaev, Sciabacucchi, and Daniel Actions seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the pending acquisition or, in the event the acquisition is consummated, request that the Court issue an order rescinding the acquisition and/or awarding rescissory damages. Additionally, the Shaev and Kendall Actions seek that the Court direct defendants to account for alleged damages, and all the Actions seek attorneys' and expert fees and expenses. The time for the defendants to move or answer has not yet expired in any of the Actions. Campbell Soup said "We believe the Actions are without merit." * * * Campbell Soup on March 26, 2018, said it has completed its acquisition of Snyder's-Lance for $50 per share in an all-cash transaction. The deal is valued at about $6.1 billion. Campbell Soup Company is a manufacturer and marketer of high- quality, branded food and beverage products. The company manages its businesses in three divisions focused mainly on product categories. The divisions, which represent its operating and reportable segments, are as follows: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages; Global Biscuits and Snacks; and Campbell Fresh. The company is based on Camden, New Jersey. CAMBREX CORP: Appeal from $67,260 Damages Award Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal to the damages award of US$67,260 against Cambrex Corporation, among other defendants, in a case related to Lorazepam and Clorazepate is currently pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court"). Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate). All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex. The judgment was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "D.C. Circuit") in 2011, resulting in a remand to the District Court. On remand, the District Court dismissed certain self-funded customer plaintiffs due to their failure to satisfy the requirements of federal jurisdiction. Subsequently, the District Court entered an order remitting certain damages. Without fees, costs, or post-judgment interest, the current judgment against Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex is US$67,260. Mylan, Gyma, and Cambrex have once again appealed to the D.C. Circuit and the appeal is currently pending. In 2003, Cambrex paid US$12,415 to Mylan in exchange for a release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter. In the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the indemnity. Cambrex Corporation, a life sciences company, provides various products and services for the development and commercialization of new and generic therapeutics worldwide. It was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in East Rutherford, New Jersey. CANADIAN PACIFIC: Quebec Derailment Case Trial Set for Sept. 2019 ----------------------------------------------------------------- A trial to determine liability issues in the consolidated train derailment case in the Quebec Superior Court will commence in mid-September 2019, according to Canadian Pacific Railway Limited's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary, Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the "MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The derailment occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA Group. The previous day, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP) had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and after the interchange, the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train. In the wake of the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36 and MMAR filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Plans of arrangement have been approved in both Canada and the U.S. (the "Plans"). These Plans provide for the distribution of a fund of approximately US$440 million amongst those claiming derailment damages. A number of legal proceedings were commenced after the derailment in Canada against CP and others, including a class action in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of persons and entities residing in, owning or leasing property in, operating a business in or physically present in Lac-Megantic at the time of the derailment (the "Class Action"). The class action was certified against CP, MMAC and the train conductor, Mr. Thomas Harding. The Class Action seeks unquantified damages, including for wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage arising from the derailment. All known wrongful death claimants in the Class Action have opted out and, by court order, cannot re-join the Class Action. The Class Action has been consolidated with the legal actions commenced by Quebec's Attorney General and by eight subrogated insurers, and will proceed together through the litigation process in the Quebec Superior Court. While each Action will remain a separate legal proceeding, there will be a trial to determine liability issues commencing mid-September 2019, and subsequently, if necessary, a trial to determine damages issues. The Company said, "At this stage of the proceedings, any potential responsibility and the quantum of potential losses cannot be determined. Nevertheless, CP denies liability and is vigorously defending the above noted proceedings." Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and the United States. The Company offers rail and intermodal transportation services over a network of approximately 12,400 miles, serving the business centers of Canada from Montreal, Quebec to Vancouver, British Columbia; and the United States Northeast and Midwest regions. In addition, the Company offers transload, leasing, and logistics services. Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is headquartered in Calgary, Canada. CANADIAN PACIFIC: Appeal Ongoing on Nixed Maine Derailment Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Canadian Pacific Railway Limited disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that plaintiffs in the class action in Maine related to the train derailment incident in Quebec has filed an appeal from the Court's decision to dismiss the case on several grounds. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. On July 6, 2013, a train carrying petroleum crude oil operated by Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway ("MMAR") or a subsidiary, Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. ("MMAC" and collectively the "MMA Group"), derailed in Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The derailment occurred on a section of railway owned and operated by the MMA Group. The previous day, Canadian Pacific Railway Limited (CP) had interchanged the train to the MMA Group, and after the interchange, the MMA Group exclusively controlled the train. In the wake of the derailment, MMAC sought court protection in Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-36 and MMAR filed for bankruptcy in the United States. Plans of arrangement have been approved in both Canada and the U.S. (the "Plans"). These Plans provide for the distribution of a fund of approximately US$440 million amongst those claiming derailment damages. A number of legal proceedings were commenced after the derailment in the U.S. against CP and others, including a class action and mass tort action on behalf of Lac-Megantic residents and wrongful death representatives commencing in Texas and wrongful death and personal injury actions commencing in Illinois and Maine against CP. These were all removed to and consolidated in Maine (the "Maine Actions"). The Maine Actions allege that CP negligently misclassified and mis-packaged the petroleum crude oil being shipped. On CP's motion, the Maine Actions were dismissed by the Court on several grounds. The plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal decision. The Company said, "At this stage of the proceedings, any potential responsibility and the quantum of potential losses cannot be determined. Nevertheless, CP denies liability and is vigorously defending the above noted proceedings." Canadian Pacific Railway Limited, together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates a transcontinental freight railway in Canada and the United States. The Company offers rail and intermodal transportation services over a network of approximately 12,400 miles, serving the business centers of Canada from Montreal, Quebec to Vancouver, British Columbia; and the United States Northeast and Midwest regions. In addition, the Company offers transload, leasing, and logistics services. Canadian Pacific Railway Limited was founded in 1881 and is headquartered in Calgary, Canada. CARDINAL HEALTH: Faces 10 Opioid Class Action Suits at Feb. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. continues to defend itself against 10 purported class actions relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications as of February 2, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. Cardinal Health said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that as of October 30, 2017, 98 counties and municipalities, one state attorney general and one tribal entity have filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical wholesale distributors (including the company) relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. Many of the lawsuits also include pharmaceutical manufacturers and retail chains. The company is also a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit brought on behalf of unions and other health and welfare funds that paid for certain opioid prescriptions on behalf of their members. In the latest SEC disclosure, the Company said, "As of February 2, 2018, we are named as a defendant in 343 lawsuits in 36 jurisdictions. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits include 317 counties, municipalities and other entities; two state attorneys general; and 23 union and other health and welfare funds and hospital systems and other health care providers. Of these lawsuits, ten are purported class actions. In December 2017, all federal lawsuits (298 as of February 2, 2018) were ordered to be transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi- District Litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. We are vigorously defending ourselves in these lawsuits. Since these lawsuits are in early stages, we are unable to predict their outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses." Cardinal Health, Inc. is an Ohio corporation formed in 1979 and is a globally integrated healthcare services and products company providing customized solutions for hospital systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories and physicians' offices. CARDINAL HEALTH: Has 112 Cordis IVC Filter Lawsuits at Feb. 2 ------------------------------------------------------------- Cardinal Health, Inc. still defends itself against 112 product liability lawsuits in California as of February 2, 2018, related to the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava (IVC) filter products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. The Company said, "As of February 2, 2018, we are named as a defendant in 112 product liability lawsuits filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims by approximately 1,362 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava (IVC) filter products. Another 17 lawsuits involving similar claims by approximately 28 plaintiffs are pending in other jurisdictions. These lawsuits seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages. We are vigorously defending ourselves in these lawsuits." "At December 31, 2017, we had a total of US$184 million, net of expected insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and legal defense costs related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits. While we have recorded accruals based on our assessment of these matters, because these lawsuits are in early stages, we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of this accrued amount." Cardinal Health said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that as of October 30, 2017, it was named as a defendant in 90 product liability lawsuits filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims by approximately 1,030 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava (IVC) filter products. Another 15 similar lawsuits involving claims by approximately 25 plaintiffs are pending in other jurisdictions. At September 30, 2017, the Company had a total of $129 million, net of expected insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and legal defense costs related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits. Cardinal Health, Inc. is an Ohio corporation formed in 1979 and is a globally integrated healthcare services and products company providing customized solutions for hospital systems, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories and physicians' offices. CASSANO'S INC: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, "Lee" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zachery Lee, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cassano's Inc. and Christopher Cassano, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00083-WHR (S.D. Ohio, Mar. 20, 2018), seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendant's willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate approximately 34 pizza restaurants in the Dayton, Ohio area. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a pizza delivery driver at their North Main Street location, and also covered shifts at Defendants' Clayton location. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage wages for all hours worked. The Defendants maintain a policy and practice of underpaying their delivery drivers in violation of the FLSA, Section 34a. All delivery drivers at the Cassano's stores, including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies and practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. All delivery drivers at the Cassano's stores, including Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies and practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages and reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former delivery drivers who elect to opt in pursuant to FLSA, to remedy violations of the FLSA wage and hour provisions by Defendants. The Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former delivery drivers in Ohio, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to remedy violations of Section 34a, the Prompt Pay Act, and O.R.C. section 2307.60. Cassano's Inc. is doing business as Cassano's Pizza and Subs. Cassano's Inc. owns and operates restaurants which provide pizzas, famous subs, Cassini sandwiches, fresh salads.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the putative class: Andrew Kimble, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC www.msdlegal.com 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Telephone: (513) 651 3700 Facsimile: (513) 665 0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com CBOE EXCHANGE: Violates Commodity Exchange Act, Tomasulo Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY TOMASULO, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CBOE EXCHANGE, INC., CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE, LLC, and JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02025 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2018), seeks damages caused by Defendants' manipulation and Defendants' violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, including treble damages and injunctive relief. The Volatility Index, known under its ticker symbol "VIX," is a benchmark index created by Defendant CBOE Exchange, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant CBOE Global Markets, Inc. Introduced in 1993, the VIX purports to measure the implied volatility of large cap U.S. stocks, over 30 days in the future. Often dubbed the stock market's "fear index" or "fear gauge," the VIX is calculated based on real-time prices of certain put and call options on the Standard & Poor's 500 Index and is designed to reflect investors' consensus view of near-term future expected stock market volatility. The VIX estimates expected volatility in the S&P 500 by averaging the weighted prices of SPX Options over a wide range of strike prices. Because prices of SPX Options are correlated with volatility -- as investors' expectation of volatility in the near future rises/falls, the price of SPX Options correspondingly rises/falls to reflect the respective increased/decreased risk of those options due to wider/narrower expected fluctuations in the S&P 500 -- expected volatility is calculated by the VIX in reference to SPX Options prices. Although the VIX is a benchmark that cannot be traded, pursuant to authority granted to it under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. section 1 et seq., the Chicago Board Options Exchange eventually created tradeable instruments linked to the VIX. On March 26, 2004, CBOE launched VIX Futures to be traded exclusively on the CBOE Futures Exchange ("CFE"), and on February 24, 2006 launched VIX Options to be traded exclusively on CBOE. During the timeframe of this Complaint, trading activity in VIX Futures and Options ballooned. The average daily contract volume for VIX futures rose from 1,731 contracts per day in 2006 to 300,568 contracts per day in 2017 (through August 24, 2017), a 17,263% increase. Meanwhile, the average daily volume of VIX Options in 2006 was 23,491, and rose to 687,181 in 2017, a 23,491% increase. Since their inception in 2009, there has also been a proliferation of trading in VIX-linked Exchange Traded Products ("VIX ETPs") -- an umbrella category that includes products such as exchange-traded funds and exchange -- traded notes -- which are instruments that track VIX futures but are traded on a public exchange. There are presently at least 18 active VIX ETPs, which have a combined current market cap of about $3.4 billion. The exercise- settlement values of these VIX Futures and VIX Options are not calculated directly from the benchmark VIX, but rather are determined using a Special Opening Quotation ("SOQ") -- a special VIX value designed by CBOE and calculated on the settlement date of VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading. On the VIX Futures' and VIX Options' settlement date, auction clearing prices of SPX Options are used to determine this SOQ. Manipulation of this SOQ value would correspond to manipulation in the values of VIX Futures and VIX Options, as well as the VIX ETPs that track them. This CBOE-designed SOQ is highly susceptible to manipulation for a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that it occurs during a fixed, short window during non-trading hours. Over the past year, evidence has become publicly available that strongly suggests, if not establishes, manipulation of the VIX SOQ to influence the pricing of VIX Options, VIX Futures, and VIX ETPs. Indeed, former SEC Chairman Harvey Pitt has been quoted as saying that "it's quite clear that [VIX] options can be manipulated. And when there were complaints about possible manipulation, CBOE, as the marketplace, should have sprung into action." The VIX manipulation described herein is undertaken by a select group of financial institutions and trading firms with sophisticated, expensive technology and/or the exclusively CBOE- authorized ability to make markets on SPX Options. These CBOE- granted advantages allow the John Doe Defendants to deploy capital to post offers and bids or enter into contracts on SPX Options collusively during the limited time. According to the complaint, Defendants' conspiratorial conduct violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and has caused injury to investors in VIX Instruments. Defendants' conduct also caused actual damages to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: George A. Zelcs, Esq. Robert E. Litan, Esq. Randall P. Ewing, Jr., Esq. Matthew C. Davies, Esq. Chad E. Bell, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 1950 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 641 9750 Facsimile: (312) 641 9751 - and - Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Robert L. King, Esq. Aaron M. Zigler, Esq. Michael E. Klenov, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 4844 Facsimile: (314) 241 3525 - and - Christopher M. Burke, Esq. Walter W. Noss, Esq. Kristen M. Anderson, Esq. Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 233 4565 Facsimile: (619) 233 0508 - and - Graeme W. Bush, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778 1801 Facsimile: (202) 822 8106 - and - Louis F. Burke LOUIS F. BURKE PC 460 Park Ave New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 682 1700 CEMEX S.A.B.: Schiro Sues over Unit's Alleged Bribery Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER SCHIRO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., FERNANDO A. GONZALEZ OLIVIERI and JOSE ANTONIO GONZALEZ FLORES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02352 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Cemex between August 14, 2014 and March 13, 2018, both dates inclusive. Cemex S.A.B. de C.V. is a global building materials company that produces, distributes, and markets cement, ready-mix concrete, aggregates, and related building materials. Cemex operates throughout the Americas, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Founded in 1906, the Company is headquartered in San Pedro Garza, Mexico, and its American depositary receipt trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CX." 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) Cemex executives had engaged in an unlawful bribery scheme in connection with the Company's business dealings in Colombia; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would likely subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (iv) as a result, Cemex's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 23, 2016, post-market, Cemex disclosed the Company's dismissal of two senior executives after an internal probe found that payments worth $20 million relating to a land deal in Colombia had breached company protocols. On this news, Cemex's American depositary receipt price fell $0.17, or 2.28%, to close at $7.26 on September 26, 2016. On December 9, 2016, Cemex disclosed receipt of a subpoena from the SEC seeking information about irregular payments made at the Company's Colombia unit. Then, on March 14, 2018, Cemex disclosed that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the Company over payments made by the Company related to a cement plant it is building in Colombia to determine whether any violations of federal bribery laws occurred. On this news, Cemex's ADR price fell $0.12, or 1.64%, to close at $7.21 on March 14, 2018. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, 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 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 CHEMOURS COMPANY: Less Than $1.0MM Paid for Medical Monitoring -------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that less than US$1 million has been disbursed from the escrow account as of December 31, 2017, for medical monitoring related to the Washington Works facility. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid and its salts, including the ammonium salt (PFOA) in drinking water. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of US$23 million and made a payment of US$70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. DuPont funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy- induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. DuPont is obligated to fund up to US$235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, DuPont put US$1 million in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing is ongoing and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account. As of December 31, 2017, less than US$1 million has been disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring. While it is probable that the Company will incur costs related to the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing. In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users. When the Chemours separated from DuPont on July 1, 2015, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which is included in the accrual amounts recorded as of December 31, 2017. Under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi- district litigation (MDL) in Ohio federal court. In March 2017, DuPont entered into an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs' counsel providing for a global settlement of all cases and claims in the MDL, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that are part of the plaintiffs' counsel's claim inventory, as well as cases that have been tried to a jury verdict (MDL Settlement). The total settlement amount is US$670.7 million in cash, with half paid by Chemours and half paid by DuPont. DuPont's payment was not subject to indemnification or reimbursement by Chemours, and Chemours accrued US$335 million associated with this matter at December 31, 2016. In exchange for payment of the total settlement amount, DuPont and Chemours received a complete release of all claims by the settling plaintiffs. The MDL Settlement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours. As of September 30, 2017, Chemours had paid the full US$335 million accrued under the MDL Settlement. DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the separation agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of five years. During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay future PFOA costs up to US$25 million and, if such amount is exceeded, DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next US$25 million (which payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any further excess costs under the terms of the separation agreement. After the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours' indemnification obligations under the separation agreement will continue unchanged. Chemours has also agreed that it will not contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont under the separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of ostensible defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the separation agreement, including defenses relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys' fees, and waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs. Chemours has, however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the separation agreement. There are a few plaintiffs who declined to participate in the MDL Settlement. The Company expects that these matters will be dismissed. The MDL Settlement does not resolve PFOA personal-injury claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal-injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Since the resolution of the MDL, personal- injury cases have been filed in West Virginia, Ohio, and New York courts. The New York matters, which are not part of the Leach class, are brought by three individual plaintiffs alleging negligence and other claims in the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into drinking water, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York. Chemours also said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that as of September 30, less than $1 million has been disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring. The Company said, "Management believes that the probability of loss is reasonably possible but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that the proceedings are in early stages and there are significant factual issues to be resolved." The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. CHEMOURS COMPANY: Defends Suits v. DuPont over IN Superfund Site ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company is defending itself against lawsuits, including a putative class action, related to a Superfund site in Indiana, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Six lawsuits, including one putative class action, are pending against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi- party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana. Five of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for DuPont environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution, and damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund). The Company began operating as an independent company on July 1, 2015 after separating from DuPont. At Separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund site. DuPont has requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it, and Chemours has agreed to do so under a reservation of rights. The Company said, "Management believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved." The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. CHEMOURS COMPANY: GenX Discharge Related Suits Pending ------------------------------------------------------ The Chemours Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to face class action suits related to the discharge of the polymerization processing aid HFPO Dimer Acid (sometimes referred to as GenX or C3 Dimer) and perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds from the Company's facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina into the Cape Fear River, groundwater and air. A number of additional actions have been filed against the Company and DuPont in North Carolina federal court relating to discharges from the Fayetteville site, including an action brought by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority and one brought by Brunswick County, both seeking damages and injunctive relief, and multiple purported class actions seeking medical monitoring and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River. It is also possible that additional litigation may be filed against the Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges. Chemours said "The Company believes it has valid defenses to such litigation including that the discharges did not impact the safety of drinking water or cause any damages or injury." The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Still Faces Credit Unions' Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated class action suit filed by two credit unions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On May 4, 2017, Bellwether Community Credit Union filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the Company negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card information of customers of the plaintiffs and those of other similarly situated credit unions, banks and other financial institutions alleged to be part of the putative class, causing those institutions to suffer financial losses. The complaint also claims the Company was negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On May 26, 2017, Alcoa Community Credit Union filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado making substantially the same allegations as the Bellwether complaint and seeking substantially the same relief. The Bellwether and Alcoa cases have been consolidated and will proceed as a single action. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Combined "Gordon" and "Lawson" Lawsuit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is still defending itself against the complaints of Greg Lawson and Judy Conard, and Todd Gordon, related to the alleged failure to provide adequate security protection for payment card owners, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On June 9, 2017, Todd Gordon filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging that the Company negligently failed to provide adequate security to protect the payment card information of the plaintiff and other similarly situated customers alleged to be part of the putative class, causing some customers to suffer alleged injuries and others to be at risk of possible future injuries. The complaint also claims the Company was negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and similar state laws, and also alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. Additionally, on August 21, 2017, Greg Lawson and Judy Conard filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado making allegations substantially similar to those in the Gordon complaint, and stating substantially similar claims as well as claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The Gordon and Lawson/Conard cases have been consolidated and will proceed as a single action. