/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180503.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 3, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 89 Headlines 3D SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing on KBC Suit Set for June 25 AARAV KHUSHI: "Thorpe" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ABP AVENTURA: "Sharpe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA ACETO CORPORATION: Yang Sues over 64% Drop in Stock Price ACETO CORPORATION: Mulligan Sues over Share Price Drop ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend "Hague" Class Suit ACOSTA INC: "Qualley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA AHCA: Faces "Lenoir" Suit in S.D. Florida AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Faces "Martin" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ALLIANCE MMA: Enters Into Binding Term Sheet to Settle NJ Suit AMAZON.COM: "Avalos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ANTARES PHARMA: Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Pending ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y. Still Ongoing ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Final Approval on BELVIQ Settlement ARROWHEAD CLINIC: "Bata" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Tennessee AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on May 30 BALK TK: Underpays Tipped Employees, "Johnsey" Suit Claims BANGKOK THAI: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA BEACHCOMBER INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Sanchez Says BELLICUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kakkar" Securities Class Suit BLACK FOREST HOSPITALITY: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages CALIBER HOME: Reizes Sues over Debt Collection Practices CLIFTON BANCORP: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Montoya" Suit in E.D. New York CHEMIX ENERGY: "Tarango" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA CHICOS FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing COLONY NORTHSTAR: Klein Sues over 22% Drop in Stock Price CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Jury Trial to Begin Oct. 15 in "Fastrich" CPI CARD: Awaits Court Approval on Proposed Scheduling Order CTI BIOPHARMA: $20,000,000 Accord Wins Final Approval CURO GROUP: Settlement of "Harrison" Suit Finally Approved DIXIE GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Class Action Suit DYNAMIC LEDGER: Trigon Trading Sues over Initial Public Offering EKSO BIONICS: Faces "Behket" and "Cheehy" Securities Suits ENDOLOGIX INC: Continues to Defend Nellix EVAS-Related Suit ESS-A-BAGEL: Faces "Marett" Suit in E.D. Virginia FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Crow Creek Tribe Suit in S. Dakota FJALLRAVEN USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Claims FNCB BANCORP: Settlement in "Antonik" Suit Gets Final Approval FORTUNA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Wages, Herrera Claims GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Young" Action Claims GIANT EAGLE: Underpays GetGo Senior Team Leaders, Fitch Says GRIDSUM HOLDING: Xu Files Class Suit over 16% Share Price Drop GUTMAN MINTZ: Faces "Wagner" Suit in E.D. New York HC2 HOLDINGS: DBMG Class Action Suit Still Ongoing HD SUPPLY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending HOMEADVISOR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Airquip Class Suit ICON HEALTH: Records Consumer-Initiated Phone Calls, West Claims ICONIX BRAND: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Class Suit IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss INNOVATE BIOPHARMA: California Class Complaint Withdrawn INTEL CORP: Hodsdon Alleges Defect in Semiconductor Chips IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Against Ryan-Nielson Class Action KABBAGE INC: Faces Barnabas Clothing Suit in C.D. California L.L. BEAN: Faces "Pershouse" Suit in D. Massachusetts LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Glover" Class Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Hanks" Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation Underway in E.D. Pa. Court LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Tutor" Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Trinchero" Class Suit Underway MDL 2827: "Santino" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated MDL 2827: "Taylor" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated MDL 2827: "Honigman" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated MDL 2827: "Sens" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated MDL 2827: "Borstelmann" Suit over iPHone Performance Consolidated MERCK & CO: Sugartown Pediatrics Sues over Vaccine Monopoly MERRILL LYNCH: Porter Seeks to Certify Class of Employees MICRO FOCUS: Gildea Challenges Hewlett Packard Merger MILLER ENERGY: "Gaynor" Class Suit Still Pending MONAT GLOBAL: Hoffpauir Alleges Defect in Hair Care Products NATIONAL RESEARCH: Class Suits Underway in Nebraska and Wisconsin NEW YORK: "Bucceri" Suit vs Health Dept Moved to E.D. New York NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Figueroa Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: 2d Cir. Denies FHFA's Bid to Stay NJCH Fund MICROSEMI CORP: Johnson Balks at Microchip Merger Deal NEW YORK, NY: Sued over Use of Sealed Arrest Records NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages OAKLEY COUNTRY: "Flores" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA PINE RIDGE VINEYARDS: Class Suit Settled for $400,000 PINGTAN MARINE: Amended Complaint in "Zheng" Suit Due May 29 PJB METHUEN: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, Vazquez Claims PLAZA HOME: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, McDonough Says RBC CAPITAL: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Approval SCRUB INC: Norman Sues over Misuse of Biometric Identifiers SCYNEXIS INC: "Gibson" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing SENECA RESOURCES: McLaughlin Seeks Conditional Certification SIENTRA INC: Settles Calif. Class Suits for $10.9 Million SLEEPY'S LLC: Hargrove et al. Seek to Certify Class SPOTIFY USA: Parties in "Ferrick" Suit Await Final Settlement OK TANDOORI NIGHTS: Faces "Portillo" Suit in E.D. Virginia TARGET CORP: Bid to Alter Judgment in Minnesota Suit Pending TARGET CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit TENNIS CHANNEL: Deceptively Markets TC Plus, Wilson Claims UNITED COLLECTION: Odeh Sues over Debt Collection Practices US PHYSICAL: Bid to Dismiss New York Class Action Pending VIVINT INC: Underpays Staff, Linehan-Clodfelter Says VIVUS INC: Deadline for Rehearing in "Jasin" Suit Expired WATTS GUERRA LLP: Faces "Kellogg" Suit in D. Minnesota WILLIAM PENN: TVPX ARS Sues over Excessive Cost of Insurance ********* 3D SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing on KBC Suit Set for June 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- 3D Systems 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 final approval hearing in the case styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., has been scheduled for June 25, 2018. The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions and that the former officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on January 14, 2016, which was denied by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2016 (the "Order"). Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order on August 4, 2016, which was denied by Order dated February 24, 2017. On September 28, 2017, the court granted Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. On February 15, 2018, following mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement that provides for, among other things, payment of $50 million by the Company's insurance carriers and a mutual exchange of releases. The Stipulation of Settlement calls for a dismissal of all claims against the Company and the individual defendants with prejudice following Court approval, a denial by defendants of any wrongdoing, and no admission of liability. On February 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On February 21, 2018, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. The final approval hearing has been scheduled for June 25, 2018. 3D Systems Corporation is a holding company incorporated in Delaware in 1993 that markets its products and services through subsidiaries in North America and South America, Europe and the Middle East and the Asia Pacific region. AARAV KHUSHI: "Thorpe" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- BETTY THORPE, individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AARAV KHUSHI INC., and AARAV KHUSHI, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01076 (W.D. Tenn., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The action is filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees of the Defendants who worked over forty hours in a workweek, but did not receive overtime pay for all of their overtime worked. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at Newbern Fuel Market, located at 302 W. Highway 77, Newbern, Tennessee, 38059, from approximately July 7, 2017, until approximately February 2, 2018. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed within the two-year statute of limitations under the FLSA. The Plaintiff was compensated by Defendants for her work at an hourly rate of $8.00 per hour. During Plaintiff's employment, she regularly and repeatedly performed work in excess of 40 hours per week. When Plaintiff worked over 40 hours in a workweek, Defendants compensated her only at her regular rate of pay.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilbert Mcwherter, Esq. Emily S. Alcorn, Esq. SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354 1144 E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com ABP AVENTURA: "Sharpe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JUNIOR SHARPE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABP AVENTURA, INC., ERNEST JORDAN, individually, and CHARLES KETSER, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21678-UU (S.D. Fla., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover seeks to unpaid wages and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants but was not paid time and one-half wages for all of his actual overtime hours worked for Defendant. Instead, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff based upon a regular rate of $12.00/hour without paying time and one-half wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. ABP Aventura owns furniture stores and operates under the trade name Relax The Back.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gawane Grant, Esq. GAWANE GRANT PA 2331 North State Rd. 7, Suite 212 Lauderhill, FL 33313 Telephone: (954) 739 5600 Facsimile: (954) 739 5663 E-mail: reggaelawyer@hotmail.com ACETO CORPORATION: Yang Sues over 64% Drop in Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------- JINCAI YANG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACETO CORPORATION, WILLIAM C. KENNALLY III, and DOUGLAS ROTH, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 02437 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Aceto securities between February 1, 2018 through April 18, 2018, both dates inclusive. Aceto Corporation markets, sells, and distributes human health products, pharmaceutical ingredients, and performance chemicals. The Company offers finished dosage form generics, nutritionals, pharmaceutical intermediates, active pharmaceutical ingredients, specialty chemicals, and agricultural protection products. Founded in 1947, Aceto is headquartered in Port Washington, New York, and its securities trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Marketunder the ticker symbol "ACET." According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the 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) due to undisclosed competitive and pricing pressures, Aceto was unlikely to meet the performance metrics the Company provided to its investors as financial guidance; (ii) accordingly, Aceto's financial guidance was overstated; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Aceto's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Aceto's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 18, 2018, after the market closed, Aceto disclosed that "the financial guidance issued on February 1, 2018, should no longer be relied upon," and suspended "further financial guidance for at least the balance of the fiscal year." Aceto also disclosed that "the Company anticipates recording non-cash intangible asset impairment charges, including goodwill, in the range of $230 million to $260 million on certain currently marketed and pipeline generic products as a result of continued intense competitive and pricing pressures." Aceto also disclosed the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer, Edward Borkowski, who had joined Aceto just two months earlier. As a result of the disclosure, Aceto's stock price fell $4.74 per share, or 64%, to close at $2.66 per share on April 19, 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] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ACETO CORPORATION: Mulligan Sues over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ RONALD L. MULLIGAN JR., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACETO CORPORATION, SALVATORE GUCCIONE and DOUGLAS ROTH, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02425-JFB-AYS (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than the Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Aceto common stock from August 25, 2017 through April 18, 2018, both dates inclusive.1 Aceto is an international company engaged in the development, marketing, sales and distribution of finished dosage form generic pharmaceuticals, nutraceutical products, pharmaceutical active ingredients and intermediates, specialty performance chemicals inclusive of agricultural intermediates and agricultural protection products. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company failed to implement and enforce proper internal control to identify the misapplication of cash; the Company would incur large non-cash intangible asset impairment charges, the Company lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; the Company's financial results for the fiscal year 2017 could not be relied upon; the Company's fiscal 2018 financial guidance was overstated; and, as a result of the foregoing, Aceto's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 3, 2017, Aceto filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing the nonreliance on its previously issued financial statements and a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting. On April 18, 2018, Aceto issued a press release announcing an update on the Company's business and financial condition. Therein, the Company disclosed the non- reliance on the previously issued 2018 fiscal year earnings guidance and the recording non-cash intangible asset impairment charges, including goodwill, in the range of $230 million to $260 million. On this news, Aceto's common stock declined $4.74 from a close price of $7.40 on April 18, 2018, to a close price of $2.66 on April 19, 2018, a drop of approximately 64.05% in the course of a trading day. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff, and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363 7500 Facsimile: (212) 363 7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com ACORDA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend "Hague" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017, that continues to defend a purported class action suit filed by Michael Hague. On November 17, 2017, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, by Michael Hague on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between April 18, 2016 through November 14, 2017, which we refer to as the purported class period. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated during the class period because we and certain current and former officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding tozadenant, a pharmaceutical product candidate we acquired with Biotie Therapies in 2016. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the company failed to disclose, throughout the class period, tozadenant's safety risks and approval prospects, and also that we overstated the benefits of the Biotie Therapies acquisition. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. Acorda Therapeutics said "We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit, will deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. However, the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, and there can be no assurance that we will be successful. An adverse outcome of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and cash flows. The defense of this case will require management attention and resources." Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies that restore function and improve the lives of people with neurological disorders. The company is based in Ardsley, New York. ACOSTA INC: "Qualley" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH QUALLEY, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACOSTA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and ACOSTA SALES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00723-AA (D. Oreg., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest and penalty wages for Defendants' willful failure to pay wages when due, including the correct amount of overtime wages, and other relief pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Oregon Wage and Hour Laws. According to its website, Defendant Acosta, Inc. has over 30,000 employees worldwide. The Defendants employ Retail Merchandisers throughout the United States. The Defendants' Retail Merchandiser employees are non-exempt. Deborah Qualley is a resident of Lane County, Oregon who was employed as a Retail Merchandiser by the Defendants in Oregon from on or about May 2009 to February 2018. Acosta Sales & Marketing is a full-service sales, marketing and service company in North America. Headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, Acosta is a sales and marketing company for consumer packaged goods companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew G. Johnson, Esq. Alan J. Leiman, Esq. LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC 44 W. Broadway, Suite 326 Eugene, OR 97401 E-mail: drew@leimanlaw.com alan@leimanlaw.com AHCA: Faces "Lenoir" Suit in S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AHCA. The case is styled as M.D. Allen Lenoir, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. AHCA, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21621-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2018). AHCA is a health care facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Sanchez-Calderon, Esq. 12600 SW 120th ST, Suite 102 Miami, FL 33186 Tel: (305) 232-8889 Fax: (305) 232-8819 Email: william@wsanchezlaw.com AIRCRAFT SERVICE: Faces "Martin" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aircraft Service International Inc. a corporation. The case is styled as Dion Martin, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Aircraft Service International Inc., Menzies Aviation (USA) Inc. a corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC18566072 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 25, 2018). Aircraft Service International Group, Inc. provides commercial aviation services to major airlines, airports, oil companies, and other partners worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Tel: (858) 551-1223 Fax: (858) 551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com ALLIANCE MMA: Enters Into Binding Term Sheet to Settle NJ Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance MMA, Inc. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company has entered into a binding term sheet to a stockholder class action lawsuit, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 8, 2018, Alliance MMA, Inc. (the "Company") (Nasdaq: AMMA) entered into a binding term sheet to settle a stockholder class action lawsuit initially filed in April 2017 against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriter in the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO"). The litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Pursuant to the term sheet and subject to certain conditions, including the approval of the settlement terms by the District Court, the settling parties have agreed to submit a formal, binding stipulation of settlement to the District Court to resolve all claims brought against the defendants. The settlement will provide for a payment to the class of $1,550,000, of which the insurer will pay $1,520,000 and the underwriter in the IPO will contribute $30,000. The Company will be obligated to pay a deductible of $250,000, of which the Company has paid $137,761 in the form of legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with defending the lawsuit. Alliance MMA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on April and May 2017, two purported securities class action complaints -- Shapiro v. Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-2583 (D.N.J.), and Shulman v. Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-3282 (S.D.N.Y.) -- were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, respectively. The complaints allege that the defendants violated certain provisions of the federal securities laws, and purport to seek damages on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering. In July 2017, the plaintiffs in the New York action voluntarily dismissed their claim. The court has not yet ruled on the motion by the claimants in the New Jersey case to be named lead plaintiffs. Alliance MMA, Inc. was formed on February 12, 2015 to acquire companies in the mixed martial arts ("MMA") industry, and to develop and promote fighters to the sport's highest level of professional competition, including The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), Bellator MMA, World Series of Fighting (now known as the "Professional Fighter League") and other prestigious MMA promotions worldwide. The company is based in New York. AMAZON.COM: "Avalos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN C. AVALOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, LLC; a Delaware limited liability company; GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC., a Delaware limited liability company and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00567-DAD-BAM (C.D. Cal., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation, unpaid rest and meal period compensation, penalties and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. According to the complaint, the Defendants enforced shift schedules, employment policies and practices, and workload requirements wherein Plaintiff and all other Non-Exempt Employees: (1) were not paid proper wages they earned for all hours they worked including overtime compensation; (2) were not permitted to take their full statutorily authorized rest and meal periods, or had their rest and meal periods shortened or provided to them late due to the scheduling and work load and time requirements placed upon them by Defendants. Defendants failed to pay employees one hour of pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal period and/or rest period that was not properly provided. During the liability period, Defendants have also failed to maintain accurate itemized records reflecting total hours worked and have failed to provide Non Exempt Employees with accurate, itemized wage statements reflecting total hours worked and appropriate rates of pay for those hours worked. Amazon.com LLC was founded in 1994 and is based in Hebron, Kentucky. Amazon.com LLC operates as a subsidiary of Amazon.com Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387 7200 Facsimile: (949) 387 6676 ANTARES PHARMA: Bids to Appoint Lead Plaintiff, Counsel Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SMITH v. ANTARES PHARMA, INC. et al., Case No. 3:17- cv-08945(D. N.J., October 23, 2017), the Hon. Michael A Shipp has yet to rule on motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. As of Dec. 22, 2017, these entities sought appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel: 1. Rehan Khan, represented by Donald A. Ecklund, Esq. 2. Serghei Lungu, represented by Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. 