/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/181114.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, November 14, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 228 Headlines NEW YORK: NY Police Investigators Assoc Appeals Class Suit Ruling 3D SYSTEMS: Says KBC Asset Management's Class Action Concluded ADVANCE AMERICA: Gonzales Hits Illegal Account Debiting ADVANTAGE TENNIS: Seeks to Hire Bederson LLP as Accountant ALL ABOUT YOU: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Caregivers AMEDISYS INC: Says Bach Class Action Concluded BAYADA HOME: Appeals Reed Suit Ruling to Penn. Super. Ct. BOK FINANCIAL Bondholders' Suit Underway in New Jersey BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Class Action Ongoing in Oklahoma BOK FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Texas Class Suit C. R. BARD: Removes MSP Case to Southern District of Florida CAGLE STUCCO: Medina Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA CARVE FOOD: Kitchen Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages CHAMPION PETFOODS: Sells Contaminated Pet Food, Jerding Claims CHEMOURS COMPANY: $1.4M Paid for Medical Monitoring at Sept. 30 CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Lawsuits over GenX Discharge CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Suit over Indiana Superfund Site CIGNA CORP: Court Increases Attorneys' Fees in Amara Class Suit CIGNA CORP: Still Faces Class Suits over Express Scripts Merger CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Brown Class Suit vs. Subsidiary Still Ongoing CITRUS CTY, FL: Female Workers File Discrimination Suit v. Sheriff CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Medina Securities Class Suit Settled COLUMBIA SUSSEX: $981K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Cohan FLSA Suit COMPASSIONATE FRIENDS: Eden et al Seek Overtime Pay for Caregivers CONNECTONE BANCORP: Two Suits over Greater Hudson Merger Underway CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Amended Casey Suit in West Virginia COVANCE MARKET: Sealock Suit Granted Conditional Certification CURO GROUP: Seeks to Compel Arbitration for Putative Class Lawsuit DHI GROUP: FCRA Suit Re-Filed and Pending in Calif. Superior Court DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Suit in Garland County, Arkansas Underway DUKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Florida Class Action Now Final EAGLE MATERIALS: Settlement Reached in Homebuilders' Suit EAGLE MATERIALS: Settlement with Indirect Purchasers Wins Approval EAGLE ROAD OIL: Adams Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Class Action Still Pending EL POLLO LOCO: 9th Cir. Denies Appellate Review in Turocy Suit EL POLLO LOCO: Oct. 2019 Deadline for Olvera Case Trial EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Reaches $6.5MM Settlement in Sponn Suit ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Trial in Mesirov Suit to Begin 2Q 2019 ENDURANCE INT'L: Awaits Court's Initial OK on Machado Settlement ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's OK on McGee Settlement ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Dougherty En Banc Rehearing Pending ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Bailey Securities Class Suit ETRADE FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Schwab Suit EVERCORE INC: EGL Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Texas EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Expects Final Court OK on Class Pact in 4Q EXTREME NETWORKS: Inks Term Sheet to Settle Class Suit FANNIE MAE: Still Faces Suits over Stock Purchase Agreements FCB FINANCIAL: Bushansky Files Suit Over Sale to Synovus FINAL EXPENSE: Jamari Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Partly Compelled to Produce Files in Bhasker FLEX LTD: Lead Plaintiff to File Amended Class Suit by Nov. 30 FLUOR CORP: Shareholder Class Action in Texas Underway FORSTER & GARBUS: Nussenzweig Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey FREDDIE MAC: Class Cert. Bid in Ohio Public Employees Suit Denied GC SERVICES: Spence Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Court Takes Bid to Nix Suit Under Advisement GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Status in SunEdison Lawsuit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Commodities-Related Lawsuit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Plaintiffs' Claims in Currencies Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Defend Against Securities Lending Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Parties in Cobalt Underwriting Suit Reach Agreement GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Adeptus Class Action GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Gender Pay Discrimination Lawsuit GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Valeant Underwriting Suit in Canada GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriter Defendants Dismissed in Snap IPO Suit GOPRO INC: Bid to Drop 2018 Shareholder Class Complaint Pending GOPRO INC: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. HASBRO INC: Faces Class Suit over Toys "R" Us Disclosure INSPERITY INC: Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit Underway INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended DeSmet Suit LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Ongoing LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sequenom Shareholders Suit Pending LABORATORY CORP: Faces Haro Class Suit in California LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sundusky Suit LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Cunningham Suit LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Bloomquist Class Suit LABORATORY CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Gonzalez Suit MASTEC INC: Chartier Hits Illegal Deduction, Unpaid Overtime Wages MDL 2672: Court Throws Out Mississippi CPA Claims MGT CAPITAL: Guyer Hits Share Drop Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme MICHAELS STORES: Armstrong Discovery Letter Briefs Deemed Untimely MIDLAND FUNDING: Can't Arbitrate May Couple's Claims MILLER STARK KLEIN: Holmes Sues Over Auto-dialed Calls MONSANTO COMPANY: Mabus Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Musso Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MONSANTO COMPANY: Newton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup N&A PRODUCTIONS INC: Shortchanges Workers on Wages, Rendon Says NATIONAL BANKCARD: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls NEW BALANCE: Prelim Approval of Dashnaw Suit Settlement Denied NEW ENTRY INC: Jerrell Seeks Overtime Pay for Supervisors OVASCIENCE INC: Adlard Files Securities Suit Over Millendo Merger OZARK WAFFLES: Butler Files Suit Over Tip Credit Deduction SALSA AND BEER: Gets $369K Sanction in Velasquez for Non-compliance SOUTHERN COPPER: Settlement Hearing in Lacey Suit Set for Nov. 27 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Action over $15-Per-Bag Fees Ongoing SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 2019 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim ST. ELIZABETH: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in Boden ERISA Suit UNIVERSITY OF FASHION: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in New York WABASH NATIONAL: Files Second Bid to Dismiss Indiana Class Suit WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Defending Against Suits over No-Poach Policy WHOLE FOODS: Retirement System Suit Dismissal w/ Prejudice Affirmed ********* NEW YORK: NY Police Investigators Assoc Appeals Class Suit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs have taken an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, from a ruling in the case captioned as NEW YORK STATE POLICE INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 4 IUPA, AFL-CIO, by its President JEFFREY KAYSER; JOSEPH BARRETT; TIMOTHY MULVEY; JAMES O'CONNOR; LAWRENCE SHEWARK; PATRICIA HYNES; PAULA OLSEN; and JEFFREY KAYSER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of New York; PATRICIA A. HITE, individually and in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Civil Service; CAROLINE W. AHL, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Civil Service Commission; J. DENNIS HANRAHAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Civil Service Commission; ROBERT L. MEGNA, his official capacity as Director of the New York State Division of the Budget; THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, in his official capacity as Comptroller of the State of New York; STATE OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE; NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM; and NEW YORK STATE POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendants, Original Case No. 11-cv-1527. The notice of appeal was filed October 17, 2018. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, assigned Case No. 0:18-cv-03066 to the proceedings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Thomas Walsh, Jr., Esq. GLEASON DUNN WALSH & O'SHEA 40 Beaver Street Albany, NY 12207 Telephone: (518) 432-7511 The Defendants are represented by: Barbara D. Underwood, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 3D SYSTEMS: Says KBC Asset Management's Class Action Concluded -------------------------------------------------------------- 3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions and that the former officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. On February 14, 2018, following mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement that provided for, among other things, payment of $50,000 by the Company's insurance carriers and a mutual exchange of releases. The Stipulation of Settlement called for a dismissal of all claims against the Company and the individual defendants with prejudice following Court approval, a denial by defendants of any wrongdoing, and no admission of liability. On February 15, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. On February 21, 2018, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice. The Court held a final fairness hearing on June 25, 2018, and entered the Order and Final Judgment and Order Awarding Attorneys' Fees on the same day. The Company's insurance carriers have funded the entire settlement amount. The time for any party to appeal expired on July 25, 2018 and no appeals were filed. The matter is now concluded. At December 31, 2017 the Company's balance sheet reflected the entire settlement as a current liability with an offsetting receivable for related insurance proceeds. 3D Systems Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides three-dimensional (3D) printing products and services worldwide. The company offers 3D printers, such as stereolithography, selective laser sintering, direct metal printing, multi jet printing, and color jet printers that transform data input generated by 3D design software, CAD software, or other 3D design tools into printed parts under the Accura, DuraForm, LaserForm, CastForm, and VisiJet brand names. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Rock Hill, South Carolina. ADVANCE AMERICA: Gonzales Hits Illegal Account Debiting ------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of California, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-08647, (C.D. Cal., October 9, 2018), seeks damages, restitution, and all other relief resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Sometime in September 2017, Plaintiff obtained a loan from the Defendant and provided her debit account information for the purposes of automatically debiting her account to make payments on the account upon signing up for the loan. After a month, Gonzales then requested to stop the automatic debit facility, thereby revoking consent for such withdrawals. However, despite her clear revocation of authorization, Defendant continued to deduct funds from her account, notes the complaint. Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of California, LLC, is a company engaged in the business of providing loans to consumers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com ADVANTAGE TENNIS: Seeks to Hire Bederson LLP as Accountant ---------------------------------------------------------- Advantage Tennis, LLC, seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Jersey to employ Bederson LLP, as accountant to the Debtor. Advantage Tennis requires Bederson LLP to: -- provide accounting services to the Debtor; and -- prepare tax returns and analyze the Debtor's finances. Bederson LLP will be paid at these hourly rates: Partners $390-$515 Managers $305-$325 Senior Accountants $240-$265 Staff Accountants $170 Paraprofessionals $170 Bederson LLP will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred. Timothy J. King, a partner at Bederson LLP, assured the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates. Bederson LLP can be reached at: Timothy J. King BEDERSON LLP 347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue West Orange, NJ 07052 Tel: (973) 736-3333 About Advantage Tennis Advantage Tennis LLC has a leasehold interest in a tennis facility located at 99 Clarksville Road, Princeton, New Jersey valued by the company at $1.9 million. Advantage Tennis LLC, based in Cranbury, NJ, filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 18-30214) on Oct. 10, 2018. In the petition signed by Frank Marckioni, member, the Debtor disclosed $1,935,355 in assets and $2,028,451 in liabilities. David L. Bruck, Esq., at Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP, serves as bankruptcy counsel. ALL ABOUT YOU: Lewis Seeks Overtime Pay for Caregivers ------------------------------------------------------ ROLANDA LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs ALL ABOUT YOU HOME HEALTCHARE, INC. and SATRICA WILLIAMS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01409 (W.D. La., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, All About You is a home healthcare provider located in Lake Charles, Louisiana. Lewis began working for All About You in September 2016. Lewis was employed as a caregiver providing in-home services to All About You's clients. All About You was well aware of the overtime requirements of the FLSA, the lawsuit says. All About You failed to pay Lewis, and other workers like her, overtime as required by federal law. Instead, All About You paid Lewis, and other workers like her, the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, the lawsuit says. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 800 Sawyer St. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: 713 999 5228 Facsimile: 713 999 1187 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - James R. Bullman, Esq. THE BULLMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 201 St. Charles St. Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Telephone: (225) 993-7169 Facsimile: (225) 387-3198 E-mail: james@thebullmanlawfirm.com AMEDISYS INC: Says Bach Class Action Concluded ---------------------------------------------- Amedisys Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court has entered a final order and judgment on the case entitled, Bach, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al. Between June 10 and July 28, 2010, several putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the "District Court") against the Company and certain of its former senior executives. The cases were consolidated into the first-filed action Bach, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:10-cv-00395, and the District Court appointed as co-lead plaintiffs the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System (the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs"). The Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a First Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "First Amended Securities Complaint") on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of Amedisys' securities between August 2, 2005 and September 30, 2011. The First Amended Securities Complaint alleged that the Company and seven individual defendants violated Section 10(b), Section 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by materially misrepresenting the Company's financial results and concealing a scheme to obtain higher Medicare reimbursements and additional patient referrals by (1) providing medically unnecessary care to patients, including certifying and re-certifying patients for medically unnecessary 60-day treatment episodes; (2) implementing clinical tracks such as "Balanced for Life" and wound care programs that provided a pre-set number of therapy visits irrespective of medical need; (3) "upcoding" patients' Medicare forms to attribute a "primary diagnosis" to a medical condition associated with higher billing rates; and (4) providing improper and illegal remuneration to physicians to obtain patient certifications or re-certifications. The First Amended Securities Complaint sought certification of the case as a class action and an unspecified amount of damages, as well as interest and an award of attorneys' fees. On June 12, 2017, the Company reached an agreement-in-principle to settle this matter. All parties to the action executed a binding term sheet that, subject to final documentation and court approval, provided in part for a settlement payment of approximately $43.7 million, which the company accrued as of June 30, 2017, and the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation. Approximately $15.0 million of the settlement amount paid by the Company's insurance carriers during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017, was previously recorded within other current assets in the company's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2017. The net of these two amounts, $28.7 million, was recorded as a charge in our condensed consolidated statements of operations during the three-month period ended June 30, 2017 and paid with cash on hand during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017. On December 19, 2017, the Court entered the final order and judgment on the case. Amedisys Inc. provides home health and hospice services including practical nursing services and physical and occupational therapy. The company’s services also comprise speech pathology, social work to help families address acute and chronic illnesses, home health aide services, and private duty services. Hospice services use a team made up of a physician, patient care manager, registered nurses, certified home health aides, social workers, a chaplain, a homemaker, and volunteers. Amedisys was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. BAYADA HOME: Appeals Reed Suit Ruling to Penn. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. filed a notice of appeal from an order entered by the Philadelphia County Court Court of Common Please in the case captioned Latisha Reed and Nadeem Pierre individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Bayada Home Health Care, Inc. The appeal was brought before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on Nov. 2, 2018, and assigned Case No. 3129-EDA-2018. BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc. provides clinical care and support services at home for children and adults in the United States. Its specialty practices include home health, adult nursing, assistive care, pediatrics, hospice, and rehabilitation.[BN] The Appellee Latisha Reed, et al. is represented by: Michael D. Shaffer, Esq. Shaffer & Gaier, LLC Shaffer & Gaier LLC 1628 John F Kennedy Blvd Ste 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2137 Phone: (215) 751-0100 - and - James Craig Shah, Esq. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, L.L.P. 35 E State State Media, PA 19063 Phone: (610) 891-9880 Fax: (610) 891-9883 The Appellant Bayada Home is represented by: Thomas G. Collins, Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 409 N 2ND St Ste 500 Harrisburg, PA 17101-1357 Phone: (717) 237-4800 - and - Holly Lechliter Cline, Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 409 N Second St Ste 500 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 237-4841 BOK FINANCIAL Bondholders' Suit Underway in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------ BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit in New Jersey involving bondholders. On August 26, 2016, the Bank was sued in the United States District Court for New Jersey by two bondholders in a putative class action on behalf of all holders of the bonds alleging the Bank participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the principals. On September 14, 2016, the Bank was sued in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma by 19 bondholders alleging the Bank participated in the fraudulent sale of securities by the principals. Two separate small groups of bondholders have filed arbitration complaints with the Financial Institutions Regulatory Association respecting the bonds and other bonds for which the Bank served as indenture trustee. Management has been advised by counsel that the Bank has valid defenses to the claims. On September 15, 2017, the principal of the bond issuances filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The principal subsequently sought and obtained an order dismissing the Chapter 11 proceeding. The obligation of the principal to pay all principal and interest on the bonds is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. A hearing on a motion by the principal to extend the time within which to perform the Court ordered payment plan until December 31, 2019 and a motion by Court Monitor compelling the principal to perform his obligation to maintain the minimum segregated account balance before the Federal Judge in New Jersey is scheduled for October 26, 2018. BOK Financial said, "We expect that the extension will be granted, but there is no assurance that it will be. The Bank continues to expect the Court ordered payment plan will result in the payment of the bonds by the principals. Accordingly, no loss is probable at this time and no provision for loss has been made. If the payment plan does not result in payment of the bonds, a loss could become probable. A reasonable estimate cannot be made at this time though the amount could be material to the Company." BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: Bondholders' Class Action Ongoing in Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------ BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders. On March 14, 2017, the Bank was sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by bondholders in a second putative class action representing a different set of municipal securities. The bondholders in this second action allege two individuals purchased facilities from the principals who are the subject of the SEC New Jersey proceedings by means of the fraudulent sale of $60 million of municipal securities for which the Bank also served as indenture trustee. The bondholders allege the Bank failed to disclose that the seller of the purchased facilities had engaged in the conduct complained of in the New Jersey action. The Bank properly performed all duties as indenture trustee of this second set of municipal securities, timely commenced proceedings against the issuer of the securities when default occurred, is cooperating with the SEC in actions against the two principals, is not a target of the SEC proceedings, and has been advised by counsel that the Bank has valid defenses to the claims of these bondholders. Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. BOK FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Texas Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the District Court dismissed the putative class action suit in Texas. On March 7, 2017, a plaintiff filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging an extended overdraft fee charged by the Bank is interest and exceeds permitted rates. This action makes the same allegations as a putative class action that was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on October 19, 2015. On August 22, 2018, a plaintiff filed a second putative class action in the United States District Court for New Mexico making the same allegations as the Texas action. On September 18, 2018, the District Court dismissed the Texas action. Management is advised by counsel that a loss is not probable in the New Mexico action or the Texas action and that the loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. BOK Financial Corporation operates as the financial holding company for BOKF, NA that provides various financial products and services in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Northwest Arkansas, Colorado, Arizona, and Kansas/Missouri. It operates through three segments: Commercial Banking, Consumer Banking, and Wealth Management. BOK Financial Corporation was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. C. R. BARD: Removes MSP Case to Southern District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ C. R. Bard, Inc. removed the state court action captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and SERIES PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO RECOVERY II LLC, a Delaware series limited liability company, the Plaintiffs, vs. C. R. BARD, INC., a New Jersey for-profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2018-030774-CA-06, from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Oct. 29, 2018. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-24511-EGT to the proceeding. The Complaint is brought by three Plaintiffs seeking to recover payments on behalf of their own Medicare Payer assignors. Historically, Plaintiffs have brought their MSP Act reimbursement actions as putative class actions on behalf of themselves (vis-a-vis their assignors) and on behalf of all other similarly-situated Medicare Payers. To the extent Plaintiffs pursue a future amendment of the Complaint to seek recovery against Defendant for reimbursement on behalf of numerous unnamed, but similarly-situated plaintiffs, Defendant preserves its right to amend this Notice to assert the Class Action Fairness Act as an additional basis for removal of the action to this Court. Defendant also preserves its right to amend this Notice as additional information providing grounds for removal to this Court develops. The removal of this action terminates all proceedings in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. See 28 U.S.C. section 1446(d). Counsel for Plaintiffs: John H. Ruiz, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com jruiz@msprecovery.com Counsel for C. R. Bard, Inc.: Sabrina R. Gallo, Esq. Jay A. Yagoda, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-0500 Facsimile: (305) 579-0717 E-mail: gallos@gtlaw.com yagodaj@gtlaw.com CAGLE STUCCO: Medina Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------- Ramses Medina individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAGLE STUCCO & MASONRY, LLC, the Defendant, Case 4:18-cv-04093 (S.D. Tex., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Cagle violated the FLSA by employing Medina and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than 40 hours, but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed." Cagle did not pay Medina overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed." Instead, Cagle collectively paid Medina at his straight time rate, without an overtime premium, regardless of the number of hours he worked. In other words, Cagle paid Medina for the overtime that he worked at a rate less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he was in employed in violation of the FLSA, the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & A SSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 CARVE FOOD: Kitchen Staff Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Alexis Alin Carino, Jimmy Linares Cazales and Jonathan Reyes Galicia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Carve Food Emporium Inc., Carve Deli ESLT LLC, Carve New York LLC, Ali Mohammed Abdula, Najmadeem Abdula, Rafael Fernandez and Ali Jameel, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09233 (S.D. N.Y., October 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-hours wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control two restaurants, located at 717 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10036 and at 760 8th Ave., New York, New York 10036, both under the name "Carve Cafe." Alexis Alin Carino, Jimmy Linares Cazales and Jonathan Reyes Galicia were employed as a cashier, a grill man, and a food preparer respectively. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay them for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium and the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com CHAMPION PETFOODS: Sells Contaminated Pet Food, Jerding Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA JERDING, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA, INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, the Defendants,Case 1:18-cv-02756 (D. Colo, Oct. 29, 2018), alleges that the Defendants failed to fully disclose the presence of heavy metals and toxins in their pet food products sold throughout the United States. Nowhere in the labeling, advertising, statements, warranties and/or packaging do the Defendants disclose that the Contaminated Pet Foods contain levels of arsenic, mercury, lead, cadmium and/or BISPHENOL A ("BPA") -- all known to pose health risks to humans and animals, including dogs, the lawsuit says. The Defendants manufacture, market, advertise, label, distribute, and sell pet food under the brand names Acana (TM) and Orijen (TM) throughout the United States, including in this District. The Defendants have created a niche in the pet food market by "making biologically 'appropriate' pet food -- as close to what animals would eat in nature as possible -- and producing it using fresh, natural ingredients." They then charge a premium for this purportedly higher-quality food. The founder of the company, Peter Muhlenfeld, said, "Our core family beliefs are entrenched in the company, and that is to make the very best food." The Defendants tout that "Biologically Appropriate ORIJEN (TM) represents a new class of food, designed to nourish dogs and cats according to their evolutionary adaptation to a diet rich and diverse in fresh meat and protein" and that it is "trusted by pet lovers everywhere." Defendants' packaging and labels further emphasize fresh, quality, and properly sourced ingredients and even declares its dog food has "ingredients we love".[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Karla M. Gluek, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com kgluek@gustafsongluek.com rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com - and - Kevin A. Seely, esq. Steven M. Mckany, esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com smckany@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Charles Laduca, Esq. Katherine Van Dyck, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: 202 789-3960 Facsimile: 202 789-1813 E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Joseph Depalma, Esq. Susana Cruz Hodge, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com scruzhodge@litedepalma.com - and - Glen Devalerio, Esq. Daryl Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP 265 Franklin Street, Suite 1702 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 936-2796 E-mail: glen@andrewsdevalerio.com daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com sjadams@pomlaw.com CHEMOURS COMPANY: $1.4M Paid for Medical Monitoring at Sept. 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that approximately US$1.4 million has been disbursed from the escrow account as of September 30, 2018, for medical monitoring related to Washington Works facility. In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont) and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004 that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of US$23 million and made a payment of US$70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a community health project. DuPont funded a series of health studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent science panel of experts (C8 Science Panel). The studies were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and human disease. The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. DuPont is obligated to fund up to US$235 million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition, administrative cost associated with the program, including class counsel fees. In January 2012, DuPont put US$1 in an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement agreement. The court-appointed director of medical monitoring established the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations, and the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing is ongoing, and associated payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow account. The Company may place additional funds into the escrow account from time to time, as necessary. As of September 30, 2018, approximately US$1.4 million has been disbursed from the escrow account related to medical monitoring. While it is probable that the Company will incur costs related to the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing. In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users. At separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, which is included in the accrual amounts recorded as of September 30, 2018. Under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation (MDL) in Ohio federal court. In March 2017, DuPont entered into an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs' counsel providing for a global settlement of all cases and claims in the MDL, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that are part of the plaintiffs' counsel's claim inventory, as well as cases that have been tried to a jury verdict (MDL Settlement). The total settlement amount was US$670.7 million in cash, with half paid by Chemours and half paid by DuPont. DuPont's payment was not subject to indemnification or reimbursement by Chemours, and Chemours accrued US$335 million associated with this matter at December 31, 2016. In exchange for payment of the total settlement amount, DuPont and Chemours received a complete release of all claims by the settling plaintiffs. The MDL Settlement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by DuPont or Chemours. By September 30, 2017, Chemours had paid the full US$335 million accrued under the MDL Settlement. DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the separation agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of five years. During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay future PFOA costs up to US$25 million and, if such amount is exceeded, DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next US$25 (which payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any further excess costs under the terms of the separation agreement. After the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours' indemnification obligations under the separation agreement will continue unchanged. Chemours has also agreed that it will not contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont under the separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of ostensible defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the separation agreement, including defenses relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys' fees, and waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs. Chemours has, however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the separation agreement. All MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the MDL Settlement. The MDL Settlement does not resolve PFOA personal injury claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Since the resolution of the MDL, 37 personal injury cases have been filed and are pending in West Virginia, Ohio, and New York courts. The New York matters, which are not part of the Leach class, are brought by three individual plaintiffs alleging negligence and other claims in the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into drinking water, and seeking compensatory and punitive damages against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York. The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Lawsuits over GenX Discharge ---------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company remains a defendant in class action lawsuits related to the discharge of the polymerization processing aid HFPO Dimer Acid (sometimes referred to as GenX or C3 Dimer) and perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds from the Company's facility in Fayetteville, North Carolina into the Cape Fear River, groundwater and air, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Civil actions have been filed against the Company and DuPont in North Carolina federal court relating to discharges from the Fayetteville site. These actions include a consolidated action brought by public water suppliers seeking damages and injunctive relief, a consolidated purported class action seeking medical monitoring and property damage and/or other monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative classes of property owners and residents in areas near or that draw drinking water from the Cape Fear River, and an action by private well owners seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In July 2018, Cape Fear River Watch (CFRW), a non-profit organization, filed a citizen suit against NC DEQ in North Carolina state court seeking review of NC DEQ's denial of requests for certain actions related to discharges from the Fayetteville facility. Chemours intervened in that action. Also in July 2018, CFRW filed a citizen suit against Chemours in North Carolina federal court alleging violations of the Clean Water Act and/or the Toxic Substances Control Act seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and penalties. Chemours Company said, "The Company believes it has valid defenses to the litigation including that the discharges did not impact the safety of drinking water or cause any damages or injury. It is possible that additional litigation may be filed against the Company and/or DuPont concerning the discharges." The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. CHEMOURS COMPANY: Still Faces Suit over Indiana Superfund Site -------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company still defends against a putative class lawsuit filed by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery Inc. multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Seven lawsuits, including one putative class action, are pending against DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana. Six of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for DuPont environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution, and damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund). At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund site. DuPont has requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it, and Chemours has agreed to do so under a reservation of rights. The Company said, "Management believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved." The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. CIGNA CORP: Court Increases Attorneys' Fees in Amara Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court in the class action suit filed by Janice Amara made an interim ruling on October 17, 2018, on two issues relating only to the calculation of attorneys' fees that increased the amount of the fees immediately payable as compared to previous guidance. Based on preliminary analysis, management believes that the Company's reserve for this litigation remains adequate. In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. From 2008 through 2015, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded. In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members. The court order left several aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits open to interpretation. From that time through July 25, 2018, both parties have disputed various aspects of the Court's interpretation and the Court has attempted to clarify. On July 14, 2017, the Court issued a ruling clarifying certain aspects of the January 2016 order. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2017 ruling that was denied by the Court on November 7, 2017. On July 25, 2018, the Court issued a preliminary oral ruling indicating that the Plan should be amended promptly and remedy benefits should begin to be paid as soon as practicable thereafter. However, a final written ruling was not issued. After additional disputes were raised by the parties following the oral ruling, the Court ordered additional briefing, which was completed on September 6, 2018. On October 17, 2018, the Court made an interim ruling on two issues relating only to the calculation of attorneys' fees that increased the amount of the fees immediately payable as compared to previous guidance. Based on preliminary analysis, management believes that the Company's reserve for this litigation remains adequate. Cigna Corporation, a health services organization, provides insurance and related products and services in the United States and internationally. It operates through Global Health Care, Global Supplemental Benefits, Group Disability and Life, and Other Operations segments. Cigna Corporation was founded in 1792 and is headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut. CIGNA CORP: Still Faces Class Suits over Express Scripts Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Cigna Corporation still defends itself against putative class action lawsuits related to the merger agreement with Express Scripts, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Following announcement of the Company's Merger Agreement with Express Scripts, putative class action complaints (collectively the "complaints") have been filed against Express Scripts and the Express Scripts board of directors. Certain of these complaints also include Cigna, New Cigna, Cigna Merger Sub and Express Scripts Merger Sub as defendants. The complaints allege that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger (and certain amendments thereto) omitted material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, rendering the registration statement false and misleading. Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the Express Scripts special meeting and the closing of the Merger, as well as damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The defendants believe that the lawsuits are without merit. Cigna Corporation, a health services organization, provides insurance and related products and services in the United States and internationally. It operates through Global Health Care, Global Supplemental Benefits, Group Disability and Life, and Other Operations segments. Cigna Corporation was founded in 1792 and is headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut. CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Brown Class Suit vs. Subsidiary Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the case styled Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, remains ongoing. The case presents putative class action claims for penalties and attorney's fees arising from alleged violations of the California wage statement law. The claim is also asserted as a representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for penalties. The Court granted class certification. The Company said it denies the claims, denies that class certification is appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims. The Company also denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously defend against all claims. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this litigation or the range of potential loss. Cinemark Holdings is a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry, with theatres in the U.S., Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao and Paraguay. The Company is based in Plano, Texas. CITRUS CTY, FL: Female Workers File Discrimination Suit v. Sheriff ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia and Michele Tewell, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mike Prendergrast, as Sheriff of Citrus County, FL, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00519 (S.D. N.Y., October 9, 2018), seeks to recover wages, salary, employment benefits, and other compensation denied or lost, liquidated, compensatory damages, exemplary and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the action pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia and Michele Tewell are employees of the Citrus County Sheriff's Office under current Sherrif, Mike Prendergrast. They claim discrimination against female employees with respect to mandatory physical abilities tests, despite the common knowledge that they have a disparate impact upon female employees. CCSO also retaliates against female employees who complain about this discrimination, says the complaint. Female employees allegedly receive less compensation, are promoted less frequently and are discharged at greater rates than their male counterparts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. William J. Sheslow, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 822-1111 Facsimile: (727) 898-2001 Email: pls@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com will@theFLlawfirm.com CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: Medina Securities Class Suit Settled ----------------------------------------------------- The securities class action lawsuit filed by Sonny P. Medina was settled on October 26, 2017, according to Clovis Oncology, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, on November 19, 2015, Sonny P. Medina, a purported Clovis shareholder, filed a purported shareholder class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (the "Medina Complaint"). The Medina Complaint purported to be asserted on behalf of a class of persons who purchased Clovis stock between May 20, 2014 and November 13, 2015, and it generally alleged that Clovis and certain of its officers violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the progress toward FDA approval and the potential for market success of rociletinib. On June 18, 2017, the Clovis Defendants entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement with the Arkin Plaintiffs, the lead plaintiffs in the class action. Pursuant to the deal, Clovis will issue to the plaintiffs and participating class members a total consideration comprised of $25.0 million in cash and the issuance of a to be determined number of shares of Clovis common stock (the "Settlement Shares") equal to $117.0 million divided by the volume weighted average price of Clovis common stock over the 10 trading days immediately preceding the date of the hearing set by the Medina Court to consider the final approval of the settlement. The Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the SEC on August 3, 2017, that on July 14, 2017, the Medina Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and a final hearing to determine whether the settlement should be approved was scheduled for October 26, 2017. Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing innovative anti-cancer agents in the United States, Europe and additional international markets. COLUMBIA SUSSEX: $981K Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Cohan FLSA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN MICHAEL COHAN, WACKSON BARTHELEMY Individually and for and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA SUSSEX MANAGEMENT, LLC along with any other related corporate entities doing business as Melville Marriott, Defendants, Case No. CV 12-3203 (AKT) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and for Approval of Service Awards. The Court previously granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement in the case. At that time, for settlement purposes, the Court appointed Virginia & Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as the class counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Fairness Hearing was held on Feb. 13, 2018. No written objections to the settlement had been received by that date and no objectors appeared at the hearing. The Class Counsel have moved for approval of their application for attorneys' fees and costs and for approval of service awards in conjunction with the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the proposed settlement. Specifically, the Class Counsel seeks $980,633.19 in attorneys' fees and $19,336.01 in costs from the Qualified Settlement Fund. Magistrate Judge Tomlinson finds that all of the factors set forth in Goldberger v. Integrated Res. Inc. weigh in favor of the reasonable fee award of 30% of the Qualified Settlement Fund. She also finds that the fees requested are reasonable under the lodestar method. According to the undisputed billing records, the Virginia & Ambinder firm expended approximately 1040.35 hours of attorney, paralegal and staff member time and Leeds Brown Law firm expended approximately 389.92 hours of attorney, paralegal and staff member time over the course of six years. Based on its knowledge of this case, the Magistrate finds the 2.3 multiplier to be well within the range awarded by courts in the Second Circuit. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, she finds that the attorneys' fee request of $980,663.99 is reasonable and warranted by the circumstances of the case and the fee award is therefore granted. The Class Counsel also seeks to recover $19,336.01 for out-of-pocket expenses to be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. These costs include the Plaintiffs' court and process server fees, postage and courier fees, costs to the claims administrator for sending notice and processing consent to join forms from the FLSA collective, photocopies, travel expenses, discovery costs and legal research. Because the Class Counsel have provided the underlying documentation supporting these claimed expenses, the Magistrate finds that these costs are reasonable and were incidental and necessary to the litigation. The Plaintiffs' request for $19,336.01 in costs is therefore granted. At the Fairness Hearing, the Class Counsel requested that named Plaintiffs John Michael Cohan and Wackson Barthelamy be given Service Awards of $10,000 each, which amounts to approximately 0.31% of the total recovery. The Magistrate finds that the Service Awards when compared to incentive awards given generally to named plaintiffs across a variety of class actions fall solidly in the middle of the range. These amounts shall be paid from the Settlement Fund. Given the reasonable amount of the proposed awards, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted and the named Plaintiffs John Michael Cohan and Wackson Barthelamy shall receive Service Awards of $10,000 each drawn from the Qualified Settlement Fund. For all of the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Tomlison granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and for Approval of Service Awards to the extent set forth in her Decision and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 28, 2018 Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/axLNLB from Leagle.com. John Michael Cohan & Wackson Barthelemy, Individually and for and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, represented by James Emmet Murphy -- jmurphy@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Lloyd Robert Ambinder -- lambinder@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Alison G. Renner -- AGRenner@mintz.com -- Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Daniel Harris Markowitz, Leeds Brown Law, P.C., Isabel Ann Gardocki, Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Kara Sue Miller -- kmiller@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Suzanne Brooke Klein, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. Marie C. Victor, Plaintiff, represented by Alison G. Renner, Virginia & Ambinder LLP, James Emmet Murphy, Virginia & Ambinder LLP, Michael Alexander Tompkins, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Suzanne Brooke Klein, Leeds Brown Law, P.C. Columbia Sussex Management, LLC, along with any other related corporate entities, Defendant, represented by George Vinci -- gvinci@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen, pro hac vice, Alan B. Epstein -- aepstein@lawsgr.com -- Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C., pro hac vice & David B. Picker -- dpicker@lawsgr.com -- Spector, Gadon & Rosen, P.C.. COMPASSIONATE FRIENDS: Eden et al Seek Overtime Pay for Caregivers ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICOLE MCMACKIN 737 North Broadway Street Medina, Ohio 44256; BONNIE CHAVEZ 3673 West 116 th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44111; and JOANNE EDEN 4249 Brookside Boulevard Cleveland, Ohio 44135, the Plaintiffs, vs. COMPASSIONATE FRIENDS HOMECARE, LLC c/o United States Corporation Agents, Inc. 3250 West Market Street, Suite 205 Fairlawn, Ohio 44333; and DAN KOPRONICA c/o Compassionate Friends Homecare, LLC 271 Finch Drive Elyria, Ohio 44035, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02497 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 29, 2018), is a "collective action" instituted by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants' practices and policies of not paying their non-exempt employees, including Plaintiffs and those similarly situated, for all hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, McMackin, Chavez, and and Eden are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants operate a home healthcare service, providing in-home health care to individuals in lieu of nursing home care. Plaintiffs routinely worked in excess of forty hours per workweek.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiffs: Peter C. Mapley, Esq. SOBEL, WADE & MAPLEY, LLC 2460 Fairmount Boulevard, # 314 Cleveland, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 223-7213 Facsimile: (216) 223-7213 E-mail: mapley@swmlawfirm.com CONNECTONE BANCORP: Two Suits over Greater Hudson Merger Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that two complaints have been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in connection with the Company's previously announced merger with Greater Hudson Bank. Each seeks class action status and asserts that Greater Hudson Bank and the members of its Board violated their duties to Greater Hudson Bank shareholders in connection with the proposed merger. One of these complaints also alleges that ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. has aided and abetted the individual defendants in their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for ConnectOne Bank, a state chartered bank that provides various commercial banking products and services. The Company was formerly known as Center Bancorp, Inc. and changed its name to ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. in July 2014. ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. was incorporated in 1982 and is headquartered in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. CONSOL ENERGY: Still Defends Amended Casey Suit in West Virginia ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consol Energy Inc. continues to face the Casey Litigation in West Virginia Federal Court, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Three nonunion retired coal miners have sued Fola Coal Company LLC, Consolidation Coal Company ("CCC") and CONSOL of Kentucky Inc. ("COK") (as well as ParentCo) in West Virginia Federal Court alleging ERISA violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits (Fitzwater Litigation). The Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral statements and promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment and that they were allegedly denied access to Summary Plan Documents that clearly reserved the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan subject to Plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to Plaintiffs' amended complaint filed on April 24, 2017, Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated and seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees who were associated with AMVEST and COK areas of operation. A class action lawsuit (Casey Litigation) was filed on August 23, 2017 on behalf of two nonunion retired coal miners against Consolidation Coal Company, CONSOL of Kentucky Inc., CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC and Kurt Salvatori in West Virginia Federal Court alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in the termination of retiree health care benefits. Filed by the same lawyers who filed the Fitzwater litigation, and raising nearly identical claims, the Plaintiffs contend they relied to their detriment on oral promises of "lifetime health benefits" allegedly made by various members of management during Plaintiffs' employment and that they were not provided with copies of Summary Plan Documents clearly reserving to the Company the right to modify or terminate the Retiree Health and Welfare Plan. Plaintiffs request that retiree health benefits be reinstated for them and their dependents and seek to represent a class of all nonunion retirees of any ParentCo subsidiary that operated or employed individuals in McDowell or Mercer Counties, West Virginia, or Buchanan or Tazewell Counties, Virginia whose retiree welfare benefits were terminated. On December 1, 2017, the trial court judge in Fitzwater signed an order to consolidate Fitzwater with Casey. The Casey complaint was amended on March 1, 2018 to add new plaintiffs, add defendant CONSOL Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC and eliminate defendant CONSOL Buchanan Mining Co., LLC in an attempt to expand the class of retirees. The Company believes it has a meritorious defense and intends to vigorously defend this suit. CONSOL Energy Inc. produces and exports bituminous thermal and crossover metallurgical coal. The company owns and operates its mining operations in the Northern Appalachian Basin. CONSOL Energy Inc. was founded in 1864 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. COVANCE MARKET: Sealock Suit Granted Conditional Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc., has been granted On September 7, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, John Sealock, et al. v. Covance Market Access Services, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Covance Market Access Services, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor laws by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to pay for all hours worked, and failing to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In November 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Strike Class Allegations, which was denied. In December 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of a Collective Action, which was granted in May 2018. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. CURO GROUP: Seeks to Compel Arbitration for Putative Class Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ CURO Group Holdings Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in September 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the Southern District of California alleging that certain loans made by the Company in excess of US$2,500 are unconscionable and therefore a violation of California law. The Company filed its answer and motion to compel arbitration on October 30, 2018. CURO Group Holdings Corp. operates as a consumer finance company. The Company offers unsecured and secured installment, open-end, and single-pay loan services, as well as renders other customer service, robust operating systems, call center, and a track record services. CURO Group serves customers in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. DHI GROUP: FCRA Suit Re-Filed and Pending in Calif. Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ DHI Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2018, that the re-filed "Douglas" class action lawsuit related to Fair Credit Reporting Act is pending in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California (Case No. 18CV331732). The Company said, "During the first quarter of 2018, the Company recorded a US$1.0 million liability related to a class action lawsuit regarding the applicability of provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA") to one of our products. The recorded liability reflects a tentative settlement, which upon execution and final approval by the court, will resolve all remaining claims subject to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by Ian Douglas, individually, as a representative of the class and on behalf of the general public, against DHI Group, Inc. and Dice Inc. asserting six claims under the FCRA that the Company's Open Web profiles are "consumer reports" and Dice is a "consumer reporting agency" under the FCRA, including claims pursuant to the private right of action in 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n for alleged willful violations of the FCRA. The action was originally filed in a federal district court on July 26, 2017, but as a part of the settlement process, the action has been re-filed and is pending in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California (Case No. 18CV331732)." DHI Group, Inc., provides specialized Websites focused on select professional communities in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Tech & Clearance, Global Industry Group, and Healthcare. The Company serves small, mid-sized, and large direct employers; staffing companies; recruiting agencies; consulting firms; and marketing departments of companies. The Company was formerly known as Dice Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to DHI Group, Inc. in April 2015. DHI Group, Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in New York, New York. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Suit in Garland County, Arkansas Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. still faces a purported class action suit filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the Quarterly Period Ended: September 30, 2018. In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Center"). The Company answered the original complaint in 2009, and there was no other activity in the case until May 2017. At that time, plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of action. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the patients of the Center over a multi-year period by failing to meet minimum staffing requirements, failing to otherwise adequately staff the Center and failing to provide a clean and safe living environment in the Center. The Company has filed an answer to the amended complaint denying plaintiffs' allegations and has asked the Court to dismiss the new causes of action asserted in the amended complaint because the Company was prejudiced by plaintiff's long delay in filing the amended complaint. The Court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, so the lawsuit remains in its early stages and has not yet be certified by the court as a class action. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care services to skilled nursing center, patients, and residents primarily in the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest United States. Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. DUKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Florida Class Action Now Final -------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Florida, LLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the dismissal of the lawsuit filed of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in Florida is deemed final in light with the fact that no petition for cert was filed by the October 9 deadline. On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in Florida. The suit alleges the state of Florida's nuclear power plant cost recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on alternative grounds. Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the complaint on May 5, 2016. On September 21, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. On January 4, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit). On July 11, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's dismissal of the lawsuit. The deadline to file a petition for cert was October 9, 2018, and no petition was filed; therefore, the dismissal of the lawsuit is final. Duke Energy Florida, LLC, a regulated public utility, generates, transmits, distributes, and sells electricity in Florida. The company was founded in 1899 and is based in St. Petersburg, Florida. Duke Energy Florida, LLC is a subsidiary of Progress Energy, Inc. EAGLE MATERIALS: Settlement Reached in Homebuilders' Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a settlement agreement has been reached in the homebuilders' class action suit. In March 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints. In March 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Effective May 8, 2018, American Gypsum and the homebuilder plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement (the Homebuilder Settlement Agreement) to settle all claims made against American Gypsum. The Homebuilder Settlement Agreement, in which American Gypsum denies all wrongdoing, includes releases by the homebuilder plaintiffs of American Gypsum as well as its subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties, for the time period prior to and including the date of execution of the Homebuilder Settlement Agreement. Eagle Materials said, "Under the Homebuilder Settlement Agreement, American Gypsum agreed to pay a total of $6.0 million in cash to settle the claims against it. At March 31, 2018, we accrued the total amount of this settlement, and this amount was paid on May 18, 2018." Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and aggregates. Eagle Materials, formerly Centex Construction Products Inc., was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas. EAGLE MATERIALS: Settlement with Indirect Purchasers Wins Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the District Court has approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit by indirect purchasers of wallboard products. Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in various United States District Courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina, and the Northern District of Illinois, against the Company and the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC (American Gypsum), alleging that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to fix the price of drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws, and in some cases related provisions of state law. In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits included certain other wallboard manufacturers. These cases were subsequently transferred and consolidated to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action complaints asserted claims on behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers or end users of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases injunctive relief. The Company and American Gypsum denied all allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserted affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs’ claims. Following completion of the initial discovery, the Company and remaining co-defendants moved for summary judgment. On February 18, 2016 the court denied the Company's motion for summary judgment. On August 23, 2017, the court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased paper-backed gypsum wallboard in the United States from January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013 directly from American Gypsum, the Company, Lafarge, New NGC, PABCO, USG, and/or L&W Supply Corporation (which was a subsidiary of USG Corporation during the class period). In addition, on August 24, 2017, the court denied the indirect purchaser's motion for class certification. On December 29, 2017, American Gypsum and the Company, as well as New NGC and PABCO, which are not affiliated with the Company, entered into a settlement agreement (the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement) with counsel representing the direct purchaser class to settle all claims made against the Company, American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO in the direct purchaser class action. The Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement, in which the Company and American Gypsum deny all wrongdoing, also includes releases by the participating class members of the Company and American Gypsum as well as their subsidiaries, affiliates, and other related parties, for the period from January 1, 2012 through the date of execution of the Direct Purchaser Settlement Agreement. On January 5, 2018, American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO entered into a settlement agreement (the Indirect Purchaser Settlement Agreement) with counsel representing the indirect purchaser class to settle all claims against American Gypsum, New NGC, and PABCO in the indirect purchaser class action. The Indirect Purchaser Settlement Agreement was approved by the District Court on October 26, 2018. Under the Direct and Indirect Purchaser Settlement Agreements, the Company and American Gypsum agreed to pay a total of approximately $39.1 million in cash to settle the claims against them. These claims were accrued at the time of the settlements, and during March 2018 we deposited approximately $38.8 million into a qualified settlement fund. The amount owed under the Direct Purchaser Settlement was paid in July 2018 after approval by the District Court. Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and aggregates. Eagle Materials, formerly Centex Construction Products Inc., was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas. EAGLE ROAD OIL: Adams Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------- The class action styled as James Adams on behalf of himself and other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Eagle Road Oil LLC, Cummings Oil Company, Territory Resources, LLC, Enervest Operating, L.L.C, Petro Warrior, L.L.C, Petroquest Energy, L.L.C, Trinity Operating (USG) LLC, John Doe sued as Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. CJ-2016-00078 was removed from the District Court of Pawnee County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on November 2, 2018, and assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00568-GKF-FHM. The nature of suit is stated as Torts to Land. Eagle Road Oil LLC is a Private Exploration & Production company operating in the United States. The Company has operation in the Anadarko Basin. Cummings Oil Co. owns and operates retail gas stations, convenience stores, quick service restaurants, a tanker transport division, and commercial/industrial sales of fuel and lubricants. Territory Resources, LLC, an energy company, engages in the acquisition and exploitation of oil and gas properties in northern Oklahoma. It also operates and explores in the Mid-continent, Permian Basin, East Texas, Illinois Basin, Rockies, and Appalachians. EnerVest Operating, L.L.C. owns and operates oil and gas producing properties. The Company acquires, develops, and produces oil and natural gas. EnerVest Operating serves clients in the United States. Petro Warrior, LLC is a privately held company in Broken Arrow, OK and is a Single Location business, categorized under Wholesale Fuel Oil. PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. acquires and explores oil and natural gas properties in Gulf Coast basin and offshore Gulf of Mexico. The company was formerly known as PetroQuest Energy One, L.L.C. and changed its name to PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. in December, 2000. The company was incorporated in 1995 and is based in Lafayette, Louisiana. PetroQuest Energy, L.L.C. operates as a subsidiary of PetroQuest Energy Inc. Trinity Operating is an independent oil and natural gas company located in Tulsa, Oklahoma with headquarters in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex T Gray, Esq. Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC 400 W Capitol Ave, Ste 2910 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 251-1587 - and - Billy Joe Ellington, Esq. PO BOX 491 PAWNEE, OK 74058 Phone: (918) 762-2589 Fax: (918) 762-2589 Email: bjelaw33@gmail.com - and - Curt Douglas Marshall, Esq. Weitz & Luxenberg, PC 700 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5500 Fax: (212) 344-5461 Email: cmarshall@weitzlux.com - and - Jeremy Hutchinson, Esq. Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC 400 W Capitol Ave, Ste 2910 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 251-1587 - and - Nate Steel, Esq. Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC 400 W Capitol Ave, Ste 2910 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 251-1587 - and - Robin Lynn Greenwald, Esq. Weitz & Luxenberg, PC 700 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5500 Fax: (212) 344-5461 Email: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com - and - Scott Emory Poynter, Esq. Poynter Law Group 400 W CAPITOL AVE, STE 2910 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 251-1587 Fax: (501) 244-2614 Email: scott@poynterlawgroup.com Defendant Eagle Road Oil LLC is represented by: Ryan Andrew Pittman, Esq. Gable & Gotwals (Tulsa) 100 W 5TH ST, STE 1100 TULSA, OK 74103-4217 Phone: (918) 595-4872 Fax: (918) 595-4990 Email: rpittman@gablelaw.com - and - Steven Joseph Adams, Esq. Gable & Gotwals (Tulsa) 100 W 5TH ST, STE 1100 TULSA, OK 74103-4217 Phone: (918) 595-4800 Fax: (918) 595-4990 Email: sadams@gablelaw.com Defendant Cummings Oil Company is represented by: Christa Sullivan, Esq. Jacqueline Gayle Stone, Esq. Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC 100 PARK AVE STE 500 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 702-9900 Fax: (405) 605-8381 Email: jstone@elbattorneys.com - and - Kenneth H Blakley, Esq. Edinger Leonard & Blakley PLLC 100 PARK AVE STE 500 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 702-9900 Fax: (405) 605-8381 Email: kblakley@elbattorneys.com - and - Travis Brown, Esq. Defendant Territory Resources LLC is represented by: Justin Todd Woolery, Esq. McAfee & Taft 211 N ROBINSON 10TH FL OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-9621 Fax: (405) 235-0439 Email: todd.woolery@mcafeetaft.com - and - Patrick L Stein, Esq. McAfee & Taft 211 N ROBINSON 10TH FL OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-9621 Fax: (405) 235-0439 Email: patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com Defendant Petroquest Energy LLC is represented by: John Louis Randolph, Jr., Esq. Pray Walker PC 100 W 5TH ST, STE 900 TULSA, OK 74103-4292 Phone: (918) 581-5500 Fax: (918) 581-5599 Email: jrandolph@praywalker.com - and - Robert J Winter, Esq. Pray Walker PC 100 W 5TH ST, STE 900 TULSA, OK 74103-4292 Phone: (918) 581-5500 Fax: (918) 581-5599 Email: rwinter@praywalker.com Defendant Trinity Operating(USG) LLC is represented by: J Kevin Hayes, Esq. Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (Tulsa) 320 S BOSTON, STE 200 TULSA, OK 74103-3706 Phone: (918) 594-0460 Fax: (918) 594-0505 Email: khayes@hallestill.com - and - James C T Hardwick, Esq. Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (Tulsa) 320 S BOSTON, STE 200 TULSA, OK 74103-3706 Phone: (918) 594-0400 Fax: 594-0505 Email: jhardwick@hallestill.com - and - Michael D Morfey, Esq. - and - Michele R Blythe, Esq. - and - Pamela S Anderson, Esq. Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson (Tulsa) 320 S BOSTON, STE 200 TULSA, OK 74103-3706 Phone: (918) 594-0448 Fax: (918) 594-0505 Email: panderson@hallestill.com EDGE THERAPEUTICS: Sanfilippo Class Action Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Edge Therapeutics, Inc. continues to face the "Sanfilippo" purported securities class action 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 September 30, 2018. On April 23, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint was filed against the Company, Brian Leuthner (the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer) and Andrew Saik (the Company's Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Sanfilippo v. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-8236. The complaint alleges that the Company, Mr. Leuthner and Mr. Saik violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects by failing to disclose that EG-1962 would likely fail a futility analysis. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between December 27, 2017 and March 27, 2018, and seeks unspecified damages. None of the Company, Mr. Leuthner, or Mr. Saik has been served with the complaint and their time to respond has not yet expired. Various individuals have moved to be appointed lead plaintiff to act on behalf of the putative class. After the court appoints that party (or parties), it is expected that the lead plaintiff will file an amended complaint. The Company and its executives intend to defend themselves vigorously in the action. There can be no guarantee as to the outcome or timing of any resolution. Edge Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biotechnology company, discovers, develops, and seeks to commercialize hospital-based therapies for acute life-threatening neurological and other conditions. Edge Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey. EL POLLO LOCO: 9th Cir. Denies Appellate Review in Turocy Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on October 19, 2018, denied the Defendants' petition for appellate review of a portion of the California Central District Court's July 3, 2018 class certification order in the "Turocy, et al." lawsuit, according to El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 26, 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. 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 on July 3, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion and certified a class as to all of Plaintiffs' claims. Defendants filed a petition for appellate review of a portion of the Court's July 3, 2018 class certification order. On October 19, 2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition. 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. EL POLLO LOCO: Oct. 2019 Deadline for Olvera Case Trial ------------------------------------------------------- El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2018, that the deadline for the plaintiff to bring the "Olvera" action to trial is October 1, 2019. 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 court recently certified two classes of plaintiffs - one class encompasses restaurant employees who were not provided proper rest breaks because they were not allowed to leave the premises during their breaks and the other class encompasses restaurant employees who were required to wait at the restaurant after they finished working for the night until the manager set the alarm for safety purposes. The deadline for the plaintiff to bring the Olvera action to trial is October 1, 2019. El Pollo Loco 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. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Reaches $6.5MM Settlement in Sponn Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing is set for January 22, 2019 regarding the final approval of a settlement agreement in the "Sponn" shareholder class action lawsuit, according to Emergent Biosolutions Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. The agreement, which the Company reached in principle with the Plaintiffs on August 27, 2018, will settle all of the related claims of any individual plaintiff that purchased Company stock from January 11, 2016 to June 21, 2016, for US$6.5 million, an amount that will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier. The settlement requires no payment by any of the Defendants. The parties executed the settlement agreement on October 16, 2018, and filed the agreement with the court on October 17, 2018. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 18, 2018. On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff William Sponn ("Sponn"), filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its senior officers and directors, collectively, the Defendants. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and misleading statements about the government's demand for BioThrax and expectations that the Company's five-year exclusive procurement contract with HHS would be renewed and omitted certain material facts. Sponn is seeking unspecified damages, including legal costs. On October 25, 2016, the Court added City of Cape Coral Municipal Firefighters' Retirement Plan and City of Sunrise Police Officers' Retirement Plan as plaintiffs and appointed them Lead Plaintiffs and Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel. On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that cites the same class period, names the same defendants and makes similar allegations to the original complaint. The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 27, 2017. The Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on April 28, 2017. The Company's Motion to Dismiss was heard and denied on July 6, 2017. The Company filed its answer on July 28, 2017. The parties then engaged in the process of exchanging discovery. The Plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification and appointment of Sponn and Geoffrey L. Flagstad as lead plaintiffs on December 20, 2017. A hearing on that motion was heard on May 2, 2018. On June 8, 2018 the Court granted class certification with a shortened class period, May 5, 2016 to June 21, 2016. The Defendants have denied, and continue to deny any and all allegations of fault, liability, wrongdoing, or damages. However, recognizing the risk, time, and expense of litigating any case to trial, on August 27, 2018, the Company reached an agreement in principle with Plaintiffs to settle all of the related claims of any individual plaintiff that purchased Company stock from January 11, 2016 to June 21, 2016, for US$6.5 million, an amount that will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier. The settlement requires no payment by any of the Defendants. The Company and Defendants continue to deny any and all liability. The parties executed the settlement agreement on October 16, 2018, and filed the agreement with the court on October 17, 2018. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on October 18, 2018 and has scheduled a hearing regarding final approval for January 22, 2019. The Company said, "Although the court has granted preliminary approval, the court could decide not to grant final approval of the settlement or change terms of the settlement, and the law requires that individual plaintiffs have the right to opt-out of the settlement and bring their own, individual claims. The Company, therefore, at this time, cannot predict the results of this lawsuit and possible other legal proceedings with certainty. Defendants continue to believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit. As of the date of this filing, the range of potential loss cannot be determined or estimated." Emergent Biosolutions is a global life sciences company seeking to protect and enhance life by focusing on providing specialty products for civilian and military populations that address accidental, intentional and naturally emerging public health threats. ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Trial in Mesirov Suit to Begin 2Q 2019 ------------------------------------------------------- Trial remains scheduled for the second quarter of 2019 in the case JUDY MESIROV v. ENBRIDGE ENERGY CO., INC. ET AL., according to Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, adding Enbridge Inc. and the Director Defendants as defendants to the derivative claims. On July 20, 2015, plaintiff Peter Brinckerhoff (the Plaintiff), individually and as trustee of the Peter R. Brinckerhoff Trust, filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Enbridge Energy Company Inc., Enbridge Inc., Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C., Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, the Company, and the following individuals: Jeffrey A. Connelly, Rebecca B. Roberts, Dan A. Westbrook, J. Richard Bird, J. Herbert England, C. Gregory Harper, D. Guy Jarvis, Mark A. Maki, and John K. Whelen, (collectively, the Director Defendants). The initial Complaint asserted both class action claims on behalf of holders of the Partnership's Class A Common Units, as well as derivative claims brought on behalf of the Partnership. The Plaintiff's claims arose out of the January 2, 2015 repurchase by the Partnership of the General Partner's 66.67% interest in the pipeline that runs from the Canadian international border near Neche, North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin on the Partnership's Lakehead System (Alberta Clipper Pipeline), known as the 2015 Transaction. First, the Plaintiff alleged that the 2015 Transaction improperly amended without Public Unitholder consent the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership (the LPA) so as to allocate to the Public Unitholders gross income that should have been allocated to the General Partner (the Special Tax Allocation). Second, the Plaintiff alleged that the Partnership paid an unfair price for the General Partner's 66.67% interest in the Alberta Clipper Pipeline such that the 2015 Transaction breached the LPA because it was not fair and reasonable to the Partnership. The initial Complaint asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of residual fiduciary duties, tortious interference, aiding and abetting, and rescission and reformation. On April 29, 2016, the Court of Chancery granted Enbridge Inc.'s and the Director Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the case in its entirety. On May 26, 2016 the Plaintiff appealed that dismissal to the Delaware Supreme Court. On March 20, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the ruling of the Court of Chancery. Specifically, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that the enactment of the Special Tax Allocation did not breach the LPA, but reversed on the question of whether the Plaintiff had adequately alleged that the price the Partnership paid in the 2015 Transaction, including the Special Tax Allocation component, was fair and reasonable to the Partnership. On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Verified Second Amended Complaint (the Second Amended Complaint). The Second Amended Complaint added Piper Jaffray & Co. as successor to Simmons & Company International (Simmons) as a direct Defendant. Simmons acted as the financial advisor to the Company's Special Committee in the 2015 Transaction. The Second Amended Complaint also revised many of the allegations against Enbridge Inc. and the Director Defendants. On December 18, 2017, all Defendants except Simmons filed their brief in support of their motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On January 19, 2018, Simmons filed its brief in support of its motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On February 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Verified Third Amended Complaint and a Motion to Intervene on behalf of a proposed new plaintiff, Judy Mesirov (subsequently amended). On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Verified Third Amended Complaint and a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Brinckerhoff. On April 3, 2018, all Defendants filed their briefs in support of their motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiff Brinckerhoff has now been dismissed as a named Plaintiff. Plaintiff Mesirov filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, which is substantially the same as the Third Amended Complaint except that it substitutes Judy Mesirov in place of Peter Brinckerhoff as the named Plaintiff. On August 29, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Third (now Fourth) Amended Complaint. All direct claims have now been dismissed, and only derivative claims for breach of contract (including equitable remedies of rescission or reformation) against Enbridge Energy Company Inc and aiding and abetting a breach of contract against Simmons remain in the Fourth Amended Complaint. On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Fifth Amended Complaint, adding Enbridge Inc. and the Director Defendants as defendants to the derivative claims. On September 18, 2018, Enbridge Inc. announced that it (on behalf of itself and certain of its wholly owned U.S. subsidiaries) had entered into definitive merger agreements with the Company, under which Enbridge Inc. would, subject to certain approvals of shareholders and other conditions, acquire all of the Company's Listed Shares (other than those held by Enbridge and its wholly owned subsidiaries). If the Proposed Merger transaction to buy-in Enbridge Energy Partnership, L.P. closes and Enbridge Inc. acquires all of the outstanding Class A common units of Enbridge Energy Partnership, L.P., Plaintiff will lose standing to continue her derivative claims on behalf of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., and Enbridge will become the owner of such derivative claims. Trial is currently scheduled for the second quarter of 2019. Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C. is a limited partner of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P., (the Partnership), through its ownership of i-units, a special class of the Partnership's limited partner interests. ENDURANCE INT'L: Awaits Court's Initial OK on Machado Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the case styled Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO, as amended, are awaiting the Court's preliminary approval of a proposed settlement, according to Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On May 4, 2015, Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the Company's common stock, filed a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Company and its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer, captioned Machado v. Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-11775-GAO. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 8, 2015, and a second amended complaint on March 18, 2016. The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, but before the court ruled on the Company's motion, with the Company's assent, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on June 30, 2017. In the third amended complaint, plaintiffs Christopher Machado and Michael Rubin allege claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities between October 25, 2013 and December 16, 2015, including persons or entities who purchased or acquired the Company's shares pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's October 25, 2013 initial public offering. The plaintiffs challenge as false or misleading certain of the Company's disclosures about the total number of subscribers, average revenue per subscriber, the number of customers paying over US$500 per year for the Company's products and services, and the average number of products sold per subscriber. The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and the purported class, compensatory damages, rescissory damages as to class members who purchased shares pursuant to the offering and the plaintiffs' costs and expenses of litigation. The Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on August 29, 2017. The plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss was filed on October 30, 2017, and the Company's reply memorandum was filed on December 14, 2017. On January 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings pending the outcome of a mediation between the parties scheduled for February 23, 2018. The court granted the stay on February 21, 2018. The parties did not resolve the matter at the mediation on February 23, 2018, but continued thereafter to productively discuss a potential resolution of this matter. The court extended the stay to allow the parties to continue their discussions. On May 17, 2018, the parties executed a term sheet memorializing their agreement in principal to settle the action. The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which provide for the release of all claims asserted against the Company and its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. On July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the settlement class. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. Endurance International said, "The Company's contribution to the settlement pool under the proposed settlement would be approximately equal to the amount it reserved in connection with a possible settlement of this action. The aggregate amount of this reserve and the reserve for the Constant Contact McGee litigation was originally US$8.5 million recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2018, and subsequently adjusted to US$8.3 million during the three months ended June 30, 2018 and to US$7.3 million during the three months ended September 30, 2018. The Company cannot make any assurances as to whether or when the settlement will be approved by the court." Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International Group, Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG, collectively form the "Company." The Company is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized businesses succeed online. ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Awaits Court's OK on McGee Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, the parties are awaiting the Court's approval of a proposed settlement, according to Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On February 9, 2016, the Company acquired all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Constant Contact. On December 10, 2015, Constant Contact received a subpoena from the Boston Regional Office of the SEC, requiring the production of documents pertaining to Constant Contact's sales, marketing, and customer retention practices, as well as periodic public disclosure of financial and operating metrics. On June 5, 2018, the Company announced that it had settled both this investigation and the Endurance investigation by consenting to the SEC's entry of the Order, without admitting or denying the SEC's findings set forth in the Order, and by paying a civil monetary penalty. The Company accrued the penalty in its fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2017 and paid the penalty in the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2018. On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant Contact and two of its former officers. An amended complaint, which named an additional former officer as a defendant, was filed December 19, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's business, operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015. The parties mediated the claims on March 27, 2018, and as a result of that mediation reached an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiff to settle the action. The parties then negotiated the terms and conditions of a stipulation and agreement of settlement and related papers, which provide for the release of all claims asserted against Constant Contact and its former officers. On May 18, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement purposes only, and approval of notice to the settlement class. The court has not yet ruled on this motion. Endurance International said, "The Company's contribution to the settlement pool under the proposed settlement would be approximately equal to the amount it reserved in connection with a possible settlement of this action. The aggregate amount of this reserve and the reserve for the Endurance Machado litigation was originally US$8.5 million recorded during the three months ended March 31, 2018, and subsequently adjusted to US$8.3 million during the three months ended June 30, 2018 and to US$7.3 million during the three months ended September 30, 2018. The Company cannot make any assurances as to whether or when the settlement will be approved by the court." Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which, together with its wholly owned subsidiary company, EIG Investors Corp. ("EIG Investors"), its primary operating subsidiary company, The Endurance International Group, Inc. ("EIG"), and other subsidiary companies of EIG, collectively form the "Company." The Company is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed to help small- and medium-sized businesses succeed online. ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Bid for Dougherty En Banc Rehearing Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ On October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals directed plaintiffs in the "Dougherty" class suit to respond to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc.'s October 11 petition for rehearing en banc, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On January 12, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and Tim Mayleben, captioned Kevin L. Dougherty v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 16-cv-10089). The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Mr. Mayleben violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by allegedly failing to disclose in an August 17, 2015, public statement that the FDA would require a cardiovascular outcomes trial before approving the Company's lead product candidate. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between August 18, 2015 and September 28, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On May 20, 2016, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit and on July 5, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 27, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company's favor. On January 24, 2017, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. In May 2017, the court denied the plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. On June 19, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 14, 2017, they filed their opening brief in support of the appeal. The appeal was fully briefed on December 7, 2017, and it was argued before the Sixth Circuit on March 15, 2018. On September 27, 2018, the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion in which it reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On October 11, 2018, the Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc and, on October 23, 2018, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals directed plaintiffs to respond to that petition. Esperion Therapeutics said, "The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome." Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. ESPERION THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends Bailey Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action lawsuit captioned Kevin Bailey v. Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., et al. (No. 18-cv-11438) remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On May 7, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2018, against the Company and certain directors and officers. The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly making false and misleading statements about the facts and circumstances surrounding the Phase 3 trial results for bempedoic acid that the Company announced on May 2, 2018. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price between February 22, 2017, and May 22, 2018, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Esperion Therapeutics said, "The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable outcome." Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., a lipid management company, focuses on developing and commercializing oral therapies for the treatment of patients with elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan. ETRADE FINANCIAL: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Schwab Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 26, 2018, upheld the dismissal of a putative class action by Craig L. Schwab against E*TRADE Financial Corporation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. On July 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Craig L. Schwab, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation, E*TRADE Securities, and former Company executives as defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE violated federal securities laws in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys' fees. By stipulation both matters are now venued in the Southern District of New York. On July 10, 2017 the Court dismissed the Schwab claims without prejudice. The plaintiff in Schwab filed a third amended complaint on August 9, 2017, which E*TRADE moved to dismiss. On January 22, 2018, the Court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have appealed to the Second Court of Appeals on October 23, 2018. E*TRADE is a financial services company that provides online brokerage and related products and services primarily to individual retail investors. EVERCORE INC: EGL Still Defends Consolidated Class Suit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Evercore Inc. remains a defendant in a consolidated class suit in Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Beginning in November 2016, several putative class actions were filed, and thereafter consolidated, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to Adeptus Health Inc.'s ("Adeptus") June 2014 initial public offering and May 2015, July 2015 and June 2016 secondary offerings. Among others, the defendants included Adeptus and the underwriters in the offerings, including Evercore Group L.L.C. ("EGL"). On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was subsequently removed as a defendant. On November 21, 2017, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint that alleged as to the underwriters' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the four offerings. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018. On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted as to the claims relating to the initial public offering and May 2015 secondary offering, but denied as to the claims relating to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary offerings. EGL underwrote approximately 294 shares of common stock in the July 2015 secondary offering, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$30.8 million, but did not underwrite any shares in the June 2016 secondary offering. On September 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint relating to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary offerings. Evercore Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an independent investment banking advisory firm in the United States, Europe, Latin America, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Investment Banking and Investment Management. The Company was formerly known as Evercore Partners Inc. and changed its name to Evercore Inc. in August 2017. Evercore Inc. was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in New York, New York. EXLSERVICE HOLDINGS: Expects Final Court OK on Class Pact in 4Q --------------------------------------------------------------- ExlService Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the final court approval of a US$2,400,000 settlement of a putative class action lawsuit in California is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2018 "although there can be no guarantee as to approval or timing." In March 2017, the Company was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in California, which included several causes of action seeking damages but did not include a monetary demand. The Company filed its answer in April 2017 vigorously denying the allegations. Both parties agreed to participate in a court-approved mediation which occurred in March 2018. The parties reached an agreement in principle whereby the Company, without any admission of wrongdoing or liability, would pay US$2,400 to settle the litigation, which amount has been accrued under "General and administrative expenses" for the nine months ended September 30, 2018. The Company said, "The agreement remains subject to final court approval, which is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2018 although there can be no guarantee as to approval or timing." ExlService Holdings Inc. outsources business processes, including transaction processing and Internet and voice-based customer care services, to Global 1000 companies in banking, financial services, and insurance. ExlService also offers technical support and advisory services. The company's clients are located principally in the U.S. and Britain. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in New York. EXTREME NETWORKS: Inks Term Sheet to Settle Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case styled, In re Extreme Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, the parties have signed a term sheet to settle the litigation and are preparing further documentation for the settlement to submit for court approval, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 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 parties have signed a term sheet to settle the litigation and are preparing further documentation for the settlement to submit for court approval. Extreme Networks, Inc. provides software-driven networking solutions for enterprise customers worldwide. Extreme Networks, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in San Jose, California. FANNIE MAE: Still Faces Suits over Stock Purchase Agreements ------------------------------------------------------------ Federal National Mortgage Association continues to defend itself in lawsuits, including a consolidated class action, related to Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. A consolidated putative class action ("In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations") and three non-class action lawsuits filed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company, Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA") as the Company's conservator, and Freddie Mac that challenge the August 2012 amendment to each company's senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. In the consolidated class action and two of the non-class action suits, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA, plaintiffs filed amended complaints on November 1, 2017 alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the shareholders' rights, particularly the right to receive dividends. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs in the class action seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims except for their claims for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On October 15, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial reconsideration. On May 21, 2018, a pro se plaintiff in a third non-class action case, Angel v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed a complaint for declaratory relief and compensatory damages against Fannie Mae (including certain members of its Board of Directors), Freddie Mac (including certain members of its Board of Directors) and FHFA, as conservator. Plaintiff in that case asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and aiding and abetting the federal government in avoiding an alleged implicit guarantee of dividend payments. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 12, 2018. The Company said, "Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation." Federal National Mortgage Association provides liquidity and stability support services for the mortgage market in the United States. The Company was founded in 1938 and is based in Washington, the District of Columbia. FCB FINANCIAL: Bushansky Files Suit Over Sale to Synovus -------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCB Financial Holdings, Inc., Vincent S. Tese, Leslie J. Lieberman, Alan S. Bernikow, Thomas E. Constance, Howard R. Curd, Kent S. Ellert, Gerald Luterman, William Lawrence Mack, Paul Anthony Novelly II, Stuart I. Oran and Frederic V. Salerno, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-62399 (S.D. Fla., October 9, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of FCB by Synovus Financial Corp. through its wholly-owned subsidiary Azalea Merger Sub Corp., or rescinding it in the event Defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. FCB stockholders will be entitled to receive 1.055 shares of Synovus common stock per share of FCB Class A common stock. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $2.9 billion. The complaint says the proxy statement filed with respect the proposed transaction omitted the valuation analyses performed by the Company's financial advisors, Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P., Guggenheim Securities, LLC and Evercore Group LLC. FCB's public stockholders are forced to make a voting decision on the merger without full disclosure of all material information, asserts the complaint. FCB is a bank holding company, with one wholly-owned national bank subsidiary, Florida Community Bank, National Association. Synovus is a Georgia financial services company located at 1111 Bay Avenue, Suite 500, Columbus, GA 31901. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq. James E. Felman, Esq. KYNES MARKMAN & FELMAN, PA PO Box 3396, Tampa, FL 33601 Tel: (813) 229-1118 Fax: (813) 221-6750 Email: KYanes@kmf-law.com JFelman@kmf-law.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 Email: racocelli@weisslawllp.com mrogovin@weisslawllp.com kmoran@weisslawllp.com FINAL EXPENSE: Jamari Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls -------------------------------------------------------- MERANDA KAIL JAMARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FINAL EXPENSE DIRECT, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case 2:18-at-01654 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2018), contends that the Defendant, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, number ending in -6273, beginning in or around January of 2018, in an effort to sell or solicit its services. The Plaintiff never provided the Defendant with consent to contact Plaintiff on her cellular phone. Those calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(A). The calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incur a charge for incoming calls 19 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). Plaintiff is not a customer of the Defendant's services and has never provided any personal information, including her cellular telephone numbers, to the Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. In addition, Plaintiff told the Defendant at least once to stop contacting them and Plaintiff has been registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days prior to the Defendant contacting her. Accordingly, the Defendant never received Plaintiff' "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on their cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuit says.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com E-mail: mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com FINANCIAL INDEMNITY: Partly Compelled to Produce Files in Bhasker ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HELEN BHASKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, CIV No. 17-260 JB/JHR (D. N.M.), Magistrate Judge Jerry R. Ritter of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Written Discovery Requesting Claims Files and Communications and her Memorandum in Support. Bhasker, was rear-ended by a third party while traveling eastbound on I-40 on June 24, 2015, and sustained bodily injuries and other damages as a result of the collision. Thereafter, the Plaintiff received the full extent of liability coverage carried by the tortfeasor ($25,000), and turned to her own insurance carrier, the Defendant, to recover underinsured motorist benefits. The parties agree that the Plaintiff's damages exceed $50,000. However, the Plaintiff's insurance policy with the Defendant only contained minimal underinsured motorist coverage of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident; therefore, the Defendant denied her claim, reasoning that New Mexico is a difference state. The Plaintiff claims that the underinsured motorist coverage she purchased from the Defendant was, accordingly, illusory under New Mexico law. The Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint for Breach of Statutory, Common Law, and Contractual Duties in New Mexico state court on Dec. 30, 2016. The Defendant removed the case to the Court on Feb. 24, 2017, citing the Class Action Fairness Act and diversity of the parties. The Defendant conceded that from Dec. 30, 2010 to Dec. 30, 2016, there were approximately 795 claims in New Mexico where the insured had minimum UIM limits of $25,000 and it did not pay UIM coverage. The Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint on March 23, 2017. In her Complaint, she alleges that the Defendant failed to act honestly and in good faith when it solicited and sold superfluous and illusory minimal limits underinsured motorist coverage to their insureds (in whole or in part) in violation of New Mexico law, and/or they denied claims for the benefits of that coverage. The Plaintiff brings the following claims on her own behalf and on behalf of the putative class: negligence (Count I); violation of New Mexico's Unfair Trade Practices Act (Count II); violation of New Mexico's Unfair Insurance Practices Act (Count III); breach of contract (Count IV); breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count V); and claims for declaratory and injunctive relief (Counts VI-VII). The Plaintiff defines the putative class as all persons (and their heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns) who, in the prior six years from the date of the filing of the complaint, were a policy holder and/or insured, of a Motor Vehicle Policy issued by the Defendant where that policy did not and does not provide underinsured coverage paid for by the policyholder, and sold and solicited by the Defendant, due to the application of an offset as set forth in NMSA 66-5-301, otherwise known as the New Mexico offset law or being a difference state. The matter is now before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to compel certain discovery from the Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff's Motion targets Requests for Production numbers 1-2 and 8. She also moves the Court for production of the redacted portions of her claim file that have been withheld by the Defendant. In Request No. 1, the Plaintiff requests the complete Claim Files for the 795 individuals the Defendant identified and referenced in its Notice of Removal. In Request No. 2, she requests the Claim Files for individuals that purchased underinsurance motorist coverage from the Defendant within six years prior to the filing of the lawsuit and submitted a claim for underinsured motorist coverage. In Request No. 8, the Plaintiff asks the Defendant to produce any and all communications between the Defendant and its New Mexico agents, brokers, and agencies regarding underinsured motorist coverage. Magistrate Judge Ritter finds that the Defendant sought shelter in federal court under the CAFA, ostensibly to secure a more neutral litigation forum. However, with a federal forum comes federal rules of procedure and discovery practice. Here, those rules favor the broad discovery that the Plaintiff is seeking in order to establish that her claims are common to, and typical of, the class of persons she seeks to represent. Wherefore, for the forgoing reasons, he granted in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Within 30 days of the entry of the Order, the Defendant must produce: a) The Claim Notes portion of the 795 claims files it admits are relevant to the Plaintiff's claims in the action, as well as any correspondence rejecting or denying such claims due to New Mexico's offset law or being a difference state contained in the Documents portion of those files; b) Any and all communications between the Defendant and its New Mexico agents, brokers, and agencies regarding underinsured motorist coverage, to the extent those communications exist; and c) The Plaintiff's entire, unredacted, claims file. In all other respects the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/qKb5La from Leagle.com. Helen Bhasker, Plaintiff, represented by Kedar Bhasker & Corbin Hildebrandt, Corbin Hildebrandt, P.C. Financial Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Kerri Lee Allensworth , O'Brien & Padilla, Alicia M. Santos -- asantos@obrienlawoffice.com -- O'Brien & Padilla, PC & Mark L. Hanover -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons, pro hac vice. FLEX LTD: Lead Plaintiff to File Amended Class Suit by Nov. 