/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180522.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 22, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 102 Headlines ACETO CORP: Faces Class Action, June 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suits over Improper Fees Still Pending AKAL SECURITY: Security/Detention Officers Sue Over Unpaid Wages ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Brower Piven Commences Class Action Lawsuit ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Files Class Action ALLY FINANCIAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit ALTERYX INC: 4 Putative Consumer Class Action Lawsuits Pending AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in N.Y. AMP LIMITED: Shine Lawyers Eye Shareholder Class Action AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: 3rd Circuit to Decide on Arbitration Ruling AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action in NY APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Okays Settlement Pact for "Moses" Suit APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Wilchfort" Suit Dismissed without Prejudice AQUATECH INT'L: Ferguson Seeks Damages Over Retaliatory Discharge ATLAS HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suits by Vana and Stone AVIACODE INC: Seeks Approval of Class Notice in "Hazel" Suit AVIACODE INC: Class of Medical Coders Certified in "Hazel" Suit AVID TECHNOLOGY: Finalization of "Mohanty" Settlement Underway BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Putative Class Action Trial Set for Oct. 21 BBX CAPITAL: Bid for Class Cert. Granted Preliminary Approval BIRD ELECTRIC: Class of Electricians Certified in "Guajardo" Suit BERKSHIRE HILLS: Depositor's Class Action Underway in D. Mass. BRAMBLES: Slaters, IMF Launch Class Action BRAVO BRIO: Dagenbach to Withdraw Preliminary Injunction Motion BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Wins Prelim. OK of $1.475-Mil. "Haas" Deal CANADA: Class Action Over Faulty Phoenix Pay System Can Proceed CAPITAL FITNESS: Gooden Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA CAPITALA FINANCE: "Paskowitz" Lawsuit Transferred to W.D. N.C. CAPITALA FINANCE: "Sandifer" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Case Management Dates in "Gudger" Suit Stayed CENTURYLINK INC: "Tomasulo" Pact Still Subject to Court Approval CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices & Securities Suit Underway CHAPARRAL ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Donelson" Suit CHIASMA INC: Amended Complaint in "Gerneth" Lawsuit Underway CINEMARK USA: Appeal in "Amey" Labor Lawsuit Still Pending CIVITAS SOLUTIONS: 2 Potential Class Suits Pending at March 31 COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending COLONY NORTHSTAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action COMMERCEHUB INC: Injunction Bid in "Gordon" Suit Dropped COMSCORE INC: Oregon Section 11 Suit Stayed COMSCORE INC: June 7 Approval Hearing on Securities Suit Accord COOK COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Seeks Dismissal of Class Action COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Unit Still Defends "Bass" Lawsuit CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Workers Class Certified in "Boutell" Suit CVB FINANCIAL: Says Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Completed CYAN INC: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling DEPOMED INC: July 23 Deadline to Oppose Bid to Nix "Huang" Suit EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit EIGER BIOPHARMA: Awaits 9th Cir. to Schedule Oral Arguments EL POLLO LOCO: Settlement Talks Fail in "Olvera" Labor Suit EL POLLO LOCO: June 25 Hearing on Class Certification Bid ENHANCED RECOVERY: Medina Files Reply Brief Backing Class Cert. EXTREME NETWORKS: Court Narrows Scope of Securities Lawsuit FACEBOOK INC: Koskie Minsky Commences Suit for Misuse of Data FIRST BANCTRUST: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed FITBIT INC: Settlement of Sleep Tracking Class Lawsuit Underway FITBIT INC: May 31 Hearing in Heart Rate Tracking Suit FITBIT INC: Court Okays US$33.3MM Settlement of Securities Suits FOOT LOCKER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action FORD AUSTRALIA: Faces $10MM Fine Over Transmission Complaints FUTUREDONTICS INC: Suit over Wage and Hour Violations Underway GENERAL CABLE: "Stanfield" and "Rosenblatt" Lawsuits Dismissed GENERAL CABLE: Still Defends Kentucky Suit over ERISA Breach GRIDSUM HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit GRIDSUM HOLDING: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit GRIDSUM HOLDING: June 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set HANSEN & ADKINS: Standalone Document Class Certified in "Luna" HASHFLARE LP: Baylog Sues Over Voided Cryptocurrency Mining Deals HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending HEWLETT PACKARD: Asks Court to Transfer & Dismiss "Jackson" HEWLETT PACKARD: Preliminary Agreement Reached in "Wall" Suit HINES REIT: Settlement Hearing in "Gamberg" Set for June 6 HOMEADVISOR INC: Discovery in "Airquip" Suit Still Underway IPC INC: Asks Court to Deny Physicians Healthsource's Cert. Bid JPMORGAN CHASE: Scott Gets Prelim. Nod of $618,837 Settlement KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Carruth" Suit Challenges No-Poach Agreements KSJC ENTERPRISES: "Edmonston" Suit Certified as FLSA Class Action LA QUINTA: Appeal from Stockholder Class Suit Dismissal Pending LIPOCINE INC: Records $4.3-Mil. Settlement Liability at March 31 LIPOCINE INC: Fairness Hearing on Class Settlement Set for July 2 LOUISIANA, USA: Bid to Certify Class in "Shabazz" Suit Denied MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Robbins Arroyo LLP Files Class Action MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Class of Facilities Certified in "Malvern" MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: "Berger" Suit Now Moot MASIMO CORP: Still Defends PHI Suit over Fax Advertising MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Keeps Alabama Court Ruling in Class Suit MDL 2804: Chicopee Working to Join Class-Action Lawsuit MEAT SHOP AT PINE HAVEN: Faces $15MM Suit Over E. Coli Outbreak MICHIGAN, USA: JV Seeks to Certify HCV Medicaid Enrollees Class MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Certifies FDCPA Class in "Wheeler" Suit MONITRONICS INT'L: Accord in Telemarketing Suit Awaits Court OK NANTKWEST INC: Aug. 2019 Trial Set for "Sudunagunta" Complaint NEW YORK: Lawsuit Challenges NYPD's Use of Sealed Arrest Records NORTHERN OIL: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Fries" Lawsuit Underway NVR INC: Class Certification Under Rule 23 Sought in "Smith" Suit O'CHARLEYS LLC: "Otis" Lawsuit Still Stayed Pending S.C. Ruling OBESITY RESEARCH: 9th Circuit Affirms Transfer of Lipozene Suit OILFIELD INSTRUMENTATION: Ross Moves to Certify Technicians Class OLYMPIC FLAMES: Blake's Bid to Certify Nixed; July 17 Hearing Set ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Cert. of Two Classes Sought in Toll Roads Suit ORANGE COUNTRY: California Motorists Seek Class Action Status ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Class Action Suit Underway PACIFIC COAST: May 22 Hearing in "Welch" Case PAY CAR MINING: Certification of Class Sought in "Lester" Suit PBF HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in "Goldstein" Class Suit PBF HOLDING: "Caruso" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing PBF HOLDING: Mini-Trial Scheduled in "Thomas" Suit PJ OPS IDAHO: Edwards Moves to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Receives $4.5MM in Haverhill Litigation PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Trial Date in "Hsu" Suit Set for Nov. 6 QUEBEC: Judge Authorizes Suit Over Troubled Phoenix Pay System QUINCY PROPERTY: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Brashier" Suit R1 RCM INC: "Anger" Suit Settled for $1.3 Million RENZENBERGER INC: McConville Seeks to Cert. 6 Classes of Workers RESOLUTE FOREST: Reynolds Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement SAL'S ITALIAN: Elorza Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPIAN: Suit by Lanier Trust Still Ongoing SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in "Melville" Suit SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in "Veilleux" Class Action SPARK ENERGY: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss "Gillis" Suit SEMPRA ENERGY: 381 Suits Pending in Los Angeles Court at May 3 SEMPRA ENERGY: Property and Business Class Actions Still Ongoing SEMPRA ENERGY: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Revive Securities Suit SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: 8th Cir. Appeal in Royalty Suit Underway SENIOR CARE CENTERS: Ward Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA SNEAKER VILLA: Tucker Moves to Certify Class of Key Holders STONE ENERGY: Faces 3 Potential Class Actions over Talos Merger SYNGENTA CORP: Farmers File Fraud Suit vs Own Lawyers in GMO Case TESLA INC: Securities Suit over SolarCity Reports Concluded TESLA INC: To Seek Dismissal of Suit over Model 3 Production TIGER BRANDS: Law Firms Join Forces in Listeriosis Lawsuit TORCHMARK CORP: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in "Bruce" Lawsuit TRANSNET: Must Respond to Pensioners' Case TROTT LAW: Martin Seeks Prelim. Approval of $7.5-Mil. Settlement TYSON FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Huser" Dismissal Order UBS GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit UBS GROUP: Foreign Currency-Related Suits Awaits Final OK UBS GROUP: Government Bonds-Related Suit Still Ongoing UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC: Kotov May Refile Bid for Class Cert. US BANK: Moseman Moves to Cert. Two Classes of Workers Under FLSA US STEEL: Athan Renews Bid to Certify Class of Hourly Employees VERDE ENERGY: "Jurich" Class Suit Underway VERDE ENERGY: "Richardson" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing VERDE ENERGY: "Coleman" Class Suit Concluded Following Settlement VIRGINIA, USA: Riggleman's Bid for Class Certification Denied WARNER MUSIC: Reaches Settlement for Download Pricing Class Suit WHIRLPOOL CORP: Schechner Seeks to Certify 5 Classes of Buyers WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: Hunter Moves to Certify Sales Clerks Class WISCONSIN, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Schroeder" Suit WODONGA, VIC: Class Suit Possible Over Toxic Culture XPO LOGISTICS: 170 Intermodal Drayage Claims Pending at March 31 XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending XPO LOGISTICS: Still Awaits Ct. Approval on TCPA Case Settlement YAHOO INC: New Terms of Service No Impact on Class Action Ruling * Law Firms Urge Apartment Owners to Join Cladding Class Action ********* ACETO CORP: Faces Class Action, June 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on April 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Aceto Corporation ("Aceto" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ACET) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-02437, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Aceto securities between February 1, 2018, through April 18, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Aceto securities between February 1, 2018, and April 18, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until June 25, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. 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. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. [GN] ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Class Suits over Improper Fees Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. continues to defend itself against class actions lawsuits over improper fees, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014 in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The 2013 Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014. In late 2015 in Gwinnett County, Georgia, another purported class action suit was filed. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily allege that the defendants charged improper charges (fuel, administrative and environmental charges) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages in an unspecified amount. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue. The Company said, "Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated." Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. together with its consolidated subsidiaries, as a consolidated entity, is a nonhazardous solid waste services company providing collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services to customers in the South, Midwest and Eastern regions of the United States. AKAL SECURITY: Security/Detention Officers Sue Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Smith, Juan J. Aguilar, Thomas Airington II, Curtis Baughman, Wendell R. Bell, Shelly M. Bentley, Donald L. Bergeron, Thomas Boyd, Edmond E. Breshears, Yanai Castillo, David Crotchett, James B. Curtis, Christy Escapule, Greg Flores, Greg E. Gurley, Anthony Kelsh, Dennis J. Kenniker, Tamiko Kuniyuki, Paul T. Lee, David Lopez, Alma D. Mata, Tim McGrady, Joseph McMurdy, Edward G. Paprocki, James Piekarz, Danny J. Rice, Sr., Timothy R. Rice, Bernabe A. Rodriguez, Jr., William L. Rudd, Randy Salinas, Cynthia R. Sanchez, Aurelio Sanchez-Cepeda, Eugene L. Shimerdla, William M. Strong, Lorraine Varela, Aniano Vega, Joseph Vella, William C. Webster, Robert A. White, Karen Willis v. Akal Security, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-01117-DGC (D. Ariz., April 11, 2018), is brought as a collective action arising from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pursuant to the FLSA and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Plaintiffs also seek to represent all other similarly situated employees, who have worked for the Defendant and who have not been paid the requisite overtime compensation. Throughout their employment, the Plaintiffs worked as Aviation Security Officers ("ASOs") and Aviation Detention Officers ("ADOs") who were responsible for the supervision of deportees during flights back to their home country. Akal is a New Mexico corporation with its principal place of business in New Mexico. Akal maintains an operations facility in Mesa, Arizona, where the Plaintiffs worked. Akal is a government contractor and is a subcontractor to CSI Aviation, Inc. CSI's contract with the federal government requires it and its subcontractors, including Akal, to comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Stanley Lubin, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505 Telephone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 E-mail: nick@lubinandenoch.com stan@lubinandenoch.com - and - Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq. KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715 Miami, FL 33131-3076 Telephone: (305) 330-6090 Facsimile: (305) 531-2405 E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Brower Piven Commences Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Allegiant Travel Company (Nasdaq:ALGT) ("Allegiant" or the "Company") securities during the period between June 8, 2015 through April 13, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until June 25, 2018 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Allegiant securities during the Class Period. Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above action. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that Allegiant lacked adequate systems to ensure its aircraft were being properly maintained and was not providing safe working conditions for its employees. According to the complaint, following an April 13, 2018 announcement by CBS News that it would air a segment criticizing the Company's safety and maintenance record, and the April 15, 2018 airing of the segment, the value of Allegiant shares declined significantly. If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment in Allegiant securities purchased on or after June 8, 2015 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please contact Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. Contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153 Telephone: 410-415-6616 E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com piven@browerpiven.com [GN] ALLEGIANT TRAVEL: Kessler Topaz Meltzer Files Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, disclosed that an investor class action lawsuit has been filed against Allegiant Travel Company (NASDAQ: ALGT) ("Allegiant") on behalf of purchasers of Allegiant publicly traded securities between June 8, 2015 and April 13, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). According to the complaint, Allegiant focuses on the provision of travel services and products to residents of under-served cities in the United States. The company offers scheduled air transportation on limited frequency nonstop flights between under-served cities and leisure destinations. The Class Period commences on June 8, 2015, when The Enquirer reported that the company issued a statement in connection with an Allegiant plane that was forced to make an emergency landing in Florida after smoke was detected in the cabin shortly after takeoff. The company stated afterward that the safety of its passengers and crew were its "number one priority." According to the complaint, on April 13, 2018, CBS News announced it would air a 60 Minutes segment on April 15, 2018, criticizing the company's safety and maintenance record. Following this news, shares of Allegiant fell $14.20 per share or over 8.59% to close at $151.05 per share on April 13, 2018. Then, on April 15, 2018, CBS News aired a 60 Minutes report revealing that: (i) Allegiant aircraft had a high number of serious mechanical incidents from mid-2015 through October 2017; (ii) Allegiant lacks the infrastructure and personnel to adequately maintain their aircraft; and (iii) Allegiant has discouraged pilots from reporting safety and maintenance issues. Following this news, shares of Allegiant fell $4.65 per share or over 3% to close at $146.40 per share on April 16, 2018. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Allegiant lacked adequate systems to ensure its aircraft were being properly maintained; (2) consequently, Allegiant was not operating responsibly and ethically, and providing safe working conditions for its employees; and (3) as a result, the defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Allegiant investors may, no later than June 25, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Contact: James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone:(888) 299-7706 (610) 667-7706 E-mail: info@ktmc.com jmaro@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com [GN] ALLY FINANCIAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Ally Financial Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the court has entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for briefing of defendants' joint motion for summary disposition in a consolidated securities litigation, which have been consolidated for discovery in Wayne County Circuit Court as In re Ally Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 16-013616-CB). No further details were provided in the Company's SEC report. In October 2016, a purported class action -- Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of Michigan (Case No. 16-013616-CZ). This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on November 18, 2016. The complaint alleges material misstatements and omissions in connection with Ally's initial public offering in April 2014, including a failure to adequately disclose the severity of rising subprime automotive loan delinquency rates, deficient underwriting measures employed in the origination of subprime automotive loans, and aggressive tactics used with low- income borrowers. The request for relief includes an indeterminate amount of damages, fees, and costs and other remedies. In January 2017, another purported class action -- National Shopmen Pension Fund v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court for Oakland County in the State of Michigan (Case No. 2017-156719-CB). This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on January 30, 2017. In March 2017, a third purported class action -- James McIntire v. Ally Financial Inc. et al. -- was filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County in the State of Michigan (Case No. 17-003811- CZ). This matter was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on March 15, 2017. The allegations and requested relief in the National Shopmen Pension Fund and James McIntire complaints are substantially similar to those included in the complaint filed by Bucks County Employees Retirement Fund. All three matters were remanded from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the state circuit courts on May 26, 2017, and have been consolidated for discovery in Wayne County Circuit Court as In re Ally Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 16-013616- CB). In November 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. In April 2018, the court entered a scheduling order setting deadlines for briefing of defendants' joint motion for summary disposition. The Company said, "We intend to vigorously defend against each of these actions." Ally Financial Inc. provides various financial products and services for consumers, businesses, automotive dealers, and corporate clients in the United States and Canada. The Company operates Automotive Finance Operations, Insurance Operations, Mortgage Finance Operations, and Corporate Finance Operations segments. It was formerly known as GMAC Inc. and changed its name to Ally Financial Inc. in May 2010. Ally Financial Inc. was founded in 1919 and is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. ALTERYX INC: 4 Putative Consumer Class Action Lawsuits Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Alteryx, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that it faces four putative consumer class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in U.S. federal courts relating to Amazon Web Services. These cases are: (1) Kacur v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv- 2222 (CD Cal) (asserting claims for putative national class and Ohio subclass); (2) Jackson v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv- 02021 (D. Or.) (asserting claims for putative Oregon class); (3) Foskaris v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03088 (D. Nev.) (asserting claims for putative national class and Nevada subclass); and (4) Ruderman et al. v. Alteryx, Inc., Case No. 8:18-cv-00022 (C.D. Cal.) (asserting claims for putative national class and Florida, New Jersey, and New York subclasses). Three actions were filed on December 20, 2017 (Kacur, Jackson, Foskaris), and the fourth was filed on January 8, 2018 (Ruderman). On December 19, 2017, the Company disclosed that individuals with an Amazon Web Services, or AWS, login could have had access to a third-party marketing dataset that provided consumer marketing information intended to help marketing professionals advertise and sell their products, or the AWS Matter. This dataset is commercially available and provides some location information, contact information and other estimated information that is used for marketing purposes. It does not include names, credit card numbers, social security numbers, bank account information or passwords. The Company said, "The plaintiffs in these cases, who purport to represent various classes of individuals whose information was contained within the dataset, claim to have been harmed or to be facing harm as a result of the exposure of their personal information. The complaints assert claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 1681 et seq. and state consumer-protection statutes, as well as claims for common-law negligence. Additional actions alleging similar claims could be brought in the future. These proceedings all remain in the early stages. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Because of the early stages of these matters, we are unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss, if any, that may result for these matters." Alteryx, Inc. provides self-service data analytics software platform that enables organizations to enhance business outcomes and the productivity of their business analysts. It offers Alteryx Designer for data preparation, blending, and analytics that could be deployable in the cloud and on premise; Alteryx Server, a secure and scalable product for sharing and running analytic applications in a Web-based environment; and Alteryx Analytics Gallery, a cloud-based collaboration offering that allows users to share workflows in a centralized repository. The company serves clients in business and financial services, consumer goods, healthcare, retail, technology, and travel and hospitality industry. AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Still Faces 2 Securities Class Suits in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. still defends two putative federal securities class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The first action, captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00299-AJN, was filed on January 12, 2018 and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Barclays Capital Inc., and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, the underwriters for the Company's February 8, 2017 secondary public offering. The Hawaii action alleges, among other things, that the registration statement and prospectus for the secondary public offering and certain other public disclosures contained material misstatements and omissions. The second action, Nichols v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00510-AJN, was filed on January 19, 2018 and asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The Nichols action similarly alleges, among other things, that the registration statement and prospectus for the secondary public offering and certain other public disclosures contained material misstatements and omissions. AMC Entertainment said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. Given the early stage of the actions, a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable at this time." AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. owns and operates a theatrical exhibition company in the United States and Europe. AMP LIMITED: Shine Lawyers Eye Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Emma Ryan, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that Shine Lawyers has announced it is investigating a class action on behalf of AMP Limited shareholders, following damning revelations at the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The Australian law firm says its investigation into the financial giant will centre around claims that AMP engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct and made false representations by lying to ASIC on multiple occasions about the manner in which its clients were charged for services that were not provided. A statement from the law firm confirmed it will also be examining allegations that AMP failed to disclose to the market material information in relation to its dealings with the corporate watchdog, and failed to disclose material information about its risk management processes. "Shine Lawyers are of the view that AMP has breached a number of provisions of the Corporations Act and ASX Listing Rules. AMP executives gave evidence at the royal commission that their conduct fell far short of the standards expected by shareholders, investors, policy holders and community expectations generally," said Shine Lawyers class actions expert Jan Saddler, Esq. "The integrity of the Australian financial markets depend upon all stakeholders engaging in conduct that is consistent with the law. "What we are seeing coming out of the royal commission is that certain stakeholders, namely the financial institutions, seem to think that they are the exception to the rule. The matters we are investigating in relation to AMP would certainly suggest that that is the position AMP took when they became aware of these issues." Slater and Gordon announced it too is considering a shareholder class action against AMP, in partnership with litigation funder Therium Capital Management Limited (Therium). Los Angeles-based litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, along with Guernsey-headquartered litigation funder Burford Capital, also announced they are circling AMP for a potential shareholder class action. [GN] AMPCO-PITTSBURGH: 3rd Circuit to Decide on Arbitration Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- In a class action lawsuit by retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company against Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation, among other defendants, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will next consider whether the District Court erred in compelling arbitration, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. In February 2017, the Corporation, its indirect subsidiary Akers National Roll Company, as well as the Akers National Roll Company Health & Welfare Benefits Plan were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the plaintiffs (currently retired former employees of Akers National Roll Company and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial, and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO) alleged that the defendants breached collective bargaining agreements and violated the benefit plan by modifying medical benefits of the plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs petitioned the court to compel arbitration. On June 13, 2017, the District Court compelled arbitration and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. Defendants appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on June 21, 2017. Defendants also filed a motion to stay arbitration pending the resolution of the appeal, and that motion was granted on September 5, 2017. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals will next consider whether the District Court erred in compelling arbitration. "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Corporation believes that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation and its subsidiaries (the "Corporation") manufacture and sell highly engineered, high performance specialty metal products and customized equipment utilized by industry throughout the world. AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Still Defends Securities Class Action in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. continues to defend itself against a consolidated securities class action lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company and certain of its officers and directors are also defendants in three putative securities class action lawsuits filed in March and April of 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Another putative class action, filed in February 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was voluntarily dismissed (Miller v. AmTrust, Zyskind, and Pipoly). The three cases in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated under the case name In re AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Securities Litigation. Plaintiffs in this proceeding filed a consolidated, amended complaint on August 21, 2017. Plaintiffs assert in the consolidated, amended complaint claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The consolidated, amended complaint adds as defendants BDO USA LLP, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief. AmTrust Financial said, "The Company believes the allegations are unfounded and is vigorously pursuing its defenses; however, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss, if any, due to the early stage of the proceeding." AmTrust provides insurance coverage for small businesses and products with high volumes of insureds and loss profiles that the Company believes are predictable. APPLE HOSPITALITY: Court Okays Settlement Pact for "Moses" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. has received court approval of an agreement in principle to settle the litigation captioned, Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On April 22, 2014, a purported shareholder of Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight"), filed a class action against the Company and several individual directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased additional shares under the Dividend Reinvestment Plans ("DRIP") of Apple Seven, Apple Eight and the Company between July 17, 2007 and February 12, 2014 (the "2014 DRIP litigation"). The Company said, "In January 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation which the court approved by order dated March 27, 2018." In January 2018, the Company funded the settlement amount of US$5.5 million, which was included in accounts payable and other liabilities in the Company's consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2017, and in transaction and litigation costs (reimbursements) in the Company's consolidated statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2016. The Company is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. The Company is self-advised and invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in the lodging sector, in the United States. APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Wilchfort" Suit Dismissed without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that on May 1, 2018, all of the Apple REIT Defendants in the "Wilchfort" class action were dismissed from the complaint without prejudice by the plaintiff. The case was captioned Wilchfort, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al. On February 24, 2017, a purported shareholder of Apple REIT Six, Inc. ("Apple Six"), Apple REIT Seven, Inc. ("Apple Seven") and Apple REIT Eight, Inc. ("Apple Eight"), filed a class action against, among others, the Company and the former individual directors of Apple Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight, including Mr. Glade Knight ("the Apple REIT Defendants"), on behalf of all then-existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Six, Apple Seven and Apple Eight, who purchased additional shares under Apple Six's, Apple Seven's and Apple Eight's DRIP between July 17, 2007 and December 2012 (in the case of Apple Six shareholders) or June 30, 2013 (in the case of Apple Seven and Apple Eight shareholders). The Company is a Virginia corporation that has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. The Company is self-advised and invests in income-producing real estate, primarily in the lodging sector, in the United States. AQUATECH INT'L: Ferguson Seeks Damages Over Retaliatory Discharge ----------------------------------------------------------------- JILL FERGUSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. AQUATECH INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00470- JFC (W.D. Pa., April 11, 2018), is an individual and collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, an individual and class action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage, and an individual action under the FLSA (retaliation) to recover damages for unpaid overtime compensation and for retaliatory discharge. Aquatech International, LLC, is a privately held company and a leading global provider of industrial and infrastructure water treatment solutions and services. The Defendant maintains its North America Corporate Headquarters in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP First & Market Building, Suite 650 100 First Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1514 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 Facsimile: (412) 774-1994 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com - and - John R. Linkosky, Esq. JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES 715 Washington Avenue Carnegie, PA 15106 Telephone: (412) 278-1280 Facsimile: (412) 278-1282 E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net ATLAS HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suits by Vana and Stone --------------------------------------------------- Susana Vana and David Stone have filed class action lawsuits against Atlas Holdings, Inc., the 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. On December 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Susan Vana and David Stone, respectively, filed class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against the Company alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 generally alleging that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 related to the Combination contains false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the financial projections of Impax, Amneal, and New Amneal; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC's valuation analyses and Fairness Opinions relating to Impax and Amneal; potential conflicts of interest associated with one of Impax's financial advisors and the proposed business combination with Amneal; and background information of the proposed business combination, including confidentiality agreements entered into by Impax in connection with the proposed business combination. No schedule has been set. Atlas Holdings, Inc. was formed along with its wholly owned subsidiary, K2 Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub"), on October 4, 2017, for the purpose of facilitating the combination of Impax Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Impax") and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Amneal"). AVIACODE INC: Seeks Approval of Class Notice in "Hazel" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN HAZEL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. AVIACODE, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01065-BSJ (D. Utah), jointly ask the Court to approve their stipulated form of Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit to certain Medical Coders that worked for the Defendant. The Plaintiff brought this case as a collective action to recover alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and as a class action to recover alleged unpaid wages, unreimbursed business expenses, and statutory damages under Utah's Payment of Wages Act. The Plaintiff and the members of the classes he seeks to represent are medical coders, who were classified by the Defendant as independent contractors to review patient documentation and determine appropriate diagnostic and/or procedural codes that correspond to the services rendered, as described in the medical records. The parties agreed to jointly move for a Court Order conditionally certifying the case as a collective action under the FLSA, consisting of current and former Medical Coders, who received payments from Defendant suggesting they worked at least 25 hours in one or more workweeks in the last three years (the "Putative Opt-In Medical Coders"). The threshold of 25 hours in any given workweek is intended by the parties to exclude Medical Coders who, even assuming the addition of 15 hours of alleged uncompensated time worked in any workweek (which the Defendant denies), would not have reached the FLSA's threshold of 40 hours per workweek. The parties also agree, among other things, that the Defendant will produce an Excel spreadsheet listing the names, last known addresses, date of birth, Social Security number, contractor ID number, dates of service, and last known e-mail addresses for all Putative Opt-In Medical Coders. A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6pKhV8nP The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Barton, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP 4740 Grand Ave., Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1100 E-mail: ebarton@wcllp.com - and - Jack D. McInnes, Esq. MCINNES LAW LLC 3500 West 75th Street, Suite 200 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 220-2488 Facsimile: (913) 273-1671 E-mail: jack@mcinnes-law.com - and - Patrick G. Reavey, Esq. Kevin C. Koc, Esq. REAVEY LAW 1600 Gennessee St., Suite 303 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 474-6300 Facsimile: (816) 474-6302 E-mail: preavey@reaveylaw.com kkoc@reaveylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew W. Bagley, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 624-2672 Facsimile: (202) 628-5116 E-mail: abagley@crowell.com - and - Cheylynn Hayman, Esq. Austin J. Riter, Esq. PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C. 101 South 200 East, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-7840 Facsimile: (801) 532-7750 E-mail: chayman@parrbrown.com ariter@parrbrown.com AVIACODE INC: Class of Medical Coders Certified in "Hazel" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins grants the joint motion to approve stipulated form of notice of collective action filed by the parties in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN HAZEL, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. AVIACODE, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-01065-BSJ (D. Utah). The parties have agreed and stipulated to sending notice of conditional certification of the Plaintiff's FLSA collective action claims to current and former Medical Coders, who received payment from the Defendant suggesting they worked at least 25 hours in one or more workweeks in the period at issue (starting three years prior to notice and ending December 26, 2017) (the "Putative Opt-In Medical Coders"). The Notice and Consent to Join Form as set forth in Exhibits 1 and 2 in the parties' Amended Joint Motion are approved. Docs. 42 and 45 are denied as moot, according to the order. Within seven days of entry of this Order, the Defendant shall provide to Simpluris, Inc., a third-party administrator jointly chosen (and jointly paid) by the parties, with an Excel spreadsheet listing the Putative Opt-In Medical Coders. Simpluris shall, among other things, mail and e-mail the Notices and Consent Forms within 14 days after receipt of the Excel spreadsheet. The Putative Opt-In Medical Coders shall have 75 days after mailing of the Notices to submit a Consent Fann to join this action. All Consent Forms must be postmarked no later than 75 days from the original mailing date. The Plaintiff retains his right to move for class certification of his separate claims under the Utah Payment of Wages Act for all Medical Coders under Rule 23. The Defendant retains the right to oppose such a motion and/or file any motion of its own. The Defendant's consent to conditional certification of Plaintiff's FLSA claim as a collective action shall not be construed as an admission of liability. The Defendant retains the right to oppose the Plaintiff's motions for final collective action certification and/or move for decertification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nKlN2NpY AVID TECHNOLOGY: Finalization of "Mohanty" Settlement Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Avid Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the finalization of the settlement in the "Mohanty" case is subject to execution of definitive documentation and approval by the court, among other conditions. The Company states, "In November 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Mohanty v. Avid Technology, Inc. et al., No. 16-cv-12336) against us and certain of our executive officers seeking unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between August 4, 2016 and November 9, 2016, inclusive. The complaint purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws as a result of alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint's allegations relate generally to our disclosure surrounding the level of implementation of our Avid NEXIS solution product offerings. On February 7, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel in the matter. On June 14, 2017, we moved to dismiss the action. On July 31, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss, and on August 21, 2017, we filed our reply brief. On October 13, 2017, after a mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation. We expect the majority of the settlement to be funded by our insurers. Finalization of the settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including execution of definitive documentation and approval by the court." Avid develops, markets, sells, and supports software and hardware for digital media content production, management and distribution. BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Putative Class Action Trial Set for Oct. 