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France, specializing in tacos and Mission-style burritos. Its name derives from chipotle, the Nahuatl name for a smoked and dried jalapeno chili pepper. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. CIVITAS SOLUTIONS: Inks Wage & Hour Class Settlement Accord ----------------------------------------------------------- Civitas Solutions, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017 that a class action related to employment practices "was settled and approved by the court on January 31, 2018." The Company also said, "For our employment practices liability, we are fully self insured. We currently have three pending complaints in California state court that allege certain wage and hour violations of California labor laws and seek to be designated as class-actions. One additional wage and hour class action has been settled and preliminarily approved by the court. These actions have increased our expenses as we are self-insured for employment-practices liability related claims. For the three months ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, we incurred employment practices liability expenses of US$0.9 million and US$0.3 million, respectively." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Civitas Solutions, Inc. provides home- and community-based health and human services to must-serve individuals with intellectual, developmental, behavioral, and/or medically complex disabilities and challenges in the United States. It operates through Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD), Post-Acute Specialty Rehabilitation Services (SRS), and At-Risk Youth (ARY) segments. It was formerly known as NMH Holdings, Inc. The company was founded in 1980 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. Civitas Solutions, Inc. is a subsidiary of Vestar Capital Partners. CLIENT SERVICES: O'Brien Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Marlena O'Brien, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01666 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the lawsuit, Defendant failed to clearly state the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be confused as to the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be uncertain as to the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. Because the Letter can reasonably be read by the least sophisticated consumer to have two or more meanings, one of which is inaccurate, as described, it is deceptive within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e. Because the Letter is reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least sophisticated consumer, as described, it is deceptive within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived by the Letter. The least sophisticated consumer would likely be deceived in a material way by the Letter. Defendant violated section 1692e by using a false, deceptive and misleading representation in its attempt to collect a debt. Client Services, Inc. operates as a customer relationship management company that offers a suite of accounts receivable management, business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare solutions.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203 7600 Fax: (516) 706 5055 E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com CONSOL ENERGY: Court Consolidates Casey and Fitzwater Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- CONSOL Energy Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 16, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the Casey Litigation has been consolidated with the Fitzwater Litigation. The Casey Litigation is a class action lawsuit was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company (CCC), CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. (COK), CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. It was filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, wherein three nonunion retired coal miners have sued Fola Coal Company LLC, CCC and COK (as well as ParentCo) in West Virginia Federal Court alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. Raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan. Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees of any ParentCo subsidiary that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated. On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous thermal and crossover metallurgical coal. The company owns and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian Basin. Its flagship operation is the Pennsylvania Mining Complex (PAMC), which comprises three underground mines, including Bailey, Enlow Fork, and Harvey. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. COST PLUS: Rayford Sues over Improper Bag Tax --------------------------------------------- SONY A RAYFORD, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COST PLUS, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a WORLD MARKET, the Defendant, Case No.2018CH03506 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., March 16, 2018), is a class action brought on behalf of the class of persons, who were improperly charged sales tax on the City of Chicago Checkout Bag Tax on their purchases at World Market stores in Chicago, Illinois. The Chicago Checkout Bag Tax Ordinance imposes a tax of $0.07 per checkout bag sold or used in Chicago. Pursuant to the Ordinance, sales tax is not to be imposed on the Bag Tax. Defendant improperly charged Plaintiff sales tax on the Bag Tax, resulting in an unlawful sales tax charge. On information and belief, World Market stores in Chicago are automatically and uniformly charging sales tax on the Bag Tax. Defendant's acts and omissions alleged violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. [BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Sharon A. Harris, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Maebetty Kirby, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. www.attomeyzim.com 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440 0020 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com sharon@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com maebetty@attorneyzim.com CUBESMART: Receives Preliminary Court OK on Class Action Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal District Court of New Jersey has granted preliminary approval of a settlement for a putative class action filed against CubeSmart, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On July 13, 2015, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Federal District Court of New Jersey seeking to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of New Jersey consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. On December 15, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval of a settlement for the class action. The settlement and associated expenses, which were previously reserved for, did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations. CubeSmart is an equity real estate investment trust. The firm invests in the real estate markets of the United States. It engages in ownership, operation, acquisition and development of self-storage facilities. The firm was formerly known as U-Store- It Trust. CubeSmart was founded in July 2004 and is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. DELTA AIRLINES: Pimental Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS PIMENTAL A/K/A AASIR AZZARMI, and OMAR EL-GAZZAR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIRLINES, INC. and any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No. 704015/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 16, 2018), is a class action over Defendant's alleged unlawful scheme to improperly withheld from Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, the wages and benefits to which they have lawfully earned and are entitled. The Plaintiffs and proposed Class members are non-Fleet Ready Reserve employees who work or have worked for Defendants in the state of New York. This action is brought on behalf of the Named Plaintiffs and a class consisting of similarly situated employees who worked for Defendants and did not receive their statutorily mandated wages and were subjected to illegal deductions from their wages. The Plaintiffs and potential class members are all victims of the Defendants' common plan or policy to violate the Labor Law by failing to provide the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked, by failing to properly pay overtime wages to any hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, by failing to pay spread of hours compensation, and by imposing improper deductions from the Named Plaintiff and class members' wages. Delta Air is a major American airline, with its headquarters and largest hub at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew I. Marks, Esq. RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C. Long Island City, NY 11101 Telephone: (347) 464 8694 Facsimile: (800) 483 4508 DOMIX WINE: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN CARLOS ALVAREZ ORTEGA, the Plaintiff, v. DOMIX WINE & SPIRITS, INC., d/b/a/ MOUNT CARMEL WINE & SPIRITS and RAYMOND POLANCO, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02366 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and former non-exempt workers who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, and specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), to remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA that occurred at Mount Carmen Wine & Spirits. The Plaintiff and the FLSA collective also bring this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act, for the Defendants' failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. The Plaintiff and the FLSA collective class seek injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants' unlawful actions, compensation for their failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, and liquidated damages, compensatory damages, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiff and the purported Class are current and former clerks and cashiers at the Mount Carmen Wine & Spirits liquor store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 323 6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com EDS SERVICE: Fails to Pay Wages, Silva Claims --------------------------------------------- ROBERT SILVA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. EDS SERVICE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and 15 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC697656 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 12, 2018), alleges that, for at least four years prior to the filing of this action and at least one year prior to the date the Plaintiff began the process of exhausting the administrative remedies pursuant to the Labor Code, and continuing to the present, the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to provide rest breaks to its employees or compensation in lieu thereof, pay all final wages due at termination or within 72 hours after separation to all employees in California, and failing to provide employees with accurately itemized wage statements. The Defendants further failed to pay the premium rate for all hours worked by its employees in excess of eight hours in any workday and in excess of 40 hours worked in any workweek. The Defendants have failed to pay all overtime wages due to exempt and non-exempt employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Nidah Farishta, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 28632 Roadside Dr., Suite 203 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: 818) 293 5623 Facsimile (888) 850 1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Nidah@OLFLA.com ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Late 2018 Trial on 2nd "Brinckerhoff" Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- A bid to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case, Brinckerhoff v. Enbridge Energy Co., Inc. Et Al., remains pending, according to Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The parties are currently in discovery, with trial currently scheduled in the fourth quarter of 2018. The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff (the Plaintiff), individually and as trustee of the Peter R. Brinckerhoff Trust, filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against our General Partner, Enbridge, Enbridge Management, Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C., the OLP, us, and the following individuals: Jeffrey A. Connelly, Rebecca B. Roberts, Dan A. Westbrook, J. Richard Bird, J. Herbert England, C. Gregory Harper, D. Guy Jarvis, Mark A. Maki, and John K. Whelen, (collectively, the Director Defendants). The initial Complaint asserted both class action claims on behalf of holders of our Class A Common Units, as well as derivative claims brought on behalf of us. The Plaintiff's claims arose out of the January 2, 2015 repurchase by us of our General Partner's 66.67% interest in the pipeline that runs from the Canadian international border near Neche, North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin on our Lakehead System (Alberta Clipper Pipeline), known as the 2015 Transaction. First, the Plaintiff alleged that the 2015 Transaction improperly amended without Public Unitholder consent the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership (the LPA) so as to allocate to the Public Unitholders gross income that should have been allocated to the General Partner (the Special Tax Allocation). Second, the Plaintiff alleged that we paid an unfair price for our General Partner's 66.67% interest in the Alberta Clipper Pipeline such that the 2015 Transaction breached the LPA because it was not fair and reasonable to the Partnership. The initial Complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of residual fiduciary duties, tortious interference, aiding and abetting, and rescission and reformation. "On April 29, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted Enbridge's and the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its entirety. On May 26, 2016 the Plaintiff appealed that dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court. On March 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the ruling of the Court of Chancery. Specifically, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that the enactment of the Special Tax Allocation did not breach the LPA, but reversed on the question of whether the Plaintiff had adequately alleged that the price we paid in the 2015 Transaction, including the Special Tax Allocation component, was fair and reasonable to the Partnership. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Verified Second Amended Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint). The Second Amended Complaint added Piper Jaffray & Co. as successor to Simmons & Company International (Simmons) as a direct Defendant. Simmons acted as the financial advisor to our Special Committee in the 2015 Transaction. The Second Amended Complaint also revised many of the allegations against Enbridge and the Director Defendants. All Defendants have moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The parties are currently in discovery, with trial currently scheduled in the fourth quarter of 2018." Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. provides crude oil and liquid petroleum gathering, transportation, and storage services assets in the United States. The Company was formerly known as Lakehead Pipe Line Partners, L.P. and changed its name to Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. in 2001. Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. ENSIGN GROUP: To Distribute $11-Mil. to Class Members in 1Q 2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Ensign Group, Inc. will be distributing the US$11.0 million settlement amount to the class members in the first quarter of 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company said, "Since 2011, we have been involved in a class action litigation claim alleging violations of state and federal wage and hour laws. In January 2017, we participated in an initial mediation session with plaintiffs' counsel. "In March 2017, we were invited to engage in further mediation discussions to determine whether settlement in advance of a decision on class certification was possible. In April 2017, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the subject class action litigation, without any admission of liability and subject to approval by the California Superior Court. Based upon the change in case status, we recorded an accrual for estimated probable losses of US$11.0 million, exclusive of legal fees, in the first quarter of 2017. In December 2017, we settled this class action lawsuit and the settlement was approved by the Court. We funded the settlement in December 2017 in the amount of US$11.0 million, and it will be distributed to the class members in Q1 of 2018." The Ensign Group, Inc. provides health care services in the post- acute care continuum and other ancillary businesses in the United States. It operates through three segments: Transitional and Skilled Services; Assisted and Independent Living Services; and Home Health and Hospice Services. The Company was founded in 1999 and is based in Mission Viejo, California. FACEBOOK INC: Price Sues over Cambridge Analytica's Data Access --------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Price on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Facebook, Inc., and Cambridge Analytica, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01732 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2018), seeks to enjoining Defendants from engaging in further alleged negligent, deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices relating to Plaintiff's personal information. Facebook operates a social networking website that allows people to communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers. Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information, photographs, website links, and videos. Facebook users have the ability to share and restrict information based on their own specific criteria. By the end of 2017, Facebook had more than 2.2 billion active users. The company's mission is "to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them." Cambridge Analytica is a privately held company that combines data mining and data analysis with strategic communication for use in the electoral process. As part of the sign up process and while interacting with the network, Facebook users create profiles containing significant amounts of personal information, including their name, birthdate, hometown, address, location, interests, relationships, email address, photos, and videos, amongst others. This case involves the absolute disregard with which Defendants have chosen to treat Plaintiff's Personal Information. While this information was supposed to be protected, and used for only expressly disclosed and limited purposes, CA, without authorization, or by exceeding whatever limited authorization it, or its agents, had, improperly collected the Personal Information of nearly 50 million Facebook users. Facebook, for its part, knew this improper data aggregation was occurring and failed to stop it, or actively avoided discovering such knowledge in order to profess supposed ignorance. Plaintiff brings this suit to protect her privacy interests and those of the class. Defendants knew that the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class was personal and sensitive information that is valuable. By being entrusted by Plaintiff and the Class to safeguard their Personal Information, Facebook had a special relationship with Plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff and the Class signed up for Facebook's services and agreed to provide their Personal Information with the understanding that Facebook would take appropriate measures to protect it, and would inform Plaintiff and the Class of any breaches or other security concerns that might call for action by Plaintiff and the Class. But, Facebook did not. Facebook failed to prevent CA's improper obtaining of Plaintiff's and the Class' Personal Information. CA had a duty to refrain from obtaining Plaintiff's and the Class' Personal Information in without their consent or authorization. Defendants breached their duties by failing to adopt, implement, and maintain adequate security measures to safeguard the Personal Information, or by obtaining that Personal Information without authorization. Facebook also breached their duty to timely disclose that Plaintiff's and the other class members' Personal Information had been, or was reasonably believed to have been, improperly obtained. But for Defendants' wrongful and negligent breach of their duties owed to Plaintiff and the Class, their Personal Information would not have been improperly obtained. Defendants' negligence was a direct and legal cause of the theft of the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class and all resulting damages. [BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777 7777 Facsimile: (916) 924 1829 E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com jwatson@justice4you.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223 5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com pbarthle@ForThePeople.com - and - Steven W. Teppler, Esq. ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A. 2929 Plummer Cove Road Jacksonville, FL 32223 Telephone: (904) 292 1111 Facsimile: (904) 292 1220 E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com FACEBOOK INC: Yuan Sues over Advertisers' Data Access ----------------------------------------------------- FAN YUAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., MARK E. ZUCKERBERG and DAVID M. WEHNER, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01725-EJD (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover compensable 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 case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of Facebook between February 3, 2017 and March 19, 2018, both dates inclusive. Facebook operates a social networking website that allows people to communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers. Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information, photographs, website links, and videos. Facebook users have the ability to share and restrict information based on their own specific criteria. By the end of 2017, Facebook had more than 2.2 billion active users. Founded in 2004, the Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The Company's common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "FB." 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) Facebook violated its own purported data privacy policies by allowing third parties to access the personal data of millions of Facebook users without the users' consent; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would foreseeably subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny; and (iii) as a result, Facebook's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 16, 2017, Reuters reported that France's Commission on Informatics and Liberty had fined Facebook EUR150,000 -- the maximum amount then allowed within the CNIL's authority -- for "failing to prevent its users' data being accessed by advertisers." The article stated that the fine was said to be "part of a wider European investigation also being carried out in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany into some of Facebook's practices." On this news, Facebook's share price fell $5.34, or 3.55%, over two trading days, to close at $144.85 on May 17, 2017. On March 17, 2018, the New York Times published an investigative report entitled "How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions," revealing that Cambridge Analytica, a firm brought on by the Trump campaign to target voters online, used the data of 50 million people obtained from Facebook without proper disclosures or permission.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532 6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com FACTOR75 LLC: Vasquez-Cossio Sues over Automatic Renewal -------------------------------------------------------- INEZ VASQUEZ-COSSIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. FACTOR75, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-00397-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., March 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages, restitution, injunctive and/or other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs arise under the California Business and Professions Code, and California Code of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and a class of others similarly situated consisting of all persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment in this action, purchased subscriptions for any products (such as ready-made meals) from Factor75, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, formerly Optimal Performance, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company. The Defendant provided, among other things, weekly subscription programs for ready-made meals, and related products. According to the Complaint, the Defendant's services plan constitutes an automatic renewal and/or continuous service plan or arrangement for the purposes of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17601. Since December l, 2010, and continuing to the present, the Defendant has committed unlawful and/or unfair business acts or practices as defined by the UCL, by violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code. Factor75, LLC prepares and delivers organic meals to homes and offices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706 6464 Facsimile: (949) 706 6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL: Class Suits Underway ---------------------------------------------- First American Financial Corporation continues to defend itself against a number of non-ordinary course lawsuits, most of which are putative class actions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services, conspired to fix prices, participated in the conveyance of illusory property interests, improperly handled property and casualty claims, and gave items of value to brokers and others as inducements to refer business in violation of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations, including: * Chavez v. First American Specialty Insurance Company, filed on June 29, 2017 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Downing v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on July 26, 2016 and pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, * Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Lennen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on May 19, 2016 and pending in the United States District court for the Middle District of Florida, * McCormick v. First American Real Estate Services, Inc., et al., filed on December 31, 2015 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, * Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, * Tenefufu vs. First American Specialty Insurance Company, filed on June 1, 2017, pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, and * Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All of these lawsuits, except Kaufman and Sjobring, are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. First American Financial said, "The Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is not material to the consolidated financial statements as a whole." First American Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides financial services. It operates through Title Insurance and Services, and Specialty Insurance segments. First American Financial Corporation was incorporated in 2008 and is based in Santa Ana, California. FORD MOTOR CREDIT: Still Defends "Agrawal" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- The case, Ford Motor Credit Company v. Sudesh Agrawal, remains ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On January 18, 2011, a state trial court judge in Cuyahoga County, Ohio certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio subclass in a counterclaim arising out of a collection action. Class claimants allege breach of contract, fraud, and statutory violations for Ford Credit's lease-end wear and use charges. Class claimants allege that the standard applied by Ford Credit in determining the condition of vehicles at lease-end is different than the standard set forth in claimants' leases. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, affirmed nationwide class certification and certification of an Ohio subclass. The Company appealed, and on December 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. On March 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further proceedings. On September 28, 2015, the trial court re-certified a nationwide class action with an Ohio subclass. The Company appealed, and on September 22, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order certifying the classes and remanded the case for further proceedings. On April 24, 2017, the claimant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. On May 23, 2017, the Company filed a response. On December 6, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio denied claimant's petition for review and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, through its subsidiaries, provides various automotive financing products to and through automotive dealers worldwide. It offers retail financing products, such as retail installment sale contracts for new and used vehicles, as well as direct financing leases for new vehicles to retail and commercial customers, including leasing companies, government entities, daily rental companies, and fleet customers. The Company was founded in 1959 and is headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan. Ford Motor Credit Company LLC is a subsidiary of Ford Holdings LLC. FREDERIC FEKKAI: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says ------------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FREDERIC FEKKAI NEW YORK, LLC AND FEKKAI RETAIL, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 02398 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause Defendants to change their corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that their Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, under the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights action against Defendants for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.fekkai.com ("the Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by The Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendants deny full and equal access to their Website. Frederic Fekkai provides hair and body care products. The Company offers shampoos, conditioners, gifts, travel sets, styling products, and tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP Christopher H. Lowe 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392 4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Pitre" Suit in E.D. Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against General Motors Company. The case is captioned as Eric Pitre, Richard Northcutt, and Richie Ainsworth, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings, LLC, and General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-02484-JCZ-KWR (E.D. La., Mar 8, 2018). General Motors Company is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Arlen Braud, II, Esq. Michelle O. Gallagher, Esq. Steven Dewayne Jackson, Jr., Esq. BRAUD & GALLAGHER, LLC 111 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 201 Mandeville, LA 70448 Telephone: (985) 778 0771 Facsimile: (985) 778 0781 E-mail: arlenb@braudandgallagher.com michelleg@braudandgallagher.com stevenj@braudandgallagher.com - and - Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq. HAYES HUNTER PC 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (281) 768 4731 E-mail: chunter@hayeshunterlaw.com - and - Dennis Reich, Esq. REICH & BINSTOCK 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 622 7271 E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com - and - Ernest O Hopmann, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ERNEST O. HOPMANN, III 3700 N. Main Street Houston, TX 77009 Telephone: (713) 869 9252 Facsimile: (713) 869 8859 E-mail: bhopmann@pdq.net - and - Richard Schechter, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD SCHECHTER, P.C. One Greenway Plaza, Suite 740 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 623 8919 Facsimile: (713) 622 1680 E-mail: richard@rs-law.