3. Antares Investor Group, consisting of Tai Duong, Dennis Roof, Robert Szczodrowski, Qiang Xie, and Daniel DeYoe, and represented by Eduard Korsinky, Esq. 4. Faraj Touchan, represented by Sherief Morsy, Esq. 5. Randy Smith, represented by Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. 6. Chiru Mackert and Vikram Rao, represented by Laurence Rosen, Esq. On October 23, 2017, Randy Smith filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey, captioned Randy Smith, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Antares Pharma, Inc., Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell ("Smith"), Case No. 3:17-cv-08945-MAS-DEA, on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Antares securities between December 21, 2016 and October 12, 2017, inclusive, asserting claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against Antares, Robert F. Apple and Fred M. Powell. The Smith complaint contends that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares had provided insufficient data to the FDA in connection with the NDA for XYOSTEDTM; and (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the approval prospects for XYOSTEDTM. Antares Pharma said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that motions for the appointment of Lead Plaintiff were due December 22, 2017. Antares Pharma said in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017: "The Company believes that the claims in the Smith action lack merit and intends to defend them vigorously." Antares Pharma, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of self- administered parenteral pharmaceutical products and technologies. The company's strategy is to identify new or existing approved drug formulations and apply its drug delivery technology to enhance the drug delivery methods. The company is based in Ewing, New Jersey. ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit in S.D.N.Y. Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Aratan 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 continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action under the caption, In re Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17- cv-00880. Aratana said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that in February 2017, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its current officers. Those cases have been consolidated into one purported class action lawsuit under the caption, In re Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00880. The consolidated lawsuit, which was amended in August 2017, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of March 16, 2015 to March 13, 2017. Aratana said "The Company is vigorously defending all claims asserted, including by filing a motion to dismiss. Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable." Aratana is a pet therapeutics company focused on licensing, developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics for dogs and cats. As a pioneer in pet therapeutics, Aratana's mission is to deliver safe and effective therapeutics that elevate the standard of care in veterinary medicine. ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Final Approval on BELVIQ Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arena 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 the lead plaintiff in a consolidated class action suit-related to the company's BELVIQ program, filed motions for final approval of the settlement. Arena Pharmaceuticals said "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California, or District Court, against us and certain of our current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock." The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that the company and certain of its current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's BELVIQ program, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On August 8, 2011, the District Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the District Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the District Court dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, the company filed its answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his reply brief. A panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on May 4, 2016. On October 26, 2016, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court's dismissal of the second consolidated amended complaint and remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 25, 2017, the District Court permitted the company to submit a renewed motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. On February 2, 2017, the company filed the renewed motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed his opposition, and on March 2, 2017, the company filed its reply. On April 28, 2017, the District Court denied the company's renewed motion to dismiss. On November 3, 2017, the company and the lead plaintiff signed a stipulation and agreement of settlement, or Stipulation, to resolve the consolidated class action. Under the terms of the Stipulation, and in exchange for a release of all claims by class members and a dismissal of the consolidated class action with prejudice, we have agreed (i) our insurers will pay class members and their attorneys a total of approximately $12.025 million and (ii) Arena will pay class members and their attorneys approximately $11.975 million in either shares of our common stock or cash at our election. On November 30, 2017, the District Court preliminary approved the settlement and the form of notice to potential class members of the proposed settlement and the procedure by which they can become class members. On March 8, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed motions for final approval of the settlement, the plan of allocation and award of attorney fees. The settlement and the related matters remain subject to final approval by the District Court. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing novel, small molecule drugs with optimized receptor pharmacology designed to deliver clinical utility across therapeutic areas. The company is based in San Diego California. ARROWHEAD CLINIC: "Bata" Suit Moved to Middle Dist. of Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Farrah Bata, Individually in part and in part on behalf of herself and all other entities and persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Arrowhead Clinic of Tennessee, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Intending to refer to those persons, Corporations or other legal entities that acted as agents, consultants, independent contractors, or representatives, the Defendants, Case No. 18C774, was removed from the Davidson County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on April 25, 2018. The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-00392the proceeding.[BN] Attorneys for Farrah Bata: Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq. James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Joey P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254 8801 Facsimile: (615) 255 5419 E-mail: aorlandi@bsjfirm.com gerards@bsjfirm.com joeyl@bsjfirm.com Attorneys for Arrowhead Clinic of Tennessee, Inc.: Erik C. Lybeck, Esq. William T. Ramsey, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC 1201 Demonbreun Street, Suite 1000 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 238 3522 Facsimile: (615) 726 0573 E-mail: elybeck@nealharwell.com wramsey@nealharwell.com AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on May 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aveo 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 the District Court has set a Final Approval Hearing for May 30, 2018 in the case entitled, In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC. 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 stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013 (the "Class"). 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 District Court ruled in the Company's favor and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice on November 18, 2015. The lead plaintiffs appealed the District 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 opposed. On January 3, 2017, the District 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 stockholders 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 the Company's former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's 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 District Court entered an order referring the case to alternative dispute resolution. The parties mediated on September 12 and 13, 2017. On December 26, 2017, the parties entered into a binding Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the lawsuit. On January 29, 2018, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation"), which was filed with District Court on February 2, 2018. Under the terms of the MOU and Stipulation, AVEO agreed with counsel for the lead plaintiffs to cause certain of AVEO's and the Individual Defendants' insurance carriers to provide the Class with a cash payment of $15.0 million, which includes the cash amount of any attorneys' fees or litigation expenses that the District Court may award lead plaintiffs' counsel and costs lead plaintiffs incur in administering and providing notice of the settlement. Additionally, AVEO agreed to issue to the Class the Settlement Warrants for the purchase of 2.0 million shares of AVEO common stock exercisable from the date of issue until the expiration of a one-year period after the date of issue at an exercise price equal to the closing price on December 22, 2017, the trading day prior to the execution of the MOU, which was $3.00 ("the "Settlement Warrants"). On February 8, 2018, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the terms of the Stipulation. The Stipulation is subject to final approval by the District Court. The District Court set a Final Approval Hearing for May 30, 2018. The Company has agreed to use its best efforts to issue and deliver the Settlement Warrants within ten business days following the effective date of the final approval of the Stipulation. The Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings on a quarterly basis. The Company records an accrual for loss contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. In December 2017, upon entering into the MOU, this settlement became estimable and probable. Accordingly, the Company recorded an estimated $17.1 million contingent liability, including $15.0 million for the cash portion of the settlement with a corresponding insurance recovery for the 100% portion to be paid directly by certain of the Company's insurance carriers, and an approximate $2.1 million estimate for the warrant portion of the settlement with a corresponding non-cash charge to the Statement of Operations as a component of operating expenses. In February 2018, the insurance carriers funded the settlement escrow account for the $15.0 million cash settlement. Refer to Note 3, "Potential Class Action Settlement" for further discussion of the warrants. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted medicines for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need. The company is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. BALK TK: Underpays Tipped Employees, "Johnsey" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Darian Johnsey and Holly Hilton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BAL TK, LLC, d/b/a The Tilted Kilt, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00643-JHE (N.D. Ala., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The case is a collective action brought on behalf of "Tipped Employees" worked at the restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, operating under the trade name "The Tilted Kilt," located at 14 Perimeter Park So., Birmingham, Alabama 35243. The Tilted Kilt was owned and operated and/or managed by Defendant BAL TK, LLC. The Tilted Kilt ceased operations in May of 2017. The Tilted Kilt employs waiters, waitresses, and bartenders who are subjected to Defendants' unlawful pay practices. The Tilted Kilt systematically and willfully denies Tipped Employees wages due and owing under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant failed to pay Tipped Employees for all their compensable time. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and other Tipped Employees for the time it took these individual to don and doff their employer-mandated uniforms. The Defendant also required its Tipped Employees to effectively purchase their employer-mandated uniforms which drove the Tipped Employees' pay rate for the pay period in which the uniform was purchased below the minimum wage. In addition, the Defendant required the Plaintiffs to purchase outfits for special events around holidays and football themed parties without reimbursement. In addition, while taking the tip credit, Defendant failed to pay the Tipped Employees for the hours worked. In other words, the $2.13 per hour the Tipped employees were to be paid while working as tipped employees was not paid. Due to Defendant's unlawful practices concerning gratuities, the Defendant has improperly applied a "tip credit" against the wages paid to Plaintiffs and current and former Tipped Employees, thus paying them less than the mandated minimum wage. As a result of the aforementioned pay practices, the Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were illegally under-compensated for their work.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian M. Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314 0500 Facsimile: (205) 254 1500 E-mail: bclark@wigginschilds.com - and - Allan L. Armstrong, Esq. ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER, LLC The Berry Building 2820 Columbiana Road Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 BANGKOK THAI: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Ochoa, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. Bangkok Thai and Sushi, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv- 00312-A (N.D. Tex., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, misappropriated tips, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members in accordance with the FLSA in that Defendant failed to lawfully administer a "tip credit" system, thereby violating the minimum wage provisions of Section 206 of the FLSA. The Plaintiff and Class Members were paid a sub-minimum hourly wage plus tips, which were improperly shared with other employees and managers, who may not lawfully participate in a tip pool. Furthermore, the Defendant also unlawfully deducted other amounts from Plaintiff and Class Members' tips, which is also a violation of condition two of the tip credit.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Class Members: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 479 9229 Facsimile: (817) 887 1878 E-mail: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com BEACHCOMBER INVESTMENTS: Fails to Pay Overtime, Sanchez Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SILVIA L. SANCHEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. BEACHCOMBER INVESTMENTS CORP. d/b/a Shepley Hotel d/b/a Beachcomber Hotel d/b/a Leslie Hotel d/b/a Nassau Suite Hotel; ALQUIMIA HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC d/b/a Shepley Hotel d/b/a Beachcomber Hotel d/b/a Leslie Hotel d/b/a Nassau Suite Hotel; JUAN P. D'ONOFRIO; and PAOLA MEDINA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21636-UU (S.D. Fla., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime under the laws of the United States and the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Plaintiff performed her work admirably and her work was revered by her coworkers. On or about November 2017, the Plaintiff requested FMLA leave by telling her supervisor, Mercedes Caballero, that she was going to take time off to give birth to her baby. The Corporate Defendants approved Plaintiff's request for leave and advised her that she was due back to work in March of 2018. While on leave, on or about February 18, 2018, Plaintiff called the Corporate Defendants and advised them that she was ready to go back to work and did not need to wait until March 2018. In response, the Corporate Defendants told Plaintiff that she was not needed anymore and that her job was terminated. The Corporate Defendants routinely grant leave to their pregnant employees and fire them while they are on leave, regardless of their obligations under the FMLA. When Plaintiff made her request in 2017, she was an "eligible employee" and entitled to leave under the FMLA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, Florida 33180 Telephone: (305) 503 5131 Facsimile: (888) 270 5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com BELLICUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kakkar" Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bellicum 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 the company is facing a purported securities class action complaint captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso. On February 6, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Nipun Kakkar v. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Rick Fair and Alan Musso was filed against the company, and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The lawsuit purports to be class action brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from May 8, 2017 through January 30, 2018. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's clinical trials being conducted in the U.S. to assess BPX-501 as an adjunct T-cell therapy administered after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks, on behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. Bellicum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering and developing novel cellular immunotherapies for various forms of cancer, including both hematological cancers and solid tumors, as well as orphan inherited blood disorders. The company is based in Houston, Texas. BLACK FOREST HOSPITALITY: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- CIRO RIVERA REYES, JORGE RUSTRIAN, MOISES FLORES REYES, and LUIS QUIZHPI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BLACK FOREST HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC (D/B/A BLACK FOREST BROOKLYN), BLACK FOREST BROOKLYN LLC (D/B/A BLACK FOREST BROOKLYN), RESTAURANT 181 LLC (D/B/A BLACK FOREST BROOKLYN), TOBIAS HOLLER, LISA MARIE HOLLER, and AYANA HOLLER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02483 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Labor Law. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as food and salad preparers, kitchen supervisors, cooks and sous chefs at their restaurants located at 733 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11217 and at 181 Smith Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of ours compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis. The Defendants' conduct is extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com CALIBER HOME: Reizes Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- MENDEL REIZES on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02482 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2018), alleges that the Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The Defendant began to attempt to collect an alleged consumer debt from the Plaintiff. The alleged debt was originally a home loan with HSBC Bank which fell into default status sometime in 2009. HSBC Bank accelerated the note and mortgage on March 6, 2010 and HSBC Bank filed for foreclosure on June 1, 2010. The initial HSBC Bank foreclosure was dismissed on August 25, 2014. The accelerated mortgage debt became time-barred on March 6, 2016. A mortgage debt that becomes time-barred due to the expiration of the statute of limitations becomes unenforceable and loses its legal attachment to the real estate. The expiration of the statute of limitations does not invalidate the debt, but it does render the debt legally unenforceable thereby severing the debts legal attachment to any real estate. The Defendant invented a fictitious date of default of February 1, 2012 despite knowing that the acceleration letter was dated for February 3, 2010. The Defendant fraudulently attempted to re- age the debt as it invented a fictitious date of March 1, 2012 despite knowing that there was a pending foreclosure during February and March of 2012. The Defendant was aware that Seterus Inc. was the previous servicer of this account. Seterus Inc. informed Defendant that this debt became time-barred on March 6, 2016.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Telephone: (516) 668 6945 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CLIFTON BANCORP: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Clifton Bancorp Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Paul Parshall has dropped his class action lawsuit without prejudice. On February 16, 2018, Paul Parshall, a purported stockholder of Clifton, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Parshall v. Clifton Bancorp Inc., et al. (2:18-cv-02273-SDW-CLW), against Clifton, the members of Clifton's Board of Directors and Kearny on behalf of all of Clifton's public stockholders. The relief sought in the lawsuit includes preliminary and permanent injunction against the consummation of the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages if the Merger is completed, costs and attorney's fees. On March 9, 2018, Mr. Parshall filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice. Clifton Bancorp Inc. operates as the holding company for Clifton Savings Bank that provides various financial services to consumers and businesses in New Jersey. CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CRUZ HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH, INC, YEHUDA BLESOFSKY, AVROHOM HOLTZBERG, ZALMAN LIPSKIER and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 508569/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wage, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving the appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 hours per week that he worked. The Defendants' conduct is extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them with appropriate overtime compensation required by State and Federal law and regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Jose Cruz Hernandez Ramirez and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs: Peter Sim, Esq. PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP 39-01 Main Street, Suite 608 Flushing, NY 1354 Telephone: (718) 445-1300 CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Montoya" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC. The case is styled as Martha E. Montoya, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02433 (E.D. N.Y., April 25, 2018). Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is a debt collecting agency.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CHEMIX ENERGY: "Tarango" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- RODRIGO TARANGO, Individually and PLAINTIFF on behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEMIX ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00370 (W.D. Tex., April 26, 2018), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other Operators lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Operator. Within the time period relevant to this case, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant. On average, the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees worked approximately 100-120 hours per week. They did not receive any overtime compensation. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were misclassified as exempt and paid a salary. Within the time period relevant to this case, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were also paid non-discretionary bonuses on a regular basis for days on which they worked at a well site operating machines. Chemix Energy is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from San Antonio, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com CHICOS FAS: "Altman" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended February 3, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, entitled, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc. In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts. Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes the case is without merit. On October 25, 2017, the magistrate in the matter recommended that the class be certified. On November 8, 2017, WHBM filed objections to such recommendation. On February 12, 2018, the District Court issued an order certifying the class. On February 26, 2018, the Company filed a petition with the District Court for permission to appeal its decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Chico's FAS said "The Company will continue to vigorously defend the matter, including a planned motion for summary judgment to dismiss all claims. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss, if any, related to the lawsuit because there are a number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that may impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without limitation, (a) whether the action will ultimately be permitted to proceed as a class, (b) if the action proceeds as a class, the resolution of certain disputed statutory interpretation issues that may impact the size of the putative class and (c) whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages. No assurance can be given that these issues will be resolved in the Company's favor or that the Company will be successful in its defense on the merits or otherwise. If the case were to proceed as a class action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, the ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations." Chico's FAS, Inc., is an omni-channel specialty retailer of women's private branded, sophisticated, casual-to-dressy apparel, intimates and complementary accessories. The company operates under the Chico's, White House Black Market ("WHBM") and Soma brand names in the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Canada. The company is based in Fort Myers, Florida. COLONY NORTHSTAR: Klein Sues over 22% Drop in Stock Price --------------------------------------------------------- STEVE KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLONY NORTHSTAR, INC., RICHARD B. SALTZMAN, DARREN J. TANGEN, NEALE REDINGTON, and DAVID T. HAMAMOTO, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03520 (C.D. Cal., April 26, 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 securities of Colony NorthStar between February 28, 2017 through March 1, 2018, both dates inclusive. Colony NorthStar operates as a real estate investment trust. The Company invests in healthcare, industrial, and hospitality sectors, as well as offers equity and debt management services. Colony NorthStar serves customers globally. The Company resulted from the January 2017 merger between Colony Capital, Inc., NorthStar Asset Management Group Inc. and NorthStar Realty Finance Corp. The Company is headquartered in Los Angeles, California, and its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "CLNS." Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Colony NorthStar's Healthcare and Investment Management segments were performing worse than reported; and (ii) as a result, Colony NorthStar's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 1, 2018, Colony NorthStar reported its financial and operating results for the quarter and year ended December 31, 2017, announcing a goodwill impairment of $375 million, attributable to the Company's Healthcare and Investment Management segments. On this news, Colony NorthStar's share price fell $1.78, or 22.88%, to close at $6.00 on March 1, 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: 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 jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: Ramirez Seeks Overtime Wage under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE CRUZ HERNANDEZ RAMIREZ, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH, INC, YEHUDA BLESOFSKY, AVROHOM HOLTZBERG, ZALMAN LIPSKIER and JOHN DOES No. 1-10, Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 508569/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 26, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wage, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving the appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 hours per week that he worked. The Defendants' conduct is extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing them with appropriate overtime compensation required by State and Federal law and regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Jose Cruz Hernandez Ramirez and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs: Peter Sim, Esq. PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP 39-01 Main Street, Suite 608 Flushing, NY 1354 Telephone: (718) 445-1300 CONTINENTAL GENERAL: Jury Trial to Begin Oct. 15 in "Fastrich" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Fastrich et al v. Continental General Insurance Company et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00487 (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson entered an order dated March 22, 2018, setting a schedule for final progression of the civil case. Specifically, the Court set this timeline: -- Depositions due Nov. 16, 2018; -- Jury Trial set for Oct. 15, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, Roman L. Hruska Federal Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, NE before Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp; and -- Pretrial Conference set for Sept. 30, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson. HC2 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 court ordered the parties in a class action suit filed by John Fastrich and Universal Investment Services, Inc., to submit a status report regarding the status of their settlement negotiations in advance of the upcoming status conference scheduled on March 22, 2018. On November 28, 2016, Continental General Insurance Company ("CGI"), a subsidiary of the Company, Great American Financial Resource, Inc. ("GAFRI"), American Financial Group, Inc., and CIGNA Corporation were served with a putative class action complaint filed by John Fastrich and Universal Investment Services, Inc. in The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska alleging breach of contract, tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs contend that they were agents of record under various CGI policies and that CGI allegedly instructed policyholders to switch to other CGI products and caused the plaintiffs to lose commissions, renewals, and overrides on policies that were replaced. The complaint also alleges breach of contract claims relating to allegedly unpaid commissions related to premium rate increases implemented on certain long-term care insurance policies. Finally, the complaint alleges breach of contract claims related to vesting of commissions. On August 21, 2017 the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' tortious interference with contract claim. CGI believes that the remaining allegations and claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. The case has been set for voluntary mediation, which occurred on January 26, 2018. Meanwhile, the Court has stayed discovery pending the outcome of the mediation. On February 12, 2018, the parties notified the Court that mediation did not resolve the case and that the parties' discussions regarding a possible settlement of the action were still ongoing. The Court ordered the parties to submit a status report regarding the status of their settlement negotiations to the Court in advance of the upcoming status conference scheduled on March 22, 2018. Further, the Company and CGI are seeking defense costs and indemnification for plaintiffs' claims from GAFRI and Continental General Corporation ("CGC") under the terms of an Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement ("SPA") related to the Company's acquisition of CGI in December 2015. GAFRI and CGC rejected CGI's demand for defense and indemnification and, on January 18, 2017, the Company and CGI filed a Complaint against GAFRI and CGC in the Superior Court of Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment to enforce their indemnification rights under the SPA. On February 23, 2017, Great American answered CGI's complaint, denying the allegations. The dispute is ongoing and CGI will continue to pursue its right to a defense and indemnity under the SPA. HC2 Holdings is a diversified holding company that seeks opportunities to acquire and grow businesses that can generate long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns in order to maximize value for all stakeholders. The company is based in New York. CPI CARD: Awaits Court Approval on Proposed Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------ CPI Card Group 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 are awaiting court's approval on the proposed scheduling order governing the case related to purchases of Europay, Mastercard(R), and VISA chip cards. On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI stockholders filed putative class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against CPI, certain of its former officers and current and former directors, along with the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as underwriters for CPI's October 2015 initial public offering ("IPO"). The complaints, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement filed in connection with the IPO, assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") and seek, among other things, damages and costs. In particular, the complaints allege that the Registration Statement contained false or misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI's customers' (i) purchases of Europay, Mastercard(R), and VISA chip cards (collectively, "EMV cards") during the first half of fiscal year 2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels, and (ii) capacity to purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO. On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (the "PSLRA"). On October 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based principally on the same theories as the original complaints, but adds allegations that the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers' slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV technology and (ii) increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV market. On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was denied by the court on October 30, 2017. The defendants answered the amended complaint on January 12, 2018, and on January 19, 2018, the parties jointly submitted for the Court's approval a proposed scheduling order governing the case. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously. CPI Card Group Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in the design, production, data personalization, packaging, and fulfillment of financial payment cards. It operates through three segments: U.S. Debit and Credit, U.S. Prepaid Debit, and U.K. Limited. CTI BIOPHARMA: $20,000,000 Accord Wins Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving a settlement agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate, following a hearing on February 1, 2018. The Court also entered an order approving the Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement, and awarding attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses to Plaintiffs' Counsel. The Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, DAFNA LifeScience, LP and DAFNA LifeScience Select LP, on behalf of itself and the other members of the Settlement Class reached a settlement of the Action with CTI BioPharma Corp. and the other defendants in the Action for $20,000,000 in cash that resolves all claims in the Action. CTI Biopharma said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on February 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016, class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. C16-216, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's securities pursuant to the company's September 24, 2015 public offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired the company's stock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive. The complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers for violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims allege that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for the September 24, 2015 public offering contained materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including with respect to the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. Plaintiffs'' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's public disclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading or omitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court on May 19, 2016. On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order to proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016, the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action being captioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL. On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order, as revised by order entered December 8, 2016, setting November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file a consolidated class action complaint and deadlines for briefing defendants' motion to dismiss. Briefing concluded on February 22, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims similar to those asserted in the initial complaints, although it no longer asserts claims relating to the September 24, 2015 public offering, but adds claims relating to the Company's October 27, 2015 and December 4, 2015 public offerings. On July 26, 2017, the company received a written offer for the global resolution and settlement of the consolidated action in exchange for cash payment of $20.0 million. The Company has insurance coverage related to this matter and such insurance is expected to cover $18.0 million of the claim. In August 2017, the company agreed in principle to the terms of the settlement and submitted the terms and proposed class notice to the court for its preliminary approval. On October 24, 2017, the court granted preliminary approval and set a final approval hearing for February 1, 2018. Additional information on the case is available at: http://www.ctibiopharmasecuritiessettlement.com/ CTI Biopharma Corp. a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of novel targeted therapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer a unique benefit to patients and health care providers. The company is based in Seattle, Washington. CURO GROUP: Settlement of "Harrison" Suit Finally Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- CURO Group Holdings Corp. 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 court in the case, Harrison, et al v. Principal Investments, Inc. et al., has issued final approval of the class settlement. During the period relevant to this class action litigation, the company pursued in excess of 16,000 claims in the limited actions and jurisdiction court in Clark County, Nevada, seeking payment of loans on which customers had defaulted. The company utilized outside counsel to file these debt collection lawsuits. On Scene Mediations, a process serving company, was employed to serve the summons and petitions in the majority of these cases. In an unrelated matter, the principal of On Scene Mediations was convicted of multiple accounts of perjury and filing false affidavits to obtain judgments on behalf of a Las Vegas collection agency. In September 2010, the company was sued by four former customers in a proposed class action suit filed in the District Court in Clark County, Nevada. The plaintiffs in this case claimed that they, and others in the proposed class, were not properly served notice of the debt collection lawsuits by the company. CURO Group said "On June 7, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in this matter. We have accrued approximately $2.3 million as a result of this settlement as of December 31, 2017." At a hearing before the District Court in Clark County, Nevada, on July 24, 2017 the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On October 30, 2017, the court issued final approval of the class settlement. Curo Group Holdings Corp. operates as a consumer finance company. The Company offers unsecured and secured installment, open-end, and single-pay loan services, as well as renders other customer service, robust operating systems, call center, and a track record services. Curo Group serves customers in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. DIXIE GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------- The Dixie Group, 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 facing a class action complaint filed by Carlos Garcia. The Dixie Group said "We have received a class action complaint filed by Carlos Garcia, a current employee, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Fabrica [Carlos Garcia et al. vs. Fabrica International, Inc., et al., in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Case No. 30-2017- 00949461 CU-OE-CXC]." The complaint alleges causes of actions on behalf of classes of Fabrica's current and former employees during the four-year period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint for failure to pay proper overtime wages, failure to compensate for all meal periods and rest periods, failure to pay all proper overtime and double time, and for the provision and maintaining of inaccurate wage statements. Finally, the complaint asserts a cause of action for unfair competition by means of the above actions and seeks restitution of monies supposedly unlawfully withheld and demands attorneys' fees and costs. The Dixie Group said "We have denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time." The Dixie Group, Inc.'s business consists principally of marketing, manufacturing and selling floorcovering products to high-end residential and commercial customers through its various sales forces and brands. The company focuses exclusively on the upper-end of the floorcovering market where the company believes it had a strong brands and competitive advantages with its style and design capabilities and customer relationships. DYNAMIC LEDGER: Trigon Trading Sues over Initial Public Offering ---------------------------------------------------------------- TRIGON TRADING PTY. LTD., AND BRUCE MACDONALD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. The DYNAMIC LEDGER SOLUTIONS, NC, a Delaware corporation, TEZOS STIFTUNG, a Swiss Foundation, KATHLEEN BREITMAN, an Individual, ARTHUR BREITMAN, an Individual, TIMOTHY COOK DRAPER, an individual, DRAPER ASSOCIATES V CRYPTO LLC, and DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No. 18CIV02045 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 24, 2018), is a class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Tezos tokens by contributing fiat currency, e.g., US Dollars, or other consideration including the blockchain-based digital currencies Bitcoin and/or Ethereum to the Tezos "Initial Coin Offering" in July 2017. Tezos tokens are securities within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933. As such, any offering or sale of such securities are required to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the lawsuit, the Defendants, in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, engaged in an illegal unregistered securities offering by selling Tezos tokens without filing a registration statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Defendants capitalized on the recent enthusiasm for blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies to raise funds through the ICO, illegally sold unregistered securities, used a Swiss- based entity in an unsuccessful attempt to evade U.S. securities laws, and are now admittedly engaged in the conversion, selling, and possible dissipation of the proceeds that they collected from the Class through their unregistered offering. According to the lawsuit, the Tezos ICO has been widely reported as the largest ICO to date, with 65,627 Bitcoin and 361,122 Ethereum collected. At the time of the Tezos ICO, the digital currencies paid by investors were valued at an estimated $232 million. Today, the digital currencies invested in the Tezos ICO are worth an estimated $1.2 billion as of December 11, 2017.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Peter E. Borkon, Esq. Danielle Smith, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: 510 725 3000 Facsimile: 510 725 3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com peterb@hbsslaw.com danielles@hbsslaw.com - and - Joel A. Fleming, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398 5600 E-mail: jason@blockesq.oom joel@blockesq.com jake@blockesq.com EKSO BIONICS: Faces "Behket" and "Cheehy" Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Ekso Bionics 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 is facing two class action suits entitled, Behket v. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin (E.D.N.Y.), Case No. 1:18-cv-00001-KAM-CLP and Cheehy v. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin, (N.D. Cal.), Case no. 3:18-cv-00212. In December 2017, the Company disclosed that management had identified a material weakness in the Company's internal controls over financial reporting due to a deficiency in the Company's information technology (IT) general controls and segregation of duties. The Company has since implemented a more robust accounting and enterprise resource planning system. In response to the Company's announcement, on January 2, 2018, and January 10, 2018, two securities class action lawsuits were filed: Behket v. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin (E.D.N.Y.), Case No. 1:18-cv-00001- KAM-CLP (filed Jan. 2, 2018); and Cheehy v. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc., Thomas Looby and Maximilian Scheder-Bieschin, (N.D. Cal.), Case no. 3:18-cv-00212 (filed Jan. 10, 2018). Both actions assert claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and both propose class periods which would include purchasers of the Company's stock between March 15, 2017, and December 27, 2017. The Company's management believes that the lawsuits are without merit, and the Company plans to defend against them. Ekso Bionics Holdings, Inc. designs, develops and sells exoskeleton technology that currently has applications in healthcare and industrial markets. The companys's wearable exoskeletons are worn over clothing and are mechanically controlled by a trained operator to augment human strength, endurance and mobility. The company is based in Richmond, California. ENDOLOGIX INC: Continues to Defend Nellix EVAS-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Endologix, 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 continues to defend in a class action suit related to the Nellix EVAS System. In January 2017, two stockholders purporting to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2016 and November 16, 2016, filed lawsuits against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuits allege that the Company made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operational and financial performance, in violation of federal securities laws, relating to U.S. Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval for the Company's Nellix EVAS System. On May 26, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint extending the class period to include persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 5, 2016 and May 18, 2017 and adding certain factual assertions and allegations regarding the Nellix EVAS System. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the alleged class, interest, and attorney's fees and costs of litigation. The first lawsuit, Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-0017 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), was consolidated with the second lawsuit, Ahmed v. Endologix, Inc. et al, Case No. 8:17-cv-00061 AB (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), and lead Nguyen plaintiff filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint. On December 5, 2017, the District Court granted Endologix's motion to dismiss lead plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend. On January 9, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. Endologix said "The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously." Endologix, Inc. develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States and internationally. It offers minimally- invasive endovascular repair (EVAR) products, including AFX (Anatomical Fixation) endovascular AAA system, which is a minimally invasive delivery system; VELA Proximal Endograft, which is designed for the treatment of proximal aortic neck anatomies with AFX; and the ovation abdominal stent graft system. The company is based in Irvine, California. ESS-A-BAGEL: Faces "Marett" Suit in E.D. Virginia ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ess-A-Bagel, Inc. The case is styled as Lucia Marett, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Ess-A-Bagel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03621 (E.D. Va., April 24, 2018). Ess-A-Bagel is known for amazing bagels, luscious, appetizing salads, varieties of cream cheese, choice meats, and great catering services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Crow Creek Tribe Suit in S. Dakota ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The case is styled as Crow Creek Tribe of South Dakota, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and all those tribes similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Chairman AjitPai, Commissioner Michael O'Riley, Commissioner Brendon Carr, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01010-CBK (D. S.D., April 24, 2018). The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government created by statute to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary J. Montana, Esq. Montana & Associates Osseo, WI 54758 Tel: (715) 597-6464 Fax: (715) 597-3508 Email: lakotagm@yahoo.com - and - Terry L. Pechota, Esq. Pechota Law Office 1617 Sheridan Lake Rd. Rapid City, SD 57702 Tel: (605) 341-4400 Fax: (605) 341-0716 Email: tpechota@1868treaty.com FJALLRAVEN USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Conner Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY CONNER, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. FJALLRAVEN USA, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03577 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2018), seeks to compel Defendant to change its policies, practices, and procedures so that its 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. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Fjallraven 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 persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually- impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Fjallraven provides to non-disabled customers through http://www.Fjallraven.usin violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fjallraven.us provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs offered by Fjallraven.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 44 Court Street, Suite 1217 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (917) 373 9128 Facsimile: (718) 504 7555 FNCB BANCORP: Settlement in "Antonik" Suit Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- FNCB Bancorp, 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 Settlement Agreement in a class action suit filed by Steven Antonik, receives final court approval. On February 16, 2017, FNCB and the Bank entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release (the "Settlement Agreement") in the matters filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County to Steven Antonik, Individually, and as Administrator of the Estate of Linda Kluska, William R. Howells and Louise A. Howells, Summer Benjamin, and Joshua Silfee, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated vs. First National Community Bancorp, Inc. and First National Community Bank, Civil Action No. 2013-CV-4438 and Charles Saxe, III, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. First National Community Bank No. 2013-CV-5071 (collectively, the "Actions"). By entering into this Settlement Agreement, the parties to the Actions have resolved the claims made in the complaints to their mutual satisfaction. FNCB has not admitted to the validity of any claims or allegations and denies any liability in the claims made and the Plaintiffs have not admitted that any claims or allegations lack merit or foundation. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to the following: 1) FNCB is to pay the Plaintiffs' class members the aggregate sum of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) (an amount which FNCB recorded as a liability and corresponding expense in its 2015 operating results); 2) Plaintiffs shall release all claims against FNCB related to the Actions; 3) FNCB shall move to vacate or satisfy any judgments against any class members arising from the vehicle loans that are the subject of the Actions; and 4) FNCB shall waive the deficiency balance of each class member and remove the trade lines on each class members' credit report associated with the subject vehicle loans that are at issue in the Actions for Experian, Equifax, and Transunion. The Settlement Agreement provides for an Incentive Award for the representative Plaintiffs and an award to Plaintiffs' counsel of attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with their roles in these Actions, subject to Court approval. The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by Court Order on February 16, 2017. On March 2, 2017, FNCB paid the Settlement Administrator $750,000 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. FNCB Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that the Settlement Agreement was approved by Court Order on May 31, 2017. Additionally, in association with the subject vehicle loans, FNCB has completed the removal of trade lines on each class members' credit report and has substantially completed satisfying judgments, where applicable, in favor of class members. As previously mentioned above and in connection with the primary terms of the tentative settlement agreement entered by Order of Court on December 17, 2015, FNCB recorded a liability and corresponding expense in the amount of $750,000, which was included in FNCB's 2015 operating results. FNCB Bancorp, Inc., formerly First National Community Bancorp, Inc., incorporated in 1997, is a Pennsylvania business corporation and a registered bank holding company headquartered in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. FNCB Bancorp, Inc. became an active bank holding company on July 1, 1998 when it acquired 100% ownership of the former First National Community Bank. FORTUNA ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Wages, Herrera Claims ------------------------------------------------------- RINA AREVALO HERRERA, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORTUNA ENTERPRISES, LP dba HILTON LOS ANGELES AIRPORT, a Delaware corporation; HILTON HOTELS CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation; HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC703147 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other similarly situated current and former employees in California for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged failures to pay wages for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay, provide all timely rest breaks, provide all timely meal periods, fairly compete, indemnify for all expenses, provide accurate written wage statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of employment. Fortuna Enterprises distributes electronic parts and equipment which include home audio & video equipment, batteries, air conditioner parts and other electrical equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Caroline Tahmassian, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste 312 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone (818) 582-3086 Facsimile (818) 582-2561 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com caroline@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Ave, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562)256-1047 Facsimile: (562)256-1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com GC SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Young" Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:18-cv-01156-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., April 13, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending an initial collection letter attempting to collect a consumer debt that includes false disclosures that interest, fees and costs are continuously accruing, or in the alternative, the creditor has made the decision to waive accruing interest and fees, and would accept the amount stated on the collection letter as payment in full. GC Services Limited Partnership is a company that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. RC LAW GROUP, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@rclawgroup.com GIANT EAGLE: Underpays GetGo Senior Team Leaders, Fitch Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW FITCH On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GIANT EAGLE, INC. d/b/a GETGO CAFE + MARKET, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01236-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiff and similarly situated co-workers who have worked as Senior Team Leaders for GetGo anywhere in the United States between April 20, 2015 and the present. GetGo is a wholly owned subsidiary of Giant Eagle, Inc. GetGo, through its parent company Giant Eagle, Inc., owns and operates retail convenience store/gas stations throughout the United States, including in Indiana, Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. According to the complaint, GetGo employs Senior Team Leaders at its store locations throughout the United States. Throughout the relevant time period, the Defendant's nationwide policy has been to uniformly classify Senior Team Leaders as exempt from federal and state overtime provisions and to not pay them any overtime wages. This exempt classification is improper because the primary duties of Senior Team Leaders are non-exempt duties. The primary duties of Senior Team Leaders are customer service, working on the cash register, stocking the shelves, preparing food, and cleaning the store. Senior Team Leaders spend the majority of their time performing duties similar to those performed by non- exempt, hourly-paid employees. The primary duties of the Senior Team Leader position do not vary among Defendant's locations nationwide. In order to meet the needs of its customers and for the GetGo stores to run smoothly, the Defendant regularly requires Senior Team Leaders to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant does not pay Senior Team Leaders for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek because they are classified as exempt. As a result, Defendant does not pay Senior Team Leaders premium overtime compensation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Collective Members: Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636 6481 Facsimile: (317) 636 2495 E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Camar R. Jones, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447 8888 Facsimile: (561) 447 8831 E-mail: GSHAVITZ@SHAVITZLAW.COM CJONES@SHAVITZLAW.COM - and - Jason Conway, Esq. CONWAY LEGAL, LLC 1700market Street, Suite 1005 Philadelphia, Pa 19103 Telephone: (215) 278 4782 Facsimile: (215) 278 4807 E-mail: JCONWAY@CONWAYLEGALPA.COM - and - Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1000 Facsimile: (215) 592 4663 E-mail: DLEVIN@LFSBLAW.COM GRIDSUM HOLDING: Xu Files Class Suit over 16% Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- PEIFA XU, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GRIDSUM HOLDING INC., GUOSHENG WI and PENG ZHANG, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03655 (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2018), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Gridsum securities between April 27, 2017 through April 20, 2018, both dates inclusive. Gridsum Holding, Inc. is a holding company that designs and develops sophisticated data analysis software for multinational and domestic enterprises and government agencies in China. The Company offers software that allows customers to collect and analyze information that is collected, indexed, and stored in an organized manner. Founded in 2005, Gridsum is headquartered in Beijing, China, and its ADRs trade on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Gridsum lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Gridsum's financial statements were inaccurate and misleading, and did not fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Gridsum's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 23, 2018, Gridsum issued a press release entitled "Gridsum Reports Suspension of Audit Report on Financial Statements," announcing that its "audit report for the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2016 should no longer be relied upon." According to the press release, Gridsum's auditor identified certain issues in conducting its audit of Gridsum's financial results for the year ended December 31, 2017. Those issues related to "certain revenue recognition, cash flow, cost, expense items, and their underlying documentation which [the auditor] had previously raised" with Gridsum. On this news, Gridsum's ADR price fell $1.17, or 16.04%, to close at $6.12 on April 23, 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 GUTMAN MINTZ: Faces "Wagner" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP. The case is styled as Brian Wagner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP, Eric Keilbach, Kenneth P. Mintz and Neil D. Sonnenfeldt, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv- 02436 (E.D. N.Y., April 25, 2018). Gutman, Mintz, Baker & Sonnenfeldt, LLP is a law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 335-1107 Email: mpash@verizon.net HC2 HOLDINGS: DBMG Class Action Suit Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------- HC2 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 DBMG class action, have been exploring alternative frameworks for a potential settlement. On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2 acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares of DBM Global Inc. (DBMG) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. The currently operative complaint is the Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with the tender offer, the individual members of the DBMG Board of Directors and HC2, the now-controlling stockholder of DBMG, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaint also purports to challenge a potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff's expectation that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders of DBMG following the completion of the tender offer. The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30, 2015. On February 24, 2017, the parties agreed to a framework for the potential settlement of the litigation. Plaintiff advised defendants on June 7, 2017 that plaintiff was not proceeding with the February 2017 potential settlement framework. The parties have been exploring alternative frameworks for a potential settlement. HC2 Holdings said "There can be no assurance that a settlement will be finalized or that the Court would approve such a settlement even if the parties were to enter into a settlement stipulation or agreement. If a settlement cannot be reached, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this matter." HC2 Holdings is a diversified holding company that seeks opportunities to acquire and grow businesses that can generate long-term sustainable free cash flow and attractive returns in order to maximize value for all stakeholders. The company is based in New York. HD SUPPLY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- HD Supply, 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 defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, is pending. HD Supply said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2017, that on July 10, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by The City of Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System (the "Retirement System complaint") against HD Supply and certain senior members of its management (collectively, the "defendants"). On August 8, 2017, a second class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Obioma Ebisike (the "Ebisike complaint" and together with the Retirement System complaint, the "complaints") against the defendants. The complaints are brought individually on behalf of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017. The complaints generally allege that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate the Company's stock price by making materially false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies that allegedly failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's full year 2017 growth and operational leverage targets were unattainable; (2) the operational recovery of the Company's Facilities Maintenance business unit's supply chain was not going according to plan; and (3) the Company was exploring the sale of its Waterworks business unit. The complaints assert claims against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and they seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) damages in an amount to be proven at trial, (3) pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and (4) attorneys' fees and other costs. According to the Company's recent disclosure, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the defendants on behalf of all persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants made certain false or misleading public statements, primarily relating to the Company's progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption issues encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance business unit. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint in December 2017. That motion is pending. HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in North America. The company's Facilities Maintenance segment distributes electrical and lighting items, plumbing and HVAC products, appliances, janitorial supplies, hardware, kitchen and bath cabinets, window coverings, textiles and guest amenities, healthcare maintenance products, and water and wastewater treatment products. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia. HOMEADVISOR INC: Discovery Ongoing in Airquip Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01849 (D. Colo.), the Unopposed Motion for Leave to Restrict Documents filed by HomeAdvisor, Inc., and IAC/Interactivecorp has been referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix. ANGI Homeservices 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 discovery is underway and the issue of class certification remains to be litigated in the case captioned as, Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al. In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the company's HomeAdvisor business engages in certain deceptive practices affecting the service professionals who join its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads or failing to disclose certain charges. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class consisting of all HomeAdvisor service professionals since October 2012, asserts claims of fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA") and the federal RICO statute and seeks injunctive relief and damages in an unspecified amount. In December 2016, HomeAdvisor filed a motion to dismiss the RICO and CCPA claims. ANGI Homeservices said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that in September 2017, the court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing those claims. In October 2017, HomeAdvisor filed an answer denying the material allegations of the remaining claims in the complaint. Discovery is under way and the issue of class certification remains to be litigated. The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them. Securities Suit Dismissed ANGI Homeservices said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that in accordance with the parties' memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs filed notices of dismissal with prejudice in the Parshall, Pill, and Chojar cases on September 29, October 2, and September 29, 2017, respectively. On July 18, 2017, a purported shareholder class action was filed in federal court in Indianapolis against Angie's List, the members of its board of directors, IAC/InterActiveCorp ("IAC") and two related corporate entities, asserting violations of the federal securities laws based upon alleged material omissions from the registration statement related to the proposed combination of the HomeAdvisor and Angie's List businesses into a single, publicly traded company. Parshall v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-2418 (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana). On July 20, 2017, a second, substantially similar purported shareholder class action was filed in the same court entitled, Pill v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-2461 (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana). On September 11, 2017, a third, substantially similar purported shareholder class action was filed in the same court entitled, Chojar v. Angie's List, Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-3208 (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana). The gravamen of the complaints in these lawsuits is that the registration statement was materially misleading to shareholders of Angie's List because it omitted: (i) certain financial projections, assumptions and other information relied upon by Angie's List's financial advisors in rendering their fairness opinions with respect to the proposed combination, (ii) certain information about Angie's List's board members' potential conflicts of interest and (iii) certain information about the background of the transaction. The complaints asserted violations of Sections 14-a and 20-a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought to enjoin the transaction, require the issuance of a revised registration statement and rescind the transaction and obtain damages should it go forward. On September 19, 2017: (i) the parties in these three lawsuits entered into a memorandum of understanding in which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims in exchange for the filing by Angie's List of agreed-upon supplemental disclosures to the registration statement, with the court in Parshall case to retain jurisdiction for purposes of adjudicating the anticipated application by plaintiffs' counsel for a mootness fee award, and (ii) Angie's List filed the agreed-upon supplemental disclosures on a Form 8-K. In accordance with the parties' memorandum of understanding, the plaintiffs filed notices of dismissal with prejudice in the Parshall, Pill, and Chojar cases on September 29, October 2, and September 29, 2017, respectively. ANGI Homeservices is the world's largest digital marketplace for home services, connecting millions of homeowners across the globe with home service professionals. ANGI Homeservices operates leading brands in eight countries, including HomeAdvisor(R) and Angie's List(R) (United States), HomeStars (Canada), Travaux.com (France), MyHammer (Germany and Austria), MyBuilder (UK), Werkspot (Netherlands) and Instapro (Italy). ICON HEALTH: Records Consumer-Initiated Phone Calls, West Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WEST individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC.; and DOES I through SO, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG 18901957 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 23, 2018), seeks permanent injunction enjoining Defendant from engaging in further conduct in violation of the California Penal Code. This class action lawsuit arises out of the policy and practice of Defendant to record and/or monitor without the consent of all parties, consumer-initiated telephone calls made to Defendant's toll-free customer service telephone numbers contained in television advertisements that are in California including but not limited to the toll-free telephone number 877-708-9839 used in television advertisements for ICON's Nordic Track line of products. The Defendant intentionally and all surreptitiously recorded and/or monitored telephone calls made to Defendant's toll-free telephone numbers contained in television advertisements that ran in California, including the telephone number 877-708-9839. The Defendant did so without warning or disclosing to inbound 16 11 callers that their calls might be recorded or monitored. Defendant's policy and practice of recording and monitoring consumer-initiated telephone conversations by callers to toll- free telephone numbers contained in television advertisements that ran in California without the consent of all parties violates California's Invasion of Privacy Act. Specifically, Defendant's policy and practice violate Penal Code prohibits the recording or monitoring of communication made to or from a cellular or cordless telephone without the consent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Robert Spencer, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 111965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 543 1305 Facs1m1le: (415) 543 7861 E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com rspcncer@kellergrover.com ICONIX BRAND: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Iconix Brand Group, 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 defendants have moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. Three securities class actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-4860, against the Company and certain former officers and one current officer (the "Class Action"). The plaintiffs in the Class Action purport to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities from February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the Company's business operations and prospects. On October 25, 2017, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed by the Company and the individual defendants with leave to amend. On November 14, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. Iconix Brand said "The Company and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of these matters." Iconix Brand Group, Inc. is a brand management company and owner of a diversified portfolio of approximately 30 global consumer brands across the women's, men's, home and international segments. The Company's business strategy is to maximize the value of its brands primarily through strategic licenses and joint venture partnerships around the world, as well as to grow the portfolio of brands through strategic acquisitions. IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss -------------------------------------------------------------- ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. 