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in a consolidated putative class action against Banc of California, Inc., is currently set for October 21, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On January 23, 2017, the first of three putative class action lawsuits, Garcia v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv- 00118, was filed against Banc of California, James J. McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Thereafter, two related putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California: (1) Malak v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00138 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of California, James J. McKinney, and Steven A. Sugarman, and (2) Cardona v. Banc of California, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00621 (January 26, 2017), asserting claims against Banc of California, James J. McKinney, Ronald J. Nicolas, Jr., and Steven A. Sugarman. Those actions were consolidated, a lead plaintiff was appointed, and the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint against Banc of California, Steve A. Sugarman and James J. McKinney on May 31, 2017 alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In general, the Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the purported concealment of the defendants' alleged relationship with Jason Galanis caused various statements made by the defendants to be false and misleading. The defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The plaintiff thereafter dismissed Mr. McKinney, leaving the Company and Mr. Sugarman as the remaining defendants. On September 18, 2017, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss. Specifically, the court denied the defendants' motions as to the Company's April 15, 2016 Proxy Statement which listed Mr. Sugarman's positions with COR Securities Holdings Inc., COR Clearing LLC, and COR Capital LLC while omitting their alleged connections with Jason Galanis. The lawsuits purport to be brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased stock in the Company between varying dates, inclusive of August 15, 2016 through January 23, 2017. The lawsuits seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Trial is currently set for October 21, 2019. The Company said it believes that the consolidated action is without merit and intends to vigorously contest it. Banc of California, Inc. is a financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, headquartered in Santa Ana, California and incorporated under the laws of Maryland. BBX CAPITAL: Bid for Class Cert. Granted Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- BBX Capital 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 a court has accepted the recommendation and granted preliminary approval of class certification, in a suit against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. On August 24, 2016, Whitney Paxton and Jeff Reeser filed a lawsuit against Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. ("BVU"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bluegreen, and certain employees of BVU (collectively, the "Defendants"), seeking to establish a class action of former and current employees of BVU and alleging violations of plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA") and breach of contract. The lawsuit also claims that the Defendants terminated plaintiff Whitney Paxton as retaliation for her complaints about alleged violations of the FLSA. The lawsuit seeks damages in the amount of the unpaid compensation owed to the plaintiffs. During July 2017, a magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation that the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members be granted with respect to certain employees and denied as to others. During September 2017, the judge accepted the recommendation and granted preliminary approval of class certification. Management believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. BBX Capital Corporation is a Florida-based diversified holding company with investments in Bluegreen Vacations Corporation ("Bluegreen Vacations" or "Bluegreen"), real estate and real estate joint ventures, and middle market operating businesses. BIRD ELECTRIC: Class of Electricians Certified in "Guajardo" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. David Counts granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Conditional Certification and Judicially-Supervised Notice Under Section 216(b) in the lawsuit titled JASON GUAJARDO, Individually And On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Persons v. BIRD ELECTRIC ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-00025-DC (W.D. Tex.). Judge Counts rules that the case will conditionally proceed at this time as a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Judge Counts authorizes the issuance of the agreed notice and consent forms that the Parties submitted with their Stipulation for Conditional Certification to all current and former Electricians, who worked for the Defendant in Department 16 at any time from April 10, 2015, to the present (the individuals in this group being referred to herein as, "Potential Class Member(s)"). Within 10 days of the date of this Order, Judge Counts directs the Defendant's Counsel to, among other things, provide to the Plaintiff's Counsel in Excel format information regarding each Potential Class Member, including full name, last known address and telephone number(s). Within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court- approved notice and consent forms to the Potential Class Members. The Plaintiff's Counsel may maintain a Web site dedicated to posting the notice and consent forms, which shall contain only the Court-approved forms. During the Opt-In Period and other than as described in the Order, the Plaintiff's Counsel may not send any information other than notice and consent forms, or otherwise communicate with Potential Class Members except to verify physical and e-mail addresses and to respond to inquiries initiated by Potential Class Members. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AfcX9cCr BERKSHIRE HILLS: Depositor's Class Action Underway in D. Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. continues to face a potential class action lawsuit in Massachusetts filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On April 28, 2016, Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank were served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division. The complaint was filed by an individual Berkshire Bank depositor, who claims to have filed the complaint on behalf of a purported class of Berkshire Bank depositors, and alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and certain regulations thereunder, among other matters. On July 15, 2016, the complaint was amended to add purported claims under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The complaint seeks, in part, compensatory, consequential, statutory, and punitive damages. Berkshire Hills and Berkshire Bank deny the allegations contained in the complaint and are vigorously defending this lawsuit. Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Berkshire is a Delaware corporation and the holding company for Berkshire Bank and Berkshire Insurance Group, Inc. BRAMBLES: Slaters, IMF Launch Class Action ------------------------------------------ Jerome Doraisamy, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that National firm Slater and Gordon and global litigation funder IMF Bentham announced on April 23 a new class action following 'cannibalised' growth by a listed Australian company. The action is being taken against Brambles, an ASX 20 company, that operates the CHEP and IFCO brands with a supply of reusable pallets, crates and containers across more than 60 countries. It is alleged by Slaters and IMF that Brambles "cannibalised" its fiscal year 2017 growth and allegedly misled investors about its future profits. The class action will be open to investors who suffered loss after acquiring shares in Brambles between 18 August 2016 and 17 February 2017. The proposed allegations are as follows: that Brambles did not have reasonable grounds to issues its FY17 Guidance in August 2016, thus made misleading and deceptive representations to the market, and breached its obligations of continuous disclosure. Slaters senior associate Andrew Paull, Esq., said investors lost "millions of dollars" after Brambles revised its profit guidance in the first two months of 2017. "Brambles had been enjoying a steady rate of growth for a number of years, but in FY16 its revenue and earnings grew at double the historic rate," he said. "This growth occurred after Brambles allowed a large number of its pallets to be used to transport goods to companies outside its regular distribution channels." "Brambles could charge a premium for this, which increased revenue, but they also list visibility over the whereabouts of their pallets, which significantly increased collection and repair costs," he noted. The costs associated with Brambles' "exceptional" FY16 growth effectively "cannibalised" the company's FY17 growth, he argued. "This is not the kind of case where a company has failed to foresee risks that would negatively impact future growth," he said. "Brambles was telling the market that its FY16 sales growth of eight per cent and profit growth of nine per cent was the 'new normal' and could be expected into the future." As such, Slaters and IMF are alleging that Brambles knew its increased costs would make future growth at the FY16 rate impossible, and they failed to account for that in their FY17 forecast. "The company has provided a variety of inconsistent reasons for its surprising guidance miscalculation but, in our view, these excuses just don't stack up," Mr Paull concluded. This class action marks the latest collaboration between the two entities, following their action against milk supplier Murray Goulburn and a subsidiary in early April. [GN] BRAVO BRIO: Dagenbach to Withdraw Preliminary Injunction Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018, that Jon Dagenbach has filed a notice withdrawing his motion for a preliminary injunction against the Company's merger agreement with Bugatti Parent, Inc. The intention to withdraw is based upon the representation that the Company would file the Form 8-K provide additional information to its shareholders. A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://is.gd/CvXmzw On March 7, 2018, Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., an Ohio corporation (the "Company"), announced that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Bugatti Parent, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Bugatti Merger Sub, Inc., an Ohio corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub are investment affiliates of GP Investments, Ltd. ("GP"), a leading private equity and alternative investment firm and Spice Private Equity Ltd. ("Spice"), a Swiss investment company focused on private equity investments and an affiliate of GP. The Merger Agreement provides that, among other things, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company (the "Merger") effective as of the effective time of the Merger (the "Effective Time"). As a result of the Merger, Merger Sub will cease to exist, and the Company will survive as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. On April 23, 2018, Mr. Jon Dagenbach filed a putative shareholder class action against the Company and the individual members of the Company's Board of Directors (collectively, the "Company Board") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The case is captioned Jon Dagenbach v. Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00375-ALM (the "Merger Litigation"). Mr. Dagenbach's lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement. Mr. Dagenbach alleges that the Company's definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2018 (the "Proxy Statement") contains certain material omissions and misstatements. He seeks to enjoin or rescind the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and requests attorneys' fees and damages in an unspecified amount. On April 24, 2018, Mr. Dagenbach filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement. On April 25, 2018, Mr. Dagenbach filed a motion to expedite proceedings relating to his motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court granted the motion to expedite by Order entered on April 26, 2018, and scheduled a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion for May 11, 2018. On May 4, 2018, the Company and the Company Board filed a memorandum in opposition to Mr. Dagenbach's motion for a preliminary injunction and moved to dismiss his complaint. As of the date of this Current Report on Form 8-K, the Court has not issued a ruling on Mr. Dagenbach's motion for a preliminary injunction or the Company and the Company Board's motion to dismiss. The Company said, "The defendants believe these claims are without merit and are vigorously defending against these claims. However, in order to alleviate the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and provide additional information to its shareholders, the Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy Statement as described in this Current Report on Form 8-K. Based upon the representation that the Company would file this Current Report on Form 8-K, on May 8, 2018, Mr. Dagenbach filed a notice withdrawing his motion for a preliminary injunction. Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein. To the contrary, the Company specifically denies all allegations in the Merger Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is required." Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. is the owner and operator of two distinct Italian restaurant brands, BRAVO! Cucina Italiana ("BRAVO!") and BRIO Tuscan Grille ("BRIO"). The company had positioned its brands as multifaceted culinary destinations that deliver the ambiance, design elements and food quality reminiscent of fine dining restaurants at a value typically offered by casual dining establishments, a combination known as the upscale affordable dining segment. The company is based in Columbus, Ohio. BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ: Wins Prelim. OK of $1.475-Mil. "Haas" Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Noel L. Hillman granted the motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, as outlined in the parties' Settlement Agreement in the lawsuit entitled TAMMY MARIE HAAS and CONRAD SCZCPANIAK, Individually and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals v. BURLINGTON COUNTY, ET AL., Case No. 1:08-cv-01102-NLH-JS (D.N.J.). The Settlement Class is defined as: All persons who were placed into custody at the Burlington County Correctional Facility after being charged with non -indictable offenses, and were strip searched upon their entry into the Burlington County Correctional Facility pursuant to the policy, custom and practice of the County of Burlington during the period of February 26, 2006 to February 28, 2013. Plaintiffs Tammy Marie Haas and Conrad Szczpaniak are appointed to serve as co-class representatives. Strategic Claims Services is appointed to serve as Settlement Administrator. Carl D. Poplar, Esq., and David Novack, Esq., are appointed as Co-Class Counsel. The costs of administering the settlement shall be paid by the Settling Defendant, County of Burlington's Insurer, State National, not to exceed $300,000 as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Settling Plaintiffs shall cause the initial notice and claim form to be mailed to all appropriate parties no later than June 15, 2018. All claims shall be received no later than October 15, 2018. The Settlement Agreement provides that the Defendants shall pay $1,475,000 to the Settlement Fund. The amount paid to the Plaintiffs shall be capped at $400 per claim. The Defendants have agreed to pay up to $80,000 as an incentive fee to the Co- Class Representatives, Tammy Marie Haas and Conrad Szczpaniak. Defendant Burlington County shall pay attorneys' fees up to $675,000 and costs up to $25,000. The Court will commence a Final Fairness Hearing on December 15, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., to consider final approval of the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KReh3sz5 Plaintiff Tammy Marie Haas is represented by: David J. Novack, Esq. BUDD LARNER, P.C. 150 John F. Kennedy Parkway, CN1000 Short Hills, NJ 07078-0999 Telephone: (973) 379-4800 E-mail: dnovack@budd-larner.com Plaintiff Conrad Szcapaniak is represented by: Carl D. Poplar, Esq. CARL D. POPLAR, P.A., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1010 Kings Highway South, Building One Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 216-9979 E-mail: cpoplar@poplarlaw.com CANADA: Class Action Over Faulty Phoenix Pay System Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Duffy, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that a Quebec judge has given the green light to a potentially costly class- action lawsuit launched by disgruntled public servants whose lives have been turned upside down by the faulty Phoenix pay system. In a judgment released in March, Quebec Superior Court Justice Jean-Francois Emond authorized the class action to proceed to trial. Court documents suggest between 40,000 to 70,000 occasional and casual federal employees from across Canada could be eligible to join the suit, many of them students. "This judgment means that we will be able to bring this case to trial, and hopefully, prove to the court that people . . . have suffered damages," said lawyer Julien Fortier, one member of the Quebec City legal team that launched the case in April 2017. The lawsuit alleges that the federal government failed to fulfil obligations toward its casual employees during the problem- plagued implementation of the Phoenix pay system. It seeks different kinds of compensation, including interest on unpaid wages, and damages for emotional and financial fallout. The suit alleges some employees were paid too much before having to reimburse the government, while others were paid the wrong amounts, or not at all. The Phoenix pay system, it alleges, also introduced errors to parental leave, sick leave, health insurance and overtime payments. Lawyers are seeking a base amount of $500 for all members of the class action, and additional amounts for individual cases. They've asked the court to award $1,000 to all employees whose pay contained errors regardless of whether they were overpaid or underpaid. Further damages are being sought for employees who did not receive at least half their pay during two consecutive pay periods, and for those who suffered other pay problems. The lead plaintiff is Ezmie Bouchard, who worked at Passport Canada between January and August 2016. She alleges that several mistakes were made on her cheques, which left her $4,800 short of what she should have received. After a series of adjustments, Bouchard was overpaid. At the end of a process that caused her uncertainty and stress, the lawsuit claims, Ms. Bouchard had to repay $1,000. But the class-action lawsuit does not encompass the majority of employees affected by the Phoenix fiasco. Robyn Benson, national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the lawsuit will cover student workers and casual workers, but not public service union members who have access to an existing grievance process. "It is only for those who are not covered by a union," Ms. Benson said. "We are a class in and of ourselves, and have the ability to negotiate for our members." PSAC has been negotiating for a compensation package for its 180,000 members, but has not come to any agreement with the government. A survey of PSAC members found that about three-quarters of respondents had been overpaid or underpaid, and many others were worried about being affected in the future. "This has been a complete debacle from the get-go," Benson said. "We expect that this government should make amends." While the students and casual workers caught in the Phoenix mess need some avenue to pursue compensation, a class-action lawsuit may be a time-consuming, arduous process, Ms. Benson said. She warned they "could be waiting for years." Mr. Fortier, however, said he doesn't believe the case will be overly complex. "There's a flagrant situation here that needs to be addressed," he said. "I think that what makes our case a bit easier is that no one can say that everything is going well. No one is saying that, not even the government." Damages, he said, cannot yet be estimated, but could run into the tens of millions. Ms. Fortier said the class-action is open to anyone who does not have access to the public service grievance process, and could potentially include casual employees, students, retirees and those who have quit their civil service jobs. Federal employees who believe they should be included in the class-action lawsuit can contact the law firm through its dedicated website. "In speaking to people, we realized that the simple fact of working in the public service during this time was a hardship," Ms. Fortier said. "This class-action won't work miracles and can't fix software issues. It's meant to compensate people for the hardship they've experienced. We think it's essential, but it's only one piece of the Phoenix puzzle." Carla Qualtrough, the minister of public services and procurement, and Parliamentary secretary Steven MacKinnon would not comment on the lawsuit. Scores of federal employees have experienced problems with their paycheques since the Phoenix pay system was introduced in early 2016 before it was ready to handle the massive task. The system administers pay for more than 290,000 employees across 98 federal organizations. Joanne Laucius and Olivia Robinson contributed to this report. With files from Presse Canadienne [GN] CAPITAL FITNESS: Gooden Seeks Certification of Class Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify the case titled LUNDON GOODEN, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CAPITAL FITNESS, INC. d/b/a XSPORT FITNESS, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-02200 (N.D. Ill.), as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Lundon Gooden, et al., are a group of current and former employees, who are allegedly owed substantial overtime pay and commissions from the Defendant. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant routinely required them to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but the Defendant did not pay them additional wages for the extra work. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: (a) authorize their counsel to send judicial notice and the reminders to the putative collective class, and requires the posting of the notice at the various workplaces; (b) approve their proposed notice and reminder notice; (c) compel the Defendant to produce a list of the putative collective class members; (d) bar the Defendant from engaging in any and all forms of communication to prospective class members concerning the merits and issues of their FLSA claims and bar the Defendant from securing any waivers or releases of the putative plaintiffs' FLSA claims; and (e) authorize a 90-day notice period for the putative class members to opt-in. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FgzCWEN5 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard R. Gordon, Esq. GORDON LAW OFFICES, LTD. 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 332-5200 Facsimile: (312) 236-7727 E-mail: rrg@gordonlawchicago.com - and - Kristen E. Prinz, Esq. Amit Bindra, Esq. THE PRINZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 550 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 212-4450 Facsimile: (312) 284-4822 E-mail: kprinz@prinz-lawfirm.com abindra@prinz-lawfirm.com CAPITALA FINANCE: "Paskowitz" Lawsuit Transferred to W.D. N.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- Capitala Finance Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the "Paskowitz" class action lawsuit has been transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (case number 3:18-cv-00096- RJC-DSC), on stipulation of the parties. On December 28, 2017, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit complaint, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (case number 2:17-cv-09251-MWF-AS) (the "Paskowitz Action"), against the Company and certain of its current officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017. The complaint alleges certain violations of the securities laws, including, inter alia, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On March 1, 2018, the Paskowitz Action was transferred, on stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (case number 3:18-cv- 00096-RJC-DSC). Capitala Finance said, "While the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation, the outcome of these legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty." CAPITALA FINANCE: "Sandifer" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Capitala Finance Corp. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the "Sandifer" class action complaint has been voluntarily dismissed on February 28, 2018. On January 3, 2018, another alleged stockholder filed a putative class action complaint, Sandifer v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (case number 2:18-cv-00052-MWF-AS) (the "Sandifer Action"), asserting substantially similar claims on behalf of the same putative class and against the same defendants as those in a putative class action lawsuit complaint, Paskowitz v. Capitala Finance Corp., et al. The Paskowitz suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (case number 2:17-cv- 09251-MWF-AS), against the Company and certain of its current officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between January 4, 2016 and August 7, 2017. The complaint in the Sandifer Action allege certain violations of the securities laws, including, inter alia, that the defendants made certain materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On February 2, 2018, the Sandifer Action was transferred, on stipulation of the parties, to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The Sandifer Action was voluntarily dismissed on February 28, 2018. CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Case Management Dates in "Gudger" Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jose E. Martinez granted in part the parties' joint motion to stay case management deadlines contained in the Court's Scheduling Order in the lawsuit captioned JODY GUDGER and RHONDA KING, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-14281- JEM (S.D. Fla.). Judge Martinez ruled that the previous calendar call and trial dates are cancelled. All unexpired, pretrial deadlines contained in the Court's Scheduling Order are stayed. The parties shall confer and file updated proposed deadlines for all unexpired pretrial deadlines, as well as a new trial date, within 14 days following entry of an Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action, Judge Martinez stated. Once the parties have submitted an updated proposed pretrial schedule and trial date, the Court will enter a revised scheduling order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OZqOHmlH CENTURYLINK INC: "Tomasulo" Pact Still Subject to Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the proposed settlement of Jeffery Tomasulo's putative shareholder class action lawsuit is subject to court approval, among other conditions. The Company said, "CenturyLink and certain members of the CenturyLink Board of Directors have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish, captioned Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al. The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of CenturyLink's Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in our preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016 are insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material information concerning the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction. On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval, among other conditions, and the amount of the settlement is not material to our consolidated financial statements." CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of services to residential and business customers. CENTURYLINK INC: Sales Practices & Securities Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. still defends in the case captioned, In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company said, "In June 2017, McLeod v. CenturyLink, a putative consumer class action, was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that we charged some of our retail customers for products and services they did not authorize. A number of other complaints asserting similar claims have been filed in other federal courts, as well. The lawsuits assert claims including fraud, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. "Also in June 2017, Craig. v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., a putative securities investor class action, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that we failed to disclose material information regarding improper sales practices, and asserting federal securities law claims. A number of other cases asserting similar claims have also been filed. "Both the putative consumer class actions and the putative securities investor class actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as In Re: CenturyLink Sales Practices and Securities Litigation." CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of services to residential and business customers. CHAPARRAL ENERGY: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Donelson" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of the case captioned Martha Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., according to Chaparral Energy, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company said, "On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against us, as well as several other operators in Osage County, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and surface lessees. The plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling permits approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs without the environmental studies allegedly required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive damages. "On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against all defendants as an improper challenge under NEPA and the Administrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffs filed motions to alter or amend the court's opinion and vacate the judgment, and to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies which the court found in the dismissed complaint. "On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy, and as a result has not responded to the plaintiffs' motions. After plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 6, 2016. Oral argument regarding the appeal was held on November 14, 2017, and on April 5, 2018, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The time to appeal the Tenth Circuit's ruling has not lapsed. "We anticipate any monetary liability related to this claim will be discharged. We dispute plaintiffs' allegations and dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action." Chaparral Energy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Oklahoma City which has been engaged in the onshore oil and natural gas acquisition, exploitation, exploration and production business in the United States since 1988. CHIASMA INC: Amended Complaint in "Gerneth" Lawsuit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ After the court denied Chiasma, Inc.'s request to dismiss the case, the Company has responded to the amended complaint filed in the case captioned Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. on March 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company said, "On June 9, 2016, Chiasma, Inc. and certain of our current and former officers were named as defendants in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, styled Gerneth v. Chiasma, Inc., et al. This lawsuit challenges our public statements regarding our Phase 3 clinical trial methodology for octreotide capsules and our ability to obtain FDA approval for the marketing and sale of octreotide capsules. "In December 2016, a lead plaintiff was appointed in the case. An amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff on February 10, 2017 similarly challenging our statements regarding the Phase 3 clinical trial methodology and results, and our ability to obtain FDA approval for octreotide capsules, purportedly in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. "The amended complaint adds as defendants current and former members of our board of directors, as well as the investment banks that underwrote our initial public offering ("IPO") on July 15, 2015. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all purchasers of our stock in our IPO. The plaintiff is seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages on behalf of himself and members of a putative shareholder class, including interest and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in litigating the action, and any other relief the court determines is appropriate. "The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 27, 2017, and on February 15, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on March 30, 2018. "We believe this lawsuit is meritless and intend to vigorously defend against it. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be material to us." Chiasma, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on improving the lives of patients who face challenges associated with their existing treatments for rare and serious chronic disease. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts. CINEMARK USA: Appeal in "Amey" Labor Lawsuit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's appeal from the District Court's rulings in the "Amey" case remains pending, according to Cinemark USA, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The case is captioned Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. Bloomberg News recounts that the plaintiff asked the court to certify the Class defined as: All current and former non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in California at any time from December 3, 2011 through the present, and were paid overtime compensation during at least one pay period. The Company said, "The case presents putative class action claims for damages and attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously defend against all claims. The Court recently determined that class certification is not appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is not appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or the range of potential loss." The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Grant, Esq. Robert Drexler, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com [BN] Cinemark is a supplier of products and solutions that conserve water and manage the flow of fluids and energy into, through and out of buildings in the residential and commercial markets of the Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa ("APMEA"). CIVITAS SOLUTIONS: 2 Potential Class Suits Pending at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Civitas Solutions, Inc. continues to face two complaints in California state court that allege certain wage and hour violations of California labor laws and seek to be designated as class actions, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company said, "For our employment practices liability, we are fully self insured. We currently have two pending complaints in California state court that allege certain wage and hour violations of California labor laws and seek to be designated as class-actions. Two additional wage and hour class action claims have been settled; one of which was settled and approved by the court on January 31, 2018 and the other has been submitted to the court for preliminary approval. These actions increased our expenses, particularly during the three and six months ended March 31, 2017, as we are self-insured for employment-practices liability related claims. For the three and six months ended March 31, 2018, we incurred employment practices liability expenses of US$0.8 million and US$1.8 million, respectively. For the three and six months ended March 31, 2017, we incurred employment practices liability expenses of US$3.8 million and US$4.1 million, respectively." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Civitas Solutions, Inc. provides home- and community-based health and human services to must-serve individuals with intellectual, developmental, behavioral, and/or medically complex disabilities and challenges in the United States. It operates through Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD), Post-Acute Specialty Rehabilitation Services (SRS), and At-Risk Youth (ARY) segments. It was formerly known as NMH Holdings, Inc. The company was founded in 1980 and is based in Boston, Massachusetts. Civitas Solutions, Inc. is a subsidiary of Vestar Capital Partners. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation remains a defendant in a consolidated securities class action pending in New Jersey, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On October 5, 2016, October 27, 2016, and November 18, 2016, three putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, naming us and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. In an order dated February 3, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey consolidated the three putative securities class actions into a single action and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On April 7, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased our common stock during the period between February 27, 2015 and September 29, 2016, naming us and certain of our current and former officers as defendants and alleging violations of the Exchange Act, based on allegedly false or misleading statements related to potential violations of the FCPA, our business, prospects and operations, and the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting and our disclosure controls and procedures. The lead plaintiffs seek an award of compensatory damages, among other relief, and their reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Under a stipulation filed by the parties on February 23, 2017, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on July 21, 2017 responding to defendants' motions to dismiss, and defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss on September 5, 2017. On September 5, 2017, defendants also filed a motion to strike certain allegations in the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to strike on October 2, 2017, and, on October 10, 2017, the Company filed a reply brief in further support of the motion to strike. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation is one of the world's professional services companies, transforming customers' business, operating and technology models for the digital era. COLONY NORTHSTAR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Colony NorthStar, Inc. ("Colony NorthStar" or the "Company") (NYSE:CLNS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 18-cv-03520, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Colony NorthStar securities between February 28, 2017 through March 1, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff 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 "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Colony NorthStar securities between February 28, 2017, and March 1, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until June 5, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll- free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. 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 Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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. Contact: Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP Telephone: 888-476-6529 Ext. 9980 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] COMMERCEHUB INC: Injunction Bid in "Gordon" Suit Dropped -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Gordon v. CommerceHub, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:18- cv-00512 (N.D.N.Y., April 27, 2018), Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., on May 7, 2018, entered an Order granting Plaintiff's request to withdraw the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The motion hearing scheduled for May 17 was cancelled. CommerceHub, Inc. provided supplemental disclosures, through its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2018, to its definitive proxy statement filed by CommerceHub with the SEC on April 18, 2018 (Proxy Statement) in connection with the solicitation of proxies by the Company's board of directors for the Special Meeting of Stockholders to be held on May 18, 2018 and any adjournment or postponement thereof ("Special Meeting"). The Company filed the disclosure in order to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties resulting from the pending "Gordon" litigation and without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures are material or required to be made. On April 27, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of CommerceHub in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York: Gordon v. CommerceHub, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00512-FJS-DJS. The complaint names as defendants CommerceHub and members of CommerceHub's board of directors. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, and alleges that CommerceHub and the members of CommerceHub's board of directors caused a proxy statement that allegedly omitted material information to be filed in connection with the merger, which allegedly rendered the proxy statement false and misleading. In particular, the complaint alleges that CommerceHub omitted material information from the disclosures made in the Proxy Statement regarding the merger proposal. Among other relief, the complaint seeks a declaration certifying a class, an injunction to prevent CommerceHub from holding the Special Meeting to vote on the merger agreement and from consummating the merger unless and until CommerceHub discloses the material information allegedly omitted from the Proxy Statement, unspecified damages, and unspecified costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. The Company said, "CommerceHub believes that the lawsuit is without merit and that no further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws. However, in order to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties resulting from the pending litigation and without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental disclosures are material or required to be made, on May 7, 2018, CommerceHub agreed to supplement the disclosures in the Proxy Statement. Consequently, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the lawsuit with prejudice." A full-text copy of the Form 8-K is available at https://bit.ly/2KhE1jA COMSCORE INC: Oregon Section 11 Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------- comScore, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the Oregon Section 11 Litigation has been stayed pending the final approval hearing in the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association case scheduled for June 7, 2018. In October 2016, a class action complaint, Ira S. Nathan v. Serge Matta et al., was filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers and Ernst & Young LLP ("EY"). The complaint alleged that the defendants provided untrue statements of material fact in the Company's registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC and declared effective on December 23, 2015. The complaint sought a determination of the propriety of the class, a finding that the defendants are liable and an award of attorneys' and experts' fees. On March 17, 2017, a separate action, John Hulme v. Serge Matta et al., was filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon alleging materially similar claims as the Nathan complaint against the same defendants. On April 18, 2017, the Nathan and Hulme cases were consolidated by order of the court. On February 14, 2018, following a hearing, the Court granted class certification only as to EY. On April 23, 2018, the Court issued an order staying the case pending the final approval hearing in the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association case scheduled for June 7, 2018. comScore said, "The outcome of this matter is unknown, but the Company does not believe that a material loss was probable or estimable as of March 31, 2018." comScore, Inc. is a cross-platform measurement company that precisely measures audiences, brands and consumer behavior everywhere. comScore completed its merger with Rentrak Corporation in January 2016, to create the new model for a dynamic, cross-platform world. COMSCORE INC: June 7 Approval Hearing on Securities Suit Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- Hearing for the Court's final approval of the settlement of the class action complaint by the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association is scheduled for June 7, 2018, according to comScore, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. In October 2016, a consolidated class action complaint, Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association et al. v. comScore, Inc. et al., was filed in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers, Rentrak and certain former directors and officers of Rentrak. On January 13, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants provided materially false and misleading information regarding the Company and its financial performance, including in the Company and Rentrak's joint proxy statement/prospectus, and failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements made not misleading. The complaint sought a determination of the propriety of the class, compensatory damages and the award of reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On September 10, 2017, the parties reached a proposed settlement, subject to court approval, pursuant to the terms of which the settlement class will receive a total of US$27.2 million in cash and US$82.8 million in Common Stock to be issued and contributed by comScore to a settlement fund to resolve all claims asserted against the Company. All of the US$27.2 million in cash would be funded by the Company's insurers. The Company has the option to fund all or a portion of the US$82.8 million with cash in lieu of Common Stock. The proposed settlement further provides that comScore denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability. On January 29, 2018, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the Court, with a hearing scheduled for June 7, 2018. As of December 31, 2017, the Company reserved US$110.0 million in accrued litigation settlements for the gross settlement amount, and recorded US$27.2 million in insurance recoverable on litigation settlements for the insurance proceeds expected from the Company's insurers. The Company said, "There were no changes to the accrued settlement and insurance recoverable amounts as of March 31, 2018." comScore, Inc. is a cross-platform measurement company that precisely measures audiences, brands and consumer behavior everywhere. comScore completed its merger with Rentrak Corporation in January 2016, to create the new model for a dynamic, cross-platform world. COOK COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Seeks Dismissal of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that while the board that reviews and fires Cook County sheriff's officers accused of misconduct was illegally constituted, Cook County's sheriff has asked a federal judge to shy away from allowing about 230 former sheriff's deputies and correctional officers to continue with a lawsuit over the issue, warning granting the reinstatement "with back pay" sought by the fired officers would place the public at risk. On April 24, attorneys for Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart filed a brief in Chicago federal court, asking U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood to dismiss the putative class action lawsuit brought by named plaintiffs Martenia Shyne and Antoinette Garnett-Williams. The class action, the sheriff's attorneys argued, is based on a "misreading" of a state law. And if the plaintiffs prevail, Dart asserted, an "absurd result" would create a "moral hazard and risk to the public of terminating scores of pending disciplinary complaints against violent, dishonest or otherwise unfit Sheriff's police officers and restoring them to a position of public trust." The case landed in federal court in February, one of the latest among more than two dozen cases now pending in Chicago state and federal courts against Dart and his office over employee discipline and terminations handed down by the Cook County Sheriff's Merit Board. The legal actions were launched in the wake of a May 2017 state appellate court's ruling, finding the Merit Board had been improperly constituted since at least 2011, when Dart appointed John Rosales to the board to replace an outgoing board member, with a term to expire in March 2012. Rosales served until early 2015. The appeals court held merit board members must be appointed to staggered, six-year terms. Some of the lawsuits have been lodged by Cook County sheriff's officers fired or hit with accusations over a range of alleged misconduct, including some who faced criminal charges. In the April 24 brief, for instance, Dart notes the plaintiffs in the case at bar were also among those accused of misconduct. Dart noted neither of the plaintiffs had yet faced an "evidentiary hearing," nor had they yet been formally disciplined. However, according to the sheriff's brief, Shyne had "fraternized with known gang members" and Garrett-Williams had "stalked and made off-duty threats to kill a woman." However, despite the accusations of misconduct against them and against other sheriff's officers either fired or facing pending complaints, the class action assert not just the final decisions, but all proceedings before the "sham" Merit Board were illegitimate. They asserted the illegitimacy of the proceedings against the previously fired officers and others facing pending actions remained even after Illinois lawmakers instituted a "fix" of the problems under legislation approved in late 2017. So, too, they argued, Dart's decision to simply refile the old complaints before the newly constituted Merit Board also should be considered illegal, as the old board's constitutional problems rendered void all actions introduced before it. ". . . Because the old Board was illegal and unable to take jurisdiction of the Plaintiffs' cases any time prior to Dec. 13, 2017, there never was an earlier case which could make for an amended filing," the plaintiffs argued. To allow the disciplinary cases to continue would violate the fired officers' constitutional rights, they asserted. The plaintiffs asked the court to order the county to reinstate all of the fired officers with back pay, and award them at least $100,000 each in compensatory damages. Dart, however, has moved to dismiss the federal class action, noting none of the plaintiffs in this case have suffered violation of their due process rights, as they have not yet exhausted their legal options, including hearings before the Merit Board and review of those decisions in circuit court. And the sheriff asserted a court order reinstating the fired and suspended officers would produce a result Illinois lawmakers would have never intended, granting a "free pass" to officers disciplined "for violations of the public trust. But "worse," the sheriff said, allowing the class action to continue could lead to a "windfall result" for suspended and terminated officers "who the Sheriff has determined to be dishonest, incompetent, dangerous or otherwise unqualified for their jobs -- before the new Merit Board has a chance to decide whether the Sheriff's determination is correct." "Such a windfall result to suspended officers would inevitably harm the people of Cook County and this District, other Sheriff's employees, and detainees at the County Jail and County courthouses." The sheriff asked the court to agree with his position, that the "best solution is for currently suspended officers to proceed before the current Merit Board on a case-by-case basis, rather than for the Court to grant plaintiffs' demand for a catch-all order 'reinstating' all suspended officers." Dart and his office are represented in the matter by attorneys Stephanie A. Scharf, Sarah R. Marmor, Deirdre A. Fox and George D. Sax, of the firm of Scharf Banks Marmor LLC, of Chicago. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Christopher Cooper and Cass Casper, of Chicago. [GN] COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: SRT Unit Still Defends "Bass" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Covenant Transportation Group, Inc.'s SRT subsidiary continues to defend a class action lawsuit by David Bass, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. After transferring venue of the case several times, the case is now heard in the U.S. District court in the Western District of Arkansas. The Company said, "Our SRT subsidiary is a defendant in a lawsuit filed on December 16, 2016 in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of David Bass (a California resident and former driver), who is seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a class action case wherein he alleges violation of multiple California wage and hour statutes over a four year period of time, including failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to provide meal periods and paid rest breaks, failure to pay for rest and recovery periods, failure to reimburse certain business expenses, failure to pay vested vacation, unlawful deduction of wages, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair and unlawful competition as well as various state claims. "The case was removed from state court in February, 2017 to the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, and subsequently, SRT moved the District Court to transfer venue of the case to the U.S. District Court sitting in the Western District of Arkansas. The motion to transfer was approved by the California District Court in July, 2017, and the case will now be heard in the U.S. District court in the Western District of Arkansas." Covenant is a major carrier for transportation companies such as freight forwarders, less-than-truckload carriers, and third-party logistics providers that require a high level of service to support their businesses, as well as for traditional truckload customers such as manufacturers, retailers, and food and beverage shippers. CRAFTMASTER PAINTING: Workers Class Certified in "Boutell" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Barbara B. Crabb entered an opinion and order in the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY BOUTELL, BRIAN STOUT, SHANE MORN and ROGER ANDERSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CRAFTMASTER PAINTING, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00317-bbc (W.D. Wisc.): 1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion to allow opt-in of Jennifer Przybyla; 2. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; 3. certifying this class: "All hourly employees of Craftmaster Painting, LLC who worked on jobsites for Craftmaster on or after April 28, 2015;" 4. appointing The Previant Law Firm, S.C., as class counsel; 5. appointing Anthony Boutell, Esq., and Brian Stout, Esq., as class representatives; and 6. ruling that the Plaintiffs had until April 25, 2018, to file a proposed class notice. The Defendant had until May 2, 2018, to file a response. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Craftmaster. They contend that the Defendant failed to pay them in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law. A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HKRljiz9 CVB FINANCIAL: Says Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Completed ----------------------------------------------------------------- CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the distribution process related to the Court-approved US$1.5-million settlement of a consolidated putative class action has been "substantially completed" as of March 31, 2018. The Company was involved in several related actions entitled Glenda Morgan v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. BC568004, in the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, and Jessica Osuna v. Citizens Business Bank, et al., Case No. CIVDS1501781, in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County, alleging wage and hour claims on behalf of the Company's "exempt" and "non-exempt" hourly employees. These cases, which were consolidated in Los Angeles County Superior Court in April 2015, were styled as putative class action lawsuits and allege, among other things, that (i) the Company misclassified certain employees and managers as "exempt" employees, (ii) the Company violated California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, (iii) certain employees did not receive proper expense reimbursements, (iv) the Company did not maintain accurate and complete payroll records, and (v) the Company engaged in unfair business practices. Subsequently, related cases were filed by the same law firm representing Morgan and Osuna in the Superior Court for San Bernardino County, alleging (1) violations of the California Labor Code and seeking penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act of 2004 and (2) seeking a declaratory judgment that certain releases and arbitration agreements previously signed by CBB employees were invalid. On November 28, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all of the related wage and hour class action lawsuits ("Wage-Hour Settlement"). Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all their lawsuits with prejudice in exchange for the payment of US$1.5 million to the putative class members, including attorneys' fees and costs, but not including credit for monies previously paid to certain employees in exchange for releases and arbitration agreements in favor of the Company. Accordingly, as of the reporting period ending on December 31, 2017, the Company maintained a litigation accrual of US$1.5 million in connection with this matter, and the Wage-Hour Settlement received final Court approval at a hearing on March 6, 2018. Following the Court's final approval of the Wage-Hour Settlement, the settlement administrator appointed by the Court proceeded to disburse the agreed-upon settlement funds to the class members according to the respective calculation formulas set forth in the settlement agreement for exempt and non-exempt employees, and, as of the end of this reporting period on March 31, 2018, this distribution process has been substantially completed. CVB Financial Corp. operates as a bank holding company for Citizens Business Bank that provides banking, lending, and investment services. It operates in two segments, Banking Centers; and Dairy & Livestock and Agribusiness. The Company was founded in 1974 and is headquartered in Ontario, California. CYAN INC: Proskauer Rose Attorneys Discuss Class Action Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark D. Harris, Esq. -- mharris@proskauer.com -- and Margaret A. Dale, Esq. -- mdale@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose, in an article for New York Law Journal, wrote that a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has important implications for certain securities class actions filed in state courts. In Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439 (March 20, 2018), the Supreme Court resolved a longstanding split among state and federal courts, unanimously holding that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) did not strip state courts of jurisdiction over class actions alleging violations of only the Securities Act of 1933 and did not empower defendants to remove those federal-law cases from state to federal court. The first part of this article will discuss the history of the federal securities laws, the background to the Cyan case, and the decision. The second part will discuss the potential implications of Cyan for plaintiffs, defendants, state and federal courts, and Congress. History of Federal Securities Laws Following the 1929 stock-market crash, Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 (which applies to public securities offerings) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which regulates aftermarket transactions). The Securities Act provides for concurrent federal- and state-court jurisdiction and bars removal of Securities Act claims from state to federal court, whereas the Exchange Act provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction. In the 1990s, Congress passed two statutes that amended the securities laws to prevent perceived abuses in securities class- action litigation. In 1995, Congress enacted the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), which amended both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. It made substantive changes (such as heightened pleading requirements and protections for forward-looking statements) that apply to federal-law actions regardless of forum and procedural changes (such as a process for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in class actions) that apply only to federal-court class actions. The PSLRA's passage resulted in an increase in federal Securities Act claims and state-law claims filed in state courts. In response, Congress enacted SLUSA in 1998 to amend the Securities Act in several ways. With respect to state-law claims, Sec. 77p(b) of the Securities Act now prohibits in both state and federal courts "covered class actions" (defined in Sec. 77p(f)(2) as class actions in which damages are sought on behalf of more than 50 persons) alleging securities claims based on state law in connection with the purchase or sale of a "covered security" (defined in Sec. 77p(f)(3) as a security listed on a national stock exchange). In addition, SLUSA added a new Sec.77p(c) to the Securities Act, which permits the removal of state-law class actions to federal court so that the actions can be dismissed. SLUSA also amended the Securities Act with respect to federal-law claims. These amendments were at issue in Cyan. In particular, SLUSA's "conforming amendments" added two new phrases to the Securities Act's jurisdictional provision in Sec. 77v(a). * The first amendment -- and the key provision in Cyan -- added an exception to the Securities Act's concurrent- jurisdiction provision in Sec. 77v(a), which is commonly known as the "except clause": "The district courts of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction of offenses and violations under this subchapter . . . and, concurrent with State and Territorial courts, except as provided in section 77p of this title with respect to covered class actions, of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this subchapter." * The second amendment amended the Securities Act's anti- removal provision in Sec.77v(a) by adding the following exception: "Except as provided in section 77p(c) of this title, no case arising under this subchapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States." Procedural History of 'Cyan' The plaintiffs in Cyan were three pension funds and an individual (the Investors) who had purchased shares of Cyan, a telecommunications company, in an initial public offering. Following a decline in Cyan's stock value, the Investors filed a class action against Cyan in California Superior Court. The Investors alleged that Cyan's offering documents had contained material misstatements in violation of the Securities Act, but the Investors did not assert any state-law claims. Cyan moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that SLUSA's "except clause" stripped state courts of power to adjudicate Securities Act claims in "covered class actions." The California Superior Court denied Cyan's motion, and the state appellate courts denied review; but the U.S. Supreme Court granted Cyan's petition for certiorari to decide whether SLUSA deprived state courts of jurisdiction over covered class actions asserting only Securities Act claims. The Supreme Court's Decision The Supreme Court held that Sec. 77p bars certain securities class actions based on state law (Sec. 77p(b)) and authorizes the removal of those suits so that a federal court can dismiss them (Sec. 77p(c)), but Sec. 77p does not deprive state courts of concurrent jurisdiction over class actions based on federal law. The court disagreed with Cyan's argument that the except clause's reference to "covered class actions" refers only to Sec. 77p(f)(2)'s definition of that term. Instead, the court noted that the plain language of the except clause (in Sec. 77v(a)) points to Sec. 77p as a whole, and not only to the definition found in Sec. 77p(f)(2). The court also explained that a definition like Sec. 77p(f)(2) provides meaning to a term, rather than an exception to the rule of concurrent jurisdiction. The court further observed that Congress was highly unlikely to have used such a convoluted reference to reverse the 65-year practice of state courts' adjudicating "all manner of [Securities] Act claims, including class actions." The court also rejected Cyan's argument that SLUSA was intended to serve the PSLRA's objectives by divesting state courts of jurisdiction over all sizable Securities Act class actions. The court noted that meeting the objective of SLUSA's preamble -- which states that the statute is designed "to limit the conduct of securities class actions under State law" -- does not depend on stripping state courts of jurisdiction over Securities Act claims, whatever the size of the class. The court further held that SLUSA does not permit defendants to remove class actions alleging only Securities Act claims from state to federal court. According to the court, Sec. 77p(c) allows for removal to federal court of covered class actions alleging securities misconduct under state law, but federal-law suits alleging only Securities Act claims "remain subject to the [Securities] Act's removal ban." Potential Implications of 'Cyan' The Cyan decision is just about a month old, but already the potential implications of the decision for plaintiffs, defendants, state and federal courts, and Congress are coming into focus. Plaintiffs. The Cyan decision might cause plaintiffs to file more state-court class actions asserting only Securities Act claims. Securities Act class actions filed in state court are not subject to the PSLRA's procedural provisions, including in particular the PSLRA's lead-plaintiff appointment process, which tries to avoid duplicative class actions. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' bar might seek to prosecute multiple related actions by using state- court forums. Defendants. Defendants are likely assessing the potential ramifications of Cyan because of a perception that state courts are more favorable forums for Securities Act claims than federal courts -- and that dismissals are therefore less frequent and settlements are larger. The potential for defendants having to litigate Securities Act class-action claims in multiple jurisdictions might also affect the premiums companies planning a public offering of securities must pay for liability insurance. State and Federal Courts. The Cyan decision raises the prospect of multiple related class actions challenging securities offerings in federal and state courts. The existence of both federal and state forums poses difficulties in consolidating or transferring the actions to a single forum. Federal and state courts will therefore need to coordinate with each other to resolve these procedural inefficiencies. For example, one court might stay or adjourn its proceedings pending disposition of proceedings in another court, a decision in which the first-filed rule might have some influence. Forum non conveniens considerations might also be used to determine which is the more appropriate forum. Courts might also focus on which action presents the case most comprehensively. For example, many federal securities class actions plead Exchange Act claims as well as Securities Act claims. The Exchange Act claims must be filed in federal court, but the Securities Act claims can be brought in federal or state court. Accordingly, if the federal case has both Exchange Act and Securities Act claims, that case is the more comprehensive one, and a state court might be willing to defer to it. Cyan involved only Securities Act claims, so it did not address cases that plead both Securities Act claims and state-law claims. Thus, courts might also see litigation over the removability of such "mixed" cases. In addition, litigation might arise about forum-selection bylaws or charter provisions that attempt to channel securities cases into federal courts, and perhaps into federal courts in a particular forum. Congress. The Supreme Court acknowledged the anomalous result of requiring the dismissal or removal to federal court of state-law claims, while prohibiting the removal of federal claims and requiring them to remain in state court. The court noted: "We do not know why Congress declined to require as well that [Securities] Act class actions be brought in federal court." But the court declined to give the except clause "a broader reading that its language can bear," and concluded that, "[i]f further steps are needed, they are up to Congress." It remains to be seen whether Congress will take up that invitation. [GN] DEPOMED INC: July 23 Deadline to Oppose Bid to Nix "Huang" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The lead plaintiff in the "Huang" securities class action lawsuit against Depomed, Inc., among others, has until June 8, 2018, to oppose the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive officer and president, its former chief executive officer and president, and its current chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 3:17-cv- 04830-JST, N.D. Cal.). The action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its business, compliance, and operational policies; and practices concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products. The plaintiff, who seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between February 26, 2015 and August 7, 2017, contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages and other relief. On December 8, 2017, the "Depomed Investor Group" was appointed lead plaintiff. On February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 9, 2018. The lead plaintiff must oppose the motion by June 8, 2018. The Company and the individuals must then file a reply in support of their motion to dismiss by July 23, 2018. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to contest it vigorously. Depomed, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on pain and other central nervous system (CNS) conditions. The Company is headquartered in Newark, California. EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Edge Therapeutics, Inc. ("Edge" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EDGE)and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Edge securities between December 29, 2017 and March 27, 2018,both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/edge. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's lead product candidate EG-1962 would likely fail a futility analysis in connection with the NEWTON 2 study; and, (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, Edge's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Edge's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 28, 2018, Edge revealed, "that a pre-specified interim analysis on data from the Day 90 visit of the first 210 subjects randomized and treated in the Phase 3 NEWTON 2 study of EG-1962 demonstrated a low probability of achieving a statistically- significant difference compared to the standard of care in the study's primary endpoint, if the study is fully enrolled." The Data Monitoring Committee also "recommended that the study be stopped based on its conclusion that the study has a low probability of meeting its primary endpoint." Based on the DMC recommendation, Edge stated that it has decided to end the Phase 3 NEWTON 2 study. Following this news, Edge stock dropped $14.28 per share, or roughly 92%, to close at $1.31 per share on March 28, 2018. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/edgeor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Edge you have until June 25, 2018 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Yael Hurwitz, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Telephone: 212-697-6484 E-mail: info@bgandg.com peretz@bgandg.com [GN] EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on April 23, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Edge Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:EDGE). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is December 29, 2017 through March 27, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Edge Therapeutics, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than June 22, 2018 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights; Contact: Robin Hester, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Website: www.federmanlaw.com E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN] EIGER BIOPHARMA: Awaits 9th Cir. to Schedule Oral Arguments ----------------------------------------------------------- Eiger 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 company is waiting for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to schedule oral arguments in a class action-related appeal. In July 2015, following Celladon's announcements of the negative CUPID 2 data and the suspension of further research and development activities and the subsequent declines of the price of its common stock, three putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Celladon and certain of its current and former officers. The complaints generally alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the clinical trial program for MYDICAR, thereby artificially inflating the price of Celladon's common stock. The complaints sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief, including attorneys' fees. On December 9, 2015, the district court consolidated the three putative securities class actions and appointed a lead plaintiff to represent the putative class. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 29, 2016. On October 7, 2016, the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and granted leave to amend within 60 days from the date of the district court's order. The lead plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of intent not to amend the consolidated amended complaint and instead indicated that it intended to appeal the district court's decision. On December 9, 2016, the district court closed the case. On December 28, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appealing the district court's order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint. On May 5, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed his opening brief. On July 5, 2017, the defendants filed their appellate brief response. The Plaintiff subsequently filed their response to the Company's July 5, 2017 filing on August 19, 2017. Upon these filings, the next step in the process would be to wait for oral arguments to be scheduled by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Eiger BioPharmaceuticals said "It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming the Company and/or Celladon's former officers and directors as defendants. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. The Company is not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims." Eiger BioPharmaceuticals, Inc., a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on providing various products for the treatment of orphan diseases in the United States. Its product candidate pipeline includes Lonafarnib for the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection; PEG-interferon Lambda- 1a (Lambda) for HDV infection; Exendin 9-39 for post-bariatric hypoglycemia; and Ubenimex for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension and lymphedema, which are under Phase II clinical trials. The company is based in Palo Alto, California. EL POLLO LOCO: Settlement Talks Fail in "Olvera" Labor Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2018, that the class action initiated by Elliott Olvera in California is "moving forward" after unsuccessful settlement discussions. On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint. The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release which the court refused to approve on the grounds that it did not provide sufficient compensation for the putative class members. Further settlement discussions were not successful, and the litigation is moving forward with the filing deadline for plaintiff's class certification motion postponed until May 4, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company said, "Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are commonly filed against California employers. The Company has similar cases pending that overlap in part with the Olvera action and fully expects to have to defend against similar lawsuits in the future." El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment. EL POLLO LOCO: June 25 Hearing on Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------- A motion for class certification is set for hearing on June 25, 2018 in the consolidated case of Daniel Turocy, Ron Huston, et al. against El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2018. Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015. The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs and class counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants"). Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs, removed a US$5 value option from the Company's menu, which resulted in a decrease in traffic from value- conscious consumers. Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases, Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2016. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. El Pollo Loco said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2017, that Plaintiffs filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or about May 17, 2017. The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on August 4, 2017. On December 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and Defendants' opposition was filed on March 8, 2018. In its current report, the Company said the motion for class certification is currently set for hearing on June 25, 2018. Defendants intend to continue to defend against the claims asserted. El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment. ENHANCED RECOVERY: Medina Files Reply Brief Backing Class Cert. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled SHERRYL MEDINA, DANNY ALLEN, JOHN CARTER WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC dba ERC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-14342-JEM (S.D. Fla.), file with the Court their reply brief in support of class certification. In its untimely opposition to class certification, ERC raises red herrings, downplays their key arguments, offers much speculation, and engages in improper gamesmanship by attempting to abandon prior admissions and offering evidence not produced in discovery, the Plaintiffs contend. Notably, the Plaintiffs assert, ERC does not dispute their ability to locate the calls at issue, nor does ERC dispute numerosity, adequacy of the class representatives and class counsel under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the superiority requirement under Rule 23(b)(3). Instead, ERC mainly challenges ascertainability and predominance, yet each class certification requirement is satisfied, the Plaintiffs tell the Court. The Plaintiffs contend that ERC dismisses their proposal to locate class members through means, such as a reverse lookup subpoenas to cell phone carriers, yet provides no legal support to challenge the sufficiency of such methods. Instead, the Plaintiffs argue, ERC urges denial of certification because it does not have records of the actual names of the persons it called using automated technology for debt collection purposes, which cannot be a reason to deny class certification. ERC cites no cases to support its position that a subpoena to cell phone carriers or a reverse lookup could not produce historical data showing the subscriber of the phone number at the time of the call made, the Plaintiffs assert. They add, among other things, that ERC cannot escape class certification by virtue of the mere possibility that some of the numbers for the class members might have been reassigned after the calls. A copy of the Reply Brief is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a5ibmXBM The Plaintiffs are represented by: Emily C. Komlossy, Esq. Ross A. Appel, Esq. KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A. 4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 842-2021 Facsimile: (954) 416-6223 E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com raa@komlossylaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. Jason Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, #780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott Stephen Gallagher, Esq. Richard Dean Rivera, Esq. SMITH, GAMBRELL AND RUSSELL 50 N. Laura St., Suite 2600 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 598-6111 Facsimile: (904) 598-6211 E-mail: ssgallagher@sgrlaw.com rrivera@sgrlaw.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Court Narrows Scope of Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- In an order dated March 21, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has narrowed the scope of the case captioned In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation and allowed certain claims to proceed, according to Extreme Networks, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On October 23 and 29, 2015, punitive class action complaints alleging violations of securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and three of its former officers (Charles W. Berger, Kenneth B. Arola, and John T. Kurtzweil). Subsequently, the cases were consolidated (In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:15-CY-04883-BLF). Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated the securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and concealing material adverse facts regarding the Company's financial condition, business operations and growth prospects. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased the Company's common stock from September 12, 2013 through April 9, 2015. On June 28, 2016, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff. On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On November 10, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted with leave to amend on April 27, 2017. On June 2, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which, on July 10, 2017, defendants again moved to dismiss. In a March 21, 2018 Order (the "March 2018 Order"), the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion. The March 2018 Order narrowed the scope of the case, but allowed certain claims to proceed. The Company believes plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and intends to defend them vigorously. Extreme Networks, Inc. is a provider of network infrastructure equipment and offers related maintenance contracts for extended warranty and maintenance to its enterprise, data center and service provider customers. The company was incorporated in California in May 1996, and reincorporated in Delaware in March 1999. The company's corporate headquarters is located in San Jose, California. FACEBOOK INC: Koskie Minsky Commences Suit for Misuse of Data ------------------------------------------------------------- Koskie Minsky LLP on April 25 disclosed that it has commenced a $2 billion global class action against Facebook, Inc. for misuse of its users' personal information. The claim alleges that Facebook was aware that its platform could easily and readily be used by third parties to steal users' personal information. Facebook's failure to monitor the activities of third-party application developers to whom it has granted access to its platform has resulted in the misuse of personal information of millions of Facebook users. The claim is brought on behalf of all persons anywhere in the world who registered for Facebook accounts wherever they may live, who did not utilize, download, or otherwise access applications created by third parties and whose personal information was obtained from Facebook by third parties, either directly or indirectly, without authorization or in excess of authorization. "The world is witnessing the consequences of the misuse of Facebook user's private information," says Kirk Baert counsel at Koskie Minsky LLP, "Facebook failed its over 2.2 billion users by not taking steps to prevent third parties from stealing users' personal information. The breaches involving Cambridge Analytica are just the beginning of the story." A Notice of Action was issued in this case on April 25, 2018. If you are a class member: Website: https://kmlaw.ca/cases/facebook-misuse-user-data/ For further information: Toll-Free: 1-800-656-1119, Email: facebookclassaction@kmlaw.ca; For all media inquiries, please contact Robert Gain at 416.595.2072. [GN] FIRST BANCTRUST: "Parshall" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that additional supplemental disclosures have been filed related to the alleged class action complaint entitled, Parshall v. First BancTrust Corporation. On March 20, 2018, Judge Leonard P. Stark entered an order approving a Stipulation and Order to Voluntarily Dismiss filed by Project Hawks Merger Sub LLC, First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. As previously reported on a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 13, 2018, an alleged class action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder of First BancTrust Corporation, a Delaware corporation ("First Bank") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Parshall v. First BancTrust Corporation (Case No. 1:18-cv-00218) against the Company, Project Hawks Merger Sub LLC, a newly formed Delaware limited liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"), First Bank and members of First Bank's board of directors (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 11, 2017 (as amended by the First Amendment to Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into as of January 18, 2018) among the Company, Merger Sub and First Bank, pursuant to which, among other things, the Company agreed to acquire 100% of the issued and outstanding shares of First Bank pursuant to a business combination whereby First Bank will merge with and into Merger Sub, with Merger Sub as the surviving entity and a wholly- owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). Among other things, the Lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC by the Company on January 22, 2018, failed to disclose allegedly material information relating to the Company's and First Bank's financial projections, the analyses performed by First Bank's financial advisor, and alleged potential conflicts of interest of First Bank's officers, directors and financial advisor. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger from proceeding. The Company and First Bank believe that the factual allegations in the Lawsuit are without merit. On March 9, 2018, in order to moot plaintiff's disclosure claims, reduce the expenses, burdens, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and avoid the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Merger, the parties to the Lawsuit agreed that, in exchange for the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the Lawsuit and dismiss his claims with prejudice, the Company and First Bank would make the additional supplemental disclosures to the proxy statement/prospectus related to the Merger that was first mailed to stockholders of First Bank on or about February 9, 2018 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus") described in this Current Report on Form 8-K. The agreement between the parties does not release or otherwise prejudice any potential claims of any member of the putative class other than the plaintiff and does not constitute any admission by any of the defendants as to the merits of any claims. In addition, in connection with the mootness of the disclosure claims, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The agreement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that First Bank's stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger. A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at https://goo.gl/8bbPrn. First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides community banking products and services to commercial, retail, and agricultural customers in the United States. FITBIT INC: Settlement of Sleep Tracking Class Lawsuit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Fitbit, Inc. is working on finalizing the terms and scope of a settlement in principle for a purported class action lawsuit related to sleep tracking function, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment. The Company's motion for summary judgment was denied on December 8, 2017. During the three months ended May 31, 2018, the parties have agreed to a settlement in principle, and are working on finalizing the terms and scope. Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San Francisco, California, known for its products of the same name, which are activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology devices that measure data such as the number of steps walked, heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and other personal metrics involved in fitness. FITBIT INC: May 31 Hearing in Heart Rate Tracking Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Hearing for the motion to dismiss a purported class action against Fitbit, Inc. related to heart rate tracking and to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations has been scheduled for May 31, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking technology does not consistently and accurately record users' heart rates. Plaintiffs allege common law claims, as well as violations of various states' false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes, and seek class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint and, on May 19, 2016, filed an Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. On January 9, 2017, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration. On October 11, 2017, the Court granted the motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, and that motion was denied on January 24, 2018. On or around February 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint ("SAC") on behalf of plaintiff Rob Dunn, the only plaintiff not ordered to arbitration, as a purported class action. The SAC alleges the same common law claims, as well as violations of false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer protection statutes of California and Arizona, and also seeks class certification, injunctive and declaratory relief, restitution, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, exemplary damages, punitive damages, and statutory penalties and damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On March 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and separately moved to strike plaintiffs' class allegations as violating the class waiver in Fitbit's Terms of Service. The hearing is scheduled for May 31, 2018. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San Francisco, California, known for its products of the same name, which are activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology devices that measure data such as the number of steps walked, heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and other personal metrics involved in fitness. FITBIT INC: Court Okays US$33.3MM Settlement of Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court has granted final approval of a US$33.3-million settlement of putative securities federal and state class actions initially filed against Fitbit, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On January 11, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO"). On May 10, 2016, the Court appointed the Fitbit Investor Group (consisting of five individual investors) as lead plaintiff, and an Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2016. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on alleged materially false and misleading statements about the Company's products between October 27, 2014 and November 23, 2015. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (i) on the open market between June 18, 2015 and May 19, 2016; and/or (ii) pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On July 29, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion on October 26, 2016. On April 26, 2017, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which is still pending. On April 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities Act was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters of the IPO, and a number of its investors. Plaintiffs allege that the IPO registration statement contained material misstatements about the Company's products. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock in and/or traceable to the IPO and/or the November 2015 follow-on public offering (the "Secondary Offering"). Plaintiffs seek class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. On May 17, 2016, a similar class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The cases have now been consolidated in the County of San Francisco. On April 7, 2017, the Court granted a motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim based on the Secondary Offering and stayed the cases. On January 8, 2018, the plaintiffs in the federal and class action cases filed their motion for preliminary approval of settlement of the putative federal and state class actions for US$33.3 million, which the Company accrued for as of December 31, 2017. On January 19, 2018, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, and on April 20, 2018, the court approved the final settlement. Fitbit, Inc. is an American company headquartered in San Francisco, California, known for its products of the same name, which are activity trackers, wireless-enabled wearable technology devices that measure data such as the number of steps walked, heart rate, quality of sleep, steps climbed, and other personal metrics involved in fitness. FOOT LOCKER: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Foot Locker, Inc. ("Foot Locker" or the "Company") (NYSE: FL) between August 19, 2016 and August 17, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Foot Locker investors have until May 8, 2018 to file a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain information or actively participate in the class action, please visit Foot Locker page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/foot-locker-inc. Investors that suffered losses on their Foot Locker investments are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com. On August 18, 2017, Foot Locker announced poor second quarter 2017 financial results, including a 6% decline in quarterly same- store sales year-over-year. In addition, Foot Locker disclosed that it would close approximately 130 stores, which was up from 100 it had previously stated it would close. Finally, on its Q2 2017 conference call with investors and analysts, Foot Locker revealed that it expected weaker sales for the remainder of fiscal year 2017. On this news, shares of Foot Locker fell nearly 28%, to close at $34.38 on August 18, 2017, thereby injuring investors. The Complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Foot Locker's vendors were transitioning to selling through various online retailers, diminishing the utility of Foot Locker's large number of brick and mortar stores and the once-high value of its exclusivity relationships with those vendors; (ii) competition with online retailers had increased the pricing competition Foot Locker faced while concomitantly lowering demand at its stores; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' statements about Foot Locker's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased shares of Foot Locker during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than May 8, 2018 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773- 9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased Contact: Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP Los Angeles Telephone: 310-201-9150 888-773-9224 Website: www.glancylaw.com E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN] FORD AUSTRALIA: Faces $10MM Fine Over Transmission Complaints ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Berry, writing for carsguide, reports that the Federal Court has fined Ford Australia $10 million and endorsed a settlement between the carmaker and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) over its handling of customer complaints about transmission issues in Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport models. Known as a 'PowerShift' transmission, the a six-speed (dry) dual- clutch automatic and was used in the three models made between 2010 and 2016 -- amounting to approximately 75,000 vehicles. The faulty transmission resulted in delayed or harsh gear shifts and a deterioration in clutch performance. Carsguide has been inundated for years with letters from readers who have had issues with the transmission ranging from "slipping" and "shuddering" to the vehicle becoming immobile. While Ford found a solution to the transmission fault, which involved new clutch materials and software calibration, it was the company's handling of customer requests from 2015 to 2016 which resulted in the fine and settlement. "As we said from the outset of this action -- we took too long to identify the issues," Ford CEO Graeme Whickman said. "And we acknowledge that PowerShift customers did not have complaints handled appropriately between May 2015 and February 2016. "We were overwhelmed with the volume of complaints and, while it was not intended, over a 10-month period our processes were inadequate, and information provided was either inaccurate or incomplete. We let our customers down and for that we are sorry. "This process has identified the challenges our customers faced and the lack of appropriate processes to effectively handle these. "Accepting the $10 million fine is the first action on our commitment to make right," he said. The settlement will ensure an independent review of cases where owners of Focus, Fiesta and EcoSport models with the PowerShift transmission requested, but did not receive, a refund or no-cost replacement vehicle. Ford has pledged to provide compensation based on the reviewer's decision. Ford has also agreed to implement a customer service charter and make information more accessible, while upgrading the way it handles customer complaints through employee dealer and customer service training. The PowerShift transmission was fitted in the MY 2010-2016 Focus, Fiesta and EcoSport models. From 2016 Ford ditched the Powershift in favour of a regular six-speed (torque converter) automatic in Focus, Fiesta and EcoSport models. [GN] FUTUREDONTICS INC: Suit over Wage and Hour Violations Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply Sirona Inc.'s subsidiary is defending itself in a purported class action lawsuit in California over alleged wage and hour violations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On January 19, 2018, Futuredontics, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, received service of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, brought by a former employee, Henry Olivares, on behalf of other similarly situated individuals. The plaintiff alleges several wage and hour violations under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, including, but not limited to, failure to provide rest and meal break periods and the failure to pay overtime. The Company has filed its answer to the complaint and it intends to vigorously defend against this matter. Dentsply Sirona is the world's largest manufacturer of professional dental products and technologies, with a 130-year history of innovation and service to the dental industry and patients worldwide. Dentsply Sirona develops, manufactures, and markets a comprehensive solutions offering including dental and oral health products as well as other consumable medical devices under a strong portfolio of world class brands. GENERAL CABLE: "Stanfield" and "Rosenblatt" Lawsuits Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018, that the "Stanfield" and the "Rosenblatt" purported class action lawsuits have been dismissed. On December 3, 2017, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), among the Company, Prysmian S.p.A., a company organized under the laws of the Republic of Italy ("Parent"), and Alisea Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. The Company said, "On January 2, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed an action against the Company and the members of the Company's board of directors on behalf of a putative class of stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Stanfield v. General Cable Corp., No. 1:18-cv-00006-UNA (D. Del.), and on January 9, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a substantively similar action against the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and the members of the Company's board of directors in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, captioned Rosenblatt v. General Cable Corp., No. 2:18- cv-00010-WOB-CJS (E.D. Ky.), in each case seeking, among other things, to enjoin the completion of the Merger. Both of these cases have been dismissed." General Cable is a global leader in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. GENERAL CABLE: Still Defends Kentucky Suit over ERISA Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ General Cable Corporation continues to defend itself against a purported class action litigation related to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2018. The Company said, "On March 15, 2017, litigation was initiated against us and certain of our current and former directors, executive officers and employees by a former employee on behalf of a purported class of employees who invested in the common stock of General Cable through our 401(k) plan. The Plaintiff alleges that we should have not retained the General Cable stock fund as an investment option in our 401(k) plan during the period 2003-2016, when they claim the price of the Company stock was artificially inflated. The suit alleges various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. At this time, we cannot determine the likelihood of, nor can we reasonably estimate the range of, any possible loss." General Cable is a global leader in the development, design, manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets. GRIDSUM HOLDING: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Gridsum Holding Inc. (NASDAQ:GSUM) securities between April 27, 2016 and February 20, 2018 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until June 25, 2018 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Gridsum lacked effective internal control over financial reporting; (2) 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 (3) as a result of the foregoing, Gridsum's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Gridsum securities during the Class Period or continue to hold shares purchased prior to the Class Period, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355- 4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. Contacts: Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Telephone: 212-355-4648 Website: www.bespc.com E-mail: investigations@bespc.com walker@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com [GN] GRIDSUM HOLDING: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on April 25, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Gridsum Holding, Inc. (NASDAQ:GSUM). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is April 27, 2017 through April 20, 2018. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Gridsum Holding, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than June 25, 2018, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights: Contact: Robin Hester, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Website: www.federmanlaw.com E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN] GRIDSUM HOLDING: June 25 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on April 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Gridsum Holding, Inc. ("Gridsum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GSUM) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18-cv-03655, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Gridsum securities between April 27, 2017 through April 20, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Gridsum securities between April 27, 2017, and April 20, 2018, both dates inclusive, you have until June 25, 2018, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Gridsum 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. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) 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 American Depositary Receipt price fell $1.17, or 16.04%, to close at $6.12 on April 23, 2018. With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] HANSEN & ADKINS: Standalone Document Class Certified in "Luna" -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable David O. Carter granted the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled LEONARD LUNA, and IAN HALL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. HANSEN & ADKINS AUTO TRANSPORT, Inc., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:17- cv-00990-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.). The STANDALONE DOCUMENT CLASS consists of: All natural persons residing in the United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) who were the subject of a consumer report or investigation that was procured by Defendant (or that Defendant caused to be procured) within five years of the filing of this Complaint through the date of final judgment in this action under FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681p. Excluded from the class and subclass are all Defendants, their officers, subsidiaries, affiliates, and any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest. The class action arises out of a single claim that Hansen & Adkins violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by procuring (or causing to be procured) consumer reports about Class Members for employment purposes without first providing Class Members with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing in a document that consists solely of the disclosure. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant routinely conducts background checks on all of its job applicants as part of a standard screening process, without providing those applicants with a stand-alone written disclosure that clearly and conspicuously states that the Defendant may obtain a consumer report for employment purposes, as is required by the FCRA. Judge Carter also rules that: 1. members of the class shall be permitted to exclude themselves from participation in this action -- i.e., to "opt-out" of the case; 2. Desai Law Firm, P.C. and Aashish Y. Desai, Esq., as counsel for Plaintiffs, are appointed as lead counsel for all of the class members; 3. the Plaintiffs' counsel and the Defendant's counsel shall meet and confer concerning the language of the class notice and the method of dissemination of the notice; and 4. the Defendants shall provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with a list, in hard copy and in a mutually agreed upon electric computer format, containing the name, social security number, and last-known residence address of all class members within seven days. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lFydplLu The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. Adrianne De Castro, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C. 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com adrianne@desai-law.com HASHFLARE LP: Baylog Sues Over Voided Cryptocurrency Mining Deals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristopher Baylog and Misael Marrero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HashFlare LP, Case No. 2:18- cv-03043-DDP-PLA (C.D. Cal., April 11, 2018), asserts claims for unjust enrichment/restitution and anticipatory breach of contract pursuant to the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law and the Securities Act of 1933. The Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief under California and federal law due to the Defendant's alleged fraudulent and self-serving cancellation of their cryptocurrency mining contracts and unregistered sale of securities. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant's contracts are securities under the Securities Act of 1933; however, the Defendant has not registered these securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission. HashFlare LP is a Scottish company with its principal office located in Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. The Defendant utilizes the Web site http://www.hashflare.io/and its related webpages, to market and sell contracts directly to consumers in California. The Defendant sells contracts to consumers under which the consumer pays an up-front fee (plus a daily fee deducted from coins mined) in exchange for "a part of the mining power of hardware hosted and owned" by the Defendant. The Defendant uses specialized computer hardware to "mine" cryptocurrency.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexander Lindgren, Esq. Leslie Lindgren, Esq. LINDGREN, LINDGREN, OEHM & YOU, LLP 4199 Campus Drive, Fifth Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 509-6577 Facsimile: (949) 509-6599 E-mail: alexander@lloylaw.com leslie@lloylaw.com - and - Kai H. Richter, Esq. Mark E. Thomson, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: krichter@nka.com mthomson@nka.com HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal on Securities Suit Dismissal Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is expected to rule on an appeal from the dismissed fourth amended complaint in the purported shareholder class action filed by Pedro Ramirez, Jr. against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The case is captioned In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Old Hertz Holdings (as defined in the Company's 2017 Form 10-K) and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Old Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that were not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey, and Old Hertz Holdings responded to the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third amended complaint included additional allegations, named additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015. On November 4, 2015, Old Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1, 2016. Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May 6, 2016. On June 13, 2016, Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss. The matter is now fully briefed. On April 28, 2017, the court issued an order wherein Old Hertz Holdings' and the individual defendants' motions to dismiss were granted and the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint to add a new plaintiff was dismissed with prejudice (the "Order"). On May 30, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The plaintiffs filed their Initial Brief in November 2017 and Hertz's Opposition Brief was filed in January 2018. The plaintiffs' Reply Brief was filed in February 2018 so all of the briefing is concluded. Oral arguments have been requested. It is expected that the Third Circuit will rule on this appeal before the end of 2018. Hertz operates a vehicle rental business globally through the Hertz, Dollar and Thrifty brands from approximately 9,700 corporate and franchisee locations in North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, The Caribbean, the Middle East and New Zealand. HEWLETT PACKARD: Asks Court to Transfer & Dismiss "Jackson" ----------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2018, that the defendants in the case entitled, Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise have moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia and also moved to dismiss the suit. This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in federal district court in San Jose. Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over the age of forty. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in lay-offs and promotions. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 29, 2017. On January 12, 2018, Defendants moved to transfer the matter to the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company provides technology solutions to business and public sector enterprises. It operates through Enterprise Group, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments segments. The company is based in Palo Alto, California. HEWLETT PACKARD: Preliminary Agreement Reached in "Wall" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2018, that the parties in the case captioned as, Wall v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and HP Inc., had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the dispute. This certified California class action and Private Attorney General Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January 17, 2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint was filed against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June 28, 2016. The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages in violation of the California Labor Code. On August 9, 2016, the court ordered the class certified without prejudice to a future motion to amend or modify the class certification order or to decertify. The scheduled January 22, 2018 trial date was vacated following the parties' notification to the court that they had reached a preliminary agreement to resolve the dispute. No settlement agreement has yet been finalized. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company provides technology solutions to business and public sector enterprises. It operates through Enterprise Group, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments segments. The company is based in Palo Alto, California. HINES REIT: Settlement Hearing in "Gamberg" Set for June 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the court has scheduled a settlement hearing, in the case entitled, Gamberg v. Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, et al., No. 24-C- 16-004496 , on June 6, 2018, to make a final determination whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Company as nominal defendant and of the class members. On August 11, 2016, a purported class of stockholders filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City (the "Court") alleging both derivative and direct claims against Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the "Company"), Hines Advisors Limited Partnership (the "Advisor") and its owners, certain affiliated entities and current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors. See Gamberg v. Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, et al., No. 24-C-16-004496 (the "Action"). The Action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary, contractual and other duties, caused the waste of corporate assets, and misappropriated corporate assets in connection with certain payments related to the participation interest held by HALP Associates Limited Partnership ("HALP") in Hines REIT Properties, L.P., that have been, or will be, made to certain affiliated entities in connection with the Company's Plan of Liquidation and in connection with other payments that have previously been made to such affiliated entities. The complaint seeks monetary damages from the Hines affiliated entities and individual defendants, as well as attorneys' fees and certain other remedies. The Company and the other defendants continue to believe that the purported claims against them are wholly without merit and expressly maintain that they diligently and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties. However, the Company and the defendants recognize the burden, expense, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation of the Action, which has delayed the issuance of a final liquidating distribution to the stockholders and the completion of the wind up of the Company. As such, on January 19, 2018, counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants reached an agreement in principle to resolve this litigation. On March 2, 2018, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of this litigation as provided for in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated February 28, 2018 (the "Settlement Agreement") agreed to by the parties and filed with the Court, which releases all claims against the defendants without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them. The Settlement Agreement requires the defendants (or their insurers) to pay a total of $3,250,000 (the "Gross Settlement Amount"), minus any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel and any awards to the nominal plaintiffs ("Net Settlement Amount") to the Company for distribution to the Company's stockholders (with no amount of the Net Settlement Amount proceeds to be distributed to HALP). There is no proof of claim process. Stockholders of record as of March 2, 2018, will receive a pro rata share of the Net Settlement Amount. To facilitate the Settlement, the Company has stopped accepting transfers of shares of the Company (except for transfers to effect a change of custodian that do not result in a change in beneficial ownership of such shares) as of March 2, 2018, so that it can comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. No distribution of the Net Settlement Amount will be made unless and until the Settlement is approved by the Court and becomes final. The Court has scheduled a settlement hearing on June 6, 2018, to make a final determination whether the Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Company as nominal defendant and of the class members. Hines said "Accordingly, there can be no guarantee that the Court will approve the Settlement so that it can be concluded, in which event the litigation could continue for an indefinite period of time which could delay the winding up of the Company and potentially result in the reduction or elimination of the amount actually distributed to the stockholders in any final liquidating distribution." If the Court approves the Settlement on June 6, 2018, then the Company expects to make a final liquidating distribution shortly thereafter to all stockholders, which will complete the winding up of the Company's operations. The Company presently estimates the amount would be in the range of $0.05 - $0.07 per share. Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., a real estate investment trust (REIT), engages in investing in and owning interests in real estate, primarily of office properties in the United States and Canada. HOMEADVISOR INC: Discovery in "Airquip" Suit Still Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGI Homeservices Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that discovery is under way in the putative class action, Airquip, Inc. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. l:16-cv-1849. In July 2016, the class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as amended, alleges that HomeAdvisor 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. 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. 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). IPC INC: Asks Court to Deny Physicians Healthsource's Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the lawsuit styled PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IPC, INC., d/b/a Platinum Code, Case No. 1:16-cv-00301-MRB (S.D. Ohio), asks the Court to deny certification of PHI's claims brought under Rules 23(a), 23(b), and 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff filed the case claiming that IPC's May 26, 2015 fax violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, even though in 2015, the Plaintiff neither used the fax number nor the fax machine to which the fax was sent, IPC contends. Rather, IPC argues, the fax was directed to PHI's tenant, and PHI alone appears to have a complaint with IPC's fax. IPC contends that many in the putative class previously provided IPC permission (i.e., consent) to send fax advertisements. IPC adds that it has substantial evidence that it had long-existing relationships with the putative class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Xe2OXw04 The Defendant is represented by: Wilbert Victor Farrell IV, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: wfarrell@hjlawfirm.com - and - Anne T. Regan, Esq. Karen L. Helgeson, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: wfarrell@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com khelgeson@hjlawfirm.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Scott Gets Prelim. Nod of $618,837 Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled WILLIAM MARK SCOTT and RONALD MORIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:17-cv-00249-APM (D.D.C.), asked the Court to enter an order: (1) preliminarily approving the settlement as set forth in the parties' settlement agreement; (2) certifying this Settlement Class: All persons who, up to and including the date of preliminary approval, were either (1) paid for jury service by means of a Juror Debit Card or for fact witness service by means of a Fact Witness Debit Card as part of the U.S. Debit Card program operated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for the United States Department of the Treasury, in the jurisdiction of Washington, DC; or (2) paid for jury service by means of a Juror Debit Card as part of the programs operated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in the jurisdictions of Gwinnett County, GA; Livingston County, MI; and Fort Bend County, TX; (3) appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; (4) authorizing the sending of Class Notice to the Settlement Class pursuant to the submitted Notice Plan; (5) appointing Tycko & Zavareei LLP and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Settlement Class Counsel; (6) appointing Epiq as the Settlement Administrator responsible for Class Notice and Administration; and (7) scheduling a Final Approval Hearing in this matter. The Settlement Agreement provides that each Settlement Class Member will be entitled to receive a check reflecting a full refund of any Chase fees and third-party surcharges charged in connection with Chase's Juror and Fact Witness Debit Cards (a total of $97,819), as well as any outstanding balances that remain on Settlement Class Members' Juror or Fact Witness Debit Cards at the time of distribution (a total of $521,018) (together, $618,837). The Settlement Agreement provides relief to all jurors in the U.S., who were paid for their jury service with a Chase debit card, as well as any fact witnesses paid for their service by the D.C. Courts with a Chase debit card. Chase issued Juror Debit Cards to persons, who served on juries in the D.C. Courts, as well as in Gwinnett County, GA; Livingston County, MI; and Fort Bend County, TX. Chase also issued debit cards for payment to persons for service as fact witnesses in Washington, D.C. Chase will not oppose Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs up to a total of $335,000. In addition, Chase will not oppose the Plaintiffs' request for a service award of $5,000 to each Plaintiff ($10,000 total). * * * The Honorable Amit P. Mehta grants preliminary approval to the class action settlement of the parties, and provisionally certifies this class for settlement purposes only: All persons who, up to and including the date of preliminary approval, were either (1) paid for jury service by means of a Juror Debit Card or for fact witness service by means of a Fact Witness Debit Card as part of the U.S. Debit Card program operated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. for the United States Department of the Treasury, in the jurisdiction of Washington, DC; or (2) paid for jury service by means of a Juror Debit Card as part of the programs operated by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in the jurisdictions of Gwinnett County, GA; Livingston County, MI; and Fort Bend County, TX. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs' Class Counsel to represent the Settlement Class. The Court further appoints Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator. A Final Approval Hearing will be held on August 17, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., to determine whether the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should receive final approval. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sLwbDuxq A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bZkMNsWE The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anna Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: denright@zlk.com - and - Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Quentin A. Robert, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 291-2420 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com qroberts@zlk.com The Defendant is represented by: Noah Levine, Esq. Jamie Dycus, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 E-mail: noah.levine@wilmerhale.com jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com KNORR-BREMSE AG: "Carruth" Suit Challenges No-Poach Agreements -------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS CARRUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KNORR-BREMSE AG; KNORR BRAKE COMPANY; NEW YORK AIR BRAKE COMPANY; WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA INC.; and RAILROAD CONTROLS L.P., Case No. 2:18-cv-00469-CRE (W.D. Pa., April 11, 2018), challenges alleged unlawful agreements between two of the world's largest rail equipment suppliers to restrain competition in the labor markets in which they compete for employees. Without the knowledge and consent of their employees, the Defendants collectively agreed not to solicit each other's employees, recruit each other's employees, hire each other's employees without prior approval, or otherwise compete for employees (collectively, "no-poach agreements"), the Plaintiff alleges. Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, and their respective subsidiaries, are each other's top competitors for rail equipment used in freight and passenger rail applications. Knorr is a privately owned German company with its headquarters in Munich, Germany. Knorr is a global leader in the development, manufacture, and sale of rail and commercial vehicle equipment. Knorr Brake Company is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Westminster, Maryland, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Knorr-Bremse AG. Knorr Brake manufactures train control, braking, and door equipment used on passenger rail vehicles. New York Air Brake Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Watertown, New York, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Knorr-Bremse AG. New York Air Brake manufactures railway air brakes and other rail equipment used on freight trains. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation ("Wabtec") is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Wilmerding, Pennsylvania -- located in Alleghany County, Pennsylvania. Wabtec is a publicly held company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange. With over 100 subsidiaries globally, Wabtec is the world's largest provider of rail equipment and services with global sales of $3.9 billion in 2017. Faiveley Transport North America, formerly a subsidiary of Faiveley Transport S.A., is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Wabtec, and is a New York corporation headquartered in Greenville, South Carolina. On November 30, 2016, Wabtec acquired Faiveley, which had been a French societe anonyme based in Gennevilliers, France. Prior to the acquisition, Faiveley was the world's third-largest rail equipment supplier behind Wabtec and Knorr. Faiveley developed, manufactured, and sold passenger and freight rail equipment to customers in Europe, Asia, and North America, including the United States. Railroad Controls, L.P., was acquired by Wabtec in February 4, 2015, and now operates as a wholly owned subsidiary of Wabtec. Railroad Controls, L.P. is based in Benbrook, Texas, and is a leading provider of railway signal construction services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Spear, Esq. MINTO LAW GROUP, LLC Two Gateway Center 603 Stanwix Street, Suite 2025 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 201-5525 E-mail: dspear@mintolaw.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Brian A. Ratner, Esq. Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq. Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com bratner@hausfeld.com sgosselin@hausfeld.com mcoolidge@hausfeld.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. Irving Scher, Esq. Jeanette Bayoumi, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Floor 14 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com ischer@hausfeld.com jbayoumi@hausfeld.com - and - Brent Landau, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3270 E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1735 Market St., Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 507-6085 E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com KSJC ENTERPRISES: "Edmonston" Suit Certified as FLSA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Robert H. Cleland granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Order for Notice to the Class in the lawsuit captioned JIMMIE EDMONSTON, JUSTIN ALEXANDER, and OTIS SMITH, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated v. KSJC ENTERPRISES INC., d/b/a/, SWEET WATER TAVERN, and JEFFREY CAIN, Case No. 2:17-cv-12789-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich.), Judge Cleland directed the parties to meet and confer to develop a jointly acceptable proposed notice to putative plaintiffs and to submit said notice to the court by May 4, 2018. The Defendants are directed to provide the Plaintiffs with employee names and addresses as necessary to facilitate the notice procedure. Plaintiffs Jimmie Edmonston, Justin Alexander, and Otis Smith are former employees of Defendant KSJC Enterprises, doing business as Sweetwater Tavern, a restaurant in Detroit owned by Defendant Jeffrey Cain. They allege the Defendants failed to pay them, and a class of similarly situated employees, for all hours worked and/or for overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single week. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' actions amount to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Iq8dMCyp LA QUINTA: Appeal from Stockholder Class Suit Dismissal Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of a purported stockholder class lawsuit against La Quinta Holdings Inc. remains pending, according to a Preliminary Information Statement, dated May 7, 2018, attached as an exhibit to CorePoint Lodging Inc.'s Amendment No. 5 to Form 10 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2018. Appellate briefing is scheduled to be completed in May 2018. On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit, captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 21, 2016, the court appointed lead plaintiff ("plaintiff"), and, on December 30, 2016, plaintiff filed the operative complaint on behalf of purchasers of La Quinta Parent's common stock from November 19, 2014 through February 24, 2016 (the "Class Period") and on behalf of a subclass who purchased La Quinta Parent's common stock pursuant to La Quinta Parent's March 24, 2015 secondary public offering (the "March Secondary Offering"). The operative complaint names as defendants La Quinta Parent and certain of its current and former officers and members of its board of directors, among others. The complaint alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the federal securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained materially false and misleading information or omissions and that La Quinta Parent as well as certain current and former officers made false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to analysts during the Class Period. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On February 10, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On August 24, 2017, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. Subsequently, on September 20, 2017, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On December 29, 2017, the plaintiff submitted its appellant brief. Appellate briefing is scheduled to be completed in May 2018. LQH Parent believes that the putative class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to continue to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit, including appeals. The Company is an owner, operator and franchisor of select- service hotels primarily serving the midscale and upper-midscale segments under the La Quinta brand. LIPOCINE INC: Records $4.3-Mil. Settlement Liability at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lipocine Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that in connection with the purported securities class action litigation in Utah, the Company has recorded a litigation settlement liability for US$4.3 million as of March 31, 2018. On February 15, 2018, the Company and the other defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the purported securities class action litigation captioned In re Lipocine Inc. Securities Litigation, 2:17CV00182 DB (D. Utah) which was originally filed against the Company on July 1, 2016. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a settlement agreement, which, if entered into, will be subject to customary conditions including court approval following notice to the Company's stockholders, and a hearing at which time the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If a settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the action being settled. Lipocine Inc. stated, "The Company continues to believe that the claims in the lawsuits are without merit and, to the extent the parties do not enter into a settlement agreement or the court does not approve a settlement, the Company will defend against them vigorously. The Company maintains insurance for claims of this nature. As a result of signing the memorandum of understanding and the potential liability becoming probable and estimable, the Company has recorded a litigation settlement liability for US$4.3 million as of March 31, 2018. Additionally, the Company has recorded a litigation insurance settlement recovery receivable of US$3.6 million as of March 31, 2018 which represents the estimated insurance claims proceeds from our insurance carrier in excess of the Company's retention." Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health. LIPOCINE INC: Fairness Hearing on Class Settlement Set for July 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hearing is currently set for July 2, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. at which time the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of a memorandum of understanding to settle a purported securities class action litigation, according to Lipocine Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company stated, "On July 1, 2016, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action lawsuit, David Lewis v. Lipocine Inc., et al., 3:16- cv-04009-BRM-LHG, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This initial action was followed by additional lawsuits also filed in the District of New Jersey. On December 2, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion to consolidate the various lawsuits and appointed Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel and Lipocine Investor Group as lead plaintiff. The court also stated that all filings shall bear the caption In re Lipocine Inc. Securities Litigation. "On March 14, 2017, the court granted our motion to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. This is a purported class action seeking relief for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that our filing of the NDA for TLANDO to the FDA contained deficiencies and as a result the defendants' statements about our business and operations were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages of an unspecified amount, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, and unspecified other costs, as well as any further relief the court deems just and proper. "We filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on June 12, 2017, in compliance with the scheduling order entered by the court on December 20, 2016. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on October 24, 2017, and the judge denied our motion to dismiss. "On February 15, 2018 we and the other defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the purported securities class action litigation. On March 15, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement along with a copy of the parties' stipulation of settlement. On March 21, 2018, the court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and amended the order on March 28, 2018. As set for the in the preliminary approval order, the settlement is subject to customary conditions including court approval following notice to our stockholders, and a hearing currently set for July 2, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. at which time the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. "If a settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the action being settled. We continue to believe that the claims in the lawsuits are without merit and, to the extent the court does not approve a settlement, will defend against them vigorously. We maintain insurance for claims of this nature, which management believes is adequate. Moreover, we believe, based on information currently available, that the filing and ultimate outcome of the lawsuits will not have a material impact on our financial position, although we will have to pay up to the insurance retention amount in connection with the lawsuit." Lipocine is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on applying oral drug delivery technology for the development of pharmaceutical products in the area of men's and women's health. LOUISIANA, USA: Bid to Certify Class in "Shabazz" Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terry A. Doughty denied the motion for class certification and motion for temporary restraining order filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MALIK SHABAZZ v. KEVIN WYLES, ET AL., Case No. 3:18-cv-00124-TAD-KLH (W.D. La.). A copy of the Judgment is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0Rw1VeLZ MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Robbins Arroyo LLP Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that purchasers of Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation (NYSE: MIC) have filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018. Macquarie's International-Matex Tank Terminals ("IMTT") business provides bulk liquid storage and handling services at 12 marine terminals in the U.S. and Canada. According to the complaint, Macquarie repeatedly assured investors that its IMTT business, the company's most important segment, experienced stable performance and high utilization rates. Macquarie further noted that any declines in IMTT's storage utilization were temporary and due to routine maintenance, while assuring utilization would remain high into 2018. However, Macquarie never disclosed to investors that it depended on heavy residual oils -- which had been in decline due to environmental concerns and the development of alternative fuel sources -- and downplayed its exposure to fluctuations in the use of petroleum products. On February 21, 2018, Macquarie surprised the market when it announced disappointing fourth quarter earnings of $0.43 per share, well short of analysts' estimate of $0.51 per share, and that the company would be slashing its dividend by 31%. Macquarie cited the loss of "half a dozen" contracts at its Louisiana storage facility due to a decline in heavy residual oils. On this news, Macquarie's stock fell over 41% to close at $37.41 per share on February 22, 2018. Macquarie Shareholders Have Legal Options If you would like more information about your rights and potential remedies, contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Contact: Leonid Kandinov, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free: (800) 350-6003 Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE: Class of Facilities Certified in "Malvern" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. J. Curtis Joyner grants the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled MALVERN INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHIATRIC AND ALCOHOLIC STUDIES, INC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MAGELLAN HEALTHCARE, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, INC., MAGELLAN BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., and MAGELLAN HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-04772-JCJ (E.D. Pa.). The Court certifies a Class of persons defined as: All inpatient non-hospital (residential) addiction treatment facilities in Pennsylvania that (a) provided or sought to provide residential addiction treatment to Federal Blue Cross Plan members whose behavioral health benefits were or are managed by Magellan and/or (b) were unable to obtain preauthorization or reimbursement for residential addiction treatment to Federal Blue Cross Plan members whose behavioral health benefits were or are managed by Magellan. Judge Joyner appoints David S. Senoff, Esq., of Anapol Weiss and Greg Heller, Esq., of Young Ricchiuti Caldwell & Heller, LLC, as Class counsel. Judge Joyner also rules that within 30 days of the date of this Order, the Plaintiff shall file a motion for approval of its proposed forms of class notice and their notice program. If the Notice Motion is opposed by any party, that party shall file a brief in opposition to the Notice Motion no later than 14 days after the filing of the Notice Motion. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XwD44FlY The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Senoff, Esq. Hillary B. Weinstein, Esq. Clayton P. Flaherty, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS 130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 735-1130 Facsimile: (215) 875-7733 E-mail: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com hweinstein@anapolweiss.com cflaherty@anapolweiss.com - and - Gregory B. Heller, Esq. YOUNG RICCHIUTI CALDWELL & HELLER 1600 Market Street, Suite 3800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 546-1004 E-mail: gheller@yrchlaw.com MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: "Berger" Suit Now Moot ------------------------------------------ Marvel Technology Group Ltd. said in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that Paul Berger has acknowledged that the lawsuit entitled, Berger v. Cavium et al., Case No. 18-cv-000376 (Cal. Super.), has become moot. On February 5, 2018, Marvell filed a definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Merger. As has previously been described in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, five putative class actions 11challenging the Proposed Merger have been filed on behalf of Cavium's stockholders. Four of the complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Federal Complaints"). The fifth putative class action was filed by Paul Berger, a stockholder of Cavium (the "Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and a putative class of stockholders of Cavium, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Monterey against Cavium and Cavium's directors (collectively, the "Defendants") challenging the Proposed Merger (the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit, which is captioned Berger v. Cavium et al., Case No. 18-cv-000376 (Cal. Super.), alleges that Cavium's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger and that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by Marvell with the SEC on December 21, 2017 omits material information. On March 5, 2018, the Defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the Plaintiff in the Lawsuit. In the MOU, the Plaintiff acknowledged that the Lawsuit has become moot because the Defendants disclosed additional information sought by Plaintiff in his complaint in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The Plaintiff agreed to withdraw his previously filed application for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the Proposed Merger and to dismiss the Lawsuit. On March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a stipulation with the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Monterey (i) withdrawing his application for a temporary restraining order and (ii) dismissing the claims asserted on his behalf with prejudice and on behalf of the purported class of Cavium stockholders without prejudice. As set forth in the stipulation, counsel for the Plaintiff has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses based on the creation of a benefit to Cavium shareholders through the disclosure of additional information prompted by the pendency and prosecution of the Lawsuit. The Defendants have reserved the right to contest the amount of any fee and expense petition that the Plaintiff may pursue. If the parties cannot agree on a fee award for the Plaintiff's counsel, the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Monterey will ultimately determine the amount of fee award for the Plaintiff's counsel, if any. The fee award for the Plaintiff's counsel will not affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid by Marvell in connection with the Proposed Merger. On March 16, 2018, Marvell (NASDAQ: MRVL) said its shareholders have voted to approve the issuance of Marvell common shares in connection with the previously announced proposed acquisition of Cavium, Inc. (NASDAQ: CAVM). In a preliminary count of the voting results from the meeting of shareholders, more than 99 percent of votes represented in person or by proxy were voted in favor of approving the issuance of Marvell common shares in connection with the proposed acquisition. At a meeting held today prior to the Marvell shareholder vote, Cavium shareholders voted to approve the merger with Marvell. Marvell expects the transaction to close mid-calendar year 2018, subject to customary closing conditions, including receipt of regulatory approvals. Marvel Technology Group Ltd. is a fabless semiconductor provider of high-performance, application-specific standard products. The company's core strength of expertise is the development of complex System-on-a-Chip ("SoC") devices, leveraging the company's technology portfolio of intellectual property in the areas of analog, mixed-signal, digital signal processing, and embedded and standalone integrated circuits. MASIMO CORP: Still Defends PHI Suit over Fax Advertising -------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation is still defending itself against the putative class action complaint filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. over alleged violations of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. (PHI). The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks US$500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested in the Company's petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the petition. On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the appeal. On March 31, 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the FCC's decision, holding that the applicable FCC rule was unlawful to the extent it requires opt-out notices on solicited faxes. On April 28, 2017, PHI filed a petition seeking rehearing by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the requested rehearing on June 6, 2017. The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on September 5, 2017 seeking review of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. The Company and the FCC filed oppositions to this petition on January 16, 2018. On February 20, 2018, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The District Court lifted the stay on April 9, 2018 and set a scheduling conference for May 14, 2018. The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the claims in the District Court litigation, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements. Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive monitoring technologies. MASIMO CORP: 11th Cir. Keeps Alabama Court Ruling in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to grant summary judgment in favor of Masimo Corporation on all claims in a putative class action complaint, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. On August 13, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims. The plaintiffs appealed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's decision. The appellate hearing before the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals was held on December 13, 2016. On March 3, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Masimo said, "The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will ultimately occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company in the accompanying consolidated financial statements." Masimo is a global medical technology company that develops, manufactures and markets a variety of noninvasive monitoring technologies. MDL 2804: Chicopee Working to Join Class-Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Jeanette DeForge, writing for Mass Live, reports that Chicopee faced with one of the highest per-capita overdose rates in the state, city officials are considering joining a class-action lawsuit against pharmaceutical companies to recoup costs associated with the opioid crisis. City Councilors Joel McAuliffe, Robert Zygarowski and William Courchesne have sent a letter to Mayor Richard J. Kos asking him to join the city in a class-action suit against the prescription drug industry. At the same time, Kos said he and his legal team have started the process. For several weeks the city's law department and Marshall Moriarty, Esq. -- mmoriarty@moriarty-lawfirm.com -- the lawyer who heads the department, have been interviewing firms to hire to take on the issue, Kos said. "This is a tragedy which has affected us all," Kos said. A state study shows 20 Chicopee residents died of opioid overdoses in 2015 and 26 died in 2016 -- which is one of the highest per-capita overdose rates in Western Massachusetts. Only Ware and three towns with very small populations have higher per- capita rates. To compare, Springfield, whose population is three times greater, had 41 overdoses each in 2015 and 2016. Holyoke, which has about 40,000 people, had seven overdoses in 2015 and 11 in 2016. Chicopee has a population of about 55,000. Chicopee's health, school, fire and police departments are all working to battle the opioid crisis in different ways, but there is not enough money to go around, said McAuliffe, who authored the letter to Kos urging him to join the lawsuit. "I think it is important that we hold these drug companies accountable for a crisis they helped to create," he said. "We have to treat it as the epidemic it is and destigmatize addiction." He thanked Kos for starting the process of joining a class-action suit and said he hopes the City Council will also support the effort. "I'm grateful to the mayor for taking on this issue head-on and providing the leadership for this," he said. McAuliffe said any money recouped in a class action could be used to help with prevention and education programs as well as treatment. Already several Western Massachusetts communities have joined class action lawsuits or are considering filing their own. Greenfield was the first in the area to sign onto a lawsuit, hiring Sweeney Merrigan Law to sue three defendants, McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health and AmerisourceBergen. Springfield has hired the national law firm Scott+Scott, which is also representing municipalities in Connecticut, New Jersey, Florida and Pennsylvania in suits against companies such as Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Insys Therapeutics. Westifeld is also considering joining a class-action suit.[GN] MEAT SHOP AT PINE HAVEN: Faces $15MM Suit Over E. Coli Outbreak --------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Smith, writing for Global News, reports that an Edmonton law firm is suing the farm and slaughterhouse at the centre of a recent E.coli outbreak for $15 million. James H. Brown, Esq. -- jhb@jameshbrown.com -- has filed a multi- million dollar class-action lawsuit against The Meat Shop at Pine Haven, an abattoir and artisan sausage-making facility located at the Pine Haven Hutterite community west of Wetaskiwin, Alta. According to the statement of claim, the lawsuit is on behalf of all people who suffered damages as a result of buying or consuming pork products that may have been contaminated with E. coli. "It's our best estimate of what the losses might be for the class at this point in time," Rick Mallett, head of the class-action team at James H. Brown and Associates, said when asked about how his team arrived at the $15-million figure. "It's a big class. There's already 36 people that have been affected, including one fatality which is incredibly tragic for that family. We received a telephone call from someone who had become quite ill from consuming these recalled pork products," Mallett said when asked how the lawsuit came about. "They were sick, some of their family members were sick." On April 25, Alberta Health Services said it has a "fair degree of confidence" that a recent outbreak of E. coli in the Edmonton area is linked to certain raw and ready-to-eat pork products sold and distributed by the Meat Shop at Pine Haven, south of Wetaskiwin. As of April 26, the number of lab-confirmed cases related to the outbreak is at 36, including 11 patients who have needed hospital care and one death that Alberta Health Services (AHS) said was "likely" due to E. coli infection. AHS confirmed that 21 E. coli cases were linked to Mama Nita's Binalot restaurant in Edmonton. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) issued a food recall warning for certain pork products sold and distributed by The Meat Shop at Pine Haven between Feb. 19 and April 24, 2018. The recall issued on April 25 was expanded on April 26 to include certain products sold at K & K Foodliner and Irvings Farm Fresh products. [GN] MICHIGAN, USA: JV Seeks to Certify HCV Medicaid Enrollees Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit titled J.V., on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NICK LYON, in his official capacity Only as Executive Director of the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Case No. 2:17-cv-11184-DPH-RSW (E.D. Mich.), jointly ask the Court to: 1. certify the class as described in the parties' settlement agreement and consists of: current and future Michigan Medicaid enrollees who have been or will be subject to the MDHHS Policy; 2. appoint the law firm Dickinson Wright PLLC as class counsel; 3. grant preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement; 4. approve notice to class members; and 5. set a date and time for a fairness hearing during which time the Court can consider any objections to the proposed settlement. On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff, a Michigan Medicaid enrollee living with the hepatitis C virus ("HCV"), filed a complaint alleging that the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services unlawfully denied direct-acting antiviral medication to the Plaintiff and thousands of other Medicaid patients until their HCV progressed, and their livers were irreparably damaged. The complaint alleged that the Defendant's current prior- authorization criteria for Hepatitis C treatment (the "MDHHS Prior Authorization Criteria") violates provisions of the Medical Assistance Program. The terms of the Settlement Agreement include: -- Defendant agrees to replace the MDDHS Prior Authorization Criteria and institute the Amended Prior Authorization Criteria to provide coverage for direct-acting antiviral treatment to all Eligible Michigan Medicaid beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C; -- Defendant agrees to expand direct-acting antiviral treatment coverage to all Eligible Michigan Medicaid beneficiaries diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C based on this schedule: * Defendant will provide coverage for all eligible beneficiaries with a metavir fibrosis score of F-1 and above on October 1, 2018; and * Defendant will provide coverage for all beneficiaries with a metarvir fibrosis score of F-0 an above on October 1, 2019; -- The Amended Prior Authorization Criteria will include these provisions: * The direct-acting antiviral medication must be prescribed by a gastroenterologist, hepatologist, liver transplant or infectious disease physician. If the prescribing provider is not one of the identified specialists noted, the prescriber must submit documentation of consultation/collaboration of the specific case with one of the aforementioned specialists which reflects discussion of the history and agreement with the plan of care with the date noted in the progress note; * Documentation of the patient's use of Illegal Drugs or abuse of alcohol must be noted (i.e., current abuse of IV drugs or alcohol or abuse within the past 6 months). The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services will consider this information for the sole purpose of optimizing treatment; and * Documentation of the patient's commitment to the planned course of treatment and monitoring (including SVR 12) as well as patient education addressing ways to reduce the risks for re-infection must be submitted; -- Defendant reserves the right to revise the Amended Prior Authorization Criteria and Claim Form to incorporate updated clinical recommendations or other best practices, consistent with this Agreement; -- Defendant agrees to provide coverage for direct-acting antiviral medications that are (i) approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic Hepatitis C; (ii) have a federal Medicaid rebate; and (iii) are listed on Defendant's Preferred Drug List as preferred at the time the beneficiary is approved for treatment; and -- If a direct-acting antiviral medication is no longer approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic Hepatitis C or no longer on Defendant's Preferred Drug List, it will no longer be covered. A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aK2eBQPo The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron V. Burrell, Esq. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 223-3500 E-mail: Aburrell@dickinsonwright.com The Defendant is represented by: Joshua S. Smith, Esq. 525 W Ottawa St., 3rd Floor Lansing, MI 48909 Telephone: (517) 373-7700 E-mail: Smithj46@michigan.gov MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Certifies FDCPA Class in "Wheeler" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Virginia M. Kendall entered a memorandum opinion and order in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN WHEELER, on behalf of himself and a putative class of others similarly situated v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-11152 (N.D. Ill.), ruling that the Plaintiff satisfies all of the standards enunciated under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the class definition will be defined, with minor adjustments by the Court, as: (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) who accessed the MCM web site (c) and were offered a settlement or discount (d) on a credit card debt on which the last payment had been made more than five-years prior to the accessing (e) where the date of access was on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and on or before December 6, 2015. Mr. Wheeler seeks to certify a class under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8YJXNEsc MONITRONICS INT'L: Accord in Telemarketing Suit Awaits Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement agreement between Monitronics International, Inc. ("MONI") and the plaintiffs in the consolidated putative class actions related to telemarketing calls remains subject to court approval and the court's entry of a final order dismissing the actions, according to Ascent Capital Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 10, 2018, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. MONI was named as a defendant in multiple putative class actions consolidated in U.S. District Court (Northern District of West Virginia) on behalf of purported class(es) of persons who claim to have received telemarketing calls in violation of various state and federal laws. The actions were brought by plaintiffs seeking monetary damages on behalf of all plaintiffs who received telemarketing calls made by a Monitronics Authorized Dealer, or any Authorized Dealer's lead generator or sub-dealer. In the second quarter of 2017, MONI and the plaintiffs agreed to settle this litigation for US$28,000,000 ("the Settlement Amount"). MONI is actively seeking to recover the Settlement Amount under its insurance policies. The settlement agreement remains subject to court approval and the court's entry of a final order dismissing the actions. In the third quarter of 2017, MONI paid US$5,000,000 of the Settlement Amount pursuant to the settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. NANTKWEST INC: Aug. 2019 Trial Set for "Sudunagunta" Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- A trial date for the third amended consolidated complaint in the "Sudunagunta" suit against Nantkwest, Inc. has been set for August 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. In March 2016, a putative securities class action complaint captioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv- 01947 was filed in federal district court for the Central District of California related to the Company's restatement of certain interim financial statements for the periods ended June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015. A number of similar putative class actions were filed in federal and state court in California. The actions originally filed in state court were removed to federal court, and the various related actions have been consolidated. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for alleged violations 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired the Company's securities during various time periods from July 28, 2015 through March 11, 2016. In September 2017, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended consolidated complaint. A trial date has been set for August 2019. The Company said, "Management intends to vigorously defend these proceedings. At this time, the Company cannot predict how the Court will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Therefore, based on the information available at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Should the Company ultimately be found liable, the liability could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred." NantKwest is a pioneering clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on harnessing the power of the innate immune system by using the natural killer cell to treat cancer, infectious diseases and inflammatory diseases. NEW YORK: Lawsuit Challenges NYPD's Use of Sealed Arrest Records ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Southall, writing for The New York Times, reports that when criminal charges against an adult who has been arrested in New York are dismissed, state law generally requires the case to be sealed, strictly limiting access, use and disclosure of its details. The state sealing statutes -- which also apply when a person is acquitted, prosecutors decline to bring charges or charges are downgraded to an infraction or violation -- are intended to protect people who have not been convicted of a crime from the stigma of an arrest. But a lawsuit filed on April 24 in State Supreme Court in Manhattan accuses the police in New York City of routinely violating the statutes by keeping and sharing the contents of sealed arrest records -- including charges, fingerprints, photos, Social Security numbers and who people called while in custody. The lawsuit, brought by the Bronx Defenders, a criminal-defense nonprofit, and the firm Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, seeks class-action status to challenge practices in the Police Department that the complaint says infringe on the due-process rights of mostly black and Latino people with unproven, mostly low-level accusations. Its main plaintiffs, three black men identified in the complaint by their initials, are seeking a declaration that it is illegal for the Police Department, without court approval, to access data from sealed arrest records, use them in investigations or share them with other law enforcement agencies and the media. Jenn Rolnick Borchetta, the deputy director of impact litigation for the Bronx Defenders, said that allowing the police to handle sealed records unchecked undermines efforts in New York City to promote fairness and limit unnecessary harm in the criminal justice system. A court ruling, she said, is needed to remind the Police Department of its obligation under state law. "There's such a push in New York to get people disentangled from the criminal justice system for crimes of poverty like jumping a turnstile," she said, "and the N.Y.P.D. is overriding it based on sealed arrests that, under longstanding privacy rules, are supposed to not be used in any way, particularly in ways that continue to harm people when they've already had their cases dismissed." The sealing statutes curtail access to official records of sealed cases -- except for published court decisions or opinions, or records and briefs on appeal -- for people other than the accused and for public and private agencies. The laws also require fingerprints and photos in the files to be destroyed or returned to the accused. But the statutes do not conceal the records completely and forever: Lawmakers carved out several exceptions for access, including for law enforcement agencies to get permission from a court. Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the city Law Department, said the agency would "review the lawsuit and respond in the litigation." The city has 60 days to do so. The Police Department declined to comment. But the case cites a memorandum from a federal lawsuit over dismissed summonses that the city settled for $75 million last year. In it, city lawyers said the Police Department uses sealed arrest data for a variety of reasons, including to solve crimes and apprehend suspects. Jeffrey A. Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School who testified against the city in litigation over its stop-and-frisk tactics, said that claim appears to never have been challenged. "Absent some showing of some statutory authorization to contravene the statute, then the plaintiffs seem to have a pretty strong claim," he said. The outcome of the lawsuit could affect millions of case files. Just between 2014 and 2016, as the police scaled back stop-and- frisk, over 400,000 cases were supposed to be sealed, according to the complaint. Almost 83 percent, or 330,000 cases, involved black and Latino defendants, who are more likely to live in communities where police activity is highest and for whom being arrested can have a detrimental impact on their employment, housing, immigration status and eligibility for public benefits. [GN] NORTHERN OIL: 2nd Amended Complaint in "Fries" Lawsuit Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. continues to face the "Fries" securities lawsuit as a second amended complaint remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company said, "On August 18, 2016, plaintiff Jeffrey Fries, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Michael Reger (our former chief executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk (our former chief financial officer and interim chief executive officer) as defendants. An amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in July 2017. Defendants (including the Company) filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in August 2017. The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in January 2018, but permitted plaintiff the opportunity to further amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs in January 2018. "The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the Company's securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15, 2016, and seeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter." Northern Oil and Gas Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation, development, and production of crude oil and natural gas properties in the United States. This independent energy company primarily holds interests in the Bakken and Three Forks formations in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and Montana. The company is based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. NVR INC: Class Certification Under Rule 23 Sought in "Smith" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled PAUL SMITH and DEBORAH SMITH v. NVR, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-08328 (N.D. Ill.), move the Court to enter an order certifying the matter as a class action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VvdZUXYe The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aaron Rapier, Esq. Dario Dzananovic, Esq. RAPIER LAW FIRM 1770 Park St., Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (815) 782-5478 Facsimile: (815) 327-3449 E-mail: arapier@rapierlawfirm.com dario@rapierlawfirm.com - and - Corey Ann Finn, Esq. Wade Yeoman, Esq. FINN AND YEOMAN 231 South Fifth Street, 3rd Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (520) 694-0565 E-mail: corey@fyattorneys.com wade@fyattorneys.com O'CHARLEYS LLC: "Otis" Lawsuit Still Stayed Pending S.C. Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The labor-related lawsuit filed against O'Charley's, LLC by the company's servers and bartenders remains stayed until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision on the merits in several Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address a similar matter, according to Cannae Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. O'Charley's is the defendant in a lawsuit, Otis v. O'Charley's, LLC, filed on July 13, 2016, in U.S. District Court, Central District of Illinois. The lawsuit purports to bring a national class action on behalf of all O'Charley's servers and bartenders under the Fair Labor Standards Act and similar state laws. The complaint alleges that O'Charley's failed to pay plaintiffs the applicable minimum wage and overtime by requiring tipped employees to: (a) spend more than twenty percent of their time performing non-tipped duties, including dishwashing, food preparation, cleaning, maintenance, and other "back of the house" duties; and (b) perform "off the clock" work. Plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory relief. The named plaintiffs and members of the putative class are parties to employment agreements with O'Charley's that provide, inter alia, for individual arbitration of potential claims and disputes. On October 25, 2016, the District Court entered an Order staying all proceedings in the Otis case pending the United States Supreme Court's resolution of certain petitions for certiorari filed in several Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the issue of whether agreements between employers and employees to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Order provides that, if certiorari is granted in any of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases, the stay of the Otis case will continue until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision on the merits in the cases. On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three of the Circuit Courts of Appeals cases that address the enforceability of arbitration agreements. Accordingly, the proceedings in the Otis case are stayed until the Supreme Court reaches a final decision on the merits in the three cases. Cannae Holdings, Inc is a principal investment firm. The firm primarily invests in restaurants, technology enabled healthcare services, financial services and more. It takes both minority and majority stakes. Cannae Holdings, Inc. is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. OBESITY RESEARCH: 9th Circuit Affirms Transfer of Lipozene Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit on April 25 denied an attempt by a purchaser of the weight loss supplement Lipozene to block the transfer of her putative class action between two California districts, with the panel saying the transfer was a mistake but did not immediately affect the woman's case alleging that the supplement's maker issued false claims about its effectiveness. [GN] OILFIELD INSTRUMENTATION: Ross Moves to Certify Technicians Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the lawsuit captioned CASEY ROSS, individually and for others similarly situated v. OILFIELD INSTRUMENTATION, USA, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00312-OLG (W.D. Tex.), jointly seek conditional certification of this class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: Current and former Service Technicians employed by OIUSA during the last three years who did not receive overtime pay. The Parties agree that, by OIUSA's agreement to conditional certification of the FLSA Class, OIUSA does not waive its right to argue that the FLSA Class should be decertified and/or to advance any defenses that it may have to the substantive claims in this lawsuit. The Defendant denies that it owes overtime wages to the Plaintiff or any other current or former Service Technician, further denies that it has violated the FLSA in any respect, and has agreed to conditional certification in the interest of judicial economy and solely to preserve costs and fees. In addition, the Defendant denies that the Plaintiff and the putative class members are "similarly situated" under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and that this case is appropriate for collective action treatment. The Defendant specifically reserves its right to seek decertification of the proposed class of Service Technicians and dismissal of all claims in this lawsuit at a later time. The Parties have attached, for Court approval, their proposed forms for notice to putative class members and consent to join and e-mail notification. The Parties have further agreed to and propose this schedule: -- 14 days from order approving notice to Potential Class Members -- OIUSA is to provide to Ross's Counsel in Excel (.xlsx) format the following information regarding all Putative Class Members: full name; last known address(es) with city, state, and zip Code; last known e-mail address(es) (non-company address if applicable); beginning date(s) of employment; and ending date(s) of employment (if applicable); -- 21 days from order approving notice to Potential Class Members -- Ross's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court-approved Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail and by e-mail; and -- 60 days from mailing of Notice and Consent Forms to Potential Class Members -- The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to return their signed Consent forms to Ross's Counsel for filing with the Court. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xdMB4n5W The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: Kindall C. James, Esq. Alma F. Gomez, Esq. LISKOW & LEWIS First City Tower 1001 Fannin, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-2900 Facsimile: (713) 651-2908 E-mail: kjames@liskow.com afgomez@liskow.com OLYMPIC FLAMES: Blake's Bid to Certify Nixed; July 17 Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on April 24, 2018, in the case styled Katelynn Blake v. The Olympic Flame Inc., doing business as Anastasia's, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-09145 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable John Robert Blakey. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer to Amended Complaint are denied without prejudice; -- motion hearing set for April 26, 2018, is stricken and no appearance is necessary; -- this matter is referred to Judge Weisman for the purpose of conducting a settlement conference; -- the parties shall jointly contact Judge Weisman's courtroom deputy for available settlement conference dates; and -- status hearing is set for July 17, 2018, at 9:45 a.m., in Courtroom 1203. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aPkuIpYz ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Cert. of Two Classes Sought in Toll Roads Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Penny Davidi Borsuk, David Coulter, Ebrahim E. Mahda, Todd Carpenter, Todd Quarles, Lori Myers, Dan Golka and James Watkins move the Court for an order certifying the action styled IN RE: TOLL ROADS LITIGATION, Case No. 8:16-cv-00262-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal.), to proceed as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed classes are: -- Penalty Class (First, Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Eighth Causes of Action): All consumers who, between February 16, 2011 and the present, were assessed and/or paid an excessive penalty amount in connection with the Toll Roads operated by Defendants; and a -- Privacy Class (Fifth, Sixth Causes of Action): All consumers who between February 16, 2011 and the present, had their privacy rights violated by the improper dissemination of their PII in connection with the Toll Roads operated by Defendants. The Court will commence a hearing on July 16, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z72Y0Xj7 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. Andrew J. Kubik, Esq. Ben Travis, Esq. COAST LAW GROUP LLP 1140 S. Coast Highway 101 Encinitas, CA 92024 Telephone: (760) 942-8505 Facsimile: (760) 942-8515 E-mail: helen@coastlaw.com andy@coastlaw.com ben@coastlaw.com - and - Blake J. Lindemann, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC 433 N. Camden Drive, 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 279-5269 Facsimile: (310) 300-0267 E-mail: blake@lawbl.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles Laduca, Esq. Katie Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com kvandyck@cuneolaw.com - and - Paul L. Hoffman, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP 723 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100 Venice, CA 90291 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com - and - Aidan C. McGlaze, Esq. SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 11543 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 396-0731 Facsimile: (310) 399-7040 E-mail: amcglaze@sshhlaw.com - and - Gail J. Higgins, Esq. HIGGINS LAW FIRM 9663 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 149 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 999-2351 Facsimile: (310) 388-1018 E-mail: ghigginse@aol.com - and - Alreen Haeggquist, Esq. Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878 E-mail: alreenh@zhlaw.com aarono@zhlaw.com - and - Michael McShane, Esq. S. Clinton Woods, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 711 Van Ness Ave., Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com cwoods@audetlaw.com - and - Aaron Dolgin, Esq. AARON DOLGIN LAW OFFICES 19831 Redwing Street Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (818) 515-0573 E-mail: dolgin1@juno.com ORANGE COUNTRY: California Motorists Seek Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line mag.com, reports that motorists in California are seeking class action status in a lawsuit against the Orange County Transportation Authority and several toll operators in the county. The lawsuit alleges personal information was illegally used to collect unpaid tolls, fines were unconstitutionally high, and drivers were deceived by the all-electric cashless toll system. California Highways 73, 91, 133, 241 and 261 have collected tolls at toll booths since 1995. Beginning in May 2014, those toll booths were converted to all-electronic cashless tolls. According to the lawsuit, the switch to cashless tolls unfairly penalizes unsuspecting drivers who do not have FasTrak passes or ExpressAccounts. "The new system fails to provide drivers with proper notice (of the toll, penalties, citation, or threatened vehicle registration liens) and ambushes them with cryptic and confusing roadside warnings that they hazardously and, impracticably or impossibly, must respond to while driving," the suit claims. Plaintiffs argued that when toll roads used manned and unmanned toll booths, motorists were adequately warned with conspicuous signs and with the toll booths themselves. Removing the signs and booths and then replacing them with cameras and digital systems eliminated any safeguards to avoid inadvertent tolls and subsequent violations, plaintiffs claim. Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that cashless tolls assume everyone has a computer and understands "vague and confusing roadside signage." This is in reference to signs with an internet URL that motorist can access to pay tolls. The suit argues that this assumes that motorists will notice the sign, interpret the sign as a directive to take action, and then remember to write down the URL while driving approximately 55 mph. "If a driver does not have a computer, does not have an account set up with the toll roads, or does not understand that they must go online to pay the toll within a set period of time, or how to do so, or does not have the precise time and address of their entry on and exit from the toll roads, a notice of violation would issue in 48 hours threatening a lien on the vehicle owner's automobile registration, generally if not paid within 30 days," the lawsuit says. According to the lawsuit, penalties would amount to tens to hundreds of times the amount of the toll. Some class members of the lawsuit had their vehicles impounded over insignificant toll fees. Many of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were fined thousands of dollars for tolls in Orange County. One plaintiff was billed $1,700 for tolls of $100.63, a more than 1,000 percent increase. Another plaintiff drove on toll roads from November 2004 through 2015 and accrued toll fees of more than $3,542.63. After penalties were assessed, the man owed more than $55,000. Class members are seeking damages and injunctive relief for the "coercive extra-judicial collection procedures" by the toll roads. The lawsuit claims the defendants violated the excessive fines and due process clauses of the Constitution and similar provisions in the California constitution. A lawsuit arguing against Orange County toll collections was originally filed in February 2016. Since then, many similar lawsuits have poured in. On April 23, plaintiffs consolidated their suits and asked a federal judge to grant the case class action status. [GN] ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Class Action Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit against Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., remains pending, Orrstown said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. On May 25, 2012, The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010 through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012. Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order, SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013. Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case were stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to address discovery and the filing of a motion for class certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and defendants' defenses. On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013 or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances that require a further enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013. On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012. Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on May 28, 2013 all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013 SEPTA filed its "omnibus" opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. On August 23, 2013, all defendants filed reply briefs in further support of their motions to dismiss. On December 5, 2013, the Court ordered oral argument on the Orrstown Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint to be heard on February 7, 2014. Oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss SEPTA's amended complaint was held on April 29, 2014. The Second Scheduling Order stayed all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informed the parties that, if required, a telephonic conference to address discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification would be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss. On April 10, 2015, pursuant to Court order, all parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's March 24, 2015 decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund on defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 22, 2015, in a 96-page Memorandum, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the amended complaint. On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under Local Rule 15.1, and attached a copy of its proposed second amended complaint to its motion. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal securities laws. On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day. On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March 18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22, 2016. Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance with the Court-ordered schedule, above. The February 25, 2016 Order stays all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the outcome of the motions to dismiss. The allegations of SEPTA's proposed second amended complaint disclosed the existence of a confidential, non-public, fact- finding inquiry regarding the Company being conducted by the Commission. As disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2016, on that date the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the Commission resolving the investigation of accounting and related matters at the Company for the periods ended June 30, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As part of the settlement of the Commission's administrative proceedings and pursuant to the cease-and-desist order, without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer, and its Chief Accounting Officer, agreed to pay civil money penalties to the Commission. The Company agreed to pay a civil money penalty of $1,000,000. The Company had previously established a reserve for that amount which was expensed in the second fiscal quarter of 2016. In the settlement agreement with the Commission, the Company also agreed to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) and Exchange Act Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder. On September 27, 2016, the Orrstown Defendants filed with the Court a Notice of Subsequent Event in Further Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, regarding the settlement with the SEC. The Notice attached a copy of the SEC's cease-and-desist order and briefly described what the Company believed were the most salient terms of the neither-admit-nor- deny settlement. On September 29, 2016, SEPTA filed a Response to the Notice, in which SEPTA argued that the settlement with the SEC did not support dismissal of the second amended complaint. On December 7, 2016, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum granting in part and denying in part defendants' motions to dismiss SEPTA's second amended complaint. The Court granted the motions to dismiss the Securities Act claims against all defendants, and granted the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against all defendants except Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., Orrstown Bank, Thomas R. Quinn, Jr., Bradley S. Everly, and Jeffrey W. Embly. The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the Exchange Act section 20(a) claims against Quinn, Everly, and Embly. On January 31, 2017, the Court entered a Case Management Order establishing the schedule for the litigation and, on August 15, 2017, it entered a revised Order that, among other things, set the following deadlines: all fact discovery closes on March 1, 2018, and SEPTA's motion for class certification is due the same day; expert merits discovery closes May 30, 2018; summary judgment motions are due by June 26, 2018; the mandatory pretrial and settlement conference is set for December 11, 2018; and trial is scheduled to begin on January 7, 2019. Document discovery has begun in the case and is ongoing. To date, one deposition, of a non-party, has been concluded. On December 15, 2017, the Orrstown Defendants and SEPTA exchanged expert reports in opposition to and in support of class certification, respectively. On January 15, 2018, the parties exchanged expert rebuttal reports. SEPTA's motion for class certification was due March 1, 2018, with the Orrstown Defendants' opposition due April 2, 2018, and SEPTA's reply due April 23, 2018. On February 9, 2018, SEPTA filed a Status Report and Request for a Telephonic Status Conference asking the Court to convene a conference to discuss the status of discovery in the case and possible revisions to the case schedule. On February 12, 2018, the Orrstown Defendants filed their status report to provide the Court with a summary of document discovery in the case to date. On February 27, 2018, SEPTA filed an unopposed motion for a continuance of the existing case deadlines pending a status conference with the Court or the issuance of a revised case schedule. On February 28, 2018, the Court issued an Order continuing all case management deadlines until further order of the Court. The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against those claims. It is not possible at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. The Company incurred indemnification costs totaling $645,000 for the year ended December 31, 2017, with several professional service providers in connection with the SEPTA litigation. These costs are included in legal fees in the consolidated statements of income. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, is the holding company for its wholly-owned subsidiaries Orrstown Bank and Wheatland Advisors, Inc. The Company's principal executive offices are located at 77 East King Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, 17257, with additional executive and administrative offices at 4750 Lindle Road, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17111. The Parent Company was organized on November 17, 1987, for the purpose of acquiring the Bank and such other banks and bank-related activities as are permitted by law and desirable. The Company provides banking and bank-related services through branches located in south central Pennsylvania, principally in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, and Perry Counties and in Washington County, Maryland. Wheatland was acquired in December 2016 and provides services as a registered investment advisor through its office in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. PACIFIC COAST: May 22 Hearing in "Welch" Case --------------------------------------------- Pacific Coast Oil 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 an additional hearing date has been set for May 22, 2018, to allow time for the claims administrator to determine whether the remaining funds could be distributed to class members. On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under the Securities Act and alleges that both such registration statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on certain of plaintiff's claims, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action. On December 8, 2015, the above referenced parties agreed in principle to settle the consolidation action. On June 12, 2017, the Court entered a final judgment in the action approving the settlement in the amount of $7.6 million. On February 28, 2018 the Court met regarding compliance with the approved settlement and determined that amounts of the settlement had not yet been distributed to class members. As a result, the Judge set an additional hearing date of May 22, 2018 to allow time for the claims administrator to determine whether the remaining funds could be distributed to class members. The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the consolidated action. The approved settlement does not require any payment from the Trust. Pacific Coast Oil Trust (the "Trust") is a statutory trust formed in January 2012 under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a Trust Agreement (as amended, the "Trust Agreement") among Pacific Coast Energy Company LP ("PCEC"), as trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee"). The Trust was created to acquire and hold net profits and royalty interests in certain oil and natural gas properties located in California for the benefit of the Trust unitholders. PAY CAR MINING: Certification of Class Sought in "Lester" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DOUGIE LESTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAY CAR MINING, INC., BLUESTONE INDUSTRIES, INC., BLUESTONE COAL CORP., KEYSTONE SERVICE INDUSTRIES, INC. and MECHEL BLUESTONE, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-00740 (S.D.W. Va.), asks the Court to certify a class consisting of all full-time employees of Bluestone Industries, Inc., who were terminated from employment, or subject to a reduction in force, at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex, including at the Pay Car Mine, from September 2, 2012, through December 1, 2012. At least eighty full-time employees of Bluestone were laid off at the Burke Mountain site "subject to the WARN Act," the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff asserts that the miners at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex did not receive the requisite notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 before being laid off. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to order notice to proposed Class Members. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uL80xlEl The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel B. Petsonk, Esq. Bren J. Pomponio, Esq. MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. 1031 Quarrier Street, Suite 200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 344-3144 Facsimile: (304) 344-3145 E-mail: sam@msjlaw.org bren@msjlaw.org The Defendants are represented by: John F. Hussell, IV, Esq. Andrew L. Ellis, Esq. John D. (Jody) Wooten, Jr., Esq. WOOTON, WOOTON & DAVIS, PLLC 105 Capital Street, Suite 200 P O Box 3971 Charleston, WV 25339 Telephone: (304) 345-4611 E-mail: john.hussell@wwdhe.com drew.ellis@wwdhe.com jody.wooton@wwdhe.com PBF HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in "Goldstein" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Company LLC 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 case entitled, Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., is in the initial stages of discovery. PBF Holding said "On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., we and PBF Energy Company LLC, and our subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of our Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as defendants in a class action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated." The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance, a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February 18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the Torrance Refinery which was then owned and operated by Exxon. The operation of the Torrance Refinery by the PBF entities subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance Refinery. PBF Holding "This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum products in the United States. The company sells its products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to other international destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF HOLDING: "Caruso" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Company LLC 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 suit entitled, Vincent Caruso, et al. v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C. PBF Holding Company said "On September 2, 2011, prior to our ownership of the Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Vincent Caruso, et al. v. Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action on behalf of himself and potentially several thousand other Louisiana residents who live or own property in St. Bernard Parish and Orleans Parish and whose property was allegedly contaminated and who allegedly suffered any property damages and clean-up costs as a result of an emission of spent catalyst from the Chalmette refinery on September 6, 2010." Plaintiffs claim to have suffered injuries, symptoms, and property damage as a result of the release, although the trial court has limited recovery to property damages and clean-up expenses. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages, interest and costs. In 2016, there was a mini-trial for four plaintiffs for property damage relating to home and vehicle cleaning and the trial court rendered judgment awarding damages related to the cost for home cleaning and vehicle cleaning to the four plaintiffs. The trial court found Chalmette Refining and co- defendant Eaton Corporation ("Eaton"), to be solidarily liable for the damages. Chalmette Refining and Eaton filed an appeal in August 2016 of the judgment on the mini-trial and on June 28, 2017, the appellate court unanimously reversed the judgment awarding damages to the plaintiffs. On July 12, 2017, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the appellate court judgment, which was denied on July 31, 2017. PBF Holding said "As a result of the appellate court's judgment, the potential amount of the claims is not determinable. Depending upon the ultimate class size and the nature of the claims, the outcome may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows." PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum products in the United States. The company sells its products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to other international destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PBF HOLDING: Mini-Trial Scheduled in "Thomas" Suit -------------------------------------------------- PBF Holding Company LLC 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 state trial court in the case, Adam Thomas, et al. v. Exxon Corporation and Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., has scheduled a mini-trial of up to 10 plaintiffs in 2018, relating to 5 separate flaring events that occurred between 2002 and 2007. PBF Holding Company said "On December 5, 1990, prior to our ownership of the Chalmette refinery, the plaintiff in Adam Thomas, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and Chalmette Refining, L.L.C., filed an action on behalf of himself and potentially thousands of other individuals in St. Bernard Parish and Plaquemines Parish who were allegedly exposed to hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide as a result of more than 100 separate flaring events that occurred between 1989 and 2007. This litigation is proceeding as a mass action with individually named plaintiffs as a result of a 2008 trial court decision, affirmed by the court of appeals, that denied class certification." The Plaintiffs claim to have suffered physical injuries, property damage, and other damages as a result of the releases. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, interest, and costs. The state trial court has scheduled a mini- trial of up to 10 plaintiffs in 2018, relating to 5 separate flaring events that occurred between 2002 and 2007. PBF Holding Company said "Because of the number of potential claimants is unknown and the differing events underlying the claims, the potential amount of the claims is not determinable. It is possible that an adverse outcome may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows." PBF Holding Company LLC is one of the largest independent petroleum refiners and suppliers of unbranded transportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks, lubricants and other petroleum products in the United States. The company sells its products throughout the Northeast, Midwest, Gulf Coast and West Coast of the United States, as well as in other regions of the United States and Canada, and is able to ship products to other international destinations. The company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey. PJ OPS IDAHO: Edwards Moves to Notify Class of Delivery Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order allowing them to send notice of the action entitled Cory Edwards, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. PJ Ops Idaho, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00283-DCN (D. Idaho), to these similarly situated individuals: All non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who work or worked at the "PJ Ops Stores" Papa John's Pizza locations in Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia from July 5, 2014 to present. The moving parties are Plaintiffs Cory Edwards and James Hollingsworth, and opt-in Plaintiffs Danny McNeese, Darrel Corbisier, Brent Jensen, James Langham, Nicholas Hill and Enrique Rocha. A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=14J2GQZo The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com - and - Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Jeff Hepworth, Esq. HEPWORTH LAW OFFICES 2229 W. State St. Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 333-0702 Facsimile: (208) 246-8655 E-mail: jhepworth@idalawyer.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert White, Esq. Melodie McQuade, Esq. GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 601 W Bannock St. Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 388-1200 Facsimile: (208) 388-1300 E-mail: rbw@givenspursley.com melodiemcquade@givenspursley.com PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Receives $4.5MM in Haverhill Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- The Providence Service 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, as a nominal defendant, in a suit captioned Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL, received a payment of $5.4 million from the Settlement Amount. On June 15, 2015, a putative stockholder class action derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), captioned Haverhill Retirement System v. Kerley et al., C.A. No. 11149-VCL (the "Haverhill Litigation"). The complaint named Richard A. Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S. Rustand, Christopher Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and Coliseum Capital Management, LLC ("Coliseum Capital Management") as defendants, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint purported to allege that the dividend rate increase term originally in the Company's outstanding Preferred Stock was an impermissibly coercive measure that impaired the voting rights of the Company's stockholders in connection with the vote on the removal of certain voting and conversion caps previously applicable to the Preferred Stock (the "Caps"), and that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving the dividend rate increase term and attempting to coerce the stockholder vote relating to the Company's Preferred Stock, and by failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow the Company's stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Caps. The complaint also purported to allege derivative claims alleging that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by entering into the subordinated note and standby agreement with Coliseum Capital Management, and granting Coliseum Capital Management certain stock options. The complaint further alleged that Coliseum Capital Management aided and abetted the Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate increase, corporate governance reforms, unspecified damages and other relief. On August 31, 2015, after arms' length negotiations, the parties reached an agreement in principle and executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") providing for the settlement of claims concerning the dividend rate increase term and stockholder vote and related disclosure. The MOU stated that the Defendants had entered into the partial settlement of the litigation solely to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense, and potential delay of further litigation involving claims that have been settled. Pursuant to the partial settlement, the Company agreed to supplement the disclosures in its definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "2015 Proxy Statement"), Coliseum Capital Management and certain of its affiliates and the Company entered into an amendment to that certain Series A Preferred Stock Exchange Agreement, by and among Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Coliseum Capital Co-Invest, L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, and The Providence Service Corporation dated as of February 11, 2015 described in the 2015 Proxy Statement, and the Board agreed to adopt a policy related to the Board's determination each quarter as to whether the Company should pay cash dividends or allow dividends to be paid in the form of PIK dividends on the Preferred Stock, as further described in the supplemental proxy disclosures. On September 2, 2015, Providence issued supplemental disclosures through a supplement to the 2015 Proxy Statement. On September 16, 2015, Providence stockholders approved the removal of the Caps. The Company provided notice of the proposed partial settlement to Providence's stockholders by December 11, 2015. At a hearing on February 9, 2016, the court denied approval of the settlement. The Court indicated that plaintiff's counsel could petition the Court for a mootness fee, and that defendants would have the opportunity to oppose any such application. On January 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified amended class action and derivative complaint (the "first amended complaint"). In addition to the defendants named in the earlier complaint, the first amended complaint named David Shackelton, Coliseum Capital Partners, L.P., Coliseum Capital Partners II, L.P., Blackwell Partners, LLC, Coliseum Capital Co-Invest, L.P. (collectively, and together with Coliseum Capital Management, LLC, ("Coliseum") and RBC Capital Markets, LLC ("RBC Capital Markets") as additional defendants. The first amended complaint purported to allege direct and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty against some or all of the Individual Defendants and David Shackelton (collectively, the "Amended Individual Defendants") regarding the approval of the subordinated note, the rights offering, the standby agreement with Coliseum Capital Management, and the grant to Coliseum Capital Management of certain stock options. The first amended complaint also purported to allege an additional derivative claim for unjust enrichment against Coliseum and further alleged that Coliseum and RBC Capital Markets aided and abetted the Amended Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties. The first amended complaint sought, among other things, revision or rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and Preferred Stock, corporate governance reforms, unspecified damages and other relief. On May 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed a verified second amended class action and derivative complaint (the "second amended complaint"). In addition to the defendants named in the earlier complaint, the second amended complaint named Paul Hastings LLP ("Paul Hastings") and Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA") as additional defendants. In addition to previously asserted claims, the second amended complaint purported to assert direct and derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties against Coliseum Capital Management, in its capacity as the controlling stockholder of the Company, in connection with the subordinated note, the Company's rights offering of Preferred Stock and the standby purchase agreement with Coliseum Capital Management (the "Financing Transactions"). The second amended complaint also alleged that Paul Hastings breached their fiduciary duties as counsel to the Company in connection with the Financing Transactions and that BofA and Paul Hastings aided and abetted certain of the Amended Individual Defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the Financing Transactions. The second amended complaint sought, among other things, revision or rescission of the terms of the subordinated note and Preferred Stock, corporate governance reforms, disgorgement of fees paid to RBC Capital Markets, Paul Hastings and BofA for work relating to the Financing Transactions, unspecified damages and other relief. On May 20, 2016, the Court granted a six-month stay of the proceeding (which was subsequently extended) to allow a special litigation committee, created by the Board, sufficient time to investigate, review and evaluate the facts, circumstances and claims asserted in or relating to this action and determine the Company's response thereto. On January 20, 2017, the special litigation committee advised the Court that the parties to the litigation and the special litigation committee had reached an agreement in principle to settle all of the claims in the litigation. The parties then entered into a proposed settlement agreement which was submitted to the Court for approval. On September 28, 2017, the Court approved the proposed settlement agreement among the parties that provided for a settlement amount of $10 million less plaintiff's legal fees and expenses (the "Settlement Amount"), with 75% of the Settlement Amount to be paid to the Company and 25% of the Settlement Amount to be paid to holders of the Company's Common Stock other than certain excluded parties. On November 16, 2017, the Company, as a nominal defendant, received a payment of $5.4 million from the Settlement Amount. The Providence Service Corporation owns subsidiaries and investments primarily engaged in the provision of healthcare services in the United States and workforce development services internationally. The company is based in Stamford Connecticut. PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Trial Date in "Hsu" Suit Set for Nov. 6 ----------------------------------------------------------- Puma Biotechnology, 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 a trial date is currently set for November 6, 2018 in a class action suit. On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu or the "plaintiff," individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit against the company or "the defendants" and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Hsu vs. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG). On October 16, 2015, lead plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's securities between July 22, 2014 and May 29, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleges that the company and certain of its executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. On September 30, 2016, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On June 6, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended complaint that included new claims about additional statements that plaintiff alleges are false or misleading. On June 19, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the new claims in the amended complaint. On July 25, 2017, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On December 8, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. A trial date is currently set for November 6, 2018. Puma Biotechnology said "We intend to vigorously defend against this matter." Puma Biotechnology, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on the development and commercialization of innovative products to enhance cancer care. The company is based in Los Angeles, California. QUEBEC: Judge Authorizes Suit Over Troubled Phoenix Pay System -------------------------------------------------------------- Global News reports that a Quebec judge has authorized a class- action lawsuit against the federal government related to the troubled Phoenix pay system. The suit alleges some employees were paid too much before being forced to reimburse the difference, while some others were not paid at all or did not receive the proper remuneration. Lawyers are seeking a base amount of $500 for all those admissible to join the lawsuit and additional sums for certain of the workers. The lead plaintiff is Ezmie Bouchard, who worked at Passport Canada between January and August 2016. She alleges several mistakes were made on her pay and that when she left she was owed $4,800. The court document states Bouchard ended up receiving $1,000 too much and had to pay it back. Quebec Superior Court Justice Jean-Francois Emond's ruling does not apply to all employees affected by the Phoenix fiasco and a lawyer who is acting on behalf of Bouchard says he believes between 40,000 and 70,000 people could be eligible to join the lawsuit. [GN] QUINCY PROPERTY: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Brashier" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sue E. Myerscough entered an opinion in the lawsuit captioned APRIL R. BRASHIER, CHAD O. LEBOW, and RICHARD M. ORENCIA, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated as collective representative under and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act v. QUINCY PROPERTY, LLC, doing business as Welcome Inn; VANDIVER MOTEL, doing business as Welcome Inn Columbia; WELCOME INN COLUMBIA; JEFFERSON PROPERTY, doing business as Extended Stay by Welcome Inn; COUNTY LINE PROPERTIES I LLC, doing business as Welcome Inn; AMERICAN MOTELS LLC, doing business as Welcome Inn; B & W INVESTMENT PROPERTIES LLC, doing business as Holiday Apartments; SPRINGFIELD WELCOME INN; and BRETT BURGE; KENNETH LOGAN; QUENTIN KEARNEY; and JOE WIMBERLY, as individuals under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws, Case No. 3:17-cv-03022-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill.), granting the parties' Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action and Court Guidance on Class Notice. The Plaintiffs bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiffs seek to bring a claim under the FLSA for unpaid overtime and minimum wages on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated employees of the Defendants. The Court conditionally certifies a collective action by the Plaintiffs and similarly situated members of the class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), defined as: All current and former employees of Defendants who were (1) classified as salaried/exempt during the Class Period who held the position or performed the duties of housekeeper, maintenance staff, front desk personnel, skilled trade construction employee, or placing advertising; or (2) classified as salaried/exempt and were not paid a minimum salary of $455 per week. Judge Myerscough approves the Plaintiffs' Proposed Notice of Pending Lawsuit, the Plaintiffs' Consent to Sue Under the Fair Labor Standards Act form, and the Plaintiffs' Proposed Text Notice, all as amended. The Court authorizes the Plaintiffs to send the approved notice to the class. The Defendants are ordered to produce to the Plaintiffs the names and aliases, home and work addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers of every salaried/exempt employee, who held the title of or performed the duties of housekeeper, housekeeper, maintenance staff, front desk personnel, skilled trade construction employee, and placing advertising after March 1, 2014, as well as all salaried/exempt employees, who were paid less than $455 per week who worked for the Defendants after March 1, 2014. In light of the Joint Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action, these motions are denied as moot with leave to refile: * Plaintiffs' Motion to Certification of Collective Action; * Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of Collective Action; * Defendant American Motels Motion to Dismiss; and * the Motion to transfer venue and for a more definite statement filed by Defendants B&W Investment Properties, LLC, Brett Burge, County Line Properties I LLC, Jefferson Property, Quentin Kearning, Kenneth Logan, Quincy Property LLC, Springfield Welcome Inn, Vandiver Motel, and Joe Wimberly. A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=E2WPysGL R1 RCM INC: "Anger" Suit Settled for $1.3 Million ------------------------------------------------- R1 RCM Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company paid a total $1.3 million settlement in the case captioned as Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc. On July 22, 2014, the company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc.), seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The primary allegations are that the company attempted to collect debts without providing the notice required by the FDCPA and Michigan Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and failed to abide by the terms of an agreed payment plan in violation of those same statutes. On February 23, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle and filed the proposed class action settlement with the Court, which conducted a Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") hearing on whether to approve of the settlement. Members of the putative class were notified of the settlement and were given an opportunity to object or opt-out of the settlement before the CAFA hearing on October 4, 2017. No objections to the class settlement were filed, and the Court approved the settlement by Order dated October 11, 2017. Accordingly, the Company paid a total $1.3 million settlement, some of which was paid to a settlement fund to assist members of the class Ascension Michigan ministry patients pay off healthcare debt to Ascension ministries. R1 is a provider of revenue cycle management ("RCM") services to healthcare providers. The company's technology-enabled services help healthcare providers generate sustainable improvements in their operating margins and cash flows while also enhancing patient, physician and staff satisfaction for the company's customers. The company is based in Chicago, Illinois. RENZENBERGER INC: McConville Seeks to Cert. 6 Classes of Workers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled KRISTINA MCCONVILLE, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. RENZENBERGER, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:17-cv-02972-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify these Classes: * Straight Time Wages Class: All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by Renzenberger in California at any time from April 14, 2012, to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class who were not paid wages while clocked out for an unpaid meal period; * Overtime Class: All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by Renzenberger in California at any time from April 14, 2012, to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class who were not paid wages while clocked out for an unpaid meal period and who worked one or more work period in excess of eight (8) consecutive hours or one or more workweeks in excess of 40 hours; * Non-Duty-Free Meal Period Class: All current and former non- exempt road drivers employed by Renzenberger in California at any time from April 14, 2012, to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class who worked one or more work period in excess of five (5) consecutive hours; * Wage Statement Class: All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by Renzenberger in California at any time from April 12, 2015, to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class and who received a wage statement; * Waiting Time Penalties Class: All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by Renzenberger in California at any time from February 23, 2014, to the date the Court issues an order certifying the Class whose employment with Renzenberger has ended; and * Unfair Competition Law Class: All current and former non-exempt road drivers employed by Renzenberger in California at any time from April 14, 2012, who are also members of the Straight Time Wages or Non-Duty-Free Meal Period Classes. Ms. McConville also asks the Court to appoint her as Class Representative and to appoint her counsel as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on May 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oMBX3Rwg The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. Tony Roberts, Esq. THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com dmara@turleylawfirm.com jserb@turleylawfirm.com troberts@turleylawfirm.com RESOLUTE FOREST: Reynolds Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DONALD REYNOLDS and NORMAN YARBER, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated and the UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO/CLC v. RESOLUTE FOREST PRODUCTS, INC., RESOLUTE FP US INC., RESOLUTE FP US HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, and RESOLUTE FP US HEALTH REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT PLAN, Case No. 1:16-cv-00048-TAV-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), move for: (1) class certification of the Settlement Class (as defined in the parties' Settlement Agreement); (2) preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement; (3) approval of the proposed Class Notice; and (4) entry of an order setting a date for a hearing on the fairness of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with other pertinent dates. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fYgLoIoQ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joel R. Hurt, Esq. Pamina Ewing, Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Law and Finance Building, 13th Floor 429 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8400 E-mail: jhurt@fdpklaw.com pewing@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com - and - David Garrison, Esq. Scott Tift, Esq. Seth Hyatt, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 252-3798 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com stift@barrettjohnston.com shyatt@barrettjohnston.com - and - William T. Payne, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC Pittsburgh North Office 12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203 Pittsburgh, PA 15215 Telephone: (412) 492-8797 E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com SAL'S ITALIAN: Elorza Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ELORZA, and other similarly situated individuals v. SAL'S ITALIAN RISTORANTE, INC.; GOLU DINING LLC; and LUIS GONZALEZ, Case No. 0:18-cv-60774-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sal's Italian Ristorante, Inc., doing business as Vingiano Italian Restaurant II Inc., owns and operates a chain of restaurants in South Florida. Sal's offers pizza, pasta, chicken, and veal products. The Company was founded in 1990 and is based in Coconut Creek, Florida. Golu Dining LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company. Luis Gonzalez is an owner, officer, manager or agent of the Corporate Defendants. The Corporate Defendants are entities engaged in related activities, which perform through a unified operation, with a common ownership, with a common business purpose, under the common control and administration of the same owners and managers. The Corporate Defendants share offices and employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPIAN: Suit by Lanier Trust Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in a putative class action suit initiated by the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust. On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge, among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation"). The complaint asserts a variety of federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b) purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 17, 2012. The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former officers and directors, among other defendants, including the Trust are responsible for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves. The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge is a nominal defendant only. On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims"). In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett, Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant only. On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order regarding the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims, finding that the plaintiffs may pursue their Exchange Act Claims against the respective remaining defendants. Subsequent to the filing of the Trust's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against SandRidge Mississippian Trust II, the remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are being asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust, but also by purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II. SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said "Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. The Trust will estimate and, if the Trustee deems it appropriate, begin reserving funds for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any such estimates and any final liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different than any estimates." The Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in connection with the Securities Litigation, and has not established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation. The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any rights it may have to indemnities that may be applicable or any claims it may make in connection with the Securities Litigation. SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as amended and restated, by and among SandRidge, as Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee (the "Trustee"), and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee (the "Delaware Trustee") (such amended and restated trust agreement, as amended to date, the "trust agreement"). The Trust's affairs are administered by the Trustee, which maintains its offices at 601 Travis Street, 16th Floor, Houston, Texas 77002. The Trust does not have any employees. SPARK ENERGY: Settlement Reached in "Melville" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the parties in the case entitled, John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC, have reached a confidential settlement. John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breached its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On September 5, 2017, the parties reached a confidential settlement in this matter, which the Company expensed and paid in the fourth quarter of 2017. Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. SPARK ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in "Veilleux" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, 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 ongoing in the case captioned as, Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet. Katherine Veilleux and Jennifer Chon, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Electricity Maine. LLC, Provider Power, LLC, Spark HoldCo, LLC, Kevin Dean and Emile Clavet is a purported class action lawsuit filed on November 18, 2016 in the United States District Court of Maine, alleging that Electricity Maine, LLC, an entity acquired by Spark HoldCo, LLC in mid-2016, enrolled and re-enrolled customers through fraudulent and misleading advertising, promotions, and other communications prior to the acquisition. Plaintiffs further allege that some improper enrollment and re-enrollment practices have continued to the present date. Plaintiffs allege the following claims against all defendants: violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of RICO, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the purported class, rescission of contracts with Electricity Maine, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorney's fees. By order dated November 15, 2017, the Court, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), dismissed all claims against Spark HoldCo except the claims for violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment. Discovery limited to issues relevant to class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has just begun. Spark HoldCo intends to vigorously defend this matter and the allegations asserted therein, including the request to certify a class. Spark Energy said "Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations." Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. SPARK ENERGY: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss "Gillis" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in the case entitled, Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC, is fully briefed and submitted, and the parties are awaiting a decision from the Court. Gillis et al. v. Respond Power, LLC is a purported class action lawsuit that was originally filed on May 21, 2014 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. On June 23, 2014, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the disclosure statement contained in Respond Power, LLC's variable rate contracts with Pennsylvania consumers limited the variable rate that could be charged to no more than the monthly rate charged by the consumers' local utility company. The plaintiffs also allege that Respond Power, LLC (i) breached its variable rate contract with Pennsylvania consumers, and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing therein, by charging rates in excess of the monthly rate charged by the consumers' local utility company; (ii) engaged in deceptive conduct in violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law; and (iii) engaged in negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment in connection with purported promises of savings. The amount of damages sought is not specified. By order dated August 31, 2015, the district court denied class certification. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of class certification to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court's denial of class certification and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. The district court ordered briefing on defendant's motion to dismiss. Respond Power LLC filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' declaratory judgment and breach of contract claims (the class claims) on June 30, 2017. The motion is fully briefed and submitted, and the parties are awaiting a decision from the Court. Spark Energy said "The Company currently cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter, subject to certain limitations." Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. SEMPRA ENERGY: 381 Suits Pending in Los Angeles Court at May 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that as of May 3, 2018, 381 lawsuits, including approximately 48,000 plaintiffs, are pending against Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), some of which have also named Sempra Energy. All of the cases, other than a matter brought by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the federal securities class action, are coordinated before a single court in the LA Superior Court for pretrial management (the Coordination Proceeding). Pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, in March 2017, the individuals and business entities asserting tort and Proposition 65 claims filed a Second Amended Consolidated Master Case Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes. The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium and violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes also naming Sempra Energy. The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and attorneys' fees. Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, engages in energy business worldwide. It was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. SEMPRA ENERGY: Property and Business Class Actions Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy continues to face two consolidated class action complaints in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company stated, "In January 2017, pursuant to the Coordination Proceeding, two consolidated class action complaints were filed against SoCalGas and Sempra Energy, one on behalf of a putative class of persons and businesses who own or lease real property within a five-mile radius of the well (the Property Class Action), and a second on behalf of a putative class of all persons and entities conducting business within five miles of the facility (the Business Class Action). Both complaints assert claims for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence and violation of California Unfair Competition Law. The Property Class Action also asserts claims for negligence per se, trespass, permanent and continuing public and private nuisance, and inverse condemnation. The Business Class Action also asserts a claim for negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Both complaints seek compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. In December 2017, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District ruled that the purely economic damages alleged in the Business Class Action are not recoverable under the law. In February 2018, the California Supreme Court granted a petition filed by the plaintiffs to review that ruling." Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, engages in energy business worldwide. It was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. SEMPRA ENERGY: Plaintiffs Ask Court to Revive Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a federal securities class action has sought reconsideration of a District Court's order dismissing the case, according to Sempra Energy's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company said, "A federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal securities laws has been filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its officers and certain of its directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In March 2018, the District Court dismissed the action with prejudice, and in April 2018 the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the order." Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, engages in energy business worldwide. It was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: 8th Cir. Appeal in Royalty Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- SouthWestern Energy Company said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has not yet determined whether to hear oral argument relating to a notice of appeal in the Arkansas Royalty Litigation. In June 2017, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company on all counts in Smith v. SEECO, Inc. et al., a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiff had alleged that the Company had underpaid lessors of lands in Arkansas by deducting from royalty payments costs for gathering, transportation and compression of natural gas in excess of what is permitted by the relevant leases and asserted claims for, among other things, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violation of certain Arkansas statutes. Following the verdict, the court entered judgment in favor of the Company on all claims. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial, and the plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The court of appeals has not yet determined whether to hear oral argument. Independent of the plaintiff's appeal, several different parties sought to intervene in the Smith case prior to or shortly after trial, and have appealed the trial court's order denying their request to intervene. Briefing is complete in the intervenor's appeal, and oral argument is expected to occur sometime in the second quarter of 2018. The plaintiff class in Smith comprises the vast majority of lessors of lands in Arkansas for which leases permit deductions for these types of costs. Most of the remaining lessors are named plaintiffs or members of classes in other pending lawsuits. In particular, two actions on behalf of certified classes of only Arkansas residents pending in state courts in Arkansas (one is set for trial during the third quarter of 2018; the other does not have a trial date) and three cases (all currently stayed) that were filed in Arkansas state court on behalf of a total of 248 individually named plaintiffs, two of which have been removed to federal court, have been assigned to the same court that held the Smith trial. Management believes that, as the Smith jury concluded, the deductions from royalty payments were calculated in accordance with the leases. The Company currently does not anticipate that these other cases are likely to have a material adverse effect on the results of operations, financial position or cash flows of the Company. SENIOR CARE CENTERS: Ward Seeks Class Certification Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Ward, Dawn Meeks, and Celestina Hernandez, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JOSEPH WARD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SENIOR CARE CENTERS, LLC, a foreign corporation, Case No. 5:17-cv-00422-FB-HJB (W.D. Tex.), move for conditional certification of a collective and notice to potential plaintiffs, pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jLaTluG9 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles W. Branham, III, Esq. DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP 302. N. Market Street, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 722-5990 Facsimile: (214) 722-5991 E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com - and - Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com SNEAKER VILLA: Tucker Moves to Certify Class of Key Holders ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned LAQUINTA TUCKER, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SNEAKER VILLA, INC., d/b/a RU VILLA, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-10086-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act moves for an order: 1) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective; 2) approving the Plaintiff's proposed "Notice of Right to Join Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms and authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the Proposed Notice via first-class mail and e-mail to the proposed FLSA collective, defined as: All current and former hourly Key Holders and Sales Associates/Fashion Experts who worked for Defendant at any time during the last three years; 3) requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10 days of the entry of the order; and 4) allowing putative FLSA collective members 60 days from circulation of the notice to file written consent forms. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H4fLtZJY The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Rod M. Johnston, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com rjohnston@sommerspc.com STONE ENERGY: Faces 3 Potential Class Actions over Talos Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Stone Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that three lawsuits are in the preliminary stages of defense and assessment. On November 21, 2017, Stone and certain of its subsidiaries entered into a series of related agreements pertaining to a business combination with Talos Energy LLC ("Talos Energy") and its indirect wholly owned subsidiary Talos Production LLC ("Talos Production" and, together with Talos Energy, "Talos"). Talos Energy is controlled indirectly by entities controlled by Apollo Management VII, L.P. ("Apollo VII"), Apollo Commodities Management, L.P., with respect to Series I (together with Apollo VII, "Apollo Management") and Riverstone Energy Partners V, L.P. ("Riverstone"). Stone, Sailfish Energy Holdings Corporation ("New Talos"), a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Stone, and Sailfish Merger Sub Corporation, a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Talos, entered into a Transaction Agreement (the "Transaction Agreement") with Talos on November 21, 2017, which contemplates a series of transactions (the "Transactions") occurring on the date of closing of the Transaction Agreement (the "Closing") that will result in such business combination. Stone Energy said in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that on each of January 4, February 2, and February 8, 2018, separate lawsuits were filed against Stone, the individual directors of the Board and other named co- defendants by stockholders of Stone. Two of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court of Delaware and the third lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District Louisiana. The three lawsuits allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 on the grounds that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on December 29, 2017 (which became effective on April 9, 2018) was materially incomplete because it omitted material information concerning the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreement. The three lawsuits also seek certification as class actions. The Company said the lawsuits are in the preliminary stages of defense and assessment. The defendants believe that the allegations asserted in the three lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves against the claims raised. Stone Energy Corporation is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana with additional offices in New Orleans, Houston and Morgantown, West Virginia. Stone is engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development and production of properties in the Gulf of Mexico basin. SYNGENTA CORP: Farmers File Fraud Suit vs Own Lawyers in GMO Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that three North Dakota farmers filed a class action on April 24 against the Texas plaintiffs' firm Watts Guerra, alleging that Watts and a dozen co-counsel duped nearly 60,000 farmers into signing 40 percent contingency fee agreements in nationwide litigation against the agricultural company Syngenta, then cut secret deals to preserve the contingency fees by excluding Watts clients from state and federal class actions against the company. The Minnesota federal court class action asserts racketeering, conspiracy, fraud and state-law claims against Watts and the other defendants. The suit asks, among other things, for a declaration that the contingency fee agreements are void. Mikal Watts of Watts Guerra said in a phone interview on April 25 that the new class action is "frivolous and meritless," and that the farmers' lawyer, Douglas Nill of FarmLaw, is uninformed about the Syngenta litigation. Last September, the agricultural giant agreed to a $1.5 billion settlement to resolve nationwide claims by hundreds of thousands of U.S. corn farmers who blamed Syngenta for pushing sales of genetically modified seeds that produced a crop China refused to import. The settlement, structured as a class deal, resolves claims by Watts Guerra clients as well as corn farmers not represented by the firm. It received preliminary approval in March from U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum of Kansas City, Kansas, who is overseeing consolidated litigation in federal court. "We have done a good job and we've done it ethically," Mr. Watts said. "Every dollar I'm going to earn in this case is a fee earned." In a press release issued after our interview, Mr. Watts added, "My firm has spent tens of millions of dollars and invested tens of thousands of hours, and worked over the past four years with other fine law firms across the Corn Belt, who collectively applied the herculean pressure required to force Syngenta to settle this case brought on behalf of American corn farmers for $1.5 billion . . . I worked diligently and ethically to achieve the task I was appointed to undertake, and did so at the direction of two excellent special masters operating under the careful supervision of three judges, in both state and federal courts." Mr. Watts, as you may recall, has weathered far worse than fraud allegations in a civil suit. In 2016, he was acquitted by a federal jury in Mississippi on charges that he orchestrated a scheme to defraud the oil company BP by filing claims on behalf of tens of thousands of "phantom clients." Mr. Watts, who represented himself at the criminal trial, blamed outside investigators for supplying his firm with flawed information about seafood workers who purportedly suffered economic injuries after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Regardless of what happens in the new class action, this case -- like the Volkswagen clean diesel and NFL concussion cases -- raises tough questions about the obligations of lawyers who represent individual clients in litigation resolved through sweeping class action settlements. As the complaint alleges, U.S. corn farmers who never filed their own suits against Syngenta will just have to pay court-awarded fees to class counsel. But those who followed Watts Guerra's exhortations and retained the firm to file individual suits are facing 40 percent contingency fees on top of fees for class counsel. Even if the MDL judge awards class counsel only 10 percent of the settlement, Watts Guerra clients will see nearly half of their recovery consumed by legal fees, according to the complaint. That would be "grotesque," the complaint said. It's all the more galling, the new suit contends, because Watts Guerra and the other defendants deceived their clients about the relative merits and drawbacks of filing their own suits and then supposedly made sure the farmers they represented would not be notified about developments in the federal case in Kansas City or a statewide class action in state court in Minnesota. According to the complaint, Watts Guerra and its co-counsel engineered a media and advertising blitz to sign up clients across the Corn Belt. They held town halls, set up websites and ran television and print ads targeting farmers. The message was consistent, according to the complaint: If farmers wanted to end up with more than a coupon or a free bag of seed, they should not rely on a class action but should instead protect their rights by filing their own lawsuit. Between 50,000 and 60,000 farmers ended up signing contingency fee contracts with Watts Guerra and its affiliates -- some of them after classes were certified in Minnesota and in federal court and Syngenta entered global settlement talks. The complaint's most controversial allegations, in my mind, involve supposed deals between Watts Guerra and class counsel to keep Watts Guerra's clients in the dark about the class actions. According to the suit, Watts Guerra signed joint prosecution agreements in both the federal and Minnesota cases. Class counsel agreed to exclude Watts Guerra clients from class certification motions, and in return Watts Guerra allegedly agreed not to oppose class certification and to pay a big chunk of assessed common benefit fees to class counsel. The complaint contends that the judges who certified the Minnesota and federal classes did not realize that Watts Guerra was not providing class notices to its clients. (According to the suit, Watts Guerra informed clients of the joint prosecution agreements more than a year after they were signed, and then only to let them know they didn't need to opt out of the class.) "Defendants effectively opted farmers out of the class proceedings without informing them of their options and rights," the complaint alleges. "In short, the due process and equal protection rights of 60,000 farmers were not protected; they were not able to exercise their individual right to be part of the class or opt-out of it; they were not given court-approved notice that they were members of the class proceedings nor were they able to make their own choice in deciding whether or not to opt- out of the federal MDL and Minnesota classes." Mr. Watts told Ms. Frankel there was nothing secret or improper about the joint prosecution agreements, which simply reflected the cooperation between his firm and lawyers for the class as they squeezed Syngenta. He said he obtained ethics opinions okaying the agreements before he signed them. His press release said the complaint "is not worth the paper it is written on, nor the ink it took to pollute the pages of (the) petition." It's obviously within the bounds of ethics for a lawyer to advise clients to opt out of a class action settlement if you think you can get a better deal for them. Mr. Watts may well have thought he could use the leverage of his enormous inventory of cases to obtain a premium for his clients. But according to the complaint, his clients will end up with the same terms as class members who weren't represented by Watts Guerra -- except they'll also have to pay contingency fees. (Mr. Watt declined to say whether he would seek to enforce his private fee agreements but did say the MDL lawyer has the inherent power to oversee his fees.) Lead counsel in the federal Syngenta MDL -- Don Downing of Gray Ritter & Graham, Patrick Stueve of Stueve Siegel Hanson, Scott Powell of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton and William Chaney of Gray Reed & McGraw -- sent an email statement in response to Ms. Frankel's e-mail asking about allegations that they colluded with Watts to exclude his clients from the class. (They are not named as defendants in the suit.) "All joint prosecution agreements, including the one in question in this lawsuit, were disclosed to the court," the statement said. "It included provisions concerning any potential future payments of common benefit assessments that would be awarded by the court for work done on the cases by lead counsel only if the MDL class cases were ultimately not certified as a class action . . . Because we reached a nationwide class settlement agreement, such provisions for future payments of common benefit assessments do not apply. Mr. Watts' clients after fully informed consent still have a right to opt out. The fully disclosed JPA agreement simply set up a mechanism for his clients who filed individual actions to do so after being fully informed of their rights." [GN] TESLA INC: Securities Suit over SolarCity Reports Concluded ----------------------------------------------------------- Tesla, Inc. reports in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that the securities litigation relating to SolarCity Corporation's financial statements and guidance has been concluded. On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against SolarCity and two of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of SolarCity's securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. The Company stated, "After a series of amendments to the original complaint, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint and entered a judgment in our favor on August 9, 2016. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. On December 4, 2017, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiffs' notice of appeal from the dismissal. On March 8, 2018, the Court upheld the District Court ruling of dismissal and judgment in our favor. The case is concluded." Tesla, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles and energy storage products in the United States, China, Norway, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Automotive, and Energy Generation and Storage. The Company was formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla, Inc. in February 2017. Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. TESLA INC: To Seek Dismissal of Suit over Model 3 Production ------------------------------------------------------------ Tesla, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss the purported stockholder class action relating to the production of Model 3 vehicles, according to its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Tesla, Inc., two of its current officers, and a former officer. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4, 2016 to October 6, 2017. The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's preparedness to produce Model 3 vehicles. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and defendants will file a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The Company said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit." Tesla, Inc., designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric vehicles and energy storage products in the United States, China, Norway, and internationally. The Company operates in two segments, Automotive, and Energy Generation and Storage. The Company was formerly known as Tesla Motors, Inc. and changed its name to Tesla, Inc. in February 2017. Tesla, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. TIGER BRANDS: Law Firms Join Forces in Listeriosis Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Enca.com reports that legal firms representing different parties seeking a class action lawsuit against Tiger Brands over the deadly listeriosis outbreak are to join forces. The total claim against Tiger Brands now stands at around R400 million. In March, ten applicants approached the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg to sue companies for the deaths and other damages as a result of the deadly outbreak. The ten applicants subsequently filed a class action lawsuit. Earlier in April, Tiger Brands indicated it would oppose the two applications where it and its subsidiary, Enterprise Foods, are the respondents. Tiger Brands on April 26 said an independent laboratory confirmed the presence of the deadly listeria strain at its Polokwane factory. The company says it will continue to cooperate with government to resolve issues around the outbreak.[GN] TORCHMARK CORP: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in "Bruce" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Torchmark Corporation is awaiting the court's decision on its motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action filed in Texas against it subsidiary, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On February 1, 2018, putative class action litigation was filed against subsidiary American Income Life Insurance Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Bruce v. American Income Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00258-G). The plaintiff, a former insurance sales agent of American Income who is suing on behalf of all current and former American Income sales agents contracted through State General Agent Stephen Jubrey's agency office at any time since January 31, 2015 through the final disposition of this matter, asserts that such agents are employees rather than independent contractors as they are classified by American Income. He alleges failure to pay minimum wages, overtime wages and other applicable monies in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff seeks, in a jury trial, actual and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney fees, costs and other relief, including injunctive relief. On February 27, 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of this matter and is awaiting the court's decision as to the same. Torchmark Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides various life and health insurance products, and annuities in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. It operates through four segments: Life Insurance, Supplemental Health Insurance, Annuities, and Investments. Torchmark Corporation was founded in 1900 and is headquartered in McKinney, Texas. TRANSNET: Must Respond to Pensioners' Case ------------------------------------------ Ernest Mabuza, writing for Sunday Times, reports that Transnet and two pension funds have 20 court days within which to file a plea in answer to the class action claim by about 60,000 Transnet pensioners. This follows a Constitutional Court judgment on April 25 which dismissed exceptions to the claim raised by Transnet, the Transport Pension Fund and Transnet Second Defined Pension Fund a few years ago. The pensioners' claim is based on a promise made to them in 1989 that they would receive the same pension benefits under a commercial entity, Transnet, as they did under the state entity that had employed them until then, the South African Transport Services (SATS), and its two pension funds. The pension funds kept the promise until 2002, when the funds failed to grant any pension increases beyond the minimum of 2% per year. The pensioners had calculated that the debt owed to the two pension funds stood at R80-billion by March 2013. This figure is now higher. When the case was due to be heard by the high court in Pretoria in 2013, Transnet and the pension funds raised an exception to the claim by the pensioners. Pretoria High Court Judge Francis Legodi upheld Transnet's exceptions to the claim by the pensioners in a judgment in 2016. He said the claim by the pensioners was vague and embarrassing as it did not contain sufficient details particularity regarding who would decide the rate of the pension increase and who would benefit from the promise. This meant Transnet did not have to file a plea to answer the claim against it. Following the Constitutional Court judgment on April 25, Geyser and Coetzee Attorneys -- which represents the pensioners -- said it was still hopeful for a speedy and favourable conclusion. "The effect of this judgement is that Transnet and the Pension Funds must file their Plea in answer to the Pensioners' claim within 20 court days," the law firm said in a statement. In its judgment on April 25, the Constitutional Court said the pensioners -- in their particulars of claim -- pleaded that the 1989 promise was made orally by the general manager of SATS. "The pleaded contract is simple and straightforward, but its simplicity is elegant, rather than vague," Justice Johan Froneman said in a unanimous judgment by the court. He said the terms of the contract were expressly and clearly set out and so were the parties bound by those terms. "There is nothing vague and embarrassing that prevents [the pension funds and Transnet] from knowing what case they have to meet," Justice Froneman said. [GN] TROTT LAW: Martin Seeks Prelim. Approval of $7.5-Mil. Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Brian J. Martin, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trott Law P.C., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-12838-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.), move the Court for entry of an order preliminarily approving the parties' $7.5 million Class Action Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to: * provisionally certify this Settlement Class: All individuals to whom Trott Law PC caused to be sent any version of the Trott PC Foreclosure Letter in connection with mortgages conveyed for residential real property located in Michigan, which was not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office, dated from August 11, 2009, through the date of entry of the Preliminary Approval Order; * provisionally appoint Brian Martin, Yahmi Nundley, and Kathleen Cadeau as representatives of the Settlement Class; * provisionally appoint Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq., and Andrew N. Friedman, Esq., as Class Counsel; * appoint Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., as Claims Administrator; * authorize and approve the promulgation of Class Notice as detailed in the Settlement Agreement, including the Publication Notice; and * schedules a Final Fairness Hearing date and time no less than 100 days from the date of filing of this Motion. Pursuant to the Settlement, the Defendants will pay $7.5 million to establish a common fund for the benefit of the Class. Approved Claimants will be mailed checks for a pro rata share of the common fund after payment of claims administration expenses, attorneys' fee, service awards, and litigation expenses. The estimated range of the payments is between $75 and $150. Trott Law will also include in its fair debt letters for a period of five years this text: "An attorney has reviewed information supplied by our client in preparation of this letter." If Trott Law includes a reference to "reinstatement" in a fair debt letter, the letter will include this additional text: "No timing requirement relating to reinstatement alters your rights to dispute the debt or seek validation within the timelines set forth in this letter." Class counsel will seek services awards of $5,000 for each of the three named Plaintiffs. Class counsel will apply to the Court by motion for an award of attorneys' fees of up to 33.33% of the Settlement Common Fund and for reimbursement of reasonable expenses. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vB86bByh The Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are represented by: Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq. ANDREW J. MCGUINNESS, ESQ. 122 S Main St, Suite 118 P O Box 7711 Ann Arbor, MI 48107 Telephone: (734) 274-9374 E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com - and - Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Sally M. Handmaker, Esq. COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS &TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W St Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com Defendant Trott Law, P.C., is represented by: Kathleen H. Klaus, Esq. Jesse P. Roth, Esq. MADDIN, HAUSER, ROTH & HELLER, PC. 28400 Northwestern Hwy., 2nd Floor Southfield, MI 48034 Telephone: (248) 359-7520 E-mail: kklaus@maddinhauser.com jroth@maddinhauser.com - and - Charity A. Olson, Esq. BROCK & SCOTT PLLC 2723 S State St, Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-5179 E-mail: Charity.Olson@brockandscott.com Defendant David A. Trott is represented by: Joseph Aviv, Esq. Bruce L. Segal, Esq. HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ &COHN LLP 39400 Woodward Ave., Suite 101 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 566-8300 E-mail: javiv@honigman.com bsegal@honigman.com TYSON FOODS: Court Denies Bid to Amend "Huser" Dismissal Order -------------------------------------------------------------- The court has denied the plaintiff's motion to amend or alter a previously entered judgment and to submit an amended complaint in a class action suit filed by William Huser against Tyson Foods, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. On October 17, 2016, William Huser, acting on behalf of himself and a putative class of persons who purchased shares of Tyson Foods' stock between November 23, 2015, and October 7, 2016, filed a class action complaint against Tyson Foods, Inc., Donnie Smith and Dennis Leatherby in the Central District of California. The Company said, "The complaint alleged, among other things, that our periodic filings contained materially false and misleading statements by failing to disclose that the Company has colluded with other producers to manipulate the supply of broiler chickens in order to keep supply artificially low, as alleged in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation. Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additional lawsuits making similar claims were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Western District of Arkansas, and the Southern District of Ohio. Each of those cases has now been transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas and consolidated, and lead plaintiffs have been appointed. A consolidated complaint was filed on March 22, 2017 (which also named additional individual defendants). The consolidated complaint seeks damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. "The court granted our motion to dismiss this complaint. The plaintiffs filed a motion to amend or alter the judgment and to submit an amended complaint, which was denied. The court's dismissal was with prejudice." Tyson Foods is one of the world's largest food companies and a recognized leader in protein. UBS GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim related to the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS) investment fraud,. A large number of alleged beneficiaries have filed claims against UBS entities (and non-UBS entities) for purported losses relating to the Madoff fraud. The majority of these cases have been filed in Luxembourg, where decisions that the claims in eight test cases were inadmissible have been affirmed by the Luxembourg Court of Appeal, and the Luxembourg Supreme Court has dismissed a further appeal in one of the test cases. In the US, the BMIS Trustee filed claims against UBS entities, among others, in relation to the two Luxembourg funds and one of the offshore funds. The total amount claimed against all defendants in these actions was not less than USD 2 billion. In 2014, the US Supreme Court rejected the BMIS Trustee's motion for leave to appeal decisions dismissing all claims except those for the recovery of fraudulent conveyances and preference payments. In 2016, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the remaining claims against the UBS entities. The BMIS Trustee appealed. In 2014, several claims, including a purported class action, were filed in the US by BMIS customers against UBS entities, asserting claims similar to those made by the BMIS Trustee, and seeking unspecified damages. These claims have either been voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed on the basis that the courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims against the UBS entities. In 2016, the plaintiff in one of those claims appealed the dismissal. In February 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claim. UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas, Personal & Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment Bank. UBS GROUP: Foreign Currency-Related Suits Awaits Final OK --------------------------------------------------------- UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the foreign currency-related class action suits awaits final approval by the court. Putative class actions have been filed since 2013 in US federal courts and in other jurisdictions against UBS and other banks on behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in foreign currency transactions with any of the defendant banks. They allege collusion by the defendants and assert claims under the antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment. In 2015, additional putative class actions were filed in federal court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of a putative class of persons who entered into or held any foreign exchange futures contracts and options on foreign exchange futures contracts since 2003. The complaints assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the US antitrust laws. In 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of both putative classes of persons covered by the US federal court class actions described above. UBS has entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve all of these US federal court class actions. The agreement, which has been preliminarily approved by the court and is subject to final court approval, requires, among other things, that UBS pay an aggregate of USD 141 million and provide cooperation to the settlement classes. UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas, Personal & Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment Bank. UBS GROUP: Government Bonds-Related Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ UBS Group AG said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that the company continues to defend itself in a class action suits related to Government bonds Putative class actions have been filed in US federal courts against UBS and other banks on behalf of persons who participated in markets for US Treasury securities since 2007. The complaints generally allege that the banks colluded with respect to, and manipulated prices of, US Treasury securities sold at auction. They assert claims under the antitrust laws and the CEA and for unjust enrichment. The cases have been consolidated in the SDNY, and a consolidated complaint was filed in November 2017. Following filing of these complaints, UBS and reportedly other banks are responding to investigations and requests for information from various authorities regarding US Treasury securities and other government bond trading practices. As a result of its review to date, UBS has taken appropriate action. UBS Group AG, together with its subsidiaries, provides financial advice and solutions clients worldwide. It operates through five divisions: Wealth Management, Wealth Management Americas, Personal & Corporate Banking, Asset Management, and Investment Bank. UNIVERSAL ELECTRIC: Kotov May Refile Bid for Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James B. Clark, III, administratively terminated the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit captioned Kotov v. Universal Electric Motor Service, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01438-JMV-JBC (D.N.J.). In light of the pending motion to amend, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is administratively terminated, according to the Court's Letter Order. The Plaintiff may move to reinstate the class certification motion upon disposition of the motion to amend. A copy of the Letter Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vcmbbH3w US BANK: Moseman Moves to Cert. Two Classes of Workers Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JORDAN MOSEMAN, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:17-cv-00481-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), moves the Court to conditionally certify, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act two "FLSA Collective Classes" defined as: (1) All individuals who worked for U.S. Bank through staffing agencies as hourly-paid AML/BSA Preliminary Investigators, or any equivalent position, at any location in the United States during the period from three years prior to the entry of the conditional certification order to the present; and (2) All individuals who worked for U.S. Bank as AML/BSA Investigators, or any equivalent position, and were classified as exempt employees at any location in the United States during the period from three years prior to the entry of the conditional certification order to the present. Mr. Moseman also asks the Court to order judicial notice to the Classes. As part of this order, he moves the Court to order a 75-day period for responding to the Notice, to order the Defendant to produce a list of putative class members, including information necessary to send the Notice, to authorize him to distribute the Notice via First Class U.S. Mail and e-mail and to send a reminder postcard on or about 20 days before the end of the notice period, and to order posting of the Notice at a location in the Defendant's offices where putative class members are likely to view it. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v7FDAc4M The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com - and - Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 15720 Brixham Hill Avenue, Suite 331 Charlotte, NC 28277 Telephone: (704) 612-0038 E-mail: pgibbons@stephanzouras.com US STEEL: Athan Renews Bid to Certify Class of Hourly Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled DAVID ATHAN, DARYL JACKSON, COREY PARKER, and ROBERT FLANNERY, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP., a foreign profit corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-14220-TGB-SDD (E.D. Mich.), file with the Court their Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification and Court Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA collective is defined as: All current and former hourly employees who worked at any time during the past three years for Defendant U.S. Steel in Michigan. The action is brought for alleged unpaid and late wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs filed the action to challenge the Defendant's alleged practice and policy of not paying its hourly employees for all time worked or the statutorily mandated minimum and overtime wages in a timely manner in violation of the FLSA. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PwgLePb7 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan Yaldou, Esq. Omar Badr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC 23000 Telegraph, Suite 5 Brownstown, MI 48134 Telephone: (734) 692-9200 E-mail: Bryan@yaldoulaw.com - and - Jesse L. Young, Esq. KREIS, ENDERLE, HUDGINS & BORSOS, PC 8225 Moorsbridge PO Box 4010 Kalamazoo, MI 49003 Telephone: (269) 321-2311 E-mail: jyoung@kreisenderle.com The Defendant is represented by: Margaret C. Alli, Esq. William E. Pilchak, Esq. Joshua P. Lushnat, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PLLC 34977 Woodward Ave., Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 593-6400 E-mail: meg.alli@ogletree.com william.pilchak@ogletree.com joshua.lushnat@ogletree.com VERDE ENERGY: "Jurich" Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------ Spark Energy, 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 Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, have proposed to the court that initial briefing on the motions would be due March 16, 2018. Jurich v. Verde Energy USA, Inc., is a purported class action originally filed on March 3, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and subsequently re-filed on October 8, 2015 in the Superior Court of Judicial District of Hartford, State of Connecticut. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Verde Companies charged rates in violation of its contracts with Connecticut customers and alleges (i) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and (ii) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and punitive damages for the purported class and injunctive relief. The parties have exchanged initial discovery. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was briefed and the Verde Companies filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on October 17, 2017. On December 6, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion. However, the Court opted not to send out class notices, and instead directed the parties to submit briefing on legal issues that could result in a modification or decertification of the class. The parties proposed to the Court that initial briefing on such motions would be due March 16, 2018. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies are handling this matter. Spark Energy said "Given the early stage of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter by the original owners of the Verde Companies, subject to certain limitations." Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. VERDE ENERGY: "Richardson" Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, 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 a class action suit entitled, Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment remains pending. On May 16, 2018, a notice was filed by Jacqueline Bowser, Michelle Hunt, Brian Richardson and John White of Supplemental Authority in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Richardson et al v. Verde Energy USA, Inc. is a purported class action filed on November 25, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members' cellular phones without prior express consent and by continuing to make such calls after receiving requests for the calls to cease. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages for the purported class and injunctive relief prohibiting Verde Companies' alleged conduct. Discovery on the claims of the named plaintiffs closed on November 10, 2017, and dispositive motions on the named plaintiffs' claims was filed on November 24, 2017. Plaintiffs' response to dispositive motions' pleadings was filed on December 22, 2017 and Verde Companies' reply briefs were filed on January 5, 2018. To date, no hearing has been set on these motions. As part of an agreement in connection with the acquisition of the Verde Companies, the original owners of the Verde Companies is handling this matter. Spark Energy said "Given the early stages of this matter, we cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case at this time. The Company believes it is fully indemnified for this litigation matter by the original owners of the Verde Companies, subject to certain limitations." Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. VERDE ENERGY: "Coleman" Class Suit Concluded Following Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Spark Energy, 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 Coleman v. Verde Energy USA Illinois, LLC have reached a confidential settlement. Coleman v. Verde Energy USA Illinois, LLC is a purported class action filed on January 23, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging that the Verde Companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by placing marketing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice to the purported class members' cellular phones without prior express consent. The parties have reached a confidential settlement in this matter that was paid in the fourth quarter of 2017. On November 30, 2017, Judge David R. Herndon entered an Order approving a Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Christopher Coleman. Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 and now organized as a Delaware corporation that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. VIRGINIA, USA: Riggleman's Bid for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Norman K. Moon denied without prejudice the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled TERRY A. RIGGLEMAN v. HAROLD CLARKE AND MARK AMONETTE, Case No. 5:17-cv-00063-NKM-JCH (W.D. Va.). Harold W. Clarke is the Director of Corrections in the Commonwealth of Virginia. "The putative class action complaint in this Eighth Amendment case was filed in June 2017. That December, shortly before Chief Judge Urbanski transferred the case to me, Plaintiff Terry Riggleman moved to certify the class. The factual basis for certification rested entirely on the complaint itself," Judge Moon states. "There were no documents, transcripts, affidavits, or any other evidence attached to or cited in the motion," Judge Moon notes. "That is insufficient." Judge Moon adds: "Roughly ten months have passed since this case was filed, and three months have elapsed since I entered my standard pretrial order after the case was transferred to me. Further, oral argument on the certification motion was previously set for July 6, 2018. So, the parties have had an opportunity to engage in discovery, and they have developed or are developing (and can continue to develop) facts relevant to the certification issue." The Clerk is directed to retain the oral argument date, and the Court will set a briefing schedule. Any renewed motion for certification is due on or before May 25, 2018; the Defendants' response is due on or before June 8, 2018; and any reply is due on or before June 15, 2018. Should additional time for certification discovery be needed prior to briefing, any party may move for the amendment of this briefing schedule and the establishment of a certification discovery deadline by the presiding magistrate judge. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qMkRQz3i WARNER MUSIC: Reaches Settlement for Download Pricing Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Warner Music Group Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018, that in a class action suit against the Company related to the pricing of digital music downloads, the parties have reached a settlement for a nominal payment and the lawsuit will be dismissed imminently. On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with requests for information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants, including the Company. However, on January 13, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for Certiorari. Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of Internet download purchasers. On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015. The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on October 9, 2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015. A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were unable to reach a resolution. On July 18, 2017, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On August 1, 2017, plaintiffs filed a petition with the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the district court's order denying class certification. On August 11, 2017, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' petition. On December 8, 2017, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' request for leave to appeal the District Court's order denying their motion for class certification. The Company said, "The parties have reached a settlement for a nominal payment and the lawsuit will be dismissed imminently." Warner Music Group Corp. operates as a music-based content company in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The company operates in two segments, Recorded Music and Music Publishing. The company is based in New York. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Schechner Seeks to Certify 5 Classes of Buyers -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled TOBY SCHECHNER, BARBARA BARNES, LAURA BLISS, KATHLEEN JORDAN, KATHRYN LIMPEDE, LOUISE MILJENOVIC, CANDACE OLIARNY, BEVERLY SIMMONS, RICHARD THOME and MARY ELLEN THOME, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:16-cv- 12409-SJM-RSW (E.D. Mich.), seek certification of five state Classes under the laws of their respective states of Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, Arizona, Idaho, and New Mexico. Each Class is defined as "all persons who purchased a Whirlpool, Maytag, KitchenAid, or Jenn-Air oven equipped with AquaLift in [Michigan, Florida, New Jersey, Arizona, Idaho, or New Mexico]." According to the Plaintiffs, the lawsuit is a straightforward false advertising case that will rise or fall with the answer to one question: Do Whirlpool's ovens equipped with "AquaLift Self- Clean Technology" work as advertised? The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class Representatives for the Class and their respective Classes, to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel, and to order them to provide the Court with a proposed form and manner of notice to the certified Classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UKKvKnOp The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ssa@millerlawpc.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Jordan D. Mamorsky, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mreich@rgrdlaw.com jmamorsky@rgrdlaw.com - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Facsimile: (561) 750-3364 E-mail: SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO: Hunter Moves to Certify Sales Clerks Class --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DATISHA HUNTER and LATRICIA HUNTER, AS THE COLLECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES UNDER FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN A COLLECTIVE ACTION, and as CLASS REPRESENTATIVES FOR PLAINTIFFS' STATE AND LOCAL LAW CLAIMS v. WIRELESSPCS CHICAGO LLC, SKY NET WIRELESS IL LLC, HAMAD BROTHERS, INC., and MOHAMMED GHABEN, individually, Case No. 1:18-cv-00980 (N.D. Ill.), ask the Court to conditionally certify the case as a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Datisha Hunter, Latricia Hunter and the class members are and were sales clerks employed by the Defendants to sell cell phones, cell phone accessories, and cell phone service for the Defendants' metroPCS franchise at several Chicagoland locations. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, Cook County Minimum Wage Ordinance, and Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance by failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees: (1) minimum wages for all time worked; (2) overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in individual workweeks; and (3) for all time worked. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (a) authorize their counsel to issue notice of this lawsuit in English and Spanish and a reminder to all class members by mail and e-mail, (b) compel the Defendants to post a court-approved notice in English and Spanish in the Defendants' Illinois locations, (c) compel the Defendants to enclose notice of this lawsuit in English and Spanish in pay envelopes, (d) approve their proposed notice and reminder notice, (e) compel the Defendants to produce an accurate list in electronic format of all putative collective class members, (f) bar the Defendants from engaging in any and all forms of communication to prospective class members concerning the merits and issues of their FLSA claims and bar Defendants from securing any waivers or releases of the putative plaintiffs' FLSA claims, and (g) authorize a 60-day notice period for the putative class members to opt-in. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VNJLnCF9 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Antoinette Choate, Esq. Bradley S. Levison, Esq. CHOATE HERSCHMAN LEVISON, LLC 401 S. LaSalle St., Suite 1302G Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 870-5800 Facsimile: (312) 674-7421 E-mail: ac@law-chl.com bl@law-chl.com WISCONSIN, USA: Class Certification Sought in "Schroeder" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RONALD SCHROEDER v. BRIAN HAYES and WILLIAM POLLARD, Case No. 2:18-cv-00593-LA (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court for an order granting class certification and appointing counsel. Brian Hayes was Mr. Schroeder's Division of Hearings and Appeals Administrator. Mr. Schroeder alleges that his former probation agent elevated the severity level of certain violations, in contrary to the Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections' Evidence-Based Response to Violations Guide. He contends that his former agent's supervisor flatly denied his claim that his former agent falsified his revocation documents. The Plaintiff appears pro se. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C2Ourwxp WODONGA, VIC: Class Suit Possible Over Toxic Culture ---------------------------------------------------- Sophie Boyd, writing for The Border Mail, reports that a lawyer representing former Wodonga Council staff, including one whose complaint sparked an Ombudsman investigation, has described the organisation's culture "as nothing less than toxic" and called for the chief executive's resignation. Wangaratta lawyer John Suta, Esq. -- admin@johnsutalegal.com.au - - and a senior solicitor at Shine Lawyers confirmed Wodonga Council has opened itself up to a possible class action by ratepayers, after the Ombudsman revealed an $18 million overcharge over a decade. Shine Lawyer's senior solicitor Tristan Gaven, Esq., said he was interested in holding a town hall meeting to inform residents about their rights. "We believe there may be a basis for a class action based on a claim for restitution by the ratepayers," Mr Gaven said. While there may be issues in relation to limitation periods for amounts paid more than six years ago, in the event that an action was successful, ratepayers would be entitled to recover all charges that were held to be invalid by the court plus interest." Mr Suta told The Border Mail one of his clients, who worked as a strategic asset manager from January 2007, complained about the actions of senior staff to the Ombudsman. "My client made a complaint to the Ombudsman under an alias, as at the time they were still employed by council," Mr Suta said. "The complaint was basically that (they were) overcharging for waste services above the cost of the services, subjecting the c ommunity to excess charges and inflicting a financial cost on ratepayers." Mr Suta said ratepayers, as a whole, were overcharged by $3.37 million in 2015-16 alone and $3.033 million in 2016-17 at an individual cost of $90.90 to each ratepayer in 2016 and $74.99 in 2017, Mr Suta said. "What council did was they undertook a course of action where there was significant financial cross-subsidisation from waste to other departments, which obviously was not the real cost to service," he said. Mr Suta said despite what council have claimed since the Ombudsman's report was published on April 24, his understanding is that their actions were not done in "good faith". Council have ducked, weaved and hidden under every rock in response to this and said they did it in good faith, my instructions do not reflect that," he said. "Council was overcharging waste services above the cost of service, which was illegal and contrary to law." Mr Suta said ratepayers have a clear case for a class action against council "on the basis of council's actions". He said the cost of remuneration if a class action was successful would affect council's budget. But, he said, it was up to the public to decide if they wanted to take action on principle. "Ratepayers were overcharged thus bringing financial loss and damage on ratepayers, it's ratepayers money not council's," he said. "It could place a principle financial burden on council, but transparency should override the financial burden on council, never mind the fact of public trust." Mr Suta said former employees at council say the culture is "toxic", and said resigning was "absolutely the right thing" for Wodonga chief executive Patience Harrington to do. Ms Harrington joined council in 2003 and was appointed chief executive in April 2012. She refused to answer questions about council's "toxic culture" or whether council had been subjected to any bullying complaints or legal action. Instead, Ms Harrington said Wodonga Council received the highest customer satisfaction of any Victorian regional city in 2017. "This is driven by a staff culture that is measured by an internal survey which indicates that staff are highly engaged and know what they are here to do in working for our community," she said. Ms Harrington refused to say whether she or any other senior staff would be resigning. "The council is hearing the community concerns and we are already working with the Essential Services Commission about how we represent the revenue and expenditure differently," she said. "The council has received no complaints against officers on this issue." [GN] XPO LOGISTICS: 170 Intermodal Drayage Claims Pending at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. continues to face Intermodal Drayage Classification Claims involving approximately 170 claimants in three separate actions pending in California Superior Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately 150 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed claims in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. These claims seek reimbursement for the owner operators' business expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments. After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven of these claims, in 2014, the Company appealed the decision to the California Superior Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was held on the merits of those claims. On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of US$2.9 million plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants. The Company exhausted its appeals in this matter and the Superior Court entered final judgment against the Company in January 2018 and that judgment has been paid. Separate decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing officer in claims involving five additional plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of approximately US$0.9 million, following which the Company appealed the decisions in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 16, 2017, the Court issued judgment finding that the five claimants were employees rather than independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of approximately US$1.0 million plus post- judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants. The Company has appealed this judgment, but cannot provide assurance that such appeal will be successful. In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an aggregate amount of approximately US$0.9 million, which the Company has appealed to the California Superior Court, Long Beach. The remaining DLSE claims (the "Pending DLSE Claims") have been transferred to California Superior Court in three separate actions involving approximately 170 claimants, including the claimants mentioned above who originally filed claims in 2012. In addition, certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries are party to putative class action litigations in California brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. XPO Logistics said, "The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable relating to the claims referenced above. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims." XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company") use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments: Transportation and Logistics. XPO LOGISTICS: Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- XPO Logistics, Inc. still defends Last Mile Logistics Classification Claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party to several putative class action litigations brought by independent contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries in which the contract carriers assert that they should be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors. The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the contract carriers' business expenses. Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are pending, or have recently been settled, in California (Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in May 2005, in the Federal District Court, Southern District of California - the Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation, the court has granted final approval, and the settlement has been paid; and four related cases all pending in the Federal District Court, Northern District of California: Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2016; Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc., filed in July 2016; Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc., filed in September 2016; and Hector Ibanez v. XPO Last Mile, Inc., filed in May 2017). XPO Logistics said, "The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims." XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company") use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments: Transportation and Logistics. XPO LOGISTICS: Still Awaits Ct. Approval on TCPA Case Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Final court approval is still pending for a settlement agreement to resolve a putative class action suit against XPO Logistics, Inc. over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2018. The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation (Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S. District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") related to an automated customer call system used by a last mile logistics business that the Company acquired. The Company has reached an agreement to resolve the Leung case and awaits final court approval of the settlement. The Company has accrued the full amount of the proposed settlement. XPO Logistics, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("XPO" or the "Company") use an integrated network of people, technology and physical assets to help customers manage their goods more efficiently throughout their supply chains. The Company's customers are multinational, national, mid-size and small enterprises, and include many of the most prominent companies in the world. XPO runs its business on a global basis, with two reportable segments: Transportation and Logistics. YAHOO INC: New Terms of Service No Impact on Class Action Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lucian Armasu, writing for tom's HARDWARE, reports that Oath, Verizon's online content subsidiary, which owns both Yahoo and Aol, has published a new privacy policy. The policy waives users' rights to sue the company in a class action lawsuit. Oath also notes that this new change is "an important part" of its relationship with you. The company's new terms will also give it the right to fully analyze all of your emails and share "individually identifiable" data with Verizon and hundreds of third-party companies. Oath recently announced that it will be merging the email infrastructure of AOL and Yahoo. The company will use Yahoo's back-end infrastructure to power the AOL email system, too. Last year, we learned that Yahoo suffered the largest data breach in history, which exposed three billion user accounts. We also know from previous reports that Yahoo's former CEO, Marissa Mayer was often in conflict with the company's security team, so the infrastructure was likely not as secure as it could have been. Reuters also reported that Yahoo's leadership may have also allowed an NSA backdoor to reside on its servers, giving the NSA search access to its email database. Oath Waives Right To Launch Class Action Lawsuit Oath's new terms and policies disallow users from suing the company in a class action lawsuit, if they agree to these terms. However, if they don't agree, the users will soon no longer be able to use their Yahoo accounts (AOL had already instituted a similar policy before Verizon purchased it). For the moment, users can skip the message, but it seems to appear on almost every interaction with the Yahoo Mail service. In its new Terms of Service (ToS), Oath included the following: "You understand that by agreeing to these terms, arbitration or a small claims action will be the sole and exclusive means of resolving any dispute between us. You also understand that by agreeing to these terms, you and Oath are giving up the right to bring a claim in court or in front of a jury (except for matters that may be brought in small claims court), and that you and Oath are giving up the right to proceed with any class action or other representative action." Oath arbitrations will be handled by the American Arbitration Association. Collective arbitration will not be allowed, which means each user will have to make their case against Verizon/Oath's top lawyers and hope to win. In some cases, companies are not allowed to force users into arbitration. Therefore, Oath also says in its ToS that if the dispute proceeds in court, the users will agree that there will not be a jury trial -- only a trial by court. Although the new changes will affect users that now agree with the terms, a federal judge had already ruled in March that a class action lawsuit over the previous data breach must still go through. In that lawsuit, Yahoo is being sued for negligence in handling user data, breach of contract, and failure to disclose the breach in a reasonable amount of time. The breach happened in 2013, but Yahoo didn't disclose it until 2016. The users suing Yahoo also argued that the breach put them at risk of identity theft, which required them to spend money on credit freeze, monitoring, and other protections. Oath To Share "Individually Identifiable" Data The new privacy policy will give Oath permission to mine your Yahoo and AOL emails for advertising purposes. Yahoo had to settle a lawsuit in 2016 over its similar practices at the time. However, the company agreed to only analyze emails that were opened by users. Oath is taking all of that back, and will analyze every email, including information you get from your bank and the EXIF data of images and videos, location information, and more. Additionally, Oath's new ToS says that your Yahoo/AOL data will be shared within Oath, with Verizon and its affiliates, and over 100 third parties such as analytics companies, social widget companies, advertising technology companies, content and video content providers, game developers, and others. The new privacy policy and ToS looks quite aggressive in terms of how little control it gives users, so it remains to be seen how the EU will respond once the GDPR passes. In the United States, the CONSENT Act may protect users against most of the potential abuses, if it passes. Although Oath is owned by Verizon, it's still an "edge provider" itself, so it should still fall under the same regulations. [GN] * Law Firms Urge Apartment Owners to Join Cladding Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Duncan Hughes, writing for Australia Financial Review, reports that more than 250,000 owners and residents of about 1400 apartment blocks are being asked to join class actions seeking more than $4 billion damages and compensation in the first round of actions focusing on the installation of flammable cladding. Those considering their options need to look beyond just the desire to punish those responsible for the mess and cold-headedly calculate what produces the best financial result for them. "Class actions sound very attractive. But they tend to happen when people feel they are being neglected," warns Paul Morton, CEO of Lannock Strata Finance, which lends to body corporates and strata titled buildings on anything from repairs to litigation. "There is the appearance that someone is on your side, understands you, wants to help you," Lannock adds. But unleashing lawyers could consume years in expensive litigation with no guarantee that the final outcome will reward the stress and strains as well as pay the compensation needed to rectify the problem. Those considering litigation can choose between an "unfunded" action (offered by law firms like Slater and Gordon and Adley Burstyner), and a "funded" action (where parties agree to pay their own fees and costs). Lawyers, advisers and litigation funders behind "unfunded" actions will cut the first slice from any settlement, which varies according to the case but will typically be about 30 per cent. How finance works Alternatively, lenders like Lannock Strata Finance charge about 7.5 per cent interest on litigation loans. Class actions can also be brought by legal aid, commercial third- party funders, regulatory agencies or insurers. Two law firms are spruiking for clients to bring class actions against those responsible for installing dangerous cladding on high-rise buildings in most of the nation's capitals. Others are likely to follow. Last year's Grenfell Tower fire in London, which killed more than 70 and injured another 70, highlighted the danger to tenants from flammable cladding. In Melbourne, a fire in 2014 raced up 13 floors of the Lacrosse buildings in Docklands in about 10 minutes, leading to the evacuation of about 450 people, causing millions of dollars in damages. Phil Dwyer, national president of the Builders Collective of Australia, a lobby group to improve buildings standards and regulations, says many owners in medium and high-rise buildings are fearful of fire but struggling to pay for replacement cladding, particularly first-time home buyers and the elderly. The average cost per apartment for replacing cladding on a high- rise building is estimated to be between $20,000 and $40,000. Who to target Lawyers claim they need to identify a target with pockets deep enough to negotiate a settlement or pay court-awarded damages, and which won't spend years dragging the case through tribunals, courts and appeals. For example, class action lawyers are anxiously awaiting the outcome of a test case before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal which started this year. There would be further delays if it is appealed. There is also the problem of whether to target regulators, developers, builders, surveyors or cladding manufacturers -- or a combination of these. The wrong choice could be disastrous for litigants. Most actions are "opt-out", which means while affected individuals are not party to an action, they remain within the class unless they take action to opt out. There is also an opt-in class action which means members have agreed to proceedings. "Before you decide whether to opt out of a class action, ask yourself if you have viable alternatives, such as private litigation, dispute resolution or a claim for compensation," points out the Australian Securities and Investments Commissions, the nation's chief securities regulator. Those considering an action should also familiarise themselves with their rights, fees, obligations, estimated time any case and how to get the best outcome in the circumstances, it adds. This might involve extra legal fees for initial advice. [GN] ********* 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 * * *