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Howard" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Aaron Howard and Jan Howard, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, and General Motors LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv- 05131, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 19, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10853-MFL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon, District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] GENERAL MOTORS: "Minarik" Suit Transferred to E.D. Michigan ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Minarik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Motors LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01615, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) on March 19, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-10892-MOB-MKM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Marianne O. Battani. General Motors Company, commonly abbreviated as GM, is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623 7292 Facsimile: (206) 623 0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: April N. Ross, Esq. Kathleen T. Sooy, Esq. CORWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624 2500 Facsimile: (202) 628 5116 E-mail: aross@crowell.com ksooy@crowell.com GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Briefing Schedule Filed in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Genocea Biosciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have submitted a stipulation proposing a briefing schedule for the consolidated securities action in Massachusetts. The proposed deadlines are: filing of an amended complaint by the lead plaintiffs and counsel due March 29, 2018; filing of an answer or motion to dismiss by defendants on May 14, 2018; filing of any opposition by plaintiffs to a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018; and filing of any reply by defendants in support of a motion to dismiss on July 30, 2018. On October 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District of Massachusetts" or the "Court"), naming the Company, Chief Executive Officer William D. Clark, and Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Poole as defendants. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with disclosures made in and subsequent to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2017, filed with the SEC on May 5, 2017, and the Company's announcement of a strategic shift to immuno-oncology on September 25, 2017. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between May 5, 2017 and September 25, 2017. The complaint sought unspecified damages and costs. On November 3, 2017, another purported Company shareholder filed a substantially identical complaint in the District of Massachusetts. On December 15, 2017, a purported Company shareholder filed a third complaint in the District of Massachusetts, substantially the same as the previous two, but alleging a class period beginning on August 4, 2016 and ending on September 25, 2017. The District of Massachusetts designated all three complaints as related, and entered an order in each action recognizing that the defendants are not obligated to respond to the initial complaint filed in any of the three actions. Per the procedures set forth by federal securities laws, applications for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead counsel in the three actions were due to the Court on January 2, 2018. Three applications for lead plaintiff and lead counsel were submitted to the Court on that date; one of the three movants subsequently withdrew their application. The Court held a hearing on the two remaining motions for lead plaintiff(s) and lead counsel on January 31, 2018. The Court consolidated the three actions into one case, under the docket number Civil Action No. 17-cv-12137-PBS, U.S. District Court (Mass.), and took the motions for lead plaintiff(s) and counsel under advisement. Counsel for both lead plaintiff movants told the Court that they intended to file an amended complaint in the consolidated action, if appointed. On February 12, 2018, the Court appointed the Genocea Investor Group (a group of five purported shareholders) as lead plaintiff, and appointed Scott+Scott LLP, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, and Block & Leviton as lead counsel. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers and develops novel cancer vaccines. The company uses its proprietary discovery platform AnTigen Lead Acquisition System to design immunotherapies and vaccines that act through T cell immune responses. Its lead product candidate is GEN-003, an investigational immunotherapy that is in Phase III trial for the treatment of genital herpes infections. Genocea Biosciences, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. GOPRO INC: Accord in Calif. Securities Suit Awaits Documentation ---------------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. disclosed its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the agreement in principle to settle a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in California is subject to final documentation and the approval of the Court, among other conditions. On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the Company's IPO ("Defendants"). The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The suit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated on June 7, 2016. Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the consolidated action. On July 13, 2016, the court sustained the demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 7, 2016. Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 28, 2016. On December 16, 2016, the court overruled the demurrer with respect to the Section 11 and 15 claims and sustained the demurrer in part and overruled the demurrer in part with respect to the Section 12(a)(2) claim. Defendants answered the amended complaint on January 3, 2017, GoPro said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. On November 20, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. The settlement is subject to final documentation and the approval of the Court, among other conditions. GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. GOPRO INC: Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. Underway --------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. continues to defend itself in a purported shareholder class action lawsuit originally filed in November 2016 with a second amended complaint filed in August 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The defendants have answered in September 2017. The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit (the "2016 Shareholder Class Action") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and Mr. Woodman, our Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee, our CFO, and Anthony Bates, our former President ("Defendants"). The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and certain of its officers ("GoPro Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 8, 2016. On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 26, 2017, the court denied that motion and directed plaintiff to amend its complaint to add all defendants the plaintiff intended to sue. On August 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which Defendants answered on September 8, 2017." GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. GOPRO INC: 2018 Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. is facing new set of purported shareholder class action lawsuits filed this year, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company said, "Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four purported shareholder class action lawsuits (the "2018 Shareholder Class Actions") were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Woodman, and Mr. McGee ("Defendants"). Similar complaints were filed on January 11, 2018 and January 24, 2018. Each of the complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November 2, 2017 and January 5, 2018 for the first complaint and between August 4, 2017 and January 5, 2018 for the remaining three complaints. Each of the complaints purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs." GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. GOPRO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Camia Investments Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a court has entered final judgment in Camia Investments class action after the lead plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and stipulated to enter final judgment in favor of the GoPro Defendants. Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of four purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers (the "GoPro Defendants"). Similar complaints were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016, and February 19, 2016. Each of the complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for the first three complaints and between November 26, 2014 and January 13, 2016 for the last filed complaint. Each complaint purports to allege that defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and each seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three actions (the "Camia Investments Class Action"); the court allowed the fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November 26, 2014 through July 20, 2015 (the "Majesty Palms Class Action") and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action. The lead plaintiff in the Majesty Palms Class Action did not file an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed the Majesty Palms Class Action on July 28, 2016. On September 26, 2016, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Camia Investment Class Action. On May 1, 2017, the court granted that motion, dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the complaint. On June 16, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Camia Investment Class Action did not file an amended complaint and stipulated to enter final judgment in favor of the GoPro Defendants. On June 18, 2017, the court entered final judgment in favor of the GoPro Defendants. GoPro, Inc. is transforming the way people capture and share their lives. What began as an idea to help athletes self-document themselves engaged in sport, GoPro has become a mobile storytelling solution that helps the world share itself through immersive content. The company is based in San Mateo, California. HOLOGIC INC: Accrues $9.2MM for Settlement of "ARcare" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Hologic, Inc. has accrued US$9.2 million as of December 30, 2017 for a class settlement related to ARcare, Inc.'s legal action, according to Hologic's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017. On July 27, 2016, plaintiff ARcare, Inc., individually and as putative representative of a purported nationwide class, filed a complaint against Cynosure. The plaintiff alleges that Cynosure violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by: (i) sending fax advertisements that did not comply with statutory and Federal Communications Commission requirements that senders provide recipients with certain information about how to opt out from receiving faxed advertisements in the future; and (ii) sending unsolicited fax advertisements. The complaint sought damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees on behalf of a purported class of all recipients of purported fax advertisements that the plaintiff alleges did not receive an adequate opt-out notice. On September 30, 2016, Cynosure answered the complaint and denied liability. On September 7, 2016, the plaintiff sent a demand letter seeking a class settlement for statutory damages under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A Sec. 9 ("Chapter 93A"). On October 7, 2016, Cynosure responded denying any liability under Chapter 93A, but offering the plaintiff statutory damages of US$25 on an individual basis. In March 2017, Cynosure and ARcare entered into a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, which requires Cynosure to pay settlement compensation of US$8.5 million notwithstanding the number of claims filed. If approved, Cynosure would receive a full release from the settlement class concerning the conduct alleged in the complaint. As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a charge of US$9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016, which is still accrued on the Company's balance sheet as of December 30, 2017. Hologic previously said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017, that a preliminary approval hearing was held on November 6, 2017. As a result of the settlement agreement, Cynosure recorded a charge of $9.2 million, in the period ended December 31, 2016, which was accrued on the Company's balance sheet as of September 30, 2017. Hologic, Inc. develops, manufactures, and supplies diagnostics products, medical imaging systems, and surgical products for women in the United States, Europe, the Asia-Pacific, and internationally. It operates through five segments: Diagnostics, Breast Health, Medical Aesthetics, GYN Surgical, and Skeletal Health. The Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts. HOT POT RESTAURANT: "Xie" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Yaowu Zhang, Hengpin Xie individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hot Pot Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Hot Pot, Zhenjiang Cao, Haiying Zhou and Karen "Doe" (last name unknown), the Defendants, Case No. 3:18- cv-00348-LEK-DEP (N.D.N.Y., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, compensation for all hours worked, including overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and willfully. Defendants knew that the nonpayment of overtime pay, spread of hours pay, and failure to provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would financially injure Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees and violate state and federal laws.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip H. Kim, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC. 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353 8588 E-mail: pkim@hanglaw.com IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Seeks to Drop "Fergus" and "Becker" Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Immunomedics, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in a class action stockholder federal securities case on January 26, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-03335, filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v. Immunomedics, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv- 03374, filed June 10, 2016. These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances, and seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with respect to the Becker matter). These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases, investor conference calls, and SEC filings beginning in April 2016 that the Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132 breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois. The complaints allege that these statements were false and misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had cancelled the presentation because it contained previously reported information. The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock, and that the Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An order of voluntarily dismissal without prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter. An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was filed on October 4, 2017. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on January 26, 2018. Immunomedics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune disorders and other serious diseases. Immunomedics, Inc. is based on Morris Plains, New Jersey. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Continues to Defend "Desanctis" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Immunomedics, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, provided updates on the case, Desanctis v. Goldenberg, C.A. On December 13, 2016, plaintiff commenced an action seeking to compel an annual meeting and relief for breaches of fiduciary duty for not holding such a meeting, captioned Desanctis v. Goldenberg, C.A. No. 12981-VCL (Del. Ch. Ct.), alleging that the Company's Board of Directors failed to comply with Delaware law and breached their fiduciary duties when it rescheduled the Immunomedics 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders from December 14, 2016 to February 16, 2017. On December 22, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery refused to schedule an expedited hearing in the action and concluded that plaintiff failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he had pleaded a colorable claim and that there was a threat of irreparable harm. The Court further stated that the Complaint failed to demonstrate that the Board's actions were unreasonable when it rescheduled the Annual Meeting in response to venBio Select Advisor LLC's proxy contest. Immunomedics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company developing monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune disorders and other serious diseases. The company is based in Morris Plains, New Jersey. IMPERIAL MARBLE: Schubbe Seeks Unpaid Wages under WARN Act ---------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH SCHUBBE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. IMPERIAL MARBLE CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-50097 (N.D. Ill., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, (WARN Act). According to the complaint, the Defendant is liable under the WARN Act for the timing and lack of specificity of the notice provided to Plaintiff and the other similarly situated former employees of their employment loss as required by the WARN Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees suffered employment loss as part of mass layoff as defined by the WARN Act, for which they were entitled to receive 60 days' advance written notice under the WARN Act from Defendant. The notice Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees received notifying them of the employment loss did not comply with the notice requirements of the WARN Act. Specifically, the notice did not contain: a) The name and address of the employment site where the employment loss would occur, and the name and telephone number of a company official to contact for further information; b) A statement as to whether the employment loss was expected to be permanent or temporary; and c) The job titles of positions to be effected and the names of the workers currently holding the effected jobs. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees who reported to Defendant's site of employment were notified that their "last day of employment will be 2/13/2018." On February 14, 2018, similarly situated employees to Plaintiff who reported to Defendant's site of employment were notified that their "last day of employment will be 2/14/2018." In total, at least 79 employees suffered employment loss at the site of employment on February 13, 2018 to February 14, 2018. The 79 employees who suffered employment loss comprised at least 33 of the employees at the site of employment. Imperial Marble produces the finest quality cultured marble vanity tops and other cultured marble products for residential, commercial and the hospitality industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Sobek, Esq. JS LAW 29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone (312) 756 1330 E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com INDIANA: "McQuay" Suit vs IDOC Moved to S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LEONARD MCQUAY and DUKE HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. STATE OF INDIANA, JEANNE WATKINS, ROBERT MARSHALL, TERESA LITTLEJOHN, and RICHARD BROWN, the Defendants, Case No. 77D01-1712-CT-000734, the Defendants removed the case from the Sullivan Circuit Court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00106-JMS-DLP to the proceeding. The plaintiffs are suing the Indiana Department of Correction. Indiana is a Midwestern U.S. state known for its farmland and renowned auto race, the Indianapolis 500, held at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In the capital, Indianapolis, theaters and galleries line Massachusetts Avenue.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Frank, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES 809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802 The Defendants are represented by: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Esq. Jonathan P. Nagy, Esq. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 Telephone: (317) 233 8296 Facsimile: (317) 232 7979 E-mail: Jonathan.Nagy@atg.in.gov INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Purported Shareholder Class Lawsuit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. still defends in purported shareholder class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed against a number of the Company's current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A substantially identical complaint, entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365, was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24, 2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on August 20, 2013. On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an amended complaint. The case has since been retitled In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC. On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to further amend their complaint at that time. On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August 21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration on November 5, 2014. Following opposition and reply briefing, the court denied the motion on December 15, 2014, allowing the case to move forward on the claims that remained. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on September 1, 2015, and following opposition and reply briefing, the court held a hearing on the motion on January 21, 2016. While that motion remained pending, on October 11, 2016, the Company sent plaintiffs' lead counsel, Labaton Sucharow LLP, a letter enclosing a draft motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, primarily based on statements to the court that lacked a proper factual basis. In response, on November 1, 2016, plaintiffs' local counsel withdrew from the case entirely and withdrew their signatures from the disputed pleadings. On November 2, 2016, Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that did not include the disputed statements. On November 16, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion, along with an independent motion to strike the amended complaint and the pleadings from which plaintiffs' local counsel withdrew their signatures. Following additional briefing, the motion for leave to amend and motion to strike were fully submitted to the court on November 23, 2016, and December 7, 2016, respectively. On December 22, 2016, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On January 5, 2017, the Company filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from the order granting class certification in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 30, 2017, the court of appeals denied the Company's petition. On January 12, 2017, plaintiffs sought leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the court's class certification order, which the court granted on March 17, 2017. Plaintiffs filed the motion for reconsideration itself on April 3, 2017, and the Company filed its opposition on April 17, 2017. The court denied the motion on September 29, 2017. On January 25, 2017, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint and denying the Company's motion to strike. On February 9, 2017, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Following opposition and reply briefing, the matter was fully submitted to the court on March 2, 2017. The court denied the motion on September 29, 2017. On July 13, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation vacating the case schedule, which the court entered on July 14, 2017. On November 8, 2017, the court entered a new case schedule, with trial set to begin on October 30, 2018. The Company said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend itself, the actual outcome of this matter is dependent on many variables that are difficult to predict. Based on currently available information, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter." INVUITY INC: April 6 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss "Paciga" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Invuity, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the motion to dismiss in a stockholder class action titled Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al. is currently scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2018. On February 27, 2017, a purported stockholder class action titled Paciga v. Invuity, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01005, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements to investors regarding our business prospects. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of our common stock between July 19, 2016 and November 3, 2016, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs, and other relief. On May 30, 2017, the Court appointed Mike Paciga as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion on October 30, 2017 and Defendants filed a reply brief on December 4, 2017. Invuity said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the motion to dismiss was scheduled for hearing on January 26, 2018. In the recent SEC disclosure, the Company said the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled for hearing on April 6, 2018. The Company added that it intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable. Invuity, Inc. is a medical technology company focused on developing and marketing advanced surgical devices to improve the ability of physicians to perform minimal access surgery through smaller and hidden incisions. The company is based in San Francisco, California. J & M INC: Fails to Provide Itemized Wage Statements, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ELIAS LOPEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. J & M, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18897171 (Cal. Super. Ct. Fla., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover damages and/or penalties pursuant to California Labor Code. The complaint challenges systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code against employees of Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants jointly and severally have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees by failing to keep accurate records and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements identifying all required information, including without limitation, the address of the employer. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of willful violations of the California Labor Code by creating and maintaining policies, practices and customs that knowingly deny employees the above stated rights and benefits. The company failed in its affirmative obligation to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Labor Code section 226(a)(8). Specifically, pursuant to Labor Code section 226(a)(8), the wage statements should have listed "the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer." However, the wage statements provided to Plaintiffs and the Class failed to identify the name and address of the employer. Additionally, the wage statements issued to Plaintiff and Class Members listed their entire social security numbers in violation of Labor Code. J & M, Inc. provides construction services. The Company offers sanitary sewer construction, pipeline utility trenching, and engineering services, as well as water, concrete structure, bypass pumping, storm drain, and dewatering systems installation services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP 501 Sap Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Telephone: 831 531 4214 Facsimile: 831 634 0333 - and - Dennis S. Hyun, Esq. HYUN LEGAL, APC 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488 6555 Facsimile: (213) 488 6554 JEC NY: "Wanghok" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ JIGME WANGHOK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Simialrly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. JEC NY, INC.; KWAN SUB KIM a/k/a ANDREW KIM, a/k/a KWAN KIM, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01440-KAM-SJB (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendants have willfully engaged in a pattern, practice and policy of unlawful conduct by failing to record, credit, or compensate work performed by its hourly employees in the State of New York, including Plaintiffs and members of the prospective class, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: BHURTEL LAW FIRM PLLC 3749 75th Street 2nd Floor Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (718) 509 6181 E-mail: deb@attorneybhurtel.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Aqueous Film-Forming Foam Lawsuits Continue ------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc and its subsidiaries still defend themselves in class action lawsuits related to the fire- fighting foam products and fire suppression products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. Two of the Company's subsidiaries, Chemguard, Inc. ("Chemguard") and Tyco Fire Products L.P. ("Tyco Fire Products"), have been named, along with other defendant manufacturers, in a number of class action lawsuits relating to the use of fire-fighting foam products by the U.S. Department of Defense (the "DOD") and others for fire suppression purposes and related training exercises. Plaintiffs generally allege that the firefighting foam products manufactured by defendants contain or break down into the chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS") and perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and that the use of these products by others at various airbases and airports resulted in the release of these chemicals into the environment and ultimately into communities' drinking water supplies neighboring those airports and airbases. Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory damages, including damages for alleged personal injuries, medical monitoring, and alleged diminution in property values, and also seek punitive damages and injunctive relief to address remediation of the alleged contamination. As of February 2, 2018, the Company is named in 12 putative class actions in federal courts in three states: Colorado * District of Colorado -- Bell et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed on September 18, 2016. * District of Colorado -- Bell et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed on September 18, 2016. * District of Colorado -- Davis et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed on September 22, 2016. The Colorado cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is scheduled for April 2018 with a trial date schedule for April 2019. New York * Eastern District of New York -- Green et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed March 27, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, prior to removal to federal court. * Southern District of New York -- Adamo et al. v. The Port Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to federal court. * Southern District of New York -- Fogarty et al. v. The Port Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to federal court. * Southern District of New York -- Miller et al. v. The Port Authority of NY and NJ et al., filed August 11, 2017 in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, prior to removal to federal court. * Supreme Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County -- Singer et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 10, 2017. Chemguard and Tyco Fire Products are also defendants in Ayo, et al. v. The 3M Company, et al., filed on December 11, 2017 in the Suffolk County Supreme Court of New York. Approximately 32 plaintiffs allege that releases of PFOS and PFOA have contaminated surrounding communities' water supplies near the Gabreski Air National Guard Base located on Long Island, New York. The plaintiffs assert defective design, failure to warn, negligence, private nuisance, and trespass and seek recovery for alleged diminished property values, personal injury, medical monitoring and punitive damages. Responses to the complaints have not been filed yet in any of the New York actions. Pennsylvania * Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Bates et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed September 15, 2016. * Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Grande et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 13, 2016. * Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Yockey et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed October 24, 2016. * Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- Fearnley et al. v. The 3M Company et al., filed December 9, 2016. The Pennsylvania cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated proceeding was denied without prejudice and the cases are currently stayed pending the appeal of an action in which the Company is not a party. Johnson Controls International plc operates as a diversified technology and multi industrial company worldwide. The Company operates through Building Technologies & Solutions and Power Solutions segments. It was formerly known as Johnson Controls, Inc. and changed its name to Johnson Controls International plc in September 2016. Johnson Controls International plc was founded in 1885 and is headquartered in Cork, Ireland. JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Laufer" Class Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the status hearing in the case Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., has subsequently been rescheduled for March 2018. The status hearing was rescheduled for November 28, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017. On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859, was filed in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors, the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint alleged that Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger between Johnson Controls Inc. and the Company's merger subsidiary by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value, seeking to benefit themselves improperly and failing to disclose material information in the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger. The complaint further alleged that the Company aided and abetted Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger. On August 8, 2016, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the action and release all claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of Johnson Controls Inc.'s shareholders. The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. On November 10, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report notifying the court they had reached such agreement. On November 22, 2016, the court ordered that a proposed stipulation of settlement be filed by March 15, 2017 and scheduled a status hearing for April 20, 2017. On March 10, 2017, the parties filed a joint letter requesting that the filing and hearing be adjourned and that the parties be allowed an additional 90 days to update the court in light of the Gumm v. Molinaroli action proceeding in federal court. Johnson Controls said "There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement. In either event, or certain other circumstances, the settlement could be terminated." Johnson Controls International PLC operates in two primary businesses: Building Technologies & Solutions and Power Solutions. Building Technologies & Solutions provides facility systems and services including comfort and energy management for the residential and non-residential buildings markets, security products and services, fire detection and suppression products and services, and life safety products. Power Solutions designs and manufactures automotive batteries for the replacement and original equipment markets. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Bid to Dismiss "Gumm" Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls International plc said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the Company's motion to dismiss the case, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., remains pending. On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors at the time of the merger with the Company's merger subsidiary and certain of its officers, the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring the merger among the Company, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner that would result in a United States federal income tax realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach of contract. The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., the Company and the Company's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things, disgorgement of profits and damages. On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger. The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion on January 4, 2017, and on January 25, 2017, the judge denied the plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on April 3, 2017. Johnson Controls said "Although the Company believes it has substantial defenses to plaintiffs' claims, it is not able to predict the outcome of this action." Johnson Controls International PLC operates in two primary businesses: Building Technologies & Solutions and Power Solutions. Building Technologies & Solutions provides facility systems and services including comfort and energy management for the residential and non-residential buildings markets, security products and services, fire detection and suppression products and services, and life safety products. Power Solutions designs and manufactures automotive batteries for the replacement and original equipment markets. KANGAROO FLEET: Withholds Wages over Citations, Kirklands Say ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA KIRKLAND and DAYVON KIRLAND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KANGAROO FLEET MANAGEMENT NY LLC, and RICHARD RACHED, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 505299/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable relief against the Defendants under the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and The New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, Joshua was employed by Defendants as a driver and cleaner from June 20, 2017 through February 25, 2017. Dayvon was employed by Defendants as a driver and cleaner from June 5, 2017 through February 9, 2017. The Plaintiffs were not provided with a written notice of pay rate at the time of hire, nor at any time thereafter. Plaintiffs' duties were to perform labor in furtherance of Defendants' business. The Plaintiffs had no authority to hire employees, fire employees, suspend employees, discipline employees, and/or discretion or independent judgment regarding matters of significance. One of Plaintiffs' job duties as a driver and cleaner was parking vehicles on public streets in and around New York City. In the event that a parking citation was received on a vehicle parked by either Plaintiff, that Plaintiff would be required to reimburse Defendants for the cost of the ticket. The Defendants would, without Plaintiffs' authorization or consent, withhold wages from Plaintiffs pay each week as reimbursement for citations. This policy was consistently enforced against all employees of Defendants including those employed as drivers, cleaners, optimizers, and technicians. In total at least 30 employees were subject to these deductions. The Defendants had a known, written policy of requiring employees to pay or otherwise reimburse for parking citations issued to Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Gaylord, Esq. BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs 400 Jericho Turnpike Suite 226 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 742 4949 Facsimile: (516) 742 1977 KELLCO MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Murat St-Surin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KELLCO MANAGEMENT, INC.; KELLY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.; BRIAN KELLY, individually, the Defendants, Case No.8-406C (Mass. Super. Ct., March 15, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime under Massachusetts General Laws. According to the complaint, Kellco has employed more than 40 different car salesmen and saleswomen during the three years preceding the filing date of this action. Kellco employs more than 40 different car salesmen and saleswomen in Massachusetts at any given time. Kellco employs more than seven different car salesmen and saleswomen in Massachusetts on any given day. KAG has employed more than 40 different car salesmen and saleswomen during the three years preceding the filing date of this action. KAG employs more than 40 car salesmen and saleswomen in Massachusetts at any given time. KAG employs more than seven car salesmen and saleswomen in Massachusetts on any given day. Each separate dealership within the Kelly Automotive Group has employed more than 40 different car salesmen and saleswomen during the three years preceding the filing date of this action. Each separate dealership within the Kelly Automotive Group employs more than seven car salesmen and saleswomen in Massachusetts on any given day. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks. Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees worked on a Sunday during one or more weeks. Defendants were aware that Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees worked on a Sunday during one or more weeks. Defendants never instructed Plaintiff or any other similarly situated sales employee that they could not work more than 40 hours in a week. Defendants never instructed Plaintiff or any other similarly situated sales employee that they could not work on Sundays. Defendants have a company-wide policy to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees a weekly base salary plus commissions/bonuses that they earned from selling vehicles. Defendants paid Plaintiff a weekly salary in the amount of $200.00. Defendants have a company-wide policy to credit commissions toward overtime compensation and Sunday premium pay that Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees were entitled to receive for hours that they worked in excess of 40 and/or on Sundays during multiple weeks. Defendants did not calculate the amount of wages that they paid to Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees based on the number of regular hours or overtime hours that they worked each week. Defendants did not pay overtime wages to Plaintiff or other similarly situated sales employees. Defendants did not pay Sunday premium pay to Plaintiff or other similarly situated sales employees. Defendants did not pay holiday premium pay to Plaintiff or other similarly situated sales employees. During one or more workweeks, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated sales employees an hourly rate equal to minimum wage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brook S.Lane, Esq. Stephen Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 3260 E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com steve@fairworklaw.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Still Defends Bahamas Surgery Class Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly-Clark Corporation continues to face a California consumer class action by Bahamas Surgery Center, according to Kimberly-Clark's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company said, "We are party to certain legal proceedings relating to our former health care business, Halyard, which we spun-off on October 31, 2014. This includes Bahamas Surgery Center v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., a California consumer class action relating to the sale of surgical gowns. On April 7, 2017, the jury awarded the plaintiff class US$3.9 in compensatory damages and US$350 in punitive damages against us. We have filed motions challenging the jury's verdict as we believe it is contrary to the evidence presented at trial and that the punitive damage award is baseless, excessive and not consistent with California and federal laws. Under the terms of the distribution agreement we entered into with Halyard in connection with the spin-off, Halyard is obligated to indemnify us for legal proceedings, claims and other liabilities primarily related to our former health care business. Halyard and Kimberly-Clark have each filed suits against the other seeking declaratory judgment regarding the scope of these indemnification obligations. "We are also party to additional legal proceedings relating to Halyard, including civil actions, qui tam matters, a shareholder derivative suit, a securities class action and certain subpoena and document requests from the federal government. Although the results of litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we continue to believe that the final outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect, individually or in the aggregate, on our business, financial condition, results of operations or liquidity." Kimberly-Clark Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets personal care, consumer tissue, and professional products worldwide. It operates through three segments: Personal Care, Consumer Tissue, and K-C Professional. The Company was founded in 1872 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. KITOV PHARMA: Discovery Ongoing in California Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Kitov Pharma Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that discovery against the underwriters defendants is continuing in a consolidated class action suit pending before the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. On February 10, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov Pharma's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov Pharma's securities, filed a lawsuit relating to the ISA Investigation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against Kitov Pharma, its CEO and CFO, and the underwriters of Kitov Pharma's initial public offering, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages and other relief based on, among other things, Kitov Pharma allegedly including misleading information in its public filings. On March 20, 2017, an individual who allegedly acquired Kitov Pharma's securities, individually and on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kitov Pharma's securities, filed a lawsuit relating to the ISA Investigation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo against Kitov Pharma, its CEO and CFO, and the underwriters of Kitov Pharma's initial public offering, alleging violations of U.S. federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages and other relief based on, among other things, Kitov Pharma allegedly including misleading information in its public filings. On April 6, 2017, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo entered an order consolidating the two California putative class actions, appointed the lead counsel to plaintiffs in the consolidated action and set a case schedule. An amended complaint was filed on or about June 5, 2017. On August 3, 2017, a motion of demurrer was filed on behalf of the Company and the individual defendants to dismiss the complaint against them, and, in the alternative, a motion was filed to stay the action, including, until the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled as to the jurisdiction of the California state court to hear this dispute. The underwriter defendants also filed a motion of demurrer. Answering papers were filed by plaintiffs on September 19, 2017; the company's reply papers were filed on October 19, 2017; and the hearing on this motion was held on October 26, 2017. At the hearing, the judge ruled against the company, the individual defendants and the company's underwriters, denying the company's demurrers and its motions to stay the entirety of the matter. Kitov Pharma said "We filed an answer on or about November 24, 2017. On December 15, 2017, we filed a more limited motion to stay discovery pending the resolution of the ISA Investigation. Following plaintiffs' opposition to our motion on January 5, 2018 and our reply in further support on January 16, 2018, the court ruled in our favor after arguments on January 29th, 2018 staying discovery by plaintiffs against the Company and the individual defendants until June 1, 2018, at which point the parties are to update the court on the status of the ISA's investigation." Discovery against the underwriters is continuing. Kitov Pharma Ltd, through its subsidiaries, operates as a development stage biopharmaceutical company in Israel. It develops combination drugs for the simultaneous treatment of pain caused by osteoarthritis and hypertension. LANNETT CO: To Seek Dismissal of 2nd Amended Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lannett Company, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a putative shareholder class action suit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2018, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its officers claiming that the Company damaged the purported class by including in its securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the Company's drug pricing methodologies and internal controls. A first amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Lannett Co. said, "The Company expects to file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the coming months. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time." Lannett Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop, manufacture, package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release (tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic areas. LIONS GATE: Still Faces Consolidated Starz Merger Class Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial for the consolidated class suit captioned In re Starz Stockholder Litigation will commence in the second half of fiscal 2019, according to Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. Between July 19, 2016 and August 30, 2016, seven putative class action complaints were filed by purported Starz stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These actions have been consolidated into In re Starz Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 12584-VCG, and the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a verified consolidated class action complaint on August 16, 2016. The complaint names as defendants the members of the board of directors of Starz; Dr. Malone and Leslie Malone; Mr. Bennett and Deborah J. Bennett; The Tracey L. Neal Trust A; The Evan D. Malone Trust A; Hilltop Investments, LLC ("Hilltop"); Dr. Rachesky; Lions Gate; and Merger Sub. It alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the merger and related transactions; that Dr. Malone is a controlling stockholder of Starz who breached fiduciary duties owed to other Starz stockholders in connection with the merger and related transactions; and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. On August 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings. On September 22, 2016, the court denied the motion. On January 17, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing without prejudice the claims against former Starz directors Irving Azoff, Susan Lyne, Robert Wiesenthal, Andrew Heller, and Jeffrey Sagansky, as well as Mr. Bennett, Deborah Bennett, Leslie Malone, Hilltop, The Tracey L. Neal Trust A, and The Evan D. Malone Trust A. On January 26, 2017, the court granted a stipulation dismissing without prejudice the claims against Dr. Rachesky. The remaining defendants filed answers to the verified consolidated class action complaint on January 24, 2017. The court has entered a scheduling order providing for a trial to commence in the second half of fiscal 2019. Defendants intend to defend the action vigorously. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture production and distribution, television programming and syndication, home entertainment, interactive ventures and games, and location-based entertainment in Canada, the United States, and internationally. The Company operates through three segments: Motion Pictures, Television Production, and Media Networks. The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California. LIONS GATE: "Gross" Class Suit in Colorado Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action suit in Colorado captioned Gross v. John C. Malone, et al., remains stayed pending the final resolution of a consolidated class suit in Delaware, according to Lions Gate Entertainment Corp.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. On August 9, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by a purported Starz stockholder in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado: Gross v. John C. Malone, et al., 2016-CV-32873. The complaint names as defendants the members of the board of directors of Starz, Dr. Malone and Mr. Bennett, as well as Lions Gate and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Starz board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Starz and the holders of Starz Series A common stock in connection with the merger and the transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, and that Dr. Malone, Mr. Bennett, Lions Gate, and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty. On December 10, 2016, the court granted the defendants' unopposed motion to stay the action pending final resolution of the consolidated Delaware action. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. engages in motion picture production and distribution, television programming and syndication, home entertainment, interactive ventures and games, and location-based entertainment in Canada, the United States, and internationally. The Company operates through three segments: Motion Pictures, Television Production, and Media Networks. The Company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Santa Monica, California. LIONS GATE: Settlement in "Levy" Suit Finally Approved ------------------------------------------------------ Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that the court has issued an order and judgment finally approving the settlement in the case, Levy v. Malone, et al. On October 7, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed by a purported Lions Gate stockholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Nassau: Levy v. Malone, et al., Index No. 607759/2016. The complaint names as defendants Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of the Lions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Lions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed merger, and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors failed to disclose material information in the amended joint proxy statement/ prospectus on Form S-4/A filed on September 7, 2016 in connection with the proposed merger. On November 8, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin the proposed merger and for expedited discovery. On November 23, 2016, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving the action, and on November 25, 2016, filed a stipulation withdrawing plaintiff's motion. On July 14, 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement, ordered that notice of the settlement be sent to class members, and scheduled a hearing for August 30, 2017 to determine whether to finally approve the settlement. On October 30, 2017, the court issued an order and judgment finally approving the settlement. Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is a vertically integrated next generation global content leader with a diversified presence in motion picture production and distribution, television programming and syndication, premium pay television networks, home entertainment, global distribution and sales, interactive ventures and games and location-based entertainment. LOGON COMPUTER: "Santos" Suit Seeks wages & Overtime under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ANNY SANTOS, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. LOGON COMPUTER & MAILING SERVICES, INC., DANIEL AENOWITZ, and DAN CANTELMO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02347 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, approximately 19 years ago, Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work in Defendants' mailing warehouse located at 520 8th Avenue, 14th Floor New York, New York 10001. On Feb. 16, 2018, Defendants' terminated Plaintiff's employment without notice. During Plaintiff's employment by Defendants, she worked approximately 47 hours per week, Plaintiff generally worked 5 days a week and 9 and 9.5 hours each day. Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a policy of not paying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' wages and overtime wages for the hours actually worked in violation of the FLSA AND NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James F Sullivan, E LAW OFFICE OF JAMES F. SULLIVAN, PC 52 Duane Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 374 0009 Facsimile: (212) 374 9931 MALECON RESTAURANT: "Espinal" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Zoilo Sanchez and Erick Espinal, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Malecon Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Malecon Restaurant, 764 Gomez Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Malecon Restaurant, Pablo Gomez, Percio de Jesus Gomez, Joselo Gomez, and John Does No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02199 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2018), seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Mr. Espinal was employed by the Malecon defendants in three different stints. He was employed from approximately June 2011 through May 2012, from around June 2014 through October 2016, and from March 2017 through July 2017. He was employed at the Amsterdam Ave. restaurant for approximately three weeks, and was then transferred by defendants to the Broadway location, where he worked for the remainder of his employment. Mr. Sanchez was employed as a waiter. Mr. Espinal was employed as a kitchen helper, whose job included food preparation, cleaning, and dishwashing. The Plaintiffs' work was performed in the normal course of defendants' business and was integrated into the business of defendants, and did not involve executive or administrative responsibilities. The Plaintiffs were paid in cash throughout their employment. The Plaintiffs received no paystubs or wage statements with their pay. In addition, defendants failed to pay plaintiffs any overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563 9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: Blind Can't Access Website, Thorne Says ------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02492 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually- impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website, WWW.MASSMUTUAL.COM, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. MassMutual offers life insurance and protection products, retirement and investment services to help you meet your financial goals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575 4175 Fax: (929) 575 4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228 9795 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com MAXIMUS INC: Still Defends Putative Shareholder Class Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- MAXIMUS, Inc. still defends itself against a shareholder lawsuit in Virginia, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2018, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. In August 2017, the Company and certain officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. MAXIMUS. The plaintiff alleges the defendants made a variety of materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material information, concerning the status of the Company's Health Assessment Advisory Services project for the U.K. Department for Work and Pensions from the period October 20, 2014 through February 3, 2016, and seek damages to be proved at trial. The defendants deny the allegations and intend to defend the matter vigorously. The Company said, "At this time, it is not possible to reasonably predict whether this matter will be permitted to proceed as a class or to reasonably estimate the value of the claims asserted. No assurances can be given that we will be successful in our defense of this action on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, we are unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss in this matter." MAXIMUS, Inc. provides business process services (BPS) to government health and human services programs in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia. It was founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. MAXLINEAR INC: Vladimir Gusinsky and "Marshall" Suit Concluded -------------------------------------------------------------- MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust and Marshall lawsuits have been resolved, following the company's payment of fees and execution of the settlement agreement. On April 18, 2017, The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Exar, its board of directors, MaxLinear, and Eagle Acquisition Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of MaxLinear). Another similar lawsuit was filed by Richard E. Marshall on April 25, 2017. The Marshall lawsuit did not name MaxLinear or Eagle Acquisition Corp. as defendants. The complaints generally alleged that the merger with Exar offered inadequate consideration to Exar's shareholders and that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Exar in connection with the merger omitted material information. The complaints purported to bring class claims for violation of sections 14(e), 14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14d-9. The complaints sought certification of a class; an injunction barring the merger or, if defendants enter into the merger, an order rescinding it or awarding rescissory damages; declaratory relief; and plaintiff's costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. On or about May 3, 2017, the parties to the above-referenced lawsuits reached an agreement whereby plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims brought by Mr. Marshall and The Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust with prejudice (but without prejudice as to other members of the putative class), defendants made certain supplemental disclosures, and the plaintiffs would receive a mootness fee. On May 3, 2017, Exar made the supplemental disclosures contemplated by this agreement. On October 24, 2017, the parties entered a Settlement Agreement Regarding Claim for Mootness Fees pursuant to which we agreed to pay counsel for the plaintiffs a mootness fee. MaxLinear said "We have now paid the fee, and with the execution of the settlement agreement, this litigation has been resolved." MaxLinear, Inc. a provider of radio frequency, or RF, mixed- signal and high-performance analog integrated circuits for the connected home, wired and wireless infrastructure, and industrial and multi-market applications. The company is based in Carlsbad, California. MDL 2545: 210 TRT Claims vs. AbbVie Still Pending ------------------------------------------------- Approximately 210 claims are pending in various state courts against manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs) related to the inadequate warning about associated risks, according to AbbVie Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of TRTs did not adequately warn about risks of certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood clots. Approximately 4,300 claims are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately 210 claims are pending in various state courts. Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and punitive damages. In July 2017, a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict in the first case to be tried. The jury found for AbbVie on the plaintiff's strict liability and negligence claims and for the plaintiff on the plaintiff's fraud claim. The jury awarded no compensatory damages, but did award plaintiffs US$150 million in punitive damages. AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the jury's award of $150 million in punitive damages without an underlying compensatory damage award will be subject to post-trial briefing. AbbVie said it expects the punitive damage award will not stand. AbbVie Inc. also said in the September 30 Form 10-Q Report that in August 2017, a jury in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, reached a verdict for AbbVie on all claims. In October 2017, a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict for AbbVie on strict liability but for the plaintiff on remaining claims and awarded $140,000 in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitive damages, which will be the subject of post-trial proceedings. In its Form 10-K Report, AbbVie said that in December 2017, the Northern District of Illinois court vacated the jury's verdict and punitive damage award on the fraud claim and ordered a new trial on that claim. In a second case, a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict for AbbVie in August 2017 on all claims, which is the subject of post-trial proceedings. In another case, a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict for AbbVie in October 2017 on strict liability but for the plaintiff on remaining claims and awarded US$140,000 in compensatory damages and US$140 million in punitive damages, which is the subject of post-trial proceedings. In a separate case, a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reached a verdict for AbbVie in January 2018 on all claims. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories (Abbott). MDL 2804: "Rees" Suit vs. McKesson Moved to N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Deric Rees and Ceonda Rees, Individually and as Next Friend and Guardian of Baby T.W.B. on behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. McKesson Corporation; Cardinal Health Inc.; AmerisourceBergen Corporation; Purdue Pharma L.P.; Purdue Pharma Inc.; Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Ortho-Mcneil- Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Allergan PLC, now known as Actavis plc; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Actavis Inc.; Watson Laboratories Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc., formerly known as: Watson Pharma, Inc.; and Janssen Pharmaceutica Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-00511 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cleveland) on March 14, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-op-45252-DAP to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Dan Aaron Polster. The Rees case is being consolidated with MDL 2804 in re: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 5, 2017. The cases concern the alleged improper marketing of and inappropriate distribution of various prescription opiate medications into cities, states and towns across the country. Plaintiffs in over 40 actions or potential tag-along actions supported centralization. Plaintiffs in 15 actions or potential tag-along actions opposed centralization altogether or oppose transfer of their action. In addition to opposing transfer, the State of West Virginia suggested a delay transferring its case until the Southern District of West Virginia court decides its motion to remand to state court. Third party payor plaintiffs in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action (Philadelphia Teachers Health and Welfare Fund) opposed centralization of third partypayor actions. The Western District of Washington plaintiff City of Everett opposed centralization and, alternatively, requested exclusion of its case. The Northern District of Illinois tagalong plaintiff City of Chicago asked the Panel to defer transfer of its action until document discovery is completed. The Presiding Judge in the MDL is Sarah S. Vance, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:17-md-02804-DAP.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony D. Gray, Esq. JOHNSON GRAY, LLC 319 North 4th Street, Suite 212 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 385 9500 Facsimile: (314) 594 2052 E-mail: agray@johnsongraylaw.com - and - David R. Barney , Jr., Esq. Thompson Barney, Esq. 2030 Kanawha Boulevard East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: (304) 343 4401 Facsimile: (304) 343 4405 E-mail: drbarneywv@gmail.com - and - James F. Clayborne, Jr., Esq. CLAYBORNE, SABO AND WAGNER LLP 525 West Main Street, Suite 105 Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 239 0187 Facsimile: (618) 416 7556 E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com METLIFE INC: "Pugh" Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned TILLMAN PUGH, MARGARET SULKOWSKI, DAVID HENDERSON and ROY REESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. METLIFE, INC., METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, METLIFE RESOURCES, INC., METLIFE SECURITIES, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG18891665, the Defendants removed the case from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No: 3:18-cv- 01506-SK. The complaint alleges eight causes of action: (1) failure to reimburse expenses; (2) prohibited wage chargebacks; (3) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (4) failure to pay wages on termination; (5) underpayment of wages; (6) untimely payment of wages; (7) a cause of action seeking civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act for the underlying Labor Code violations; and (8) a derivative cause of action for failure to pay overtime under California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code. MetLife, Inc. is the holding corporation for the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, better known as MetLife, and its affiliates.[BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: +1 714 830 0600 Facsimile: +1 714 830 0700 E-mail: carrie.gonell@morganlewis.com MIDLAND CREDIT: "Spano" Suit Moved to M.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------s The class action lawsuit titled Shelley Spano, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV- 1193, was removed from the Lackawanna County Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Scranton) on Mar. 20, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00630-RPC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Richard P. Conaboy. Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment plans. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlo Sabatini, Esq. SABATINI FREEMAN, LLC 216 N. Blakely Street Dunmore, PA 18512 Telephone: (570) 341 9000 Facsimile: (570) 504 2769 E-mail: ecf@bankruptcypa.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 450-106 State Road 13 N., Suite 326 St. Johns, FL 32259 Telephone: (904) 201 9120 E-mail: lburnette@bn-lawyers.com MONAT GLOBAL: Products Cause Hair Loss, Merritt Claims ------------------------------------------------------ CRYSTAL MERRITT, on Behalf of Herself and all others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MONAT GLOBAL CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00657-L (N.D. Tex., March 20, 2018), alleges the Defendant failed to disclose and/or warn Plaintiff and other consumers that MONAT Hair Care Products can and do cause substantial hair loss and/or scalp irritation. The Defendant also actively concealed customers' comments concerning hair loss, by blocking and/or erasing such comments from the Internet, filing lawsuits to muzzle consumers and issuing cease and desist letters to individuals who made public statements concerning damage caused by the products. Unlike many beauty products sold through big box stores and salons, MONAT Hair Care Products are sold through a multi-level marketing scheme in which the Company actively recruits purchasers to become "Market Partners." Market Partners are utilized to market and sell MONAT Hair Care Products through social media and other marketing channels to consumers. MONAT provides a sales platform for its Market Partner agents and micro-websites hosted on the MONAT website where customers can place orders for MONAT Hair Care Products and credit the Market Partner. If these Market Partners recruit additional Market Partners they share in the "down-line" profits generated by their recruits. In this way, MONAT functions in a manner many would think of as a pyramid scheme. Defendant provides no warning about the ingredients or potential side effects of using MONAT Hair Care Products and, in fact, makes numerous assertions about the safety of its products. MONAT claims without caveat that MONAT Hair Care Products are "suitable for all skin and hair types." MONAT further claims that its products will have substantial health benefits, including the cessation of hair loss and hair regrowth. Beneficial health and efficacy claims regarding the MONAT products are ubiquitous on MONAT's website and in MONAT's marketing materials. However, Defendant fails to inform consumers that, although some MONAT Hair Care Products and/or ingredients have had limited testing, MONAT Hair Care Products have not been subjected to any advance clinical safety tests and have not been clinically tested on all hair types. During the Class Period, Defendant also represented that MONAT Hair Care Products contain no PEGs, silicones, or petrochemicals. However, MONAT Hair Care Products contain all of these ingredients, rendering these statements demonstrably false. In reality MONAT Hair Care Products have caused scalp irritation, sores, and hair loss for many consumers. Additionally, MONAT Hair Care Products contain several ingredients that have been shown to be harmful to consumers who are pregnant or breastfeeding, taking blood thinners, or have other conditions such as epilepsy, breast cancer or other hormonesensitive conditions. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 2926 Maple Avenue, Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 696 1100 Facsimile: (214) 740 0112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Pfleigier Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup --------------------------------------------------------------- KERRY PFLEIGIER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00432 (E.D. Mo., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Seth S. Webb, Esq. BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222 2222 Facsimile: (314) 421 0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Terry Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM TERRY, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00064-NBB-JMV (N.D. Miss., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (RM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Prodry Herbicide, Roundup Promax, Roundup Quik Stik Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Quikpro Herbicide, Roundup Rainfast Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Rainfast Super Concentrate Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Extended Control Weed & Grass Killer 1 Plus Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed and Grass Killer 2, Roundup Ultra Dry, Roundup Ultra Herbicide, Roundup Ultramax, Roundup VM Herbicide, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass killer Ready-to-Use Plus, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super Concentrate, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer 1 Ready-to-Use, Roundup WSD Water Soluble Dry Herbicide Deploy Dry Herbicide, or any other formulation of containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trevor B. Rockstad, Esq. DAVIS & CRUMP 2601 14th Street Gulfport, MS 39501 Telephone: (228) 863 6000 Facsimile: (228) 864 0907 E-mail: trevor.rockstad@daviscrump.com - and - Richard W. Schulte, Esq. WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC 865 S. Dixie Dr. Vandalia, OH 45377 Telephone: (937) 435 7500 Facsimile: (937) 435 7511 E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com MYEONG HYUN: "Lee" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------- SANG HEE LEE, individually and on behalf of other individuals similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MYEONG HYUN CHO, an individual; HYUNDAI SHIPPING USA INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC697960 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover wages owed for missed meal and rest period, and penalties or damages for failure to keep accurate records, other penalties under the California Labor Code statutes, and for restitution and injunctive relief. During the Class Period, the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs Class were employed by Defendants as hourly employees. Members of the putative class were paid hourly wages for hours worked. Plaintiff was hired by Defendants in or around July 2013 and performed his job at the export department. His job duties include, but not limited to, actually and physically moving customer's luggage and moving boxes to scheduling customers and movers to the system. There was no rest break ever given. Plaintiff complained about not getting the rest breaks, and the management retaliated against him for it by cutting his access to the company intranet and having a departmental meeting without him. Therefore, Plaintiff and Class members were never allowed to take any regular rest breaks as mandated by law. Class members were never provided the opportunity to take rest periods, nor were they informed of their right to take rest periods. The Plaintiff and Class members were not allowed to take their 2nd meal breaks. The Defendants never allowed or make the 2nd meal break available to Plaintiff and Class members when their shift lasts more than 10 hours. Defendants did not pay a premium of one hour's pay for any missed meal and rest periods. Defendants have willfully prevented and discouraged, and continue to prevent and discourage, Plaintiff and Class members from taking 2nd meal and rest breaks and fail to compensate Plaintiff and Class members for missed breaks in violation of Labor Code. The Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated and willful throughout its facilities in California. Defendants knew or should have known that its policies and practices have been unlawful and unfair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Young W. Ryu, Esq. Jesse Yanco, Esq. Jordan T. Wada, Esq. LOYR, APC 3130 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 402 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (888) 365 8686 Facsimile: (800) 576 1170 E-mail: young.ryu@loywr.com jesse.yanco@loywr.com jordan.wada@loywr.com MYEXPERIAN INC: "Vinsant" Suit Seeks OT Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ CHARLES VINSANT, TARA BEAL, CHELSEA DYER, ASHLEY HAMILTON, ANTWAN HENDRY, BELINDA MAXWELL, BRITTANY MORRIS, KIMBERLEY ROLAND and BETTY FULLER, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MYEXPERIAN, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02056-PKH (W.D. Ark., March 20, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked in excess of 40 per workweek, under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant operates and manages a telephone call center in Van Buren.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRMM PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com NAPLES HOTEL: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Williams Says --------------------------------------------------------------- KENYATTA WILLIAMS and SHAWANA SANDERS on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, NAPLES HOTEL GROUP LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00422- RBD-DCI (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover damages under Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970. The Defendant is a hotel development and management company primarily focused on Florida. The Defendant routinely obtains and uses information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on progressive employees and existing employees, and frequently relies on such information as a basis for adverse employment action such as termination, reduction of hours, change in position, failure to hire, and failure to promote. Defendants willfully violated these requirements in multiple ways, in systematic violation of Plaintiffs' rights and the rights of the putative class members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223 5505 Facsimile: (813) 257 0572 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com NAVIENT CORPORATION: "Tronson" Suit Moved to Dist. of Minnesota --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Eric Tronson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Navient Corporation; Navient Solutions, Inc.; and SLM Corporation, doing business as: Sallie Mae, No. AMNDC-6004393, was removed from Hennepin County District Court from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-00695-DWF-BRT to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donovan W. Frank. Navient is a U.S. corporation based in Wilmington, Delaware, whose operations include servicing and collecting on student loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J S Madgett, Esq. Madgett & Peterson, LLC 619 S. 10th St. Suite 301 Minneapolis, MN 55404 Telephone: (612) 419 0589 E-mail: dmadgett@madgettlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants: Patrick R. Martin, Esq. Ogletree Deakins, Esq. 225 South Sixth Street, Ste 1800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 336 6870 Facsimile: (612) 339 0061 E-mail: pat.martin@ogletreedeakins.com NEW YORK: Upland Asks Court to Quash Subpoena in "Powell" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as SHEILA POWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK & COMPANY, INC.; NEW YORK & COMPANY STORES, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-mc-00231-LY (W.D. Tex., March 16, 2018), non-party Upland Software, Inc. asks the Court to quash an underlying subpoena and put into place a protective order shielding Upland from Plaintiff's "overbroad and unreasonable" requests, or, in the alternative, considerably limit the deposition topics and document requests as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Ms. Sheila Powell filed matter number 1:1 6-cv-0855-TSC in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on May 6, 2016, alleging that Defendants New York & Company, Inc. and New York & Company Stores, Inc. have violated portions of the Telephone Consumer Protections Act (TCPA). Specifically, Ms. Powell asserts that Defendants willfully violated the TCPA by sending "multiple automated text messages to cellular numbers belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Class without their prior express written consent. Pursuant to that suit, Plaintiff issued a third-party subpoena to Upland, demanding the production of twelve categories of documents most seeking completely disproportionate requests which are far beyond the scope of the litigation and a deposition of an Upland corporate representative on eight topics. The subpoena sets the deposition for and demands the production of documents in Austin, on March 20, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. Upland is a Delaware corporation with its primary headquarters in Austin, Texas.[BN] Plaintiff's Counsel: Jody Berke Burton, Esq. Stephen F. Taylor, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653 2250 Facsimile: (203) 653 3424 E-mail: jburton@lemberglaw.com staylor@emberglaw.com Defendants' Counsel: Diana Lauren Eisner, Esq. Stephen T. Raptis, Esq. Donna L. Wilson, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 585 6576 E-mail: deisner@manatt.com sraptis@manatt.com dlwilson@manatt.com Attorneys for Non-Party Upland Software, Inc.: Matthew Murrell, Esq. Carlos Soltero, Esq. CLEVELAND TERRAZAS PLLC 4611 Bee Cave Rdad, Suite 306B Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 689 8698 E-mail: mmurrell@clevelandterrazas.com csoltero@clevelandterrazas.com NEWLINK GENETICS: Abramson Securities Class Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Newlink Genetics Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in a putative U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al. On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Court, captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16- cv-3545, or the Securities Action. Subsequently, the Court appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the Securities Action. On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which asserts claims under the federal securities laws against the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and the Company's Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, or collectively, the Defendants. The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's investors. In particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements or omissions related to the Phase II and III trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. On April 27, 2017, the Court granted the parties' request for leave to brief a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and ordered the parties to file a stipulation and proposed order setting forth a schedule for the briefing of that motion. On May 15, 2017, the Court ordered the following briefing schedule: motion to dismiss due July 14, 2017, opposition due September 12, 2017, and reply due September 26, 2017. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 14, 2017. The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on September 12, 2017. The Defendants filed a reply in support of the motion to dismiss on September 26, 2017. Oral argument was held on October 19, 2017, after which the Court reserved decision. Newlink Genetics said "The Company disputes the claims in the Securities Action and intends to defend against them vigorously." Newlink Genetics Corporationa clinical-stage immuno-oncology company focused on discovering and developing novel immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of patients with cancer. The company is based in Ames, Iowa. NILES GRAND: Flores Sues over Use of Biometric Information ---------------------------------------------------------- MARICELA FLORES, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. NILES GRAND, LLC d/b/a FRESH FARMS INTERNATIONAL MKT, an Illinois limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH03334 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, March 14, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, and storage of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its conduct.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Myles McGuire, Esq. William P.N. Kingston, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th FL Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275 7895 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com NIPPON LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Says --------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NIPPON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02361 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually- impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website, WWW.NLIA.COM, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Nippon Life provides employee benefits programs to companies of all sizes in the United States. Its products and services include medical, dental, life, disability, vision, wellness, prescription drugs, care management, and employee assistance programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, New York 11201 Telephone: (929) 575 4175 Facsimile: (929) 575 4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228 9795 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com NOBLE FOOD: "Kirkwood" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------- Gary Kirkwood, and other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. the Noble Food Group, Inc., NFG Chicago, LLC, NFG Portland, LLC, NFG Salem, LLC, NFG San Francisco, LLC and NFG Seattle, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00360-JCC (W.D. Wash., March 8, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul Ill PAUL LLP 601 Walnut, Suite 300, KC, MO 64106 Telephone: 816 984 8100 - and - Mark Potashnick 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997 9150 OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Hustig" and "Cook" Class Action Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company is defending against two class action suits entitled, Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., and Cook v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On February 14 and 22, 2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class action lawsuits against the company and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB). The complaints allege that the company and certain of its executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Cook complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. Obalon Therapeutics said "The cases are at a preliminary stage and we intend to vigorously defend against it." Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. is a vertically integrated medical device company focused on developing and commercializing innovative medical devices to treat obese and overweight people by facilitating weight loss. The company is based in Carlsbad, California. OJUS AUTOMOTIVE: "Wilzek" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI JOHANNE WILZEK and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiffs, v. OJUS AUTOMOTIVE INC., ELIZABETH TAHARALLY, SEAN TAHARALLY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 21055-CMA (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing from Plaintiff's entire employment period with Defendants or as much as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards Act along with court costs, interest, and any other relief. According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiffs: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM OPHTHOTECH CORP: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------- Ophthotech Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that putative lead plaintiffs in the case Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17- cv-00210, have moved to consolidate their case with that of, Wasson v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758. On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 11, 2015 and December 12, 2016. The complaint generally alleges that the company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the prospects of our Phase 3 trials for Fovista in combination with anti-VEGF agents for the treatment of wet AMD. The complaint seeks equitable and/or injunctive relief, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On March 9, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and the same group of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 11, 2015 and December 9, 2016. The allegations made in the complaint are similar to those made in the Micholle complaint. Putative lead plaintiffs in the Micholle action have moved to consolidate the Micholle and Wasson actions. Ophthotech Corporation is a science-driven biopharmaceutical company specializing in the development of novel therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases, with a focus on age-related and orphan retinal diseases. The company is based in New York. PAUL SMITH: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Olsen Says ------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS J. OLSEN, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PAUL SMITH INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02399 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause Paul Smith to change its corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff, who is legally blind, brings this civil rights action against Defendant Paul Smith Inc. for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.paulsmith.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired people. Paul Smith denies full and equal access to its Website. The Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights against Paul Smith. Paul Smith retails and wholesales apparel, luxury accessories, and fragrances. The company sells clothing, including blazers, coats and jackets, jeans, knitwear, polo shirts, shirts, shorts, suits, sweatshirts and hoodies, swimwear, trousers, T-shirts, underwear and sleepwear, and waistcoats; accessories, such as bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392 4772 E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Has US$1.4MM Liability for Vinyl Clad Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that as a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement related to the Gulbankian- Hartshorn consolidated class action, the Company has a liability of approximately $1.4 million as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class action filed in July 2012 in the District Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of certain MW vinyl clad windows. In April 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows. MW entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 2014 to settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a nationwide basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement applies to any and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from January 1, 1987 through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash payment for eligible consumers submitting qualified claims showing, among other requirements, certain damage to their MW vinyl clad windows. The period for submitting qualified claims is the later of: (i) May 28, 2016, or (ii) the last day of the warranty period for the applicable window. On December 29, 2014, the District Court granted final approval of this settlement, as well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $2.5 million. The Company and MW deny all liability in the settlements with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle these matters. As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company has a liability of approximately $1.4 million as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, with $0.7 million as a current liability within accrued expenses and $0.7 million as a noncurrent liability within other long-term liabilities in the Company's consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016. It is possible that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the Company currently expects that the total net cost will not exceed this liability. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells residential and commercial building products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina. PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Securities Suit in New York Settled for $26MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled, In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $26.0 million. In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"). It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and omitting material information which was required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013, entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter. Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013, between the Company and each of the directors and officers named in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of such directors and officers. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for approximately $26.0 million and notified the Court of this, which is subject to the finalization of the settlement agreement, Court approval and requests for exclusion by members of the settlement class. The Company accrued the $26.0 million within accrued expenses as of December 31, 2017 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet, and also recognized an insurance receivable of $25.4 million within other current assets that was offset by insurance proceeds of $8.7 million from an insurance carrier, for a net insurance receivable of $16.7 million as of December 31, 2017 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as certain of its directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers are to fund the majority of the settlement amount with the Company agreeing to pay certain disputed litigation expenses of approximately $0.6 million. The defendants deny all liability in the settlement and with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle this matter. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells residential and commercial building products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina. PLY GEM HOLDINGS: "Hueso" and "Xiong" Cases Resolved for $1M ------------------------------------------------------------ Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company paid the settlement amount of $1.0 million in the suit entitled, In Raul Carrillo- Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, during the year ended December 31, 2017. In Raul Carrillo-Hueso and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the defendants' failure to provide (i) statutorily required meal breaks at the Sacramento, California facility, (ii) accurate wage statements to employees in California, and (iii) all wages due on termination in California. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On January 7, 2017, the parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $1.0 million, and on June 29, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The Company accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet and subsequently paid the settlement during the year ended December 31, 2017. The Company denies all liability in the settlement and with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle this matter. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells residential and commercial building products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina. PLY GEM HOLDINGS: "Morgan" Suit Settled for $900,000 ---------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company paid the settlement amount of $0.9 million in the suit entitled, In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton Industries, Inc., during the year ended December 31, 2017. In Tina Morgan v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton Industries, Inc., a purported class action filed on December 11, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of, among other things, the defendants' failure at the Vacaville, California facility to (i) pay overtime wages, (ii) provide statutorily required meal breaks, (iii) provide accurate wage statements, and (iv) pay all wages owed upon termination. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On December 9, 2016, the parties agreed to settle this matter for approximately $0.9 million, and on May 22, 2017, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. The Company accrued for this amount in accrued expenses as of December 31, 2016 in the Company's consolidated balance sheet and subsequently paid the settlement during the year ended December 31, 2017. The Company denies all liability in the settlement and with respect to the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle this matter. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells residential and commercial building products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina. PLY GEM HOLDINGS: Faces "Gazzillo" Class Action Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company faces a purported class action suit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, entitled, Gazzillo et al. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. et al. In Gazzillo et al. v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. et al., a purported class action filed on September 26, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the defective design and manufacture of certain vinyl siding products. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive or other exemplary damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells residential and commercial building products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina. POST HOLDINGS: Antitrust Lawsuit on Egg Products Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Post Holdings, Inc. continues to defend class action for alleged violations of antitrust laws related to the production and sale of egg products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc. ("Michael Foods"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and some 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. The case involved three plaintiff groups: (1) direct purchasers of eggs and egg products; (2) companies (primarily large grocery chains and food companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted out of any eventual class and brought their own separate actions against the defendants ("opt-out plaintiffs"); and (3) indirect purchasers of shell eggs. In September 2016, the district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on purchases of egg products, thereby limiting all claims to shell eggs. The status of claims are as follows: (1) Michael Foods settled all class claims asserted against it by the direct purchaser plaintiffs for a payment of US$75.0 million, which settlement became final on December 21, 2017; (2) Michael Foods entered into a settlement, the details of which are confidential, with the opt-out plaintiffs (excluding those opt-out plaintiffs whose claims relate primarily or exclusively to egg products) on January 19, 2017; and (3) the district court denied the motion of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs for class certification in September 2015 as well as an alternative motion for certification of an injunctive class in June 2017. Michael Foods has at all times denied liability in this matter, and neither settlement contains any admission of liability by Michael Foods. With regards to the remaining portions of the case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motions of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs to immediately appeal the district court's denial of their motions for class certification. In addition, the elimination of egg products from the case was appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals by certain opt-out plaintiffs who purchased egg products. On January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the opt-out plaintiffs who purchased egg products have standing to seek damages and remanded this portion of the case to the district court for further proceedings. Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding company in the United States and internationally. It was founded in 1895 and is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. PNC BANK: Pfendler Sues over Home Mortgage Loan Servicing --------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Pfendler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PNC Bank, National Association, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00361-DSC (W.D. Pa., March 20, 2018), seeks injunctive relief and damages on behalf of herself and the hundreds of thousands or millions of borrowers who have been victimized by PNC's uniform practice of charging for unreasonable and inappropriate property inspection fees. According to the complaint, taking advantage of the economic downturn and the increasing number of loans in default, PNC services home loans according to uniform practices designed to maximize fees assessed on borrowers' accounts when they are behind on their payments. Consistent with these practices, PNC uses automated mortgage loan management systems to engage in a deceptive and unfair scheme to collect fees for unnecessary, unreasonably, and inappropriate property inspections, a default- related service, cheating borrowers who can least afford them. Using the automated system, PNC orders drive-by property inspections whenever a borrower falls sufficiently behind on their payments. The only necessary, reasonable, or appropriate purpose of drive-by inspections is to determine whether a home is occupied. However, even when PNC knows that homeowners still occupy their homes and do not intend to abandon it, just because they are behind in payments, PNC continues to order and charge for property inspections. This practice is directly contrary to standard form mortgage agreements for the mortgages PNC services, which only allow for default related services like property inspections only when they are necessary, reasonable, or appropriate. A drive-by property inspection is neither necessary, reasonable, nor appropriate, especially when it is automatically ordered without regard to whether PNC has information indicating that a property is not actually abandoned or vacant. No reasonable consumer would ever enter into the mortgages serviced by PNC if he or she knew that it would order property inspections that are not necessary, reasonable, or appropriate in the event that the consumer has difficulty making their payments. Nor would any reasonable consumer, when presented with a uniform and non-negotiable mortgage agreement serviced by PNC, understand or expect that PNC would order such unnecessary, unreasonable, and inappropriate property inspections given the limitations contained in those agreements that fees for services would only be assessed when necessary or reasonable. When borrowers go into default and PNC unilaterally decides to instruct third parties to perform unnecessary unreasonable, and inappropriate property inspections, borrowers have no ability to prevent such inspections, and they must pay the fees or face further consequences of being in default, such as eviction and foreclosure and escalating principle and interests costs. PNC offers a wide range of services for all our customers, from individuals and small businesses, to corporations and government entities. No matter how simple or complicated your needs, we're sure to have the products, knowledge and resources necessary for financial success.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Classes: Edwin J. Kilpela Elizabeth Pollock-Avery CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com eavery@carlsonlynch.com - and - D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Bradley F. Silverman, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298 3281 Facsimile: (914) 908 6709 E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com bsilverman@fbfglaw.com PREMIUM HOME: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT, Jocson Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MARIA PRISSA JOCSON, an individual; for herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PREMIUM HOME CARE, INC., a California corporation, doing business as MAE MORGAN; JHAN, INC., a California corporation, doing business as MAE MORGAN AGENCY; MAE MORGAN NW, INC., a California Corporation, JANICE BAUTISTA, aka JANICE MAE, an individual; BRENDA ASCUNCION, an individual; HANY BOUTROS, an individual, JEANEE YOON, an individual, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC698516 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants provide in-home and in-facility caregiver services throughout Southern California. The Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class work in non- exempt, hourly positions, and have not, during the Class Period, been paid all minimum and overtime wages owed, have not been provided accurate wage statements, pursuant to the Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 15-2001, Wage Order 5- 2001, and other applicable Wage Orders and California law. The Defendants' uniform policy, applicable to all caregivers during the Class Period was to misclassify their employees as "independent contractors" to avoid paying minimum wages and overtime wages. In furtherance of this policy, Defendants required class members to obtain business licenses from the cities in which they were employed. During the Class Period, the Defendants, by virtue of centralized and uniform pay policies, failed to provide any wage statements whatsoever to Class Members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Eanet, Esq. Brian D. Lauter, Esq. EANET, PC FILED 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 750 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (310) 775 2495 Facsimile: (310) 593 2589 E-mail: matt@eanetpc.com REPUBLIC NAIL: Fails to Pay Earned Wages, Jimenez Says ------------------------------------------------------ ROCIO JIMENEZ an individual, the Plaintiff, v. REPUBLIC NAIL, INC., a California corporation; ALEJANDRO TAMAYOLIZARRAGA, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC698924 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover earned wages pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendants failed to maintain Plaintiff's employee records in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with itemized wage statements in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Despite demand for payment, Defendants have failed or otherwise refused to pay Plaintiff any portion of amounts due, owing and unpaid for the time that Plaintiff was employed by Defendants. Further, alter ego liability is appropriate when a corporation is used by an individual or individuals, or by another corporation, to perpetrate a fraud, circumvent a statute, or accomplish some other wrongful or inequitable purpose, a court may disregard the corporate entity and treat the acts as if they were done by the individuals themselves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gavril T. Gabriel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GAVRIL T. GABRIEL 8255 Firestone Blvd., Suite 201 Downey, CA 90241 Telephone: (562) 758 8210 Facsimile: (562) 758 8219 E-mail: GGabriel@GTGLaw.Org SAINT LUCY: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage and Overtime, Moreno Says --------------------------------------------------------------- G. MORENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAINT LUCY REPRESENTS, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and DOE ONE through and including DOE TEN, the Defendants, Case No. BC698524 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, on September 15, 2017, the Defendants employed Moreno and other non-exempt for still photo shoots entitled "Story Telling Campaign." Wages were due by the next pay period but Moreno was not paid until January 2018. The Defendants failed to timely compensate Plaintiff or Aggrieved Employees for all outstanding wages, and did not routinely provide Plaintiff or Aggrieved Employees wage statements with all required information, including but not limited to, the legal name and address of the employer. Saint Lucy is a full-service creative agency and production consultant. SAINT LUCY works with talented photographers in various stages of their careers.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Alan Harris, Esq. Min Ji Gal, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor Glendale CA 91203 Telephone: (323) 962 3777 Facsimile: (323) 962 3004 E-mail: harrisa@harrisandruble.com mgal@harrisandruble.com SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Litvinova Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ TATYANA LITVINOVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01494-JSC (N.D. Cal., March 8, 2018), alleges that the Defendant attempted to avoid directly ordering Plaintiff and the members of the Class to work overtime (mandatory overtime) by first soliciting the members to volunteer (voluntary overtime). The City and County of San Francisco has employed hundreds of nurses at medical facilities including San Francisco General Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital, in other facilities such as the San Francisco County jail, and in various public health programs. These nurses are work in job classifications and titled including Registered Nurse, Clinical Nurse Specialist, Nurse Midwife, Anesthetist, Operating Room Nurse, Public Health Nurse, and Nurse Practitioner. These positions are collectively known as and referred to as "Staff Nurse" positions. Staff Nurses are employed on a regular basis for at least 20 hours per week. In addition to Staff Nurses, Defendant also employs "Per Diem" nurses. Per Diem nurses are employed on an irregular and basis and are typically used to fill in for regular Staff Nurses as staffing needs dictate. San Francisco, in northern California, is a hilly city on the tip of a peninsula surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay. It's known for its year-round fog, iconic Golden Gate Bridge, cable cars and colorful Victorian houses. The Financial District's Transamerica Pyramid is its most distinctive skyscraper.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduardo G. Roy, Esq. John R. Hurley, Esq. PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P. 220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415 527 0255 SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: 2nd Cir. Denies Bid for Interlocutory Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied on January 8, 2018, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company's request for interlocutory appeal in a class action lawsuit related to the EZ Seed grass seed product, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017 The Company has been named as a defendant in In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727 (VB), a New York and California class action lawsuit filed August 9, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that asserts claims under false advertising and other legal theories based on a marketing statement on the Company's EZ Seed grass seed product from 2009 to 2012. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and purported class members, various forms of monetary and non- monetary relief, including statutory damages that they contend could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. The Company has defended the action vigorously, disputes the plaintiffs' claims and theories, including the recoverability of statutory damages, and intends to continue vigorously defending the action. In 2017, the Court eliminated certain claims, narrowed the case in certain respects, and permitted the case to continue proceeding as a class action. On August 7, 2017, the Court requested briefs on the Company's request for interlocutory review of issues relating to the recoverability of statutory damages in a class action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and, on August 31, 2017, approved that request. On January 8, 2018, however, the Second Circuit denied the interlocutory appeal request. The Company said, "At this point in the proceedings, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with the action and, accordingly, no accruals have been recorded in our consolidated financial statements with respect to the action. There can be no assurance that this action will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Marysville, Ohio. The company is considered an industry leader in the lawn and garden market, with regional offices and research facilities across the U.S. and businesses in Canada, Europe and Asia Pacific. In the U.S., the company's Scotts, Miracle-Gro and Ortho brands are market leading in their categories, as is the consumer Roundup brand, which is marketed in North America and most of Europe exclusively by Scotts. SECURITAS SECURITY: "Boursiquot" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Fredner Boursiquot, and other similarly situated non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff, v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., a foreign profit corporation and Don W. Walker, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. CACE 18-004370, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale) on March 19, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-60589-FAM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com Attorneys for Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. Mary Caroline Miller, Esq. Meagan Leigh Martin, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 200 South Orange Ave., Suite 2300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 540 7929 E-mail: mmartin@bakerlaw.com SENIOR OPERATIONS: Faces "Hartline" Wage-and-Hour Suit ------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN HARTLINE, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENIOR OPERATIONS LLC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC697665 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 12, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid during employment, and non-compliant wage statements under the California Labor Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly- paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, including the County of Los Angeles. The Defendants, jointly and severally, employed Plaintiff as an hourly-paid, nonexempt employee, from approximately November 2014 to approximately June 2016, in the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. Senior Operations, LLC designs and manufactures components for companies in the United States and internationally. It offers bellows and engineered products, including complex assemblies, bellows, and flexible tubing and hoses, as well as medical bellows, heat exchangers, and flexible tubing; and engine and exhaust.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265 1020 Facsimile: (818) 265 1021 - and - Amir Nayebdadash, Esq. Heather Davis, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP LLP 136 Main Street, Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290 3095 Facsimile: (866) 264 7880 SIFCO INDUSTRIES: Still Defends Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- SIFCO Industries, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that it is currently a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, arising from employee wage-and-hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, hourly and overtime wage calculation, timely wage payment and necessary expenditure indemnification violations; and unfair competition. The Company also said, "Although the Company records reserves for legal disputes and other matters in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America ("GAAP"), the ultimate outcomes of these types of matters are inherently uncertain. Actual results may differ significantly from current estimates. Given the current status of this matter, the Company recorded an estimated loss of US$385 as of September 30, 2017 of which US$10 was paid as of September 30, 2017 and the remaining balance is expected to be paid within the second quarter of fiscal 2018." SIFCO Industries, Inc. produces and sells forgings and machined components primarily for the aerospace and energy markets in the United States and Europe. It was founded in 1916 and is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. SIGMA DESIGNS: Speiser Balks at Silicon Labs Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------- DAVID SPEISER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SIGMA DESIGNS, INC., ELIAS NADLER, J. MICHAEL DODSON, MARTIN MANNICHE, SALEEL AWSARE, AND THINH TRAN, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01670 (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed merger transaction and require Sigma to file a definitive proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission and disseminate it to Sigma's stockholders, and, in the event the proposed transaction is consummated without the material omissions being remedied, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' violations. The Plaintiff brings this action, individually, as a public stockholder of Sigma Design, Inc. against the members of Sigma's Board of Directors and Sigma for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and on behalf of himself and a class of public stockholders of Sigma against the Individual Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. On December 7, 2017, Sigma and Silicon Laboratories Inc. revealed they had entered into a definitive merger agreement under which Silicon Labs would acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Sigma for $7.05 per share. The Merger Agreement included provisions requiring Sigma to take certain actions, including (1) terminate certain contracts by January 22, 2018, (2) sell or wind down Sigma's TV business by December 14, 2017, and (3) have $40 million in cash on hand as of January 23, 2018. If these conditions were not met, then Sigma would instead sell its Z-Wave business to Silicon Labs for $240 million. On January 23, 2018, Sigma disclosed that it had failed to meet the conditions of the Merger Agreement and, instead, would be moving forward with the Proposed Transaction. The Board of Sigma agreed to the Proposed Transaction without a fairness opinion, did not have financial analyses on the Proposed Transaction, or an alternative strategy as to actions to take if they could not satisfy the conditions of the Merger Agreement. Moreover, the conditions had deadlines that were too short to allow Sigma to meet them. On February 7, 2018, Sigma announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement with Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. to sell to ISSI its Wired Connectivity Business Unit, which includes Sigma Designs Israel, S.D.I. Ltd., a Sigma Designs subsidiary which is the operating entity for the wired connectivity business. Subject to satisfaction of closing conditions, ISSI has agreed to pay $28.0 million in cash, subject to certain adjustments based on the amount of working capital delivered at closing and a holdback of $4.2 million to secure indemnification obligations of Sigma. The parties expect to close the Transaction in the first quarter of Sigma's fiscal 2019, ending April 28, 2018. On February 23, 2018, Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction, namely the sale of Sigma's Z-Wave business to Silicon Labs. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect the Proposed Transaction. Sigma Designs is an American public corporation that designs and builds high-performance system-on-a-chip semiconductor technologies for Internet-based set-top boxes, and DVD players/recorders.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278 2600 Facsimile: (310) 278 2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - Thomas J. Mckenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983 1300 Facsimile: (212) 983 0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com SIMONTON BUILDING: Appeal in "Kiefer" Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the appeal in the case entitled, Kiefer et al. v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., is pending. In Kiefer et al. v. Simonton Building Products, LLC et al., a purported class action filed on October 17, 2016 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other things, the defective design and manufacture of certain Simonton windows containing two-pane insulating glass units. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive or other exemplary damages, (iii) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. On April 17, 2017, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and its appellant brief on May 16, 2017 and July 7, 2017, respectively, defendants filed its appellee brief on August 7, 2017, and plaintiffs filed its reply brief on August 21, 2017. The appeal is pending. The damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells residential and commercial building products primarily in the United States and Canada. The company operates in two segments, Siding, Fencing and Stone; and Windows and Doors. The company is based in Cary, North Carolina. SLACK INC: Website Inaccessible to Deaf, Sullivan Claims -------------------------------------------------------- PHILLIP SULLIVAN JR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SLACK, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02181 (S.D.N.Y., March 12, 2018), wants Defendant to update and remove accessibility barriers on their Website so that Plaintiff and the proposed Class and Subclass individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing will be able to independently and privately view videos posted on the Website. The lawsuit claims the Defendant is denying the deaf and hard of hearing individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Defendant provides to non-disabled individuals through https:// www.healio.com. The Website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, employment opportunities and other programs offered by Defendant. Yet, the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to use the Website. The Plaintiff, who currently lives in New York City, is a deaf and hard of hearing individual. [BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 SOLVAY PHARMA: Still Faces Class Suits on Patent Case Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to face several pending lawsuits, including three purported class suits, related to its patent settlement agreement involving AndroGel, according to AbbVie Inc.'s Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. Solvay Pharmaceuticals is a company Abbott acquired in February 2010 and now known as AbbVie Products LLC. On January 1, 2013, AbbVie became an independent company as a result of the distribution by Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) of 100% of the outstanding common stock of AbbVie to Abbott's shareholders. Several pending lawsuits filed against Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and others are consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under the Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Rules as In re: AndroGel Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2084. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), generally allege Solvay's patent litigation involving AndroGel was sham litigation and the 2006 patent litigation settlement agreements and related agreements with three generic companies violate federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. These cases include: (a) four individual plaintiff lawsuits; (b) three purported class actions; and (c) Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. et al. Following the district court's dismissal of all plaintiffs' claims, appellate proceedings led to the reinstatement of the claims regarding the patent litigation settlements, which are proceeding in the district court. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories (Abbott). SOPAPILLAS LLC: Stephens Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------- SUSANNNA STEPHENS, the Plaintiff, v. SOPAPILLAS, LLC, and STEVEN J. DALE, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00296 (M.D. Tenn., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid (or underpaid) minimum and overtime wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and all other legal or equitable relief to which she and other similar situated employees who join this action are entitled, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Dale owns and operates the restaurant Sopapillas located in Franklin, Tennessee personally and through Defendant Sopapillas, LLC. Defendant Dale manages, owns, and controls the operation of Sopapillas, directly and indirectly through his supervision of management and hourly employees. Defendants for at least three years prior to filing this lawsuit have had a uniform policy, and practice of paying employees in various positions a sub-minimum wage while claiming a tip credit. For at least three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants have had a uniform policy and practice of failing to notify employees of the requirements of the tip credit in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 203(m). For at least three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants have had a uniform policy and practice of claiming a tip credit against the minimum wage and overtime obligations for Named Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated employees. For at least three years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Defendants have had a uniform policy and practice of mandating employees working as servers and bartenders to pay a portion of tips they receive from customers to the restaurant at the end of their shifts to supplement the hourly wages of employees working in positions that do not qualify as tipped employees under the FLSA.