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, Arthur Kaye IRA FCC as Custodian DTD 6-8-00 v. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. et al., are awaiting court decision on defendants' motion to dismiss. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on May 1, 2017, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Arthur Kaye IRA FCC as Custodian DTD 6-8-00 v. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. et al (Case No. 2:17-cv-03250) against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors and others. On July 21, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiffs in the matter. On August 24, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed Consolidated First Amended Complaint. On September 26, 2017, the court granted the parties' stipulation to allow lead plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Second Amended Complaint (the "SAC"). The SAC asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, related to allegedly materially false or misleading statements made between May 1, 2012 and May 30, 2014. The SAC alleges, among other things, that the Company failed to disclose that it purportedly paid for articles to be published about ICT-107. Lead plaintiffs seek an award of unspecified damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, and other costs. The Company's motion to dismiss the SAC was due on November 10, 2017. According to the Company's Form 10-K Report, on November 10, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. The parties completed briefing on December 21, 2017 and the motion to dismiss is currently under submission. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics said that "The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants." ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that is developing immune-based therapies for the treatment of cancers. Immunotherapy is an emerging approach to treating cancer in which a patient's own immune system is stimulated to target tumor antigens, which the immune system uses to identify foreign bodies. The company is based in Westlake Village, California. INNOVATE BIOPHARMA: California Class Complaint Withdrawn -------------------------------------------------------- Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, 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 putative class action complaint filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has been withdrawn. On September 15, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, David H. Clarke, the Company's then Chief Executive Officer and then a member of the Company's Board of Directors ("Clarke"), Jonathan Clark ("Clark"), the Company's then Interim President and then a member of the Company's Board of Directors, Robert Machinist ("Machinist"), then a member of the Registrant's Board of Directors, Christopher Miner ("Miner"), then a member of the Company's Board of Directors and Steven Barre ("Barre"), then a member of the Company's Board of Directors (Messrs. Clarke, Clark, Machinist, Miner and Barre are hereinafter referred to as the "Individual Defendants"). The Class Complaint sought class status on behalf of all of the Company's public stockholders and alleged violations by the Company and the Individual Defendants of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the rules promulgated thereunder, and secondary control person liability against the Individual Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act primarily related to the Merger. The Class Complaint sought to enjoin the Company and the Individual Defendants from proceeding with an anticipated stockholder vote on the Merger or consummating the Merger, unless and until the Company disclosed certain alleged material information which the Class Complaint alleges has been omitted from the Company's proxy statement or in the event the Merger was consummated, to recover an unspecified amount of damages resulting from the Individual Defendants' alleged violations Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Class Complaint was withdrawn in November 2017. Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biotechnology company, focuses on developing autoimmune and inflammation therapeutics. Its late-stage clinical pipeline focuses on addressing unmet needs in diseases, such as celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The company is based in Raleigh, North Carolina. INTEL CORP: Hodsdon Alleges Defect in Semiconductor Chips --------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER HODSDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-02424-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2018), is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to disclose a critical defect in its semiconductor chips ("CPUs") that exposes CPU users to serious security vulnerabilities. The Defendant is one of the world's largest manufacturers of CPUs, the hardware component of a computer responsible for interpreting and executing most of the commands from the computer's hardware and software. According to the complaint, the Defendant's focus on producing a faster CPU left its CPUs with security vulnerabilities and exposed to attack. Since 1995, Defendants' CPUs have been designed to perform a process known as "speculative execution," which is intended to increase performance by allowing a CPU to predict its next set of instructions. Although this may increase the CPU's speed, Defendant knows and has known for many months -- and confirmed on January 3, 2018 -- that speculative execution creates serious security vulnerabilities that can be exploited by hackers to steal passwords, encryption keys, photos, emails, instant messages, sensitive business documents, and other sensitive data. Reportedly, approximately 90% of the 1.5 billion personal computers in use today are powered by Defendant's CPUs. The Defect exists in nearly every CPU Defendant has manufactured in the last 20 years, affecting most personal computers, laptops, smartphones, tablets, and servers in use today. Third-party researchers were able to discover the Defect in 2017, when Defendant knew or should have known of the Defect much earlier with its inside knowledge of its CPUs design and functionality. Since the exposure of the Defect, the Defendant has acknowledged the Defect and software companies have scrambled to introduce software patches to cure the Defect. However, the Defect is hardware-based, so these patches only mitigate the security threat while significantly compromising the Device's performance. The Defendant has conceded that the Defect may only be cured by an architectural change to its CPUs' hardware. Since security is an essential feature of any Device, Defendant's CPUs sold to the Plaintiff and the Class were not merchantable and unfit for their ordinary and particular purposes for which such goods are used. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now forced to either purchase new devices without the Defect or continue to use their defective Devices with security vulnerabilities and/or reduced performance. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered injuries as a result of Defendant's conduct because they would not have purchased their Devices or would not have paid the price they paid for them, but for Defendant's failure to disclose the Defect. Intel Corporation is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California, in the Silicon Valley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. Bradley K. King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474 9111 Facsimile: (310) 474 8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com IPIC ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Against Ryan-Nielson Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson filed a class action lawsuit against iPic Entertainment Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017. The Company currently is a defendant in a class action lawsuit captioned Mary Ryan and Johanna Nielson v. iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC, Case # BC 688633, which was filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on December 29, 2017. This lawsuit asserts failure to pay minimum wage, pay overtime wages, provide meal breaks and rest periods, and provide accurate itemized wage statements with respect to certain workers. iPic Entertainment Inc. was formed as a Delaware corporation on October 18, 2017. The Company was formed for the purpose of completing an initial public offering ("IPO") and related transactions in order to carry on the business of iPic-Gold Class Entertainment, LLC ("iPic-Gold Class") and its subsidiaries. KABBAGE INC: Faces Barnabas Clothing Suit in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kabbage, Inc. The case is styled as Barnabas Clothing, Inc., a corporation and Alexander Aquino, an individual; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Kabbage, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Celtic Bank Corporation, a Utah corporation and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-03414 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2018). Kabbage, Inc. is an online financial technology company based in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. L.L. BEAN: Faces "Pershouse" Suit in D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against L.L. Bean, Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin T Pershouse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. L.L. Bean, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10800 (D. Mass., April 24, 2018). L.L. Bean is an American, privately held retail company founded in 1912 by Leon Leonwood Bean. The company is based in Freeport, Maine, United States. It specializes in clothing and outdoor recreation equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. Pastor Law Office, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 742-9700 Fax: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Glover" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 Glover class action suit. Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16cv00827, is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non- guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. The Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously defending this matter." The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Hanks" Suit -------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 Hanks class action suit. Helen Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya"), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 16cv6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. The Lincoln National Life Insurance sais "We are vigorously defending this matter." The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation Underway in E.D. Pa. Court ----------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 consolidated class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf. Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously defending this matter." The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend "Tutor" Suit -------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 the Tutor class action suit. Tutor v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:17-cv-04150, is a putative class action filed on September 18, 2017. Plaintiff owns a universal life insurance policy originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiff alleges that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously defending this matter." The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Trinchero" Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 the Trinchero class action suit. Trinchero, et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv- 00765, is a putative class action filed on February 22, 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Lincoln National Life Insurance said "We are vigorously defending this matter." The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. MDL 2827: "Santino" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Nikita Santino and Aaron Rabbanian, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. the Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01252, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on April 26, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02486-EJD the proceeding. The Santino case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization, but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In addition to the movant, plaintiffs in thirty actions and potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of California. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system (iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover, plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. FARUQI AND FARUQI LLP 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256 2884 E-mail: Bheikali@faruqilaw.com jnassir@faruqilaw.com Attorneys for Apple Inc.: Theano Evangelis Kapur, Esq. Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Timothy William Loose, Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229 7726 Facsimile: (213) 229 6726 E-mail: tevangelis@gibsondunn.com tboutrous@gibsondunn.com tloose@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com MDL 2827: "Taylor" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Brian Taylor, on behalf of himself and as representative of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. the Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 7:18-cv-00168, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on April 26, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18- cv-02484-EJD to the proceeding. The Taylor case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization, but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In addition to the movant, plaintiffs in thirty actions and potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of California. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system (iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover, plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Archibald I Grubb, II, Esq. Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC 272 Commerce Street P O Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269 2343 Facsimile: (334) 954 7555 E-mail: archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.com - and - Wilson F Green, Esq. BATTLE FLEENOR GREEN WINN & CLEMMER LLP 505 North 20th Street, Suite 1150 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 397 8160 Facsimile: (205) 397 8179 E-mail: wgreen@bfgwc.com Attorneys for Defendant: Lana Alcorn Olson, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. - BIRMINGHAM The Clark Building 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Telephone: (205) 581 0700 Facsimile: (205) 380 9314 E-mail: lolson@lightfootlaw.com MDL 2827: "Honigman" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Marc Honigman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, the Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00046, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on April 25, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02463-EJD to the proceeding. The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization, but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In addition to the movant, plaintiffs in 30 actions and potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of California. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system (iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover, plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark S. Reich, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367 7100 Facsimile: (631) 367 1173 E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Jillian Nicole London, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP (LOS ANGELES) 333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 E-mail: jlondon@gibsondunn.com MDL 2827: "Sens" Suit over iPhone Performance Consolidated ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Alex Sens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. the Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-60128, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Florida Southern, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on April 25, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02460-EJD to the proceeding. The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization, but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In addition to the movant, plaintiffs in thirty actions and potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of California. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system (iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover, plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael James Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP 5400 University Drive, Suite 417 Davie, FL 33329 Telephone: (954) 889 3359 Facsimile: (954) 889 5913 E-mail: MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com - and - Steven Saul, Esq. 3263 Barbados Ave Cooper City, FL 33026 Telephone: (954) 629 6564 Facsimile: (954) 629 6564 - and - Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq. EGGNATZ PASCUCCI, P.A. 5400 University Drive, Suite 417 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889 3359 Facsimile: (954) 889 5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com Attorneys for Defendant: Jacob Benjamin Monk, Esq. SHUTTS AND BOWEN LLP 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 379 9116 Facsimile: (305) 347 7780 E-mail: jmonk@shutts.com MDL 2827: "Borstelmann" Suit over iPHone Performance Consolidated ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Borstelmann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Apple Inc.; AT&T Corp; Verizon Wireless Services, LLC; T-Mobile USA Inc.; Sprint Corp.; and Does 1-10, the Plaintiffs, the Apple Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00289, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose) on April 25, 2018. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02453-EJD to the proceeding. The Miller case is being consolidated with MDL 2827 in re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 4, 2018. All responding parties support centralization, but there is some disagreement as to the transferee district. In addition to the movant, plaintiffs in thirty actions and potential tag-along actions (as well as plaintiff in one action in the alternative) support centralization in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff in a Southern District of Florida action proposes centralization in that district, while common defendant Apple Inc. supports centralization in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Central District of California. In its April 4, 2018 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions share factual questions arising from allegations that Apple included code in updates to its mobile operating system (iOS) that significantly reduced the performance of older-model iPhones. The Plaintiffs also allege that Apple misrepresented the nature of the iOS updates and failed to adequately disclose to iPhone owners the impact the iOS updates would have on the performance of their iPhones. Discovery regarding the engineering of the iPhone and the iOS updates likely will be technical and complex. Plaintiffs assert similar causes of action for false advertising, alleged unfair business practices, trespass to chattels, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Moreover, plaintiffs bring these actions on behalf of overlapping putative classes of iPhone owners. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila. The lead case is 2:15-md-02661-MHW-EPD. Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony G. Simon, Esq. Erica Blume Slater, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 2929 Facsimile: (314) 241 2029 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com eslater@simonlawpc.com Attorneys for Apple Inc.: Christopher A. Smith, Esq. Jordan T. Ault, Esq. Matthew D Knepper, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480 1500 Facsimile: (314) 480 1505 E-mail: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com jordan.ault@huschblackwell.com matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com MERCK & CO: Sugartown Pediatrics Sues over Vaccine Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------- SUGARTOWN PEDIATRICS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., the Defendant, Case No. 18-1734 (E.D. Pa., April 25, 2018), challenges Merck's anticompetitive scheme to enhance and maintain its monopoly power in the market for rotavirus vaccines sold in the United States. The Plaintiff purchased rotavirus vaccine directly from Merck and brings this action to recover the overcharges that resulted from Merck's illegal monopolization scheme. This action challenges Merck's anticompetitive vaccine bundling scheme whereby Merck leverages its monopoly power in multiple pediatric vaccine markets to maintain its monopoly power in the Rotavirus Vaccine Market and, consequently, to charge supracompetitive prices to purchasers of its rotavirus vaccines. Merck is one of the world's largest vaccines manufacturers and a leading manufacturer of vaccines in the United States. It is the sole United States manufacturer in the markets for multiple pediatric vaccines, including MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) and Varicella, holding 100% of United States sales for those vaccines. In addition, Merck dominates United States sales in the market for human papilloma virus ("HPV") vaccine, with a market share of over 95%. Merck is by far the dominant seller in the Rotavirus Vaccine Market, marketing its vaccine under the trade name RotaTeq; its only competitor in the Rotavirus Vaccine Market is GlaxoSmithKline pie ("GSK"), which markets its rotavirus vaccine under the trade name Rotarix. Indeed, Merck was the only seller of rotavirus vaccine in the United States from 2006 until 2008, when GSK received approval to market Rotarix. Before the threat of competition from GSK, Merck had contracts that offered "bundled" discounts that would condition prices on loyalty to a bundle of Merck vaccines. In preparation for GSK's introduction of a competing rotavirus vaccine, Merck added a condition to its contracts that required customers to buy all or nearly all of their pediatric rota virus vaccines from Merck or face substantial price penalties on all other Merck vaccines. This new bundle meant that any customer who wanted to buy Rotarix from GSK had to be willing to accept substantial penalties on any RotaTeq the customer buys and substantial penalties on all other Merck vaccines. The Merck Bundle forecloses competition in greater than 40% of the Rotavirus Vaccine Market. The Merck Bundle substantially foreclosed the Rotavirus Vaccine Market to GSK. For GSK to sell Rotarix to any of Merck's customers who are subject to the bundled loyalty contracts, GSK would have to cut its prices substantially to all its customers, including those customers subject to Merck's bundled loyalty contracts, those customers subject to GSK's contracts, and those customers not subject to any vaccine buying contracts. This made it more profitable for GSK to instead adopt a high-price strategy, to maximize revenues in the unforeclosed portion of the market, and not attempt to compete with Merck for sales in the foreclosed portion. The result is that the Merck Bundle substantially forecloses competition by reducing GSK's incentive to compete based on price, thereby allowing Merck to maintain its monopoly share of the Rotavirus Vaccine Market, and, ultimately, to charge artificially-inflated prices for rotavirus vaccine. Thus, instead of decreasing the price of RotaTeq when GSK entered the market, as would normally be expected to result from competitive entry into a monopoly market, Merck has maintained and increased the price of RotaTeq. As a result, plaintiff and the proposed class were overcharged having paid artificially inflated prices for rotavirus vaccines. Merck & Company, Inc., d.b.a. Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the United States and Canada, is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN] Counsel for Sugartown Pediatrics, LLC and the Proposed Class: Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. Karissa Sauder, Esq. Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Daniel J. Walker, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 Facsimile: (215) 875 4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net ksauder@bm.net dwalker@bm.net - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Hugh D. Sandler, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559 9745 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com hsandler@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael J. Gavin GA VIN LAW LLC 855 Hillsdale Road West Chester, PA 19382 Tel: (610) 918-7271 E-mail: mgavin@gavinlaw.net - and - Brent W. Landau, Esq. Gary I. Smith, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985 3270 E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com gsmith@hausfeld.com MERRILL LYNCH: Porter Seeks to Certify Class of Employees --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JENNIFER PORTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv- 08043-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move the court on May 21, 2018, for an Order: 1. conditionally certifying collective action composed of: "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith employees who worked as Email Reviewers (including the job titles Supervision Analyst, Senior Supervision Analyst, Specialist, or Senior Specialist) at any time from October 9, 2014, to the present"; 2. granting the issuance of Court authorized notice to the members of the conditionally certified collective action; and 3. compelling the production of names, job titles, dates of employment, addresses, telephone numbers, personal email addresses, work email addresses, locations of employment, employee I.D. numbers, and last four digits of social security numbers of such prospective collective action members for the effective dissemination of notice as soon as possible. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2w6rTXKr Attorneys for plaintiff Jennifer Porter individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated: Mitchell Schley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC 197 Route 18 South South Tower, Suite 3000 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone: (732) 325 0318 E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com - and - Louis Pechman, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583 9500 E-mail: pechman@pehcmanlaw.com Attorneys for Defendant: Thomas A. Linthorst, Esq. Emily C. DeSmedt, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 919 6642 E-mail: tlinthorst@morganlewis.com edesmedt@morganlewis.com MICRO FOCUS: Gildea Challenges Hewlett Packard Merger ----------------------------------------------------- JAMES GILDEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL PLC, CHRISTOPHER HSU, MIKE PHILLIPS, KEVIN LOOSEMORE, BRAUCKMANN, KAREN SLATFORD, BY FAX RICHARD ATKINS, AMANDA BROWN, DARREN ROOS, GISELLE MANON, JOHN SCHULTZ, and Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 18CIV02033 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 24, 2018), is a securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired Micro Focus American Depositary Shares, pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the merger of Micro Focus with Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and their subsidiaries, pursuant to which Micro Focus combined with the software business segment of HPE. This action asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 against Micro Focus and certain members of the Company's executive officers, directors, and authorized representatives. The Micro Focus Group is a global enterprise software provider supporting the technology needs and challenges of the Forbes Global 2000. The Micro Focus Group's solutions help organizations leverage existing IT investments, enterprise applications and emerging technologies to address complex, rapidly evolving business requirements, including the protection of corporate information at all times. The Micro Focus Group's product portfolios are Micro Focus and SUSE. Within Micro Focus, the solution portfolios are COBOL Development and Mainframe Solutions, Host Connectivity, Identity, Access and Security, IT Development and IT Operations Management Tools, and Collaboration and Networking. SUSE, a pioneer in Open Source software, provides reliable, interoperable Linux, cloud infrastructure and storage solutions. Micro Focus has also announced plans to add a Container-as-a-Service Platform product and a Platform-as-a- Service product. For the six months ended October 31, 2016, the Company's Existing Products and SUSE Products reporting segments generated $684 million in total revenue for the Company, with 78% of this revenue coming from Micro Focus' Existing Products portfolio. Of the $537.3 million in Existing Products revenues for the quarter, approximately $364.2 million came from maintenance services, $146.9 million from licensing, and $26.2 million from consultancy. On September 7, 2016, Micro Focus issued a press release announcing a proposed merger with HPE Software, the software business segment of HPE. According to the deal terms, the Company would issue newly registered ADSs to shareholders of HPE as consideration in the Merger, such that immediately following the completion of the Merger, HPE shareholders would own 50.1% of the fully diluted share capital of the combined company. In addition, HPE would receive $2.5 billion financed through newly incurred indebtedness of HPE Software, and Micro Focus shareholders would receive a $400 million return of value prior to completion. The transaction was valued at $8.8 billion, larger than Micro Focus' market capitalization at the time, and was projected to triple the Company's revenues. The stated that the Merger would create "one of the world's largest pure-play infrastructure software companies" with "annual revenues of US $4.5 billion and EBITDA of US $1.35 billion." Defendant Loosemore, Micro Focus' Executive Chairman at the time, was quoted in the release as stating that the Merger "represents a compelling opportunity to create significant value for both companies' shareholders." A significant portion of the assets Micro Focus acquired in the Merger consisted of assets acquired from British software firm Autonomy Corporation PLC in 2011 by a predecessor entity to HPE, in a deal valued at $10.3 billion. In 2012, HP recorded an $8.8 billion impairment charge related to the write down of goodwill and intangible assets from its acquisition of Autonomy. HP subsequently accused Autonomy of fraud and accounting misrepresentations, leading to various regulatory investigations into the deal and litigation between HP and former officers of Autonomy, and ultimately resulting in fraud charges being brought against Autonomy's former CFO by the US. Department of Justice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914 2001 Facsimile: (858) 914 2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com MILLER ENERGY: "Gaynor" Class Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------ B. Riley Financial, 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 putative class action suit filed against MLV & Co. is still ongoing. On January 5, 2017, complaints filed in November 2015 and May 2016 naming MLV & Co. ("MLV"), a broker-dealer subsidiary of FBR, as a defendant in putative class action lawsuits alleging claims under the Securities Act, in connection with the offerings of Miller Energy Resources, Inc. ("Miller") have been consolidated. The Master Consolidated Complaint, styled Gaynor v. Miller et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and, like its predecessor complaints, continues to allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and prospectuses issued in connection with six offerings (February 13, 2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26, 2013; October 17, 2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged aggregate offering price of approximately $151.0 million. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain costs and expenses. B. Riley said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that in August 2017, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on Section 12 claims and found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a corrective disclosure prior to August 6, 2015, when an SEC civil action was announced. Defendant's answer was filed on September 25, 2017. B. Riley said "Although MLV is contractually entitled to be indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from Miller." "Rubin" and "Kim" Suits Concluded B. Riley said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that a mootness fee has been paid leading to the dismissal of the cases, Michael Rubin v. FBR & Co., et al., and Kim v. FBR & Co., et al. In April 2017, two purported shareholders of FBR filed a putative class action against FBR and the members of its board of directors that challenged the disclosures made in connection with the merger of FBR with the Company, styled Michael Rubin v. FBR & Co., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00410-LMB-MSN and Kim v. FBR & Co., et al. Case No.1:17-cv-004440LMB-IDD. The complaints alleged that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and SEC Ru1e 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. On July 12, 2017, per stipulation, the complaints were dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only, without prejudice as to the class. In August 2017, a mootness fee was paid and the case was dismissed. B. Riley provides financial services and solutions primarily in the United States and Europe. The company operates in four segments: Capital Markets, Auction and Liquidation, Valuation and Appraisal, and Principal Investments. The company is based in Woodland Hills, California. MONAT GLOBAL: Hoffpauir Alleges Defect in Hair Care Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Sue Hoffpauir, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monat Global Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21606-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover damages and equitable remedies for Plaintiff and the Class, which includes consumers who have purchased Monat Hair Care Products. According to the lawsuit, Monat prides itself on its "exceptional, naturally-based products" specifically focused on women's hair care. Monat knowingly preyed on women's humble desire for self-beautification through longer, thicker, more luxuriant hair. That simple hope was crushed by the reality Monat delivered: painful scalp irritation and embarrassing hair loss for many consumers. To further their deceit, Monat erases all consumer complaints about hair loss or scalp irritation from its website, thereby precluding hopeful women from protecting their hair. Shamefully, hair loss claims are met with unsubstantiated claims of a "detox" period that will cause increased hair loss before the purported benefits of Monat Products accrue or worse yet, suggestions to spend more money on still more expensive Monat Products. To be sure, Monat has systematically denied legitimate claims of hair loss and methodically sued individuals with the courage to stand up and tell the truth about the harm caused by the product. For example, Vickie Harrington, a woman who started a Facebook page dedicated to victims of Monat, was sued by Monat on January 26, 2018, for "in excess of $225,000." See Monat Global Corp. v. Harrington, No. 4:18-CV-8 at Docket No. 1. Monat Products are promoted as "naturally-based" and "safe." These and other claims made by Monat are patently false. Indeed, Monat previously claimed without caveat that Monat Products are "suitable for all skin and hair types." Beneficial health and efficacy claims regarding the Monat products were ubiquitous on Monat's website and in Monat's marketing materials. For example, Monat's claims about Capixyl, a central ingredient to many, if not all of its products, included "clinical results prove significant decrease in hair loss effect and increase in hair regrowth." Monat went on to claim that its products boast "higher proven results than the other leading hair rejuvenation brands." Relying on the foregoing statements in Defendant's so-called "The Science of Monat" webpage, which shows a scientist in a lab coat with rubber gloves and a microscope, reasonable consumers reach the logical conclusion that Monat Products are safe for everyone and will re-grow hair for those losing it.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476 7400 Facsimile: (305) 476 7444 - and - Julie Braman Kane, Esq. Lindsey Lazopoulos Friedman, Esq. JULIE BRAMAN KANE E-mail: julie@colson.com lindsey@colson.com b.cancela@colson.com eservice@colson.com - and - Amy E. Keller, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC Ten North Dearborn Street Eleventh Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214 7900 E-mail: akeller@dlcfirm.com alebdjiri@dlcfirm.com rleason@dlcfirm.com NATIONAL RESEARCH: Class Suits Underway in Nebraska and Wisconsin ----------------------------------------------------------------- National Research 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 class action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska and in the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Since the September 2017 announcement of the original proposed recapitalization plan, three purported class action and/or derivative complaints have been filed in state or federal courts by three individuals claiming to be shareholders of the Company. All of the complaints name as defendants the Company and the individual directors of the Company. Two of these lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska -- a putative class action lawsuit captioned Gennaro v. National Research Corporation, et al., which was filed on November 15, 2017, and a putative class and derivative action lawsuit captioned Gerson v. Hays, et al., which was filed on November 16, 2017. These lawsuits were consolidated by order of the federal court. A third lawsuit was filed the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin -- a putative class action lawsuit captioned Apfel v. Hays, et al, which was filed on December 1, 2017. The allegations in all of the lawsuits are very similar. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the allegedly unfair proposed transaction, at an allegedly unfair price, conducted in an allegedly unfair and conflicted process and in alleged violation of Wisconsin law and the Company's Articles of Incorporation. One of the lawsuits also alleges the proposed transaction is a voidable "conflict of interest transaction" under Wisconsin statutes. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction enjoining the defendants from consummating the original proposed recapitalization plan, damages, equitable relief and an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The Company believes that the allegations of the complaints are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Despite the changes to the original proposed recapitalization plan that culminated in the December 13, 2017 announcement of a revised proposed recapitalization plan (the "Proposed Recapitalization"), the Company expects that these shareholders or other shareholders might assert similar claims regarding the Proposed Recapitalization. The Company will defend any such lawsuits vigorously. As of December 31, 2017, no losses have been accrued as the Company does not believe the losses are probable or estimable. National Research Corporation is a provider of analytics and insights that facilitate measurement and improvement of the patient and employee experience while also increasing patient engagement and customer loyalty for healthcare providers, payers and other healthcare organizations. The company is based in Lincoln, Nebraska. NEW YORK: "Bucceri" Suit vs Health Dept Moved to E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Madeline Bucceri, Patricia Trujillo, and Betty Francisco, on behalf of LOURDES LO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Commissioner Howard Zucker, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health; HF Management Services, LLC; Senior Health Partners, Inc.; HF Administrative Services, Inc.; Healthfirst, Inc.; and Healthfirst Health Plan, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-08274, was transferred the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-02380-LDH-SMG to the proceeding.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Belkys Raquel Garcia, Esq. Kenneth R. Stephens, Esq. THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY 199 Water Street New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 577 3582 Facsimile: (646) 616 9280 E-mail: brgarcia@legal-aid.org kstephens@legal-aid.org - and - Angela Aziza Smedley, Esq. DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue Of The Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 259 7079 Facsimile: (212) 632 0183 E-mail: asmedley@dl.com - and - Jeffrey Amato, Esq. Jill K. Freedman, Esq. Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10155 Telephone: (212) 294 6700 Facsimile: (212) 294 4700 E-mail: jamato@winston.com jfreedman@winston.com jkessler@winston.com Attorneys for Commissioner Howard Zucker: Joshua Evan Keller, Esq. Jennifer C. Simon, Esq. NYS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 120 Broadway, 24th Fl New York, NY 10271 Telephone: (212) 416 8367 Facsimile: (212) 416 6009 E-mail: joshua.keller@ag.ny.gov Attorneys for HF Management Services, LLC; Senior Health Partners, Inc.; HF Administrative Services, Inc.; Healthfirst, Inc.; and Healthfirst Health Plan, Inc.: Scott B. Klugman, Esq. Seth L. Levine, Esq. LEVINE LEE LLP 650 Fifth Avenue, 13th floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 223 4400 Facsimile: (212) 223 4425 E-mail: sklugman@levinelee.com slevine@levinelee.com NORRED & ASSOCIATES: Figueroa Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA C. FIGUEROA, ARLENE NUGENT, EARVIELEE C. POOLE, SARPAUL S. MEHAT and STEVEN L. PERRETT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NORRED & ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01261 (S.D. Tex., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the lawsuit, Norred violated the FLSA by employing Plaintiffs and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed." Norred also failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiffs and other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by FLSA. Norred & Associates, Inc. is the largest and oldest locally owned corporate security and investigative firm in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222 6775 Facsimile: (713) 222 6739 NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: 2d Cir. Denies FHFA's Bid to Stay NJCH Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- United States Commodity Index Funds Trust 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has entered an order denying the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA's") motion for a stay of the Court's proceedings. New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. NovaStar Mortgage, et al. is a class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("the Court") involving six different NovaStar offerings in which Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC served as one of the underwriters. Plaintiff alleged that the offering documents were materially misleading because they failed to disclose that NovaStar, which originated or acquired the loans backing the certificates, systematically disregarded its lending guidelines. In rulings in March 2011 and March 2012, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice. In March 2013 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ("Second Circuit") reversed the rulings and directed the Court to consider the possible inclusion with regard to the other five offerings. In February 2015 the Court added the other five offerings back to the case. The parties subsequently reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for $165MM, with approximately $54MM representing Wells Fargo's contribution to the settlement. The parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Court on March 15, 2017. The Court issued an order granting the motion on May 10, 2017. Wells Fargo submitted its contribution to the settlement on June 1, 2017. Subsequently, one of the investors in the securities at issue, the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), did not submit timely its opt out notice and is now contesting the settlement. On September 12, 2017, the Court ruled that FHFA had received notice and therefore had waived the right to opt out. The Court set the final hearing to approve the settlement for September 20, 2017. FHFA filed an emergency appeal and motion for stay of the September 20, 2017 hearing with the Second Circuit. On September 19, 2017, the Second Circuit granted a temporary stay of the September 20, 2017 hearing while FHFA's emergency motion is considered by a three-judge panel. On October 19, 2017, the Second Circuit entered an order denying FHFA's motion for a stay of the Court's proceedings. Wells Fargo awaits instruction from the Court as to rescheduling of the final approval hearing, which Wells Fargo expects will be the next step in the case. The United States Commodity Index Funds Trust (the "Trust") is a Delaware Statutory Trust formed on December 21, 2009. The Trust is a series trust formed pursuant to the Delaware Statutory Trust Act and is organized into four separate series (each series, other than UCCO, a "Trust Series" and collectively, the "Trust Series"). As of December 31, 2017, the Trust includes the United States Commodity Index Fund ("USCI"), a commodity pool formed on April 1, 2010 and first made available to the public on August 10, 2010, the United States Copper Index Fund ("CPER"), a commodity pool formed on November 26, 2010 and first made available to the public on November 15, 2011, the United States Agriculture Index Fund ("USAG"), a commodity pool formed on November 26, 2010 and first made available to the public on April 13, 2012, and the USCF Canadian Crude Oil Index Fund ("UCCO"), which is currently in registration, and has not commenced operations. MICROSEMI CORP: Johnson Balks at Microchip Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT JOHNSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MICROSEMI CORPORATION, JAMES J. PETERSON, DENNIS R. LEIBEL, KIMBERLY E. ALEXY, THOMAS R. ANDERSON, WILLIAM E. BENDUSH, RICHARD M. BEYER, PAUL F. FOLINO, WILLIAM L. HEALEY, and MATTHEW E. MASSENGILL, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-00698 (C.D. Cal., April 24, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on a proposed merger and taking any steps to consummate the proposed merger unless, and until, the material information discussed below is disclosed to Microsemi shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the common stock of Microsemi Corporation against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors and together with Microsemi for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between Microsemi and Microchip Technology Incorporated. On March 1, 2018, the Board caused the Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Company shareholders will receive $68.78 per share in cash for each share of Company common stock they own, a deal with a total equity value of about $8.35 billion. On April 19, 2018, in order to convince Microsemi shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy independently violates both Regulation G (17 C.F.R. section 244.100) and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of which constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and of the Exchange Act. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied upon by the Board in recommending that Company shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Merger. The lawsuit contends it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming shareholder vote on May 22, 2018 in order to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Merger. For these reasons, and as set forth in detail herein, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on Defendants' violations of (i) Regulation G (17 C.F.R. Sec. 244.100); and (ii) Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a- 9). Microsemi Corporation is an Aliso Viejo, California-based provider of semiconductor and system solutions for aerospace & defense, communications, data center and industrial markets.[BN] Attorney for Robert Johnson: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256 2884 Facsimile: (424) 256 2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com NEW YORK, NY: Sued over Use of Sealed Arrest Records ---------------------------------------------------- R.C., J.J., and A.G., using under pseudonyms, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JAMES P. O'NEILL, New York City Police Department Commissioner, in his official capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 153739/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 24, 2018), seeks to enforce statutory and due process rights of thousands of predominantly Black and Latino people whose sealed arrest information the New York City Police Department routinely uses and discloses in violation of New York law. The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to end the NYPD's unlawful practice. The NYPD collects and uses information about everyone the Department has arrested, even in cases where the prosecutor declined to pursue charges, the charges were later dismissed, or the allegations were disproven in court. Under New York law, records of such cases must be sealed. By this action, the Plaintiffs challenge the NYPD's unlawful and prejudicial use and disclosure of information from records of arrests that do not result in criminal convictions. Through a series of interconnected database systems, the NYPD has a policy and practice of using sealed arrest records in the ordinary course of law enforcement activities. The NYPD uses information in sealed arrest records to target people -- including people who have never been convicted of a crime -- for investigation, arrest, and harsher penalties. The NYPD also regularly discloses information from sealed arrest records outside of the Department, including to the media and to prosecutors. In this way, the NYPD is marking, tracking, and punishing scores of people on the basis of mere allegations of criminal conduct. The NYPD's policy and practice of using and disclosing information collected through sealed arrest records violates a forty-year-old New York statute that was designed to prevent the stigmatization of people who were arrested for, but not convicted of, felonies or misdemeanors. The City of New York Police Department, commonly known as the NYPD, is the primary law enforcement and investigation agency within the five boroughs of New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Niji Jam, Esq. Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, Esq. Johanna Steinberg, Esq. Shakeer Rahman, Esq. Annette Lee, Esq. THE BRONX DEFENDERS 360 East 161st Street Bronx, NY 10451 Telephone: (718) 838 7878 - and - Jonathan S. Kolodner, Esq. Sharon L. Barbour, Esq. Martine B. Fomeret, Esq. Alexandra K. Theobald, Esq. Eric B. Boettcher, Esq. Pekham Pal, Esq. Michael Cinnamon, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225 2000 NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL RIVERA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NORTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH SYSTEM INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00053-RWS (N.D. Ga., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover monetary and declaratory relief, along with liquidated and actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs to redress the unlawful employment practices, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. This action is filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees of Defendant employed at NGHS as medical caregivers whose pay is subject to an automatic meal break deduction even when they perform compensable work during their meal breaks. The Plaintiff is a respiratory therapist in the respiratory therapy department at NGHS. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are supposed to be given a 30-minute meal break for each shift. The employees do not clock out and in for any of these mandatory breaks, but the 30- minute reduction in time and pay is automatically deducted from each paycheck by the Kronos engaged by Defendants. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are required to carry a duty cell phone with them during the alleged meal break, and remain on call during every such break period. The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are required to answer the phone even when on the mandatory meal break, and the Kronos system does not account for the compensable labor performed during the meal breaks. The Plaintiff is therefore paid for only 12 hours of each 12.5 hour shifts, and/or 15.5 hours of each 16.5 hour shift he works on the presumption that he was receiving a 30-minute meal break. The Defendant supervised and controlled the Plaintiff's work schedule and that of the putative class. The Defendant set Plaintiff's rate of pay, controlled the terms and conditions of Plaintiff's employment and maintained his employment records. The Plaintiff and his co-workers rarely took a full 30-minute lunch break. Usually Plaintiff and similarly situated employees go to the on-site cafeteria and pick up food to bring back to the unit and eat the meal while continuing to provide medical service to the patients on the unit, whether actively or inactively. The Plaintiff and the other RTs assigned to the therapy unit generally took their breaks on the unit, as well. Northeast Georgia Health System, Inc. owns and operates hospitals that provide medical services for residents in Northeast Georgia. It offers services in the areas of bariatric weight loss, cancer, community health, diabetes, emergency and unplanned care, endoscopy, heart, hospice, imaging/radiology, and laboratory.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard P. Slomka, Esq. SLIPAKOFF AND SLOMKA P.C 2859 Paces Ferry Rd. SE., Suite 1700 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Telephone: (404) 800 4017 E-mail: hs@myatllaw.com OAKLEY COUNTRY: "Flores" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- RENE FLORES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OAKLEY COUNTRY CLUB, INC., JOHN DEVITO, SR., and DAVID JOAQUIN, the Defendants, Case No. 18-1171 (Mass. Sup. Ct., April 24, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rene Flores brings this action concerning certain unlawful wage and gratuity distribution practices at the Oakley Country Club, a private golf club located in Watertown, Massachusetts that is owned and operated by Oakley Country Club, Inc., its president John De Vito, Sr. and its treasurer David Joaquin. On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Mr. Flores alleges that the Oakley Country Club has failed to pay wait staff employees the correct service rate in violation of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Oakley Country Club frequently requires, encourages, and permits wait staff employees to work through their 30 minute meal breaks. Even when the wait staff employees work through their meal breaks, the club routinely deducts 30 minutes' worth of time from the wait staff employees' compensation. For example, if a wait staff employee works a six-hour shift with no meal break, the Oakley Country Club will pay the wait staff employee for five-and-a-half hours of work. In addition, the Oakley Country Club adjusts the wait staff employees' time records by altering their clock-in or clock-out times, or by reducing the number of hours that they report working, resulting in non-payment of wages and non-payment of overtime wages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 3261 Facsimile: (617) 488 2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com PINE RIDGE VINEYARDS: Class Suit Settled for $400,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Crimson Wine Group, Ltd. 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 class action complaint against one of the company's subsidiaries, Pine Ridge Vineyards has been settled by the company for $0.4 million. On May 17, 2017, a former employee filed a class action complaint against one of the Company's subsidiaries, Pine Ridge Vineyards, alleging various wage and labor violations. On February 5, 2018, the Company settled this class action complaint at mediation for $0.4 million, which was recorded in the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2017. The settlement does not contain any admission of liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility by any of the parties. The settlement will be sent to the court for preliminary approval in the next 60 days and final approval in the next six months. Crimson Wine Group, Ltd., through its subsidiaries, engages in the production and sale of ultra-premium and wines. The company operates through two segments, Wholesale and Direct to Consumer. The company sells wines through independent wine and spirit distributors in the United States; and independent importers and brokers internationally. The company is based in Napa, California. PINGTAN MARINE: Amended Complaint in "Zheng" Suit Due May 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-03807 (E.D.N.Y., June 23, 2017), Magistrate Judge Steven Tiscione entered an order dated April 10, 2018, directing the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by May 29. The Defendants are directed to either file an answer or a motion to dismiss the amended complaint by July 30. Pingtan Marine 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 on June 23, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint, Zheng v. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo and Roy Yu, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging violations of Section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleges that the Company and the executive officers made materially false and misleading statements in filings with the SEC regarding the Company's business operations. The Complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Pingtan securities between August 8, 2016 and May 10, 2017 and seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. IS a marine enterprise group primarily engaging in ocean fishing through ITS operating subsidiary, Fujian Provincial Pingtan County Ocean Fishing Group Co., Ltd., or Pingtan Fishing, which is organized in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). PJB METHUEN: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, Vazquez Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PJB METHUEN LLC d/b/a PAPA JOHN'S; PJ BOSTON, LLC; HARSHA V. AGADI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 10803 (D. Mass., April 25, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage, statutory damages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a delivery driver in Massachusetts. When he delivered pizzas, Plaintiff was paid a "tipped minimum wage" (of about $7 per hour) that was below the regular minimum wage, plus tips (but not the delivery charges). As a result, the Plaintiff relied heavily on tip income to earn wages. The Defendants allegedly did not provide written notice about the tipped minimum wage to delivery drivers pursuant to M.G.L. c. 151, section 7, paragraph three, or 29 U.S.C. section 203(m). The Defendants focus primarily on pizza delivery as opposed to in-store dining, but Defendants have walk-in customers who are served food and beverages at the store. Pizza delivery accounts for the majority of Defendants' retail sales. As a result, Defendants employ a large number of delivery drivers like Plaintiff. The Defendants impose a "delivery charge" on customers, typically around $4.00, when a driver makes a delivery. The delivery charge is within the range of what an objectively reasonable customer pays as a tip to a delivery driver, and an objectively reasonable customer would expect the delivery charge to be paid to the driver. The Defendants retain all of the "delivery charge" rather than paying it to the driver.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Churchill, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 6230 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com PLAZA HOME: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, McDonough Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE MCDONOUGH, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00020121-CU-0E- CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., April 23, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff commenced her employment as an hourly-paid, non- exempt employee for Defendants in the State of California in or about August 2011 and terminated in or about January 2017. The Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other class members and classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked, missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class members; to set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment; and to supervise their daily employment activities. The Defendants exercised sufficient authority over the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs and the other class members' employment for them to be joint employers of Plaintiff and the other class members. The Defendants continue to employ hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California, involving, inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime wages earned, missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of California law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 7502 Facsimile: (818) 230 7259 RBC CAPITAL: Class Action Settlement Has Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- United States Gasoline Fund, LP 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 U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has entered an order preliminarily approving a pending settlement with class plaintiffs. On July 31, 2015, RBC Capital was added as a new defendant in a pending putative class action initially filed in November 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action is brought against multiple foreign exchange dealers and alleges collusive behavior, among other allegations, in foreign exchange trading. Various regulators are also conducting inquiries regarding potential violations of law by a number of banks and other entities, including RBC, regarding foreign exchange trading. In September 2017, the U.S. District Court entered an order preliminarily approving a pending settlement with class plaintiffs. Canadian class actions and one other U.S. action that is purportedly brought on behalf of different classes of plaintiffs remain pending. United States Gasoline Fund, LP is an exchange traded fund launched and managed by United States Commodity Funds LLC. The fund invests in the commodity markets. It uses futures contracts to invest in gasoline. The fund seeks to track the daily changes in percentage terms of the spot price of gasoline for delivery to the New York harbor, as measured by the daily changes in the price of a specified short-term futures contract on gasoline. SCRUB INC: Norman Sues over Misuse of Biometric Identifiers ----------------------------------------------------------- SHAVONNE NORMAN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SCRUB, INC., an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH05306 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, April 24, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful collection, use, storage, and dissemination 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. The case concerns the misuse of individuals' biometric identifiers and/or biometric information by a professional janitorial services company which requires its workers' biometrics to be captured, converted, used, stored and disseminated as a condition of employment without lawful consent. Defendant causes this through the use of biometric scanning devices and associated software technology which capture a person's fingerprint information derived from their fingerprints to authenticate the identity of such persons in the future. New technology now allows consumers to pay their bills, secure financial accounts, and purchase physical goods, all with their biometric information, which is often a fingerprint. Unfortunately, along with the increased utility of biometric technology, so too has come grave privacy risks associated with the dissemination and unregulated collection of biometric information, with the risk of such harms greatly magnified by the unregulated collection of biometric information. Indeed, the permanent and irreplaceable nature of one's biometrics makes the illegal collection of the same a significant public problem with far-reaching consequences, including irreversible identify theft and potential financial ruin. Scrub, Inc. is a highly specialized contract cleaning company with nearly 1,000 employees providing nationwide janitorial and facility services.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Evan M. Meyers, Esq. William Kingston, Esq. Jad Sheikali, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com jsheikali@mcgpc.com SCYNEXIS INC: "Gibson" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Scynexis, 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 continues to defend itself in a stockholder class action suit captioned, Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al. Scynexis said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on March 8, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, captioned Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al. The action was filed on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (1) pursuant or traceable to the Company's IPO, or (2) on the open market between May 2, 2014, and March 2, 2017. It asserts claims for violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. In May 2017, Boussad Baguenane filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel and Lead Plaintiff. Baguenane is represented by Laurence Rosen, Esq., at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Scynexis said "We believe that the claims lack merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously." Scynexis, Inc. is a biotechnology company committed to positively impacting the lives of patients suffering from difficult-to-treat and often life-threatening infections by delivering innovative anti-infective therapies. The company is based in Jersey City, New Jersey. SENECA RESOURCES: McLaughlin Seeks Conditional Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled GARY MCLAUGHLIN individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENECA RESOURCES CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00255-NBF (W.D. Pa.), Mr. McLaughlin asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice and discovery; 2. directing that judicial notice be sent to all Putative Class Members; 3. approving the notice and consent; 4. directing mailing and e-mailing of the notice, along with a reminder notice; 5. permitting Class Counsel to contact by telephone those Putative Class Members who are former employees of Seneca or whose contact information is not valid; 6. directing Seneca to post the Notice and Consent forms in Seneca's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in period; 7. directing Seneca to produce to Class Counsel the contact information for each Putative Class Member within 10 days of the Court's order; and 8. authorizing 60 day notice period for Putative Class Members to join the case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zrvYVYtB The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer M. Solak, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 352 1100 Facsimile: 713 352 3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com jsolak@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766 1455 Facsimile: (412) 766 0300 SIENTRA INC: Settles Calif. Class Suits for $10.9 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Sientra, 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 has agreed to pay $10.9 million to settle the class action lawsuits filed in San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action of the Company's stockholders was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants for allegedly false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On October 28, November 5, and November 19, 2015, three lawsuits styled as class actions of the Company's stockholders were filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo naming the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters associated with the Company's follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as defendants for allegedly false and misleading statements in the Company's offering documents associated with the follow-on offering concerning its business, operations, and prospects. On September 13, 2016, the parties to the actions pending in the San Mateo Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California signed a memorandum of understanding that sets forth the material deal points of a settlement that covers both actions and includes class-wide relief. Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that following a final fairness hearing in the federal court, on May 23, 2017, the federal court extended an order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the federal court action with prejudice. Following a final fairness hearing in the state court, on May 31, 2017, the state court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the state court action with prejudice. As a result of these developments, the Company determined a probable loss had been incurred and recognized a net charge to earnings of approximately $1.6 million within general and administrative expense which was comprised of the loss contingency of approximately $10.9 million, net of expected insurance proceeds of approximately $9.4 million. In the first quarter of 2017, the Company received $9.3 million in insurance proceeds and paid the $10.9 million loss contingency. The remaining insurance proceeds receivable is classified as "insurance recovery receivable" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Sientra, Inc. is a medical aesthetics company committed to making a difference in patients' lives by enhancing their body image, growing their self-esteem and restoring their confidence. The company is based in Santa Barbara, California. SLEEPY'S LLC: Hargrove et al. Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SAM HARGROVE, ANDRE HALL, MARCO EUSEBIO, individually and on Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SLEEPY'S LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:10-cv- 01138-PGS-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant their renewed motion for class certification of: "111 individuals who performed deliveries for Sleepy's pursuant to independent contractor agreements in New Jersey at any time since March 4, 2004, who were single-route operators at all times that they worked for Sleepy's, or who did so for at least six months." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VIEVVLk7 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq. MARCHETTI LAW, P.C. 900 N. Kings Highway, Suite 306 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 414 1800 E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com - and - Benjamin J. Weber, Esq. Harold L. Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com bweber@llrlaw.com SPOTIFY USA: Parties in "Ferrick" Suit Await Final Settlement OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Spotify Technology S.A. said in its Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on March 14, 2018, that the parties in the case, Ferrick et al. v. Spotify USA Inc., are awaiting final court approval of a settlement agreement. Between December 2015 and January 2016, two putative class action lawsuits were filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the company unlawfully reproduced and distributed musical compositions without obtaining licenses. In an order dated May 23, 2016, Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell granted the motions to consolidate and directed consolidation of the cases. The low-numbered case, Lowery v. Spotify USA Inc., No. CV 15-09929 BRO (RAOx), was designated the Lead Case, and the Court directed all counsel to file all further documents under Case No. 15-09929 BRO (RAOx) only. The Court further ordered that the Court Clerk administratively close Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc., No. CV 16-00180 BRO (RAOx) and to add all parties and counsel from Ferrick to Lowery. The Court further granted the Ferrick Plaintiffs' motion to appoint interim co-lead class counsel and appointed Susman Godfrey L.L.P and Gradstein and Marzano, P.C. as interim co-lead class counsel. The Court denied the Lowery Plaintiffs' cross-motion to appoint Michelman and Robinson, LLP as interim lead counsel. A consolidated complaint was due to be filed on or before June 27, 2016. The cases were subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2016, as Ferrick et al. v. Spotify USA Inc., No. 1:16-cv-8412-AJN (S.D.N.Y). In May 2017, the parties reached a signed class action settlement agreement which the court has preliminarily approved, pursuant to which the company will be responsible for (i) a $43 million cash payment to a fund for the class, (ii) all settlement administration and notice costs, expected to be between $1 million to $2 million, (iii) a direct payment of class counsel's attorneys' fees of up to $5 million dollars, (iv) future royalties for any tracks identified by claimants, as well as other class members who provide proof of ownership following the settlement, and (v) reserving future royalties for unmatched tracks. The final approval hearing was held on December 1, 2017 and the court has not yet issued a ruling. Andrew Paley has filed an opposition to the Motion for final approval of class action settlement. Spotify Technology S.A., through its subsidiary, offers digital music-streaming services. The company was incorporated in 2006 and is based in Luxembourg. TANDOORI NIGHTS: Faces "Portillo" Suit in E.D. Virginia -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tandoori Nights, LLC. The case is styled as Claudia Portillo on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tandoori Nights, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00475-LO-TCB (E.D. Va., April 24, 2018). Tandoori Nights, LLC is engaged in the restaurant industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. Zipin, Amster & Greenberg, LLC. 8757 Georgia Ave, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 587-9373 Fax: (240) 839-9142 Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com TARGET CORP: Bid to Alter Judgment in Minnesota Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Target 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 and the other defendants have filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the final judgment dismissing the federal securities law class actions in Minnesota, and the motion has not yet been heard or decided. On May 17, 2016 and May 24, 2016, Target Corporation and certain present and former officers were named as defendants in two purported federal securities law class actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (the Court). The plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the First Complaint) on November 14, 2016, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to the Canada Disclosure and naming Target, its former chief executive officer, its present chief operating officer, and the former president of Target Canada as defendants. The plaintiff sought to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of Target common stock between March 20, 2013 and August 4, 2014 and sought damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees, based on allegations that the defendants misled investors about the performance and prospects of Target Canada and that such conduct affected the value of Target common stock. On July 31, 2017 the Court issued a combined order dismissing the Federal Securities Law Class Actions. Target said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 28, 2017, that on August 29, 2017 the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the final judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 31, 2017 dismissing the Federal Securities Law Class Actions. The plaintiffs also asked the Court for permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Second Complaint"), which, like the prior complaint, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to the Canada Disclosure. Target, its former chief executive officer, its present chief operating officer, and the former president of Target Canada are named as defendants in the Second Complaint. In its recent disclosure, the Company said that on October 16, 2017, Target and the other defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the final judgment dismissing the Federal Securities Law Class Actions. That motion has not yet been heard or decided. Target Corporation was incorporated in Minnesota in 1902. The company offers its customers everyday essentials and fashionable, differentiated merchandise at discounted prices. TARGET CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Target 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 and the other defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Second ERISA class action, but the motion has not yet been decided. On July 12, 2016 and July 15, 2016, Target Corporation, the Plan Investment Committee and Target's current chief operating officer were named as defendants in two purported Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class actions filed in the Court. The plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the First ERISA Class Action) on December 14, 2016, alleging violations of Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA relating to the Canada Disclosure and naming Target, the Plan Investment Committee, and seven present or former officers as defendants. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Target Corporation 401(k) Plan or the Target Corporation Ventures 401(k) Plan (collectively, the Plans) at any time between February 27, 2013 and May 19, 2014 and whose Plan accounts included investments in Target stock and sought damages, an injunction and other unspecified equitable relief, and attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs, based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take action to prevent Plan participants from continuing to purchase Target stock during the class period at prices that allegedly were artificially inflated. On July 31, 2017 the Court issued a combined order dismissing the ERISA Class Actions. Target said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended October 28, 2017, that on August 30, 2017 the plaintiffs in the ERISA Class Actions, which were dismissed on July 31, 2017, filed a new ERISA Class Action (the "Second ERISA Class Action") in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, which, like the prior ERISA Class Actions, alleges violations of Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA relating to the Canada Disclosure. The Second ERISA Class Action is captioned Dormani, et al. v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:17-cv- 04049-JNE-BRT. Target, the Plan Investment Committee, and seven present or former officers are named as defendants in the Second ERISA Class Action Complaint. On November 13, 2017, Target and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second ERISA Class Action. A hearing on that motion was held on February 22, 2018, but it has not yet been decided. Target Corporation was incorporated in Minnesota in 1902. The company offers its customers everyday essentials and fashionable, differentiated merchandise at discounted prices. TENNIS CHANNEL: Deceptively Markets TC Plus, Wilson Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- ALEX WILSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE TENNIS CHANNEL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03473 (C.D. Cal., April 25, 2018), seeks to stop Defendant's false and misleading advertising relating to the sale of TC Plus, and to obtain redress for those who have purchased TC Plus across the United States pursuant to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and False Advertising Law, and California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a proposed nationwide class, for the benefit and protection of all current and former purchasers of Defendant's Tennis Channel Plus live content and video streaming service. As alleged, the Defendant deceptively markets and advertises TC Plus as providing access to live content when, in fact, it does not, or only provides access to select live content in a manner that is directly contrary to Defendant's advertisements. Tennis Channel is an American sports-oriented digital cable and satellite television network that is owned by the Sinclair Television Group subsidiary of the Sinclair Broadcast Group.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Kolin C. Tang, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 11755 Wilshire Blvd, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (323) 510 4060 Facsimile: (866) 300 7367 E-mail: ktang@sfmslaw.com UNITED COLLECTION: Odeh Sues over Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Omar Odeh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. United Collection Service, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 0:18-cv-60919-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 23, 2018), seeks redress for unlawful conduct of Defendant, dispatching thousands unlawful collection letters to Florida consumers, whereby each such letter contains identical violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has dispatched thousands of unlawful collection letters to consumers in an attempt to collect debt, and in each such letter, Defendant has failed to clearly and adequately disclose the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed, in violation of section 1692g(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of the putative class, seeks statutory damages under FDCPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907 1136 Facsimile: (855) 529 9540 E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com US PHYSICAL: Bid to Dismiss New York Class Action Pending --------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Physical Therapy, 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's motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is pending. On March 31, 2017, an alleged shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") against the Company, chief executive officer Christopher J. Reading, chief financial officer Lawrance C. McAfee and corporate controller Jon C. Bates, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants misstated or omitted to state material information concerning the Company's historical accounting for redeemable non-controlling interests of acquired partnerships, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks a declaration that the action is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unspecified compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial and interest, costs and expenses. U.S. Physical Therapy said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that on June 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the matter. On July 31, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging substantially the same violations and seeking substantially the same unspecified damages. The amended complaint also names Glenn McDowell, the Company's Chief Operating Officer, as an additional defendant. In its recent disclosure, the Company said that on December 1, 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and subsequent filings related to the Motion to Dismiss were completed on February 7, 2018. The Motion to Dismiss is currently pending before the Court. U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates outpatient physical therapy clinics that provide pre-and post- operative care and treatment for orthopedic-related disorders, sports-related injuries, preventative care, rehabilitation of injured workers and neurological-related injuries. VIVINT INC: Underpays Staff, Linehan-Clodfelter Says ---------------------------------------------------- EZRA LINEHAN-CLODFELTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIVINT, INC., a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18902225 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 25, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendant has had a consistent policy of compensating employees within the State of California, including Plaintiff and Class Members, on a piece rate basis but not compensating them separately from their piece rate compensation for non-productive time or rest periods. Vivint, Inc. is a private smart home services provider in the United States and Canada. In 2012, The Blackstone Group acquired Vivint for more than $2 billion. As of August 2016, Vivint had more than one million customers in the U.S. and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. Samantha A. Smith, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 6251 E-mail: swong@aegislawfirm.com jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com ssmith@aegislawfinn.com VIVUS INC: Deadline for Rehearing in "Jasin" Suit Expired --------------------------------------------------------- Vivus, 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 deadline for the plaintiffs in the case, Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., to seek rehearing in the Ninth Circuit has now expired. On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud against the company and three of its former officers and directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 114 cv 261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for the company's success, including with respect to the launch of Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit. Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought damages and other relief. On July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 5:14 cv 03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged in their state court action. On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their state court action with prejudice. Defendants moved to dismiss the federal action and moved to dismiss again after plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional factual allegations and to add seven new claims under California law. The court granted the latter motion on June 18, 2015, dismissing the seven California claims with prejudice and dismissing the two federal claims with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint as well. On April 19, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Vivus said in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017, that Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 18, 2016. Briefing on the appeal has now been completed, and the Ninth Circuit has set the matter for oral argument on November 13, 2017. In its recent disclosure, the Company said the Ninth Circuit issued a decision on January 16, 2018, affirming the district court's dismissal of the action. The deadline for Plaintiffs to seek rehearing in the Ninth Circuit has now expired, and unless Plaintiffs elect to file a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, the matter is concluded. Vivus, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing innovative, next-generation therapies to address unmet medical needs in human health. The company is based in Campbell, California. WATTS GUERRA LLP: Faces "Kellogg" Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Watts Guerra, LLP. The case is styled as Kenneth P. Kellogg, Rachel Kellogg, Kellogg Farms, Inc., Roland B. Bromley and Bromley Ranch, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Watts Guerra, LLP, Daniel M. Homolka P.A., Yira Law Office LTD, Hovland and Rasmus, PLLC, DewaldDeaver, P.C., LLO, Givens Law, LLC, Mauro, Archer & Associates, LLC, Johnson Law Group, Wagner Reese, LLP, VanDerGinst Law, P.C., Patton Hoversten & Berg, P.A., Cross Law Firm, LLC, Law Office of Michael Miller, PagelWeikum, PLLP, Wojtalewicz Law Firm, Ltd., Mikal C. Watts, Francisco Guerra and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 0:18- cv-01082 (D. Minn., April 24, 2018). Watts Guerra LLP is a true nationwide litigation practice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas J Nill, Esq. Douglas J. Nill, P.L.L.C. 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2050 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1801 Tel: (612) 573-3669 Email: dnill@farmlaw.com WILLIAM PENN: TVPX ARS Sues over Excessive Cost of Insurance ------------------------------------------------------------ TVPX ARS INC., as securities intermediary for GRANITE FINANCIAL, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02428 (E.D.N.Y., April 24, 2018), is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and similarly situated owners of life insurance policies issued by William Penn NY. The Plaintiff contends that the increase of William Penn NY's cost of insurance (COI) violates the plain terms of Plaintiff's and all putative class members' insurance policies, and William Penn NY's purported justification for the COI increase establishes that William Penn NY has knowingly made numerous, material misrepresentations in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 4226 and General Business Law Section 349. The policies at issue are all flexible-premium, universal life policies issued by William Penn NY between the years of 2001 and 2008 under the product names Longevity UL 100, William Penn NY UL, Life Umbrella UL 120, and Advantra. The principal benefit of UL policies is that they permit policyholders flexibility in the amount and timing of premiums necessary to keep the policies in- force. Unlike other kinds of whole life insurance that require fixed monthly premium payments, the premiums required for UL policies need only be sufficient to cover the COI charges and certain other specified expenses. The COI charge is typically the highest expense that a policyholder pays. This structure allows policyholders choice; they can elect to minimize their premium payments and generate greater rates of return through other investments or alternatively pay more premium than required to keep the policy in force and use the UL policy as a tax- advantaged savings vehicle. Generally, any premiums paid in excess of COI charges and expense components are applied to a policy's "Policy Account," sometimes known as "policy account value" or "cash value." These excess premiums earn interest. In July 2015, William Penn NY announced massive increases to COI rates on certain universal life policies. For some William Penn NY product versions, the increase was over 390%. For Plaintiff's policy, the increase was 70%. In dollar terms, this equates to approximately $14,500 a year. These amounts are unprecedented and impossible to justify under the terms of the policies. Under the terms of the Subject Policies, COI rates can only be adjusted based on changes in expectations for certain enumerated factors, and William Penn NY must review its rates at least every five years. This means that William Penn NY last reviewed its rates no earlier than July 2010. There is nothing that could justify a 70% increase in COI rates from July 2010 to July 2015, let alone a 390% increase. Instead, the COI increase is a blatant unlawful profit grab premised on an improper methodology and consideration of prohibited factors. By increasing COI rates, William Penn NY seeks to force Plaintiff and other William Penn NY policyholders to either (a) pay exorbitant premiums that William Penn NY knows would no longer justify the ultimate death benefits, or (b) lapse, surrender, or partially-surrender (e.g., lower the face amount) and forfeit the premiums policyholders have previously paid. William Penn NY, in turn, will make a huge profit - either through higher premium payments or by eliminating policies (through lapses, surrenders or partial-surrenders) and keeping the premiums paid to date. William Penn Life Insurance Co. Of New York, Inc. provides life insurance products in New York. It offers its products through independent insurance agencies. William Penn Life Insurance Co. Of New York, Inc. was formerly known as Penn Life Insurance Company of New York and it changed its name to William Penn Life.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Seth Ard, Esq. Halley W. Josephs, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 6023 Telephone: (212) 336 8330 Facsimile: (212) 336 8340 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789 3100 Facsimile: (310) 789 3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com ********* 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 * * *