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 250 2000 Facsimile: (615) 250 2020 E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com ST LUKES ROOSEVELT: "Edmond" Suit Seeks Wages under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- TAMIKA EDMOND and CHANELLE STURKEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ST LUKES ROOSEVELT HOSPITAL CENTER d/b/a INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED MEDICINE, the Defendant, Case No. 152279/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated nonexempt hourly paid employees employed by Defendant or in the State of New York at any time during the period commencing six years prior to the filing of this action and continuing until such further date as the practices complained of are discontinued. According to the complaint, the Defendant has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These practices include: (a) requiring Hourly Employees to perform work without compensation during meal breaks; (b) requiring Hourly Employees to perform work without compensation before the start of their scheduled shift; (c) requiring Hourly Employees to perform work without compensation after the end of their scheduled shift; (d) failing to pay Hourly Employees at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; (e) failing to pay Hourly Employees overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week; and (f) failing to provide accurate wages statements. St. Luke's - Roosevelt Hospital Center owns and operates a hospital. It provides services in the areas of emergency, pediatric emergency, pre-hospital care, and medical toxicology.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the putative New York Class: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, N.Y. 11576 Telephone: (516) 625 0105 STRAIGHT PATH: Gets Initial Court OK on "Zacharia" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has preliminarily approved on February 2, 2018, a settlement between Straight Path Communications Inc. and the lead plaintiff in Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:15- cv-08051-JMV-MF (D.N.J.), which settles the putative shareholder class action and dismisses the claims that were filed against the Defendants in that action. A hearing for final approval of the settlement agreement is scheduled for September 7, 2018, according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 8, 2018. Under the settlement, the Company will provide for a US$2.25 million initial payment (the "Initial Payment") and a US$7.2 million additional payment (the "Additional Payment"). The Initial Payment will be paid into an escrow account, and will be fully covered by insurance policies maintained by the Company. The Additional Payment of US$7.2 million will be paid within 60 days after the Closing or, if the Merger (as defined in the Merger Agreement) is not consummated, within 60 days following the Company's payment of the non-transfer penalty specified in the Consent Decree entered into by the Company with the FCC. In any event, the Additional Payment will be payable no later than December 31, 2018. Straight Path Communications Inc. is a communications asset company. The company owns, via intermediate wholly-owned entities, 100% of Straight Path Spectrum, Inc. ("Straight Path Spectrum") and 100% of Straight Path Ventures, LLC ("Straight Path Ventures"), and the company own 84.5% of Straight Path IP Group, Inc. ("Straight Path IP Group"). The company is based in Glen Allen, Virginia. SUBARU OF AMERICA: Thompson Sues over Defective Engine Parts ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., and SUBARU CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03736- NLH-JS (D.N.J., March 16, 2018), seeks restitution for all engine repairs incurred by a proposed class representative and proposed class members resulting from the defectively designed and manufactured engines, and incorrect maintenance and service intervals as set forth in the class vehicles' owner's manuals. According to the complaint, Subaru withheld material disclosures concerning engine components known to the defendants to be defective and used in the following vehicles: 2009 through and including 2014 model year Impreza WRX and WRX STi. Engines used in class vehicles include but are not limited to engine codes EJ255 and EJ257. Passenger motor vehicle engines should last a minimum of 120,000 miles in a modern automobile such as the class vehicles. This proposition is demonstrated by the defendants' Owner's Manual and Warranty & Maintenance Booklet materials accompanying class vehicles, other predecessor engines manufactured by the defendants and performance of comparable competitor vehicles. However, the internal components of the class engine prematurely fail at low miles. Subaru and SoA introduced the class engines in the United States market in late 2007 for the 2008 model year. Class engines are predisposed to premature engine failure. Class vehicles are defective with respect to improperly designed and manufactured pistons and an engine management system and PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) system that subjects these models' engines to premature catastrophic engine piston ringlands failure. Subaru Corporation, a Japanese business entity was formerly named Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd. Effective April of 2017 it became Subaru Corporation and assumed all assets and liabilities of its corporate predecessor Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Jay I. Brody, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 210 Summit Avenue Montvale, New Jersey 07645 Telephone: (201) 391 7000 Facsimile: (201) 307 1086 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com jbrody@kgglaw.com - and - Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. THOMAS P. SOBRAN, P.C. 7 Evergreen Lane Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (781) 741 6075 Facsimile: (781) 741 6074 E-mail: tsobran@sobranlaw.com SUN LIFE: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Thorne Claims -------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SUN LIFE FINANCIAL (U.S.) SERVICES COMPANY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02371 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually- impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's website, WWW.SUNLIFE.COM, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Sun Life provides insurance products and services to businesses and individuals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, New York 11201 Telephone: (929) 575 4175 Facsimile: (929) 575 4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Telephone: (212) 228 9795 Facsimile: (212) 982 6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com SUNOCO PIPELINE: Marches Sue over Damage to Home & Property ----------------------------------------------------------- MARY MARCH and RUSSELL MARCH, h/w 475 Lisa Drive West Chester, PA 19380 AND JARED SAVITSKI 758 Chessie Court West Chester, PA 19380, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS v. SUNOCO PIPELINE L.P. a/k/a ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS L.P. 8111 West Chester Drive Dallas, TX 75225 And SUNOCO LOGISTICS PARTNERS L.P. 3807 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 180301793 (Phily. Ct. of Common Pleas, March 15, 2018), seeks to recover an amount in excess of $50,000 dollars, together with costs, punitive damages and any other relief the Court deems appropriate. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in the installation, maintenance, and operation of an underground pipeline connecting gas drilling operations in western Pennsylvania with refining operations located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Defendants employed and continue to employ a process known as horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to install the underground pipeline. Defendants' use of HDD caused destruction of Plaintiffs' properties, undermined the subjacent support of Plaintiffs' properties, and exposed Plaintiffs to harms and losses. Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer, among other things, physical damage to their property, the loss of the use and quiet enjoyment of their property, and impairment of the value of their homes, as a result of Defendants' conduct.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Neuwirth, Esq. NEUWIRTH LAW OFFICE, LLC 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (215) 259 3687 Facsimile: (215) 253 5816 E-mail: andrew@neuwirthlaw.com - and - Edward S. Robson, Esquire, ROBSON & ROBSON, P.C. 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 270 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 825 3009 Facsimile: (610) 825 2620 E-mail: erobson@robsonlaw.com TD AMERITRADE: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Lewis" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the putative class action filed by Nicholas Lewis against Scottrade, Inc. related to client order routing matters, according to TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. Five putative class action complaints were filed between August and October 2014 regarding TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative class action was filed in December 2014 regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders. The cases against TD Ameritrade were filed in, or transferred to, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14CV288; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:14CV289; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 8:14CV325; Michael Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV341; and Gerald Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV396. The case against Scottrade, Inc. was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri: Nicholas Lewis v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:15CV01255. The complaints in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to provide clients with best execution and routed orders to the market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints in Verdieck, Lerner and Lewis allege that the defendant routed its clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, equitable relief and other relief. The Company, including Scottrade, Inc., moved to dismiss the putative class action complaints. On March 23, 2016, the U.S. District Court in Nebraska entered an order dismissing all of the state law claims in the five actions against TD Ameritrade, denying the motion to dismiss the federal securities claims in the Klein case, and permitting the plaintiffs in the other four actions to amend their complaints to assert a federal securities claim. On August 29, 2016, the U.S. District Court in Missouri entered an order dismissing without prejudice all of the state law claims against Scottrade, Inc. None of the plaintiffs in the actions filed an amended complaint. The plaintiffs in the Zola, Sarbacker, Verdieck and Lewis cases filed appeals. The plaintiff in the Lerner case did not file an appeal and that case is considered closed. On January 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Lewis case. The Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on any of the cases against TD Ameritrade. The Klein case is proceeding. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any, that may result. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a provider of securities brokerage services and related technology-based financial services to retail investors, traders and independent registered investment advisors ("RIAs"). TD AMERITRADE: Still Faces Aequitas Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------- TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation continues to defend itself against putative class action and non-class action lawsuits related to the sales of Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC's securities, according to TD Ameritrade's Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank & Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016. A second amended putative class action complaint was filed on September 8, 2017, in which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant. The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities of Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after June 9, 2010. Other groups of plaintiffs have filed four non-class action lawsuits in Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these and other defendants: Walter Wurster, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug. 11, 2016), Kenneth Pommier, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov. 3, 2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2, 2016) and Charles Layton, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 17CV42915 (filed October 2, 2017). FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc. The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were made. While the factual allegations differ in various respects among the cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that: TD Ameritrade customers purchased more than US$140 million of Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade served as custodian for Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and developed a market for the securities. In the Ciuffitelli putative class action, plaintiffs allege that more than 1,500 investors were owed more than US$600 million on the Aequitas securities they purchased. In that case and the other cases, collectively over 200 named plaintiffs allege a total of over US$125 million in losses plus other damages. Of that amount, over 100 plaintiffs who were TD Ameritrade customers, allege approximately US$35 million in losses plus other damages. In the Wurster and Pommier cases, TD Ameritrade filed a motion to compel arbitration as to the claims by those plaintiffs who were TD Ameritrade customers and the Court dismissed those claims. In those cases, plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and defendants have filed motions to dismiss. In the Ciuffitelli case, defendants have also moved to dismiss the pending complaint. Discovery has commenced. The Ramsdell case is stayed and the Layton case may similarly be stayed. These stays are expected to remain in place until the resolution of the motions to dismiss the Wurster and Pommier cases. TD Ameritrade said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend against this litigation. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of this litigation, or the potential losses, if any, that may result." TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is a provider of securities brokerage services and related technology-based financial services to retail investors, traders and independent registered investment advisors ("RIAs"). TRAFFIC CONTROL: "Ruffin" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MR. ANDRE RUFFIN, I Morris Lea Court Baltimore, Maryland 21234 Baltimore County; MR. SHEA CAMPBELL, 3 Dundas Court - Apartment B-3 Parkville, Maryland 21234 Baltimore County; and MS. TYRA GRIFFIN 4603 Marble Hall Road Baltimore, Maryland 21239 Baltimore City, the Plaintiffs, v. TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES, LLC, d/b/a Flagger Force PO Box 20161, 2744 Heather Drive York, PA 17402; MS. MICHELLE DONER, 2744 Heather Drive, York, PA 17402; and MR. MICHAEL DONER 2744 Heather Drive York, PA 17402, the Defendants, the Defendant, Case No. GCB18CV0779 (D. Md., March 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid straight time and overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs regularly worked five days a week and were required to be on call and available between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, without being compensated for their time spent on call. If Plaintiffs received a call from Defendants, they were required to call into Defendants' office within one hour. Failure to call in resulted in disciplinary action. Defendants paid Plaintiffs for approximately 35 hours per week by Defendants. Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs their owed straight time wages for hours worked between 35 and 40 hours per week as required by the MWPCL. The Plaintiffs regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week when the time spent performing mandatory vehicle inspections, reporting damage or malfunctions, being on call, driving to and from jobsites, taking the F-150s to the mechanic, and getting or buying water are accounted for. The Plaintiffs were never paid overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, as required by the FLSA, and MWHL. The Plaintiffs were not paid their agreed upon wage for all hours worked, including all straight time wages and overtime wages for all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, as required by MWPCL. two weeks have elapsed from the date on which Defendants were required to have paid Plaintiffs all owed wages, including all owed overtime wages, as required by the MWPCL.[BN] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs: Richard P. Neuworth, Esq. Devan M. Wang, Esq. LEBAU & NEUWORTH, LLC 606 Baltimore Avenue - Suite 20 I Towson. Maryland 21204 Telephone: (443) 273 1202 Facsimile: (410) 296 8660 E-mail: m@joblaws.net dw@joblaws.net TRANS-INDIA PRODUCTS: Orlowski Sues over U.S.-Made Claims --------------------------------------------------------- BRIANNA ORLOWSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. TRANS-INDIA PRODUCTS, INC. d/b/a SHIKAI, the Defendant, Case No. BC697670 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 12, 2018), alleges that the Defendant unlawfully labeled its personal care products as "Made in the U.S.A." The unlawfully labeled products are sold via Defendant's website, catalogue, and in various stores throughout the United States. The "Made in the USA" claim is prominently printed on Defendant's products, including the ShiKai Borage Therapy Lotion product purchased by Plaintiff, and also appears on Defendant's website. Contrary to Defendant's representation and in violation of California law, Defendant's Class Products, including the Product purchased by Plaintiff, include foreign ingredients. This nationwide sale and advertising of deceptively labeled products constitutes violations of: California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, Bus. & Prof. Code section 17533.7, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Trans-India Products, Inc. was founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet preparations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. David J. McGlothlin, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com david@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com TURTABLE LLC: "Nelson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- MARC NELSON, TALIS PETROPOULOUS, and ELIZABETH FESSEL, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TURTABLE, LLC. d/b/a MOMO, the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv- 00824-TDC (D. Md., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, damages, and relief provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Maryland's Wage and Hour Law. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated restaurant servers who have worked at the MOMO restaurant in Bethesda, Maryland, which is owned, controlled and operated by the Defendants. According to the complaint, by failing to pay the statutory minimum wage that was due to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated server employees, Defendants willfully violated very clear and well established minimum wage provisions of the FLSA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Rubin, Esq. THE RUBIN EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, P.C. 600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 204 Rockville, Maryland 20852 Telephone: (301) 760 7914 E-mail: jrubin@rubinemploymentlaw.com TYSON FOODS: Satisfaction of Judgment Filed in "Bouaphakeo" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The trial court has approved Tyson Foods, Inc.'s settlement agreement in three class action suits, including Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., and a satisfaction of judgment in this case was filed on January 12, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017. In the case Bouaphakeo (f/k/a Sharp), et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., N.D. Iowa, February 6, 2007, a jury trial was held involving the Company's Storm Lake, Iowa pork plant which resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for violations of federal and state laws for pre- and post-shift work activities. The trial court also awarded the plaintiffs liquidated damages, resulting in total damages awarded in the amount of US$5,784,758. The plaintiffs' counsel has also filed an application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of US$2,692,145. The Company appealed the jury's verdict and trial court's award to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the jury verdict and judgment on August 25, 2014, and the Company filed a petition for rehearing on September 22, 2014, which was denied. The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was granted on June 8, 2015, and oral arguments before the Supreme Court occurred on November 10, 2015. On March 22, 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's rulings and remanded to the trial court to allocate the lump sum award among the class participants. On remand, the trial court determined that the lump sum award should be allocated to class participants according to the method prescribed by plaintiffs' expert at trial. Subsequently, a joint notice advising the court of a global settlement of this case, the Edwards matter, and the consolidated Murray and DeVoss matter was filed. The parties agreed to settle all three matters for a total payment of US$12.6 million, inclusive of wages, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and costs of settlement administration. The trial court approved the settlement, which became a final order on December 21, 2017, and a stipulation of dismissal was filed on December 22, 2017. A satisfaction of judgment in this case was filed on January 12, 2018. Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein. TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Against Maplevale Farms Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. still defends itself against the class action complaint filed by Maplevale Farms, Inc. related to alleged violations of U.S. antitrust laws over broiler chicken prices, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017. On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on behalf of itself and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultry products, filed a class action complaint against the Company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The court consolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actions on behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers, indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirect purchasers. These three actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Several amended and consolidated complaints have been filed on behalf of each putative class. The currently operative complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of United States antitrust laws. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also include causes of action under various state unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment common laws. The complaints also allege that defendants "manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler price index, the Georgia Dock." It is further alleged that the defendants concealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes. The court issued a ruling on November 20, 2017 denying all defendants' motions to dismiss. The litigation is currently in a discovery phase. Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motions likely to be filed by defendants are not expected before the latter part of calendar year 2020 under the scheduling order currently governing the case. Scheduling for trial, if necessary, will occur after rulings on class certification and any summary judgment motions. Certain putative class members have opted out of this matter and are proceeding separately, and others may do so in the future. Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein. TYSON FOODS: Bid to Amend "Huser" Broiler Chicken Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to amend or alter a previously entered judgment and to submit an amended complaint remains pending in a class action suit filed by William Huser against Tyson Foods, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017. On October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Tyson Foods' stock between November 23, 2015, and October 7, 2016, filed a class action complaint against Tyson Foods, Inc., Donnie Smith and Dennis Leatherby in the Central District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's periodic filings contained materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose that the Company has colluded with other producers to manipulate the supply of broiler chickens in order to keep supply artificially low, as alleged in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Western District of Arkansas, and the Southern District of Ohio. Each of those cases have now been transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and consolidated, and lead plaintiffs have been appointed. A consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017 (which also named additional individual defendants). The consolidated complaint seeks damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which the court granted on July 26, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment and to submit an amended complaint. That motion is pending. Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein. TYSON FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 30, 2017, that the company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss in the case, In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation, and the motion is pending. On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, Johnny Upchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf of themselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed a class action complaint against the company and certain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several other vertically- integrated poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. On March 28, 2017, a second class action complaint making similar claims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the matters consolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amended complaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colluded not to compete for broiler raising services "with the purpose and effect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on grower compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of artificially depressing grower compensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class. The company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2017. That motion is pending. Tyson Foods, Inc. is one of the world's largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein. Founded in 1935 by John W. Tyson and grown under three generations of family leadership, the Company has a broad portfolio of products and brands. The company is based in Springdale, Arkansas. TYSON FOODS: Appeal in Philippine Labor Case Underway ----------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 30, 2017, that an appeals court in the Philippines has granted a writ of preliminary injunction that will preclude execution of a labor case judgment involving its Sara Lee unit pending an appeal. The company's subsidiary, The Hillshire Brands Company (formerly named Sara Lee Corporation), is a party to a consolidation of cases filed by individual complainants with the Republic of the Philippines, Department of Labor and Employment and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) from 1998 through July 1999. The complaint is filed against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation, Sara Lee Philippines, Inc., Fashion Accessories Philippines, Inc., and Attorney Cesar C. Cruz (collectively, the "respondents"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the respondents engaged in unfair labor practices in connection with the termination of manufacturing operations in the Philippines by Aris Philippines, Inc., a former subsidiary of The Hillshire Brands Company. In 2006, a labor arbiter ruled against the respondents and awarded the complainants PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately US$67 million) in damages and fees. The respondents appealed the labor arbiter's ruling, and it was subsequently set aside by the NLRC in December 2006. Subsequent to the NLRC's decision, the parties filed numerous appeals, motions for reconsideration and petitions for review, certain of which remained outstanding for several years. While various of those appeals, motions and/or petitions were pending, The Hillshire Brands Company, on June 23, 2014, without admitting liability, filed a settlement motion requesting that the Supreme Court of the Philippines order dismissal with prejudice of all claims against it and certain other respondents in exchange for payments allocated by the court among the complainants in an amount not to exceed PHP342,287,800 (approximately US$6.7 million). Based in part on its finding that the consideration to be paid to the complainants as part of such settlement was insufficient, the Supreme Court of the Philippines denied the respondents' settlement motion and all motions for reconsideration thereof. The Supreme Court of the Philippines also set aside as premature the NLRC's December 2006 ruling. As a result, the cases are now back before the NLRC, which will once again rule on the respondents' appeals regarding the labor arbiter's 2006 ruling in favor of the complainants. In the meantime, the respondents reached a settlement with a group comprising approximately 18% of the class of 5,984 complainants, pursuant to which The Hillshire Brands Company would pay each settling complainant PHP68,000 (approximately US$1,325). The settlement payment was made on December 21, 2016, to the NLRC, which is responsible for distributing the funds to each settling complainant. On December 27, 2016, the respondents filed motions for reconsideration with the NLRC asking that the award be set aside. The NLRC denied respondents' motions for reconsideration in a resolution received on May 5, 2017, and entered a judgment on the award on July 24, 2017. Previously, from May 10, 2017 to May 12, 2017, Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee Philippines each filed petitions for certiorari with requests for an immediate temporary restraining order and a writ of permanent injunction with the Philippines Court of Appeals. On August 18, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a temporary restraining order precluding execution of the NLRC judgment against Aris Philippines, Inc., Sara Lee Corporation and Sara Lee Philippines, Inc. The temporary restraining order was slated to expire November 21, 2017 unless further extended by a preliminary injunction. "We have recorded an accrual for this matter for the amount of loss that, at this time, we deem probable and enforceable. This accrual is reflected in the Company's consolidated financial statements and reflects an amount significantly less than the amount awarded by the labor arbiter in 2004 (i.e., PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately US$67 million)). The ultimate enforceable loss is uncertain, and if our accrual is not adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations," Tyson Foods said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017. On November 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted a writ of preliminary injunction that will preclude execution of the NLRC judgment during the pendency of the appeal. "We have recorded an accrual for this matter for the amount of loss that, at this time, we deem probable and enforceable. This accrual is reflected in the Company's consolidated condensed financial statements and reflects an amount significantly less than the amount awarded by the labor arbiter in 2004 (i.e., PHP3,453,664,710 (approximately US $69 million)). The ultimate enforceable loss is uncertain, and if our accrual is not adequate, an adverse outcome could have a material effect on the consolidated financial condition or results of operations," the Company said in its latest 10-Q report. Tyson Foods, Inc. is one of the world's largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein. Founded in 1935 by John W. Tyson and grown under three generations of family leadership, the Company has a broad portfolio of products and brands. The company is based in Springdale, Arkansas. UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Gets Final Court OK on Shareholder Class Pact ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. has received final court approval of its settlement of a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Court") against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws (collectively, the "Shareholder Lawsuit"). On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April 16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the court. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on August 10, 2015. On October 24, 2016, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum opinion, reaffirming the district court's dismissal of the alleged violations of Section10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and reversing the district court's dismissal of the alleged violations of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. On August 4, 2017, the parties to the Shareholder Lawsuit filed with the Court a settlement that they reached to resolve the Shareholder Lawsuit against the defendants. Pursuant to the settlement stipulation and subject to certain conditions therein, the settlement class will receive US$6.8 million, funded largely by the Company's insurance carriers. The settlement was approved by the district court and final judgment was entered on December 20, 2017. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. develops networking technology for service providers, enterprises, and consumers worldwide. It was formerly known as Pera Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. in 2005. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in New York, New York. UNITED AMERICAN: Parshall Balks at Heritage Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED AMERICAN BANK, NICHOLAS J. SCHRUP, III, JOHN C. SCHRUP, NORMAN I. BOOK, JR., JAY PAUL LEUPP, DENNIS C. DISALVO, MARGARET A. TAYLOR, WILLIAM W. HILL, STEPHEN A. WAY, GUY ROUNSAVILLE, JR., HOWARD J. WEILAND, ROSANNE FOUST, RONALD L. BLAND, HERITAGE COMMERCE CORP, and HERITAGE BANK OF COMMERCE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01671-HSG (N.D. Cal., March 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed merger transaction, and in the event defendants consummate the Proposed Transaction, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January 11, 2018, pursuant to which United American Bank or the will be acquired by Heritage Commerce Corp and Heritage Bank of Commerce. On January 10, 2018, UAB's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Heritage. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of UAB will receive 2.1644 Parent common shares for each share of UAB they own. On February 26, 2018, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement. United American Bank opened its doors in 2003 and has been serving San Mateo, California and other communities in the San Fran Peninsula ever since.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael Schumacher, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 155 Jackson Street, #1903 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 855 8995 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 E-mail: ms@rl-legal.com UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Ashes Sue over Damaged Human Embryos ---------------------------------------------------------- AMBER and ELLIOTT ASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, c/o DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC 7556 Mentor Ave. Mentor, Ohio 44060, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter alia, University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital and University Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122, the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 894345 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Mar. 12, 2018), is a class action lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class members who were injured as a result of Defendants' conduct, which caused irreplaceable damage to their frozen eggs and embryos. Defendants had been preserving, protecting, and storing Plaintiffs' and the other Class members' eggs and embryos at a University Hospitals Fertility Center located at the Ahuja Medical Center in Beachwood, Ohio. The damage occurred when the temperature rose in a large storage tank in which Defendants had been preserving, protecting, and storing approximately 2,000 of Plaintiffs' and the other Class members' egg and embryo specimens. In what can only be characterized as gross negligence and an utter breach of trust, decency, and responsible stewardship, Defendants destroyed the hopes, dreams, and futures of hundreds, if not thousands, of prospective Ohio parents and families. Recognizing the extent and consequences of its misconduct, Defendants have reached out to Plaintiffs and the other Class members to advise them of Defendants' misconduct and that the consequence of their misconduct is that Plaintiffs' and the other Class members' frozen eggs and embryos -- eggs and embryos that they entrusted to Defendants and were relying on Defendants for their preservation and safekeeping -- may have been destroyed or irretrievably damaged. One of University Hospitals' representatives is reported saying, "It's absolutely devastating." University Hospitals of Cleveland is a major not-for-profit medical complex in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Other Members of the Proposed Class: Mark A. DiCello, Esq. Robert F. DiCello, Esq. Mark M. Abramowitz, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC 7556 Mentor Avenue Mentor, OH 44060 Telephone: (440) 953 8888 E-mail: madicello@dlcfirm.com rfdicello@dlcfirm.com mabramowitz@dlcfirm.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Adam M. Prom, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214 7900 E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com akeller@dlcfirm.com aprom@dlcfim.com UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Crosses Sue over Damaged Human Embryos ------------------------------------------------------------ DANIELLE R. CROSS and KEVIN M. CROSS 929 Berkshire Drive Macedonia, Ohio 44056, On Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter alia, University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital and University Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; and UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122, the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 894335 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Mar. 12, 2018), seeks to recover damages, equitable relief, and other remedies from Defendants as a result of their misconduct. According to the complaint, UH provided for-profit, assisted reproduction services, including cryogenic preservation and storage facilities at Ahuja Medical Center among other locations, to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class. These fertility services are designed to assist married couples, unmarried couples and unmarried single persons who desire to become pregnant by increasing the likelihood of pregnancy. In a typical procedure, a woman's eggs are retrieved, after medically-induced stimulation of the ovaries, by a transvaginal aspiration performed under anesthesia in an operating room. These "harvested" eggs are either frozen in cryogenic storage for later use or are combined with sperm by in vitro fertilization to develop into viable embryos that it is hoped will grow to become human babies. This process causes women to produce many more eggs than the naturally-occurring amount. The increased number of eggs enables multiple attempts of in vitro fertilization, thereby reducing the required number of surgical retrievals. In order to preserve those eggs that are not immediately fertilized, UH provides the onsite cryogenic storage and cryopreservation of such unfertilized human eggs using liquid nitrogen and specially- designed, temperature-controlled storage tanks. Similarly, UH cryogenically stores and preserves the fertilized human embryos resulting from this process using temperature-regulated liquid nitrogen in the same type of specially designed storage tanks. The preserved unfertilized human eggs and/or fertilized human embryos are removed from cryogenic storage from time to time, at Plaintiffs' or each Class member's direction, for use in attempting to become pregnant. At all relevant times prior to March 3, 2018, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were induced to store their respective unfertilized human eggs and fertilized human embryos at UH's cryopreservation facility by UH's promise and agreement to properly store and maintain such eggs and embryos in temperature-regulated liquid nitrogen until such time in the indefinite future as they would be used. On March 3, 2018, Plaintiffs had five fertilized human embryos stored at the UH facility in what they believed to be properly maintained and temperature-regulated liquid nitrogen cryopreservation. On March 3-4, 2018, all of Plaintiffs' fertilized human embryos were damaged or destroyed by a malfunction at UH's facility that caused a temperature fluctuation in the liquid nitrogen cryopreservation system. As a proximate result of the malfunction at UH's cryopreservation facilities, Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have been injured and damaged. University Hospitals of Cleveland is a major not-for-profit medical complex in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Eric K Zagrans, Esq. ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC 6100 Oak Tree Boulevard, Suite 200 [j Cleveland, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 771 1000 E-mail: eric@zagrans.com - and - Steven M. Goldberg, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW FIRM CO., L.P.A. Solon Business Campus 31300 Solon Road, Suite 12 Solon, OH 44139 Telephone: (440) 519 9900 E-mail: steven@smglegal.com - and - Jeffrey R. Wahl, Esq. 30799 Pinetree Road, Suite 241 Cleveland, OH 44124 Telephone: (216) 308 1401 E-mail: ieffwahl@mindspring.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. KARON LLC 700 West St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 999 7576 Facsimile: (216) 241 8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com dhollowell@karonllc.com UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS: Pennimans Sue over Damaged Human Embryos -------------------------------------------------------------- WENDY AND RICK PENNIMAN, individually and on the behalf of all others similarly situated, c/o Taubman Law 1826 West 25th Cleveland, Ohio 44113, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a as, inter alia, University Hospitals Rainbow Babies & Children's Hospital and University Hospitals MacDonald Women's Hospital; c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS AHUJA MEDICAL CENTER, INC. c/o Janet L. Miller, Statutory Agent 3605 Warrensville Center Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122; JOHN DOE PROFESSIONAL CORP; JOHN DOE MECHANIC; JOHN DOES I-X; JOHN DOE MANUFACTURER; JOHN DOE MONITOR; and JOHN DOE SECURITY COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. CV 18 894396 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Mar. 12, 2018), is a class action lawsuit on the behalf of Plaintiffs, individually and on the behalf of other Class members who were injured as result of Defendants' conduct which caused irreparable and permanent damage to their frozen eggs and embryos. The Defendants are in the business of protecting, preserving, extracting and storing Plaintiff's and other Class members' eggs and embryos at a University Hospital Fertility Center located at the Ahuja Medical Center located at 3999 Richmond Road, Beachwood, Ohio 44122. The damage and harm occurred when the temperature in the storage tank which the Defendants' were using to store, preserve and maintain the viability of embryos and eggs rose. The temperature increase impacted more than 2,000 vials of eggs and embryos, affecting the Plaintiffs and other Class members. The Defendants' gross and inexcusable conduct was a breach of trust, confidence, decency, stewardship and professionalism, Defendants' actions or lack thereof have ruined and destroyed the hopes, aspirations and dreams of countless prospective parents and families. Defendants' actions have ruined the last chance for the Plaintiffs, as well as other Class members, to have children or additional children. The Defendants have not reached out to the Plaintiffs and other Class members properly for their misconduct and negligence, advising them of the extent of damage done to their eggs and embryos, and not offering them proper compensation and psychological counseling. University Hospitals of Cleveland is a major not-for-profit medical complex in Cleveland, Ohio, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Taubman, Esq. TAUBMAN LAW 1826 West 25th Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 621 0794 Facsimile: (216) 621 8886 E-mail: brucetaubman@taubmanlaw.net briantaubman@taubmanlaw.net UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Lieberman Sues over Insurance ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID LIEBERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA, AND DOES 1 TO 50, 24 INCLUSIVE, the Defendant, Case No. CGC-18-564930 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 12, 2018), seeks declaration that Defendants' practice of claiming UM/UIM benefits from its employees is unlawful, and seeks a permanent injunction against Defendants from continuing their unlawful practice of willfully violating the Insurance Code provisions intended to safeguard Plaintiffs' UM/UIM coverage, restitution, and costs and attorneys' fees. According to the complaint, Mr. David Lieberman has been employed by the defendant Regents of the University of California as a professor at UC Berkeley Law School. Employees of the Regents are entitled to health care coverage as a group benefit of their employment. This coverage is a self-funded plan paid through monthly contributions by employees and the Regents and plaintiff was enrolled in this health plan in 2016. Since Defendant is a political subdivision of the State of California, it is a public entity and therefore the Regents group health plan is not subject to ERISA. On May 2, 2016, plaintiff was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident and suffered severe injuries, requiring hospitalization and extensive treatment. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was covered under the REGENTS health plan, and the health plan paid for plaintiff's medical expenses in excess of $500,000. The tortfeasor who caused the accident injuring plaintiff had only $15,000 of liability coverage. However, plaintiff had $500,000 of uninsured and underinsured ("UM/UIM") coverage which provides for an additional $485,000 of coverage to plaintiff. The Regents group health plan at the time of plaintiff's accident provided for reimbursement rights purporting to allow REGENTS to recover medical expenses its health plan had paid from any "Recovery" made by an injured employee. The lawsuit alleges the Defendants have willfully violated this law by demanding reimbursement rights from Plaintiffs' UM/UIM coverage, despite the fact that Regents is a state public entity and political subdivision of the State of California and therefore prohibited by the Insurance Code section from directly benefiting from any person's UM/UIM coverage. The Regents of the University of California is the governing board of the University of California system. The board has 26 voting members. The California Constitution grants broad institutional autonomy, with limited exceptions, to the Regents.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Padilla, Esq. Jeffrey Padilla, Esq. O'MARA & PADILLA 320 Encinitas Blvd., Suite A Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: 858 481 5454 Facsimile: 858 720 9797 - and - Donald M. De Camara, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DONALD M. DE CAMARA 1241 Carlsbad Village Drive, Suite E Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 730 7404 Facsimile: (760) 730 7409 - and - Thomas D. Haklar, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D. HAKLAR 320 Encinitas Blvd., Suite A Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (858) 481 5454 Facsimile: (858) 720 9797 UTILQUEST LLC: "Turner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UTILQUEST, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00294 (M.D. Tenn., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was classified as a non-exempt employee by Defendant working as a Locator. The Plaintiff regularly and routinely worked more than 40 hours in a typical workweek, frequently 60 or more hours per week. According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff and the Class Members: a) worked off the clock; and b) were denied proper compensation for all hours worked, including overtime pay at time and one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. Plaintiff was told that he was an exempt "Supervisor" by Defendant and paid on a salary basis, plus bonuses. Other similarly situated employees also were called "Supervisors" by Defendant who worked in the states of Tennessee and/or Georgia and were paid on a salary basis, plus bonuses. Although called "Supervisors" by Defendant, Plaintiff and Supervisor Class Members did not meet the legal criteria to qualify as exempt employees under the managerial exemption of the FLSA, or any other exemption of the FLSA. Thus, Defendant was legally required to pay Plaintiff and Supervisor Class Members for all hours worked, including overtime pay at time and one-half their regular rates of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours within a workweek. UtiliQuest, LLC provides facility locating and damage prevention services in North America. It also offers meter reading services for electric, gas, and water utilities.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Classes: Martin D. Holmes, Esq. Peter F. Klett, Esq. Joshua L. Burgener, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Fifth Third Center, Suite 800 424 Church Street Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244 6538 E-mail: mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com pklett@dickinsonwright.com jburgener@dickinsonwright.com - and - Jennifer Bryant, Esq. James Bewley, Esq. Jennifer Bryant, Esq. JAMES BEWLEY LAW PLLC, Esq. 10th Ave South, Suite 107 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 988 9411 E-mail: jbewley@JBLfirm.com jbryant@JBLfirm.com VALIDUS HOLDINGS: Rubin Balks at Merger Deal with AIG ----------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL RUBIN, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VALIDUS HOLDINGS, LTD., EDWARD J. NOONAN, MAHMOUD ABDALLAH, MICHAEL E.A. CARPENTER, MATTHEW J. GRAYSON, JEFFREY W. GREENBERG, JOHN J. HENDRICKSON, JEAN-MARIE NESSI, MANDAKINI PURI, GAIL M. ROSS, THERESE M. VAUGHAN, CHRISTOPHER E. WATSON and KARIN HIRTLERGARVEY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03828 (D.N.J., March 20, 2018), is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of Validus Holdings, Ltd. against Validus and the members of Validus' Board of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It seeks to enjoin a stockholder vote on a proposed merger transaction unless and until Securities Exchange Act violations are cured. On January 22, 2018, Validus and AIG issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated January 22, 2018 to sell Validus to AIG for $68.00 per share in cash. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of AIG. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $5.56 billion. On March 7, 2017, Validus filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Validus stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) Validus insiders' potential conflicts of interest; (ii) Validus' financial projections prepared by Validus' management and provided to and utilized by J.P. Morgan Securities LLC in connection with its evaluation of the Proposed Transaction; and (iii) the valuation analyses prepared by J.P. Morgan in connection with the rendering of its fairness opinion. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act, as Validus stockholders need such information to cast a fully- informed vote or make an appraisal decision in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Validus Holdings provides reinsurance coverage, insurance coverage, and insurance linked securities management services worldwide.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 78 John Miller Way, Suite 430 Kearny, New Jersey 07032 Telephone: (862) 227 3106 Facsimile: (973) 282 8603 E-mail: DZ@zemellawllc.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly C. Keenan, Esq. Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682 3025 Facsimile: (212) 682 3010 WARNER MUSIC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Denial of Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a class action suit against Warner Music Group Corp. related to the pricing of digital music downloads, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal the District Court's order denying their motion for class certification, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with requests for information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January 13, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for Certiorari. Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of Internet download purchasers. On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015. The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on October 9, 2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015. A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were unable to reach a resolution. On July 18, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. On August 11, 2017, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' petition. On December 8, 2017, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal the District Court's order denying their motion for class certification. According to the SEC report, the parties were in talks to resolve the matter and already informed the District Court that they were expected to file a dismissal in February 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The case is In re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 06-md-01780 (S.D.N.Y.). Warner Music Group Corp. operates as a music-based content company in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Recorded Music and Music Publishing. The company is based in New York. WASHINGTON GAS: Still Defends Suits on Silver Spring Incident ------------------------------------------------------------- WGL Holdings, Inc.'s subsidiary, Washington Gas Light Company, continues to defend itself in lawsuits, including a class action suit, related to the Silver Spring, Maryland explosion and fire incident, according to WGL Holdings and Washington Gas's Form 10- Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017. Washington Gas continues to support the investigation by the NTSB into the August 10, 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland, the cause of which has not been determined. Additional information will be made available by the NTSB at the appropriate time. A total of 40 civil actions related to the incident have been filed against WGL and Washington Gas in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. Thirty-nine of these suits seek unspecified damages for personal injury and/or property damage. The final action is a class action suit seeking total damages stated to be less than US$5 million for, among others, property damage and various counts relating to the loss of the use of the premises. Two of the 40 cases were originally filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court, but were dismissed. Those two actions were re-filed in Maryland on November 27, 2017. WGL Holdings said, "We maintain excess liability insurance coverage from highly-rated insurers, subject to a nominal self- insured retention. We believe that this coverage will be sufficient to cover any significant liability to it that may result from this incident. Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that are reasonably possible of occurring and therefore we have not recorded a reserve associated with this incident. Washington Gas was invited by the NTSB to be a party to the investigation and in that capacity, continues to work closely with the NTSB to help determine the cause of this incident. Information about our obligations as a signed party to the investigation can be found in the form of the Certificate of Party Representation, which is available on the investigations page of the NTSB website -- https://is.gd/a9qrlS -- and 49 CFR 831.13." On August 14, 2017, the NTSB opened the public docket related to its ongoing investigation. WGL, through its subsidiaries, sells and delivers natural gas and provides a variety of energy-related products and services to customers primarily in the District of Columbia and the surrounding metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. WOLF APPLIANCE: Sharp Sues over Defective Ovens ----------------------------------------------- FREDERICK I. SHARP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WOLF APPLIANCE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01723 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover statutory, compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class members against defendant for the harm it caused to consumers in connection with its design, manufacture, advertising, sale and performance of the Wolf Ovens. Wolf's L, M and E Series built-in ovens, and "dual fuel" and induction ranges, for example, contain blue porcelain interiors. Wolf's gas ranges contain black porcelain interiors. Through this action, plaintiff seeks to represent all purchasers of Wolf's wall or built-in ovens and ranges, whether single or double oven models, containing porcelain interiors since March 20, 2012. Wolf Ovens are defectively designed in that the porcelain interior of the oven cavity floor will chip, crack or craze through regular use, including, for example, through the use of the self-clean function of the Ovens. The Defect has obvious aesthetic ramifications. Additionally, once the chipping, cracking and crazing occurs, the Ovens' convection systems then propel the porcelain pieces throughout the oven cavities. Owners of the Wolf Ovens, therefore, cannot use the Ovens, including the self-clean feature, without the risk of chipping, cracking or crazing the interior porcelain. Owners of the Wolf Ovens also risk, through regular use, having the Defect contaminate the food cooked in the Ovens or cause related harm resulting from the loose porcelain chips. Wolf is a manufacturer of high-end cooking appliances, including ranges and built-in ovens. It competes directly with, for example, Viking and Gaggenau in the luxury kitchen appliance market. Wolf charges a premium price for its top-of-the-line Ovens. Currently, its Ovens typically retail for approximately $4,000 to over $17,000. E Series built-in double ovens, like the one plaintiff purchased, retail for more than $6,500. A 60 inch dual fuel range with six burners and a French top currently retails for more than $17,500.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark S. Reich, Esq. Vincent M. Serra, Esq. Samuel H. Rudman, 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 ZACKY & SONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- GRISELDA MUNOZ MARTIN, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZACKY & SONS POULTRY, LLC, California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendant, Case No. BC697972 (Cal. Super. Ct. Fla., March 14, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately April 30, 2016 to approximately October 12, 2017. During Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were underpaid all minimum and overtime wages to which they were owed due to Defendants' unlawful policies/practices. Specifically, Defendants maintained a policy/practice requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don and doff protective gear including, but not limited to overalls, work boots, gloves, and mouth covers, during their work shifts. However, Defendants' policy/practice required all donning and doffing to be performed off the clock. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, therefore, were required to arrive at Defendants' worksite to don their protective gear before clocking in for the day, then clock out at the end of their work shifts before doffing the protective gear. Further, Defendants required Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don/doff their protective gear while clocked out for meal periods. As a result of requiring Plaintiff and similarly situated employees to don/doff while off-the-clock, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees all minimum and overtime wages to which they were owed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew JTRowbotham, Esq. Matthew K. Moen, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1550 El Segunao, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com mmoen@haineslawgroup.com - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609 0807 Facsimile: (818) 609 0892 ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Lawsuit over CoolSculpting Ads Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited disclosed in their Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. continues to defend itself in a putative class action lawsuit related to the promotion of its CoolSculpting product. On April 26, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc. in state court in California alleging that Zeltiq misled customers regarding the promotion of its CoolSculpting product and the product's premarket notification clearance status. On May 30, 2017, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On July 20, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In August 2017, Zeltiq filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Allergan plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes medical aesthetics, biosimilar, and over-the-counter pharmaceutical products worldwide. It operates through US Specialized Therapeutics, US General Medicine, and International segments. The Company was formerly known as Actavis plc and changed its name to Allergan plc in June 2015. Allergan plc was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. ********* 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 * * *