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Northern District of California Court has ordered that the recently assigned lead plaintiff in the putative class action complaint against Flex Ltd. shall file an amended complaint by November 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018. On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and certain officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the case. On October 15, 2018, the Court issued an order providing that lead plaintiff shall file an amended complaint by November 30, 2018 and that defendants shall respond to the amended complaint by January 10, 2019, and setting the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss for March 21, 2019. The Court also set a case management conference for December 12, 2018. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this case. Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers worldwide. It operates through Communications & Enterprise Compute, Consumer Technologies Group, Industrial and Emerging Industries, and High Reliability Solutions segments. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990 and is based in Singapore. FLUOR CORP: Shareholder Class Action in Texas Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Fluor Corporation is still facing a shareholders' class suit in Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. In May 2018, a purported shareholder filed a complaint against Fluor Corporation and certain of its current and former executives in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Fluor common stock from August 14, 2013 through May 3, 2018, and seeks to recover damages arising from alleged violations of federal securities laws. Fluor Corp. said, "At this time, the company has not been served with the complaint. The company believes that the claims asserted in the complaint are without merit." Fluor Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides engineering, procurement, construction, fabrication and modularization, commissioning and maintenance, and project management services worldwide. The Company was founded in 1912 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas. FORSTER & GARBUS: Nussenzweig Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster and Garbus LLP, et al. The case is styled as Yides Nussenzweig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster and Garbus LLP d/b/a Forster, Garbus & Garbus, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-15677 (D. N.J., Nov. 5, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company specializes in collecting debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. Stein Saks, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com FREDDIE MAC: Class Cert. Bid in Ohio Public Employees Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case entitled, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, Et Al., has been denied. This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements concerning the company's business, risk management, and the procedures the company puts into place to protect the company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees. In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with prejudice. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On August 14, 2018, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff has requested interlocutory appeal of that decision. Federal Home Loan Mortgage said, "At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others: the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation; there has yet to be a final resolution of plaintiff's motion for class certification; and the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for summary judgment. In particular, absent a final resolution of whether a class will be certified, the identification of a class if one is certified, and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of possible loss." Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation operates in the secondary mortgage market in the United States. The company purchases residential mortgage loans originated by lenders, as well as invests in mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. GC SERVICES: Spence Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan -------------------------------------------------- The class action captioned Stephen Spence, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership, and Sheila M. Fews, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 17462-CZ filed in Otsego County Circuit Court, State of Michigan, was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on November 2, 2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-13444-TLL-PTM. Plaintiff Stephen Spence filed this action against GC Services and Fews on October 9, 2018, in the Circuit Court of Ostego County, Michigan. Plaintiff brings this action as a putative class action alleging two counts. Count I alleges that Defendants willfully violated the provisions of the Michigan Occupational Code by sending, on behalf of the State of Michigan, letters demanding payment of taxes and other Michigan State obligations. Plaintiff seeks against both Defendants damages or other equitable relief, attorney's fees, and costs. In Count II, Plaintiff seeks actual damages on behalf of himself and the putative class against GC Services for alleged breaches of contract, including damages for financial loss, lost time and opportunity, aggravation, and mental distress, as well as attorney's fees and costs. The Defendants are represented by: Marcus R. Sanborn, Esq. BLEVINS SANBORN JEZDIMIR ZACK PLC 1842 Michigan Avenue Detroit, MI 48216 Phone/Fax: (313) 338-9500 Email: msanborn@bsjzlaw.com The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence A. Friedman, Esq. Post Office Box 609 Grayling, MI 49738 Email: lfriendman@friendmanpartners.net - and - WM Paul Slough, Esq. 145 North Otsego Avenue Gaylord, MI 49735 Email: paul@gaylordlaw.com GENOCEA BIOSCIENCES: Court Takes Bid to Nix Suit Under Advisement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Genocea Biosciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in the consolidated "Emerson" lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has taken into advisement a pending motion to dismiss and a motion to strike. On October 31, 2017, three putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company, Chief Executive Officer William D. Clark, and former Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Poole as defendants. Each complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with disclosures from March 31, 2016 to September 25, 2017 concerning Genocea's development of GEN-003, the Company's proprietary HSV-2 vaccine. The court consolidated the three actions into one case, captioned Emerson et al. v. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 17-cv-12137-PBS (D. Mass.), and appointed the Genocea Investor Group (a group of five purported shareholders) as lead plaintiff. On March 29, 2018, counsel for the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the District of Massachusetts that alleges the same causes of action and seeks the same relief as the original complaints. The amended complaint adds Seth V. Hetherington, former Chief Medical Officer, to the original named defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2018. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on June 28, 2018, as well as a motion to strike exhibits referenced in defendants' motion to dismiss, on June 29, 2018. The Company and the other named defendants filed a reply brief to plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, and an opposition brief to plaintiffs' motion to strike, on July 30, 2018. The court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss and motion to strike on September 25, 2018, and took each motion under advisement. Genocea Biosciences, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, discovers and develops novel cancer vaccines. The company uses its proprietary discovery platform AnTigen Lead Acquisition System to design immunotherapies and vaccines that act through T cell immune responses. Its lead product candidate is GEN-003, an investigational immunotherapy that is in Phase III trial for the treatment of genital herpes infections. Genocea Biosciences, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid for Class Status in SunEdison Lawsuit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for class certification remains pending in a consolidated class action related to SunEdison, Inc., according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in March 2016 relating to the August 2015 public offering of US$650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred stock. The defendants also include certain of SunEdison's directors and officers. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and on March 17, 2017, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a consolidated amended complaint. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$139 million. On March 6, 2018, the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action was granted in part and denied in part, and on June 13, 2018, plaintiffs in the class action moved for class certification. On April 10, 2018 and April 17, 2018, certain plaintiffs in the individual actions filed amended complaints. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Commodities-Related Lawsuit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants' motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint in the Commodities-Related Litigation remains pending, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint on July 21, 2017. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix U.S. Treasury Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss the U.S. Treasury Securities Litigation is still pending, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Plaintiffs' Claims in Currencies Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in the Currencies-Related Litigation against the Company, the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to replead was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust law and granted as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") and the Company ("Group Inc.") are among the defendants named in putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in September 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on June 30, 2017, generally alleges a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeks injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On March 15, 2018, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, and on October 25, 2018, plaintiffs' motion for leave to replead was denied as to the claim under federal antitrust law and granted as to the claims under state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Must Defend Against Securities Lending Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss a putative class suit over securities lending antitrust matters involving The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s unit has been denied, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. The Company ("Group Inc.") and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and an individual action relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaint also asserts claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages and restitution in unspecified amounts. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the individual action on June 1, 2018. Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Parties in Cobalt Underwriting Suit Reach Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that parties in a putative securities class action related to Cobalt International Energy have reached a settlement, subject to court approval. The Company ("Group Inc."), certain former directors of Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), who were designated by affiliates of Group Inc., and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") are among defendants in a putative securities class action relating to certain offerings of Cobalt’s securities. They are also among the parties that have reached a settlement, subject to court approval. The firm has reserved the full amount that it expects to contribute under the settlement. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs Amend Complaint in Adeptus Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that on September 25, 2018, plaintiffs in class action litigation related to Adeptus Health filed an amended complaint to remove the claims previously dismissed by the court on September 12. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is one of the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in October 2016 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain past and present directors and officers of Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), as well as Adeptus' sponsor. As to the underwriters, the consolidated amended complaint, filed on November 21, 2017, relates to the US$124 million June 2014 initial public offering, the US$154 million May 2015 secondary equity offering, the US$411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and the US$175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering. GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June 2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$184 million, and all the shares of common stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$175 million. On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were granted as to the June 2014 and May 2015 offerings but denied as to the July 2015 and June 2016 offerings. On September 25, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to remove the dismissed claims. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Defends Gender Pay Discrimination Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in a class suit related to gender pay inequality matters, the Plaintiffs advised the district court on September 27, 2018 that they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief. Previously, on March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that the Company ("Group Inc.") and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm. On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class certification recommended that the motion be denied in all respects. On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs' motion to intervene two female individuals, one of whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the magistrate judge's decision. On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as to the plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims. On September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants' petition for interlocutory review of the district court's class certification decision and subsequently denied defendants' petition for rehearing. On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- In a consolidated securities class action lawsuit against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., among other entities, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of the Company's public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) market, and the firm's conflict of interest management. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants the Company and certain current and former officers and employees of the Company and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages. On August 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking interlocutory review of the district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation 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 September 30, 2018. The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in April 2016 by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and one of the individual actions on January 20, 2017. On July 28, 2017, the district court issued a decision dismissing the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise limiting the state common law claim in the putative class action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to 2016. On May 30, 2018, plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a third consolidated amended complaint, adding allegations as to the surviving claims. On August 28, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the second individual action. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Valeant Underwriting Suit in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to defend in a putative class action in Canada related to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's auditor. As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013 public offering of US$2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule 144A offering of US$3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of US$900 million principal amount of senior notes. The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings. Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied on November 30, 2017. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 5,334,897 shares of common stock in the June 2013 offering to non-U.S. purchasers representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$453 million and, as initial purchasers, had a proportional share of sales to non-U.S. purchasers of approximately CAD14.2 million in principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule 144A offerings. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriter Defendants Dismissed in Snap IPO Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in putative securities class actions relating to Snap Inc.'s US$3.91 billion March 2017 initial public offering, The Goldman Sachs Group and other underwriter defendants have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In its 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018, the Company has disclosed that it underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately US$970 million. Based in New York, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE:GS) is a bank holding company. It is also an investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides services to clients that include corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net-worth individuals. GOPRO INC: Bid to Drop 2018 Shareholder Class Complaint Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss the June 18 consolidated amended shareholder class action complaint remains pending, according to GoPro, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018. A hearing on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for November 5, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Company said, "Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four purported shareholder class action lawsuits (the "2018 Shareholder Class Action") were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, Mr. Woodman, and Mr. McGee. Similar complaints were filed on January 11, 2018 and January 24, 2018. On April 20, 2018, the court consolidated the four cases and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 18, 2018, plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Complaint"). The Complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November 2, 2017 and January 5, 2018. The Complaint adds Mr. Prober, GoPro's former COO, as a defendant (together with GoPro, Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee ("Defendants")), and purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), asserts claims under Section 20A of the 1934 Act against Mr. Woodman and Mr. McGee, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on August 17, 2018 and a hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for November 5, 2018." GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. GOPRO INC: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that parties in a purported shareholder class action lawsuit that was originally filed in November 2016 have reached an agreement in principle to settle the action following the September 11 mediation. The Company said, "On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit (the "2016 Shareholder Class Action") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and Mr. Woodman, our Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee, our CFO, and Anthony Bates, our former President ("Defendants"). The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and certain of its officers ("GoPro Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 8, 2016. On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 26, 2017, the court denied that motion and directed plaintiff to amend its complaint to add all defendants the plaintiff intended to sue. On August 4, 2017, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which Defendants answered on September 8, 2017. On September 11, 2018 the parties participated in a mediation session and following the mediation reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and the approval of the Court, among other conditions, will be funded entirely by the Company's insurance carriers." GoPro, Inc. makes mountable and wearable cameras, drones and accessories. The Company's products are sold globally through retailers, wholesale distributors and on the Company's website. The Company's global corporate headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. HASBRO INC: Faces Class Suit over Toys "R" Us Disclosure -------------------------------------------------------- Hasbro, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a putative securities class action complaint was filed on September 28, against the Company and certain of its officers and/or directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, on behalf of all purchasers of Hasbro common stock between April 24, 2017 and October 23, 2017, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleging that Defendants purportedly made materially false and misleading statements in connection with the financial condition of Toys "R" Us, Inc. and its impact on the Company, as well as the financial impact on the Company's business of economic conditions in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Defendants deny liability and intend to vigorously defend the action. Hasbro, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a play and entertainment company. The Company was founded in 1923 and is headquartered in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. INSPERITY INC: Bid to Dismiss 401(k) Plan Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Insperity, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that in the Worksite Employee 401(k) Retirement Plan Class Action Litigation, a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims is "now awaiting a ruling by the court." Briefing on that motion was completed in September 2018. In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and the third-party discretionary trustee of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to eligible worksite employees (the "Plan") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on behalf of Plan participants. The suit generally alleges that Insperity's third-party discretionary trustee of the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent investment choices. The parties filed a stipulation concerning class certification that defined the class as "all participants and beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009 through September 30, 2017." In November 2017, the court approved the class certification stipulation and denied the plaintiffs' request for a jury trial. A date for the bench trial has not yet been set. Discovery is complete. On June 8, 2018, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims. Briefing on that motion was completed in September 2018, which motion is now awaiting a ruling by the court. The Company said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements." Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business solutions to enhance business performance for small and medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Kingwood, Texas. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Amended DeSmet Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the purported shareholder class action filed by Judith DeSmet 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 September 30, 2018. The Company said, "On September 27, 2017, a purported shareholder class action, initially styled DeSmet v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants. The Court appointed lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit on June 1, 2018, and the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 31, 2018, captioned Hou Liu and Amy Fu v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., naming us and certain of our current and former officers as defendants. The lead plaintiffs claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock between June 9, 2016 and September 20, 2017. This lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in our public disclosures during the period from June 9, 2016 to September 20, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding Ocaliva dosing, use and pharmacovigilance-related matters, as well as our operations, financial performance and prospects. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class, an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, and rescissory damages. On September 14, 2018, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. "Separately, on January 5, 2018, a follow-on derivative suit, styled Davis v. Pruzanski et al., was filed in New York state court by shareholder Gregg Davis based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case. On December 1, 2017, a purported shareholder demand was made on the Company based on substantially the same allegations as those set forth in the securities case. "While we believe that we have a number of valid defenses to the claims described above and intend to vigorously defend ourselves, the matters are in the early stages of litigation and no assessment can be made as to the likely outcome of the matters or whether they will be material to us. Accordingly, an estimate of the potential loss, or range of loss, if any, to us relating to the matters is not possible at this time." Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat progressive non-viral liver diseases, including primary biliary cholangitis ("PBC"), nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH"), primary sclerosing cholangitis ("PSC") and biliary atresia. The Company currently has one marketed product, Ocaliva (obeticholic acid or "OCA"). Founded in 2002 in New York, Intercept has operations in the United States, Europe and Canada. LABORATORY CORP: Appeal in Davis Class Action Still Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that an appeal from the decision in the Patty Davis lawsuit remains pending. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The Complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff has appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated Bouffard and Anderson class action suit. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations, which remains pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuits. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sequenom Shareholders Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the class action lawsuit over the acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. remains pending. Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom) between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054- JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101- WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its Board of Directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel. The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains pending. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Faces Haro Class Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit entitled, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America et al. On September 21, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Alma Haro v. Laboratory Corporation of America et al., which was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that employees were not properly paid overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal and rest break premiums, did not receive compliant wage statements, and were not properly paid wages upon termination of employment. Plaintiff asserts these actions violate various Labor Code provisions and constitute an unfair competition practice under California law. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sundusky Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., have reached a settlement in principle, which requires Court approval. On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005 for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. On May 3, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its decision and order reversing the District Court's denial of class certification. The Eighth Circuit remanded the matter for further proceedings. On December 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Plaintiff's renewed Motion for Class Certification. The parties have reached a settlement in principle, which will require Court approval. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in Cunningham Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a settlement in principle has been reached in Craig Cunningham, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp suit. On April 2, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Craig Cunningham, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by contacting Plaintiff at least twice on his cell phone without his prior consent using a prerecorded or artificial voice. The lawsuit seeks actual damages for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief. The parties have reached a settlement in principle. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Bloomquist Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit entitled, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al. On August 3, 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Daniel L. Bloomquist v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The Complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to provide overtime wages, failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements to Clinical Research Associates and Senior Clinical Research Associates employed by Covance in California. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On October 13, 2016, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. On May 3, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California remanded the case back to the Superior Court. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached in Gonzalez Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties in the case entitled, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, have reached a tentative settlement. On August 1, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Maria T. Gonzalez, et al. v. Examination Management Services, Inc. and Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint alleges that the Company misclassified phlebotomists as independent contractors through an arrangement with the co-Defendant temporary staffing agency. The complaint further alleges that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by failing to pay minimum wage, failing to pay for all hours worked, failing to pay for all wages owed upon termination, and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. The parties have reached a tentative settlement subject to Court approval. A hearing on the settlement is scheduled for November 8, 2018. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. MASTEC INC: Chartier Hits Illegal Deduction, Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Chartier, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mastec, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-12109, (D. Mass., October 9, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and illegal deductions from their earned wages resulting from issues regarding customer installations under the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. MasTec, Inc. is a home service provider for DirecTV where Chartier worked as a satellite installation technician. Technicians often work as much as 6 days per week and up to 60 hours per week yet only receive a fixed piecework payment, notes the complaint. Mastec often deducts a "rollback fee" if DirectTV informs MasTec of a customer complaint, without giving the technician the opportunity to challenge the deduction, it adds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold Lichten, Esq. Matthew Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com MDL 2672: Court Throws Out Mississippi CPA Claims ------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: Dkt. Nos. 5019, 5021, 5153, Case MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal.). In 2009, VW began selling its VW and Audi branded TDI "clean diesel" vehicles, which it marketed as being low-emission, environmentally friendly, fuel efficient, and high performing. Concealed was the fact that VW had installed software in these cars that caused their emission controls to perform one way during emissions testing, and another (less effective) way during normal driving conditions. During regular on-road use, the cars are alleged to have emitted nitrogen oxides (NOx) at levels that were sometimes 40 times higher than EPA's legal limit. On Sept. 18, 2015, the public learned of the fraud when EPA issued a Notice of Violation to VW, alleging that the company's use of the defeat device violated the Clean Air Act. Consumers nationwide responded by filing hundreds of lawsuits. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred those cases here. The Court then appointed the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC"), which filed a consolidated class action complaint against VW, related entities, and Bosch (who allegedly assisted in developing and implementing the defeat device). The consolidated complaint was on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased or leased an affected vehicle. Settlement talks began almost immediately, and VW and Bosch soon agreed to a series of settlements to compensate consumers who were registered owners or lessees of the cars as of Sept. 18, 2015. The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit after the Court approved the PSC-led settlements. They contend that VW, VW related entities (such as Audi), Bosch, and certain individual defendants engaged in a racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO, and that VW also violated 21 states' consumer protection and false advertising laws by deceiving consumers about its vehicles. The complaint also includes a claim for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but Plaintiffs have agreed not to pursue that claim. VW and Bosch have filed motions to dismiss the complaint. VW argues that the allegations are insufficient to support an injury in fact under any of these theories. Judge Breyer granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs have Article III standing; (ii) their RICO claims against Bosch are well pled; and (iii) their state law claims are not preempted. The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs' state law misrepresentation claims do not currently satisfy Rule 9(b); their omission claims do. The Plaintiffs have leave to amend the misrepresentation claims. In addition, he finds that the damages and proximate cause elements of the Plaintiffs' state law claims are well pled. Reliance is also well pled as to the omission claims. The Judge deferred considering the reliance element for the misrepresentation claims until the Plaintiffs are able to correct their pleadings to satisfy Rule 9(b). He also deferred resolving whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to American Pipe tolling for their Arizona and Oregon claims. The parties should address the issues highlighted in this order with respect to American Pipe's application in any briefing of motions to dismiss an amended complaint. He will not determine whether Mississippi's and Utah's class action limitations apply in federal court at the pleading stage. Judge Breyer further finds that (i) the Mississippi's pre-suit requirement applies, and because the Plaintiffs have not complied with it their Mississippi CPA claims are dismissed without prejudice; (ii) the Texas DTPA claims will not be abated; and (iii) the Plaintiffs lack statutory standing to bring their claims under Ohio's DTPA. The Plaintiffs will file an amended complaint no later than 30 days after the Order is entered. With their amended complaint, theyshall also file a separate statement explaining how they intend to prove (1) the portion of the "clean diesel" premium that was for a low-emission vehicle, and (2) the portion of the premium that depreciated. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/mkWfqR from Leagle.com. Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. David Fiol, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Peter B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- Law Office of Peter Fredman, Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart -- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G. Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP. Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro. Nicholas Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Caleb Marker -- caleb.marker@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed LLP, pro hac vice & Charles S. Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, pro hac vice. Brett Alters, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, David S. Stellings, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Kevin R. Budner, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Phong-Chau Gia Nguyen, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Tana Lin -- tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP & Todd A. Walburg, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein. Donald Ardine, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry -- awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto -- dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Derek William Loeser -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn L. Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP. Annie Argento, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Williams-Derry, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Dean Noburu Kawamoto, Keller Rohrback LLP, Derek William Loeser, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Keller Rohrback, LLP, pro hac vice, Lynn L. Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice & Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP. Arkansas State Highway Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by Jai K. Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, James A. Harrod -- jim.harrod@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, Matthew I. Henzi -- mhenzi@swappc.com -- Sullivan, War, Niki L. Mendoza, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Ross M. Shikowitz -- ross@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The Law Offices of Susan R. Podolsky. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague -- avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J. Baker, III -- cbaker@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- chtucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang -- wlang@wcsr.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David M. Eisenberg, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Rice, LLC, Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com - - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller, McGuireWoods LLP, Hugh J. Bode, Reminger & Reminger Co LPA, J. Randolph Bibb, Jr., Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey L. Chase, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Gibbons PC, John W. Cowden, Baker, Sterchi, Cowden & Ric, LLC-KCMO, John W. Cowden, Baker Sterchi Cowden and Rice LLC, John L. Hone, Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, John H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kerry R. Lewis, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Kurt E. Lindquist, II, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Larry Martin Roth, Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael D. Begey, Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA, Michael R. McDonald, Gibbons PC, Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC, Ronald G. DeWald, Lipshultz and Hone Chtd, Russ Ferguson, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, Ryan Nelson Clark, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Sara Anne Ford, Lightfoot Ffanklin & White LLC, Seth Abram Schaeffer, McGuireWoods LLP, Thomas R. Valen, Gibbons PC, William L. Boesch, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, Adam K. Bult, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Allison Rachel McLaughlin, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, PC, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Anne Katherine Guillory, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, April L. Watson, Sessions, Fishman & Nathan, Benjamin K. Reitz, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Blake Adam Gansborg, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Brett R. Leland, Verrill Dana LLP, Brian C. Langs, Johnson & Bell LTD, C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, pro hac vice, Carine M. Williams, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Caroline M. Tinsley, BAKER AND STERCHI, LLC, Charles William McIntyre, Jr., McGuireWoods LLP, Charles Pendleton Mitchell, Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, Christine Kingston, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Christopher Edward Tribe, McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza, Dan R. Larsen, Dorsey and Whitney LLP, Darrell L. Barger, Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, David L. Ayers, Watkins and Eager PLLC, David A. Barry, Esq., Sugarman Rogers Barshak & Cohen, David N. May, Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrove, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, David T. Schaefer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Edward W. Hearn, JOHNSON & BELL, PC, Elena Lalli Coronado, Sullivan and Cromwell, Elizabeth Righton Johnson, Balch & Bingham LLP, Emily Anne Ellis, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, Eric R. Burris, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Erin Patricia Mead, Thorn, Gershon, Tymann & Bonanni, LLP, Gail Ponder Gaines, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, Harlan I. Prater, IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, Hugh Brown McNatt, McNatt, Greene & Peterson, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, James L. Hollis, Balch & Bingham, Jeffrey L. Chase, Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Jimmy B. Wilkins, WATKINS & EAGER, Jo E. Peifer, Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, John David Ayers, WATKINS & EAGER, PLLC, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, John Alan Knox, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, John Garrett McCarthy, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, John Thomas Prisbe, Venable LLP, Jonathan M. Hoffman, MB Law Group, LLP, Joy Goldberg Braun, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, Kenneth Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Kevin P. Polansky, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Mark A. Weissman, Herzfeld & Rubin, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary E. Bolkcom, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Matthew A. Schwartz, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & RIice, PLLC, Meredith J. McKee, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Michael Thad Allen, Day Pitney LLP-HTFD, Michael B. Gallub, Herzfeld and Rubin, pro hac vice, Michael E. Hale, Barber Law Firm PLLC, Michael L. O'Don ell, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Michael A. Yoshida, MB Law Group, LLP, Mickey W. Greene, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Miranda Hanley, Smith Welch Webb & White, LLC, Ningur Akoglu, Herzfeld & Rubin PC, Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Nelson Mullins Riley Scarborough LLP, Patrick Demetrios Grindlay, Paul T. Collins, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Paul E.D. Darsow, Hanson Bolkcom Law Group, Ltd., Paul D. Williams, Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT, Richard White Crews, Jr., Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP, Righton Johnson, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Ryan A. Morrison, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, S. Keith Hutto, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Sarah Motley Stone, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Shawn P. George, George & Lorensen, Stanley Abbott Roberts, McGuireWoods LLP, Stephen D. Bell, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Steve S. Tervooren, Hughes Gorski Seedorf Odsen & Tervooren LLC, Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Sverker K. Hogberg, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Thomas R. Ferguson, III, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Thomas W. Purcell, MB Law Group LLP, William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice & William Henry Wagener, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice. Audi AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley -- elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com - Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew Henry Marmolejo -- mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Michael Howard Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok - andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin -- levin@sugarmanrogers.c0m - Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland - bleland@verrilldana.com -- Verrill Dana LLP, David Maxwell James Rein -- reind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr. -- gswebb@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr. -- boehmg@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD, J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. -- gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com -- Johns & Bell LTD, John Thomas Prisbe -- jtprisbe@venable.com -- Venable LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell -- oswelll@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Ryan P. McCarthy -- ryan.mccarthy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sharon L. Nelles -- nelless@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stephen D. Bell -- bell.steve@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Stuart A. Drake -- stuart.drake@kirkland.com -- Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Monahan -- monahanw@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP. Volkswagen AG, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth L. Deeley, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Matthew H. Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable LLP, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP. Audi of America LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew H. Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Michael H. Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable LLP, John D. Donovan, Jr., Ropes and Gray LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Sharon L. Nelles, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Stuart A. Drake, Kirkland and Ellis LLP, pro hac vice & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP. Volkswagen Group of America, a New Jersey corporation, Defendant, represented by P. Arley Harrel, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC, Gerard Cedrone, Lavin, O'Neil Ricci Cedrone & DiSipio, Kenneth Abrams, McGuire Woods LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP. Audi of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew H. Marmolejo, Mayer Brown LLP, Carine M. Williams, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Cheryl A. Bush, Bush, Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, Colin H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, David M.J. Rein, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, John H. Tucker, Rhodes Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Michael R. Williams, Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC, Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & William B. Monahan, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP. Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Parsons, King & Spalding LLP, Adam G. Sowatzka, King & Spalding LLP, Alexander K. Haas, King & Spalding LLP, Andrew R. Levin, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C., Brett R. Leland, David M. Fine, King, Spaulding Law Firm, G. Stewart Webb, Jr., Venable LLP, Garrett L. Boehm, Jr., Johnson & Bell LTD, J. W. Codinha, Nixon Peabody, LLP, James K. Toohey, Johns & Bell LTD, James K. Vines, King & Spalding, John Thomas Prisbe, Venable LLP, Joseph Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Kenneth Yeatts Turnbull, King & Spalding LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew A. Holian, DLA Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Sheldon T. Bradshaw, KING & SPALDING, Sonya R. Braunschweig, DLA Piper LLP, W. Scott O'Connell, Nixon Peabody LLP, pro hac vice & William F. Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper LLP, pro hac vice. David Antellocy, Defendant, represented by Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Moen, Defendant, represented by Peter B. Fredman, Law Office of Peter Fredman, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice. Porsche AG, Defendant, represented by Alexander K. Haas, King & Spalding LLP, Christina Courtney Sheehan, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA, Joseph Eisert, King & Spalding LLP, Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Matthew A. Goldberg, DLA Piper LLP, Nathan P. Heller, DLA Piper LLP, Susan Miller Bisong, Modrall Sperling Roehl Harris & Sisk PA & William F. Kiniry, Jr., DLA Piper LLP. Robert Bosch GmbH, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Slater, Cleary Gottlieb Steen and Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Jr., Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & David Lloyd Anderson, Sidley Austin LLP. Bay Ridge Volvo-American, Inc, Defendant, represented by Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rubin LLC. Audi USA, Defendant, represented by Laura Kabler Oswell, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP. MGT CAPITAL: Guyer Hits Share Drop Over Pump-and-Dump Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ Kirt Guyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MGT Capital Investments, Inc., Robert B. Ladd, John McAfee, Robert S. Lowrey, Barry C. Honig, John Stetson, Michael Brauser, John O'Rourke III and Mark Groussman, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-09228, (S.D. N.Y., October 9, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of federal securities laws and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. MGT Capital is engaged in the business of acquiring, developing and monetizing assets in the online and mobile gaming space as well as the social casino industry. Defendants failed to disclose that they were engaged in an illegal pump-and-dump scheme to artificially inflate MGT stock price and had a history of engaging in illegal conduct in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. The company's acquisition of D-Vasive Inc., a provider of anti-spy software, was part of their "pump-and-dump" scheme to artificially inflate MGT Capital's stock price, and eventually resulted in governmental and regulatory scrutiny, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Jonathan Lindenfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com MICHAELS STORES: Armstrong Discovery Letter Briefs Deemed Untimely ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, TERESA ARMSTRONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-06540-LHK (VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, deemed the two unilateral discovery letter briefs filed by Ms. Armstrong in which she seeks an order compelling Michaels Stores to produce documents and supplement its discovery responses, as untimely and do not properly brief the matters in dispute. Plaintiff Armstrong sues, for herself and on behalf of a putative class, for alleged wage and hour violations under various provisions of the California Labor Code. Michaels Stores, Inc. removed the action from state court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act,. Before the Court are two unilateral discovery letter briefs filed by Ms. Armstrong in which she seeks an order compelling Michaels Stores to produce documents and supplement its discovery responses. On Feb. 14, 2018, Judge Koh, who presides over the matter, issued a scheduling order setting case management deadlines, including an Oct. 8, 2018 deadline for Ms. Armstrong to file her motion for class certification. On Feb. 23, 2018, Ms. Armstrong served interrogatories, requests for admission, and requests for production, to which Michaels Stores did not respond until June 5, 2018. The docket indicates that in subsequently filed Joint Case Management Statements, one or both sides sought extensions or stays of the court-ordered class certification briefing deadlines, due in part to disputes over Michaels Stores' discovery responses. In denying those requests, Judge Koh repeatedly reminded the parties to be diligent in resolving their discovery disputes and in bringing any unresolved matters to the Court. On Oct. 4 and 5, 2018, Ms. Armstrong filed the present unilateral discovery letter briefs concerning disputes over numerous items of discovery that she says she needs to prepare her motion for class certification is due in three days. Both letters concern Ms. Armstrong's Feb. 23, 2018 written discovery requests, and the October 4 letter also makes a passing reference to Michaels Stores' reported failure to provide dates for its Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) deposition. Magistrate Judge DeMarchi can only conclude that Ms. Armstrong has not been diligent in conducting the discovery or in bringing disputes to the Court's attention. The Plaintiff has not timely or properly presented the issues in a manner that would allow the Court to reasonably rule on the merits of the dispute. And given her last minute filings, the Magistrate cannot accommodate Ms. Armstrong's request for a hearing before her October 8 filing deadline. Nevertheless, to the extent Michaels Stores agreed to produce certain documents referenced in Ms. Armstrong's letters, it will complete that production by Oct. 8. The Magistrate otherwise declines to rule on all other issues referenced by Ms. Armstrong that have not been clearly or properly raised or briefed in her letters. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/7wVqMt from Leagle.com. Teresa Armstrong, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group & Thomas Alistair Segal -- thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group. Michaels Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Sage Christie -- christiej@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephanie Peri Priel -- spriel@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP & Gregory William Knopp -- gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. MIDLAND FUNDING: Can't Arbitrate May Couple's Claims ---------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: FREDDY MAY and AMBER MAY, Chapter 13, Debtors. FREDDY MAY and AMBER MAY, Plaintiffs, V. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-bk-10970, AP No. 4:18-ap-01057 (E.D. Ark.), Judge Richard D. Taylor of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Little Rock Division, denied the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration. Debtors, Freddy and Amber May, filed their Class Action Complaint on May 4, 2018. Freddy May opened a Lowe's credit card account financed through Synchrony Bank on May 5, 2013. According to the debtors, Synchrony received notice of their bankruptcy filing and then transferred data about those debts to Midland under a written agreement. Thereafter, Midland filed a proof of claim for an amount in excess of the scheduled debt. Despite representations that the proof of claim amount did not include interest or other charges, the debtors assert that Midland knows that interest and fees are in the claim amount, but Midland directs its employees to file Proofs of Claim that assert no interest or fees are in the claim amount. The debtors contend that this practice violates three provisions of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001: (1) section (a) for failing to file a Proof of Claim that conform[s] substantially to the Official Form because it failed to accurately disclose that interest, fees, expenses, or charges were included in the claim amount; (2) section (c)(1) based on the alleged failure of Midland to adequately provide the written document underlying its claim; and (3) section (c)(2) for failure to file with its Proof of Claim an itemized statement of the interest, fees, expenses or charges that were incurred. Further, the debtors assert that the aggregate of these alleged transgressions violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The debtors seek damages primarily in the context of statutory damages and fees attendant to a class action. The bankruptcy specific prayer is in the nature of injunctive relief preventing inaccurate proofs of claim being filed in the future, requiring an amended proof of claim with supporting documentation in the instant case, and disallowing the claim if not properly amended. The Defendants filed their Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Strike Class Allegations and Memorandum in Support. on June 25, 2018, which drew the Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion on July 25, 2018, each supplemented by sur-replies. Midland asks the Court to compel arbitration of all issues raised in the Complaint. During argument, the debtors conceded that a valid arbitration clause exists between the debtors and Synchrony and that the dispute in question would, absent any bankruptcy implications, fall within its ambit as a collection related controversy. They also conceded during argument that they knew of no statutory or legal authority that would restrain alienability of an arbitration clause. While conceding those points, the debtors interpose two hurdles to arbitration: (1) that Midland did not succeed to Synchrony's right to compel arbitration, and (2) if Midland does have the right to request arbitration, the Court should decline to do so. Reserving all other matters, the Court heard the Motion and Response solely as to the request for arbitration on Aug. 30, 2018, and took the matter under advisement. Judge Taylor finds that circumstances exist where a Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon analysis would compel arbitration that both complements and benefits the bankruptcy process. Conversely, unconstrained enforcement of arbitration clauses would encourage and permit creditors to opt for a favorably perceived and parallel proceeding that would fragment, moot, and deprive all parties of the benefits of a single integrated forum designed specifically to address the accommodation and reorganization of debt. The Judge holds that arbitration is simply not appropriate in this circumstance. The central issue, claims litigation, is specifically core. The "related to" count under the FDCPA arises solely as a result of the alleged improprieties in the course of completing and filing a proof of claim. No part of either count would or could exist independent of or outside the bankruptcy case. Whether there is a pervasive fraudulent policy and practice as the debtors suggest is a matter of scrutiny and offense to a bankruptcy court, not an arbitrator. For these reasons, Judge Taylor denied the request for arbitration contained in the Motion. The request for dismissal will be set by subsequent notice. Thereafter, if appropriate, the Court will consider the class action issues raised in the Complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/3sAAeZ from Leagle.com. Freddy May & Amber May, Plaintiffs, represented by William Thomas Crowder -- crowdermcgaha.com -- CROWDER MCGAHA, LLP, Thomas J. Diaz, Rainwater, Holt & Sexton, P.A. & John Michael Rainwater, RAINWATER, HOLT & SEXTON, P.A. Midland Funding LLC & Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendants, represented by Mary-Tipton Thalheimer -- mthalheimer@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC, Jason B. Tompkins -- jtompkins@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM, LLP & Geoffrey B. Treece -- gtreece@qgtlaw.com -- QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC. MILLER STARK KLEIN: Holmes Sues Over Auto-dialed Calls ------------------------------------------------------ Summer Holmes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Miller, Stark, Klein & Associates, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01193, (M.D. Fla., 2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Miller, Stark, Klein & Associates is a North Carolina corporation with a principle place of business at 301 McCullough Drive, Suite 400, Charlotte, NC 28262-1336. It called Holmes' cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system and a prerecorded message. Holmes says she never had any transaction with the Defendant and did not give any express consent to be contacted in such manner. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. Andrew Obergfell, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-Mail: scott@bursor.com jarisohn@bursor.com aobergfell@bursor.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Mabus Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIE MABUS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01845 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb No. 51236 BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Musso Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ----------------------------------------------------------- DONNA W. MUSSO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01856 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiffs bring this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb No. 51236 BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Newton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ------------------------------------------------------------ JERRY D. NEWTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01842 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff says that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. The Plaintiff brings this action for personal injuries sustained by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA). As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. Roundup refers to all formulations of the Defendant's Roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak Herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, Roundup Herbicide, Roundup Original 2k Herbicide, Roundup Original II Herbicide, Roundup Pro Concentrate, Roundup Pro Dry Herbicide, and Roundup Promax.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth S. Webb No. 51236 BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 222-2222 Facsimile: (314) 421-0359 E-mail: sethw@getbc.com N&A PRODUCTIONS INC: Shortchanges Workers on Wages, Rendon Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Alvaro Rendon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. N&A Productions, Inc., John Bernard Doherty, Peter Fitzgerald, Thomas Dwyer, Padraig Dwyer, Sean Dwyer and Kenneth Keating, Case No. 520209/2018, (N.Y. Sup., October 9, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. N&A operates as "Playwright Irish Pub" located at 27 W. 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 where Rendon worked as a line cook. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay him at the applicable minimum wage rate for all hours worked. Their timekeeping system also incorrectly calculated employee's weekly hours worked, adds the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Arsenio D. Rodriguez, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 NATIONAL BANKCARD: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL BANKCARD CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-06592-DMR (N.D. Cal., Oct. 29, 2018), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1). The Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -5502 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry on or about July 27, 2003, well over 30 days prior to the Defendant's initial call to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also stated to one of the Defendant's employees that he was not interested in buying or using the Defendant's products and did not want to be contacted again. Despite this, the Defendant continued to contact Plaintiff, the lawsuit says. National Bankcard offers a complete line of payment processing services to support your business.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: 323 306-4234 Facsimile: 866 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@ toddflaw.com abacon@ toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com NEW BALANCE: Prelim Approval of Dashnaw Suit Settlement Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SHEILA DASHNAW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminarily approval of class action settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Defendant is to pay $750,000 as "total Relief Amount." From that amount, an estimated $200,000 is deducted for settlement administration costs and $15,000 for requested class representative service compensation. After deductions, approximately $535,000 is available to pay the class members. The Defendant estimates that $1 million qualifying pairs of New Balance shoes were sold to the putative class. The Judge finds that the representation in the motion and the proposed class notice that the class members will receive "up to $10" in damages is problematic. However, based on the representations in the Plaintiff's motion, the class members will not receive $10 unless the class participation rate is extremely low or the factual representations in support of the proposed settlement are inaccurate by a wide margin. Assuming that the estimate is accurate, and that every putative class member submits a claim for one pair of shoes, each will receive $0.54. The estimate of class member recovery provided in the motion and proposed notice appears inaccurate on its face, and lacks a plausible explanation. He also finds that the proposed cy pres award does not comply with Dennis v. Kellogg Co. and the parties have provided no evidence of compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1715. The proposed class notice must be amended to make clear that making an objection does not preclude a class member from submitting a claim. Accordingly, the proposed notice must be amended consistent with the Order. For the foregoing reasons, Jugde Lorenz denied the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement without prejudice to re-filing after curing the foregoing defects. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/ztfTi8 from Leagle.com. Sheila Dashnaw, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, William Meier, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated & Sherryl Jones, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Hoon Kim -- jkim@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers, Todd M. Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP & Aubry Wand, The Wand Law Firm. New Balance Athletics, Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth E. Brenckman -- brenckman@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice, Garrett K. Sakimae -- sakimae@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.C., Laura B. Najemy -- najemy@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice, Mark Puzella -- puzella@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice, Richard David Hosp -- hosp@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice & Sheryl K. Garko -- garko@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.C., pro hac vice. The Attorney General of the State of California, Miscellaneous Party, represented by Timothy Dean Lundgren. NEW ENTRY INC: Jerrell Seeks Overtime Pay for Supervisors --------------------------------------------------------- ISSAC JERRELL, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. A NEW ENTRY, INC., the DEFENDANT, Case No. 1:18-cv-00929 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 29, 2018), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals overtime compensation for the hours in excess of 40 hours in a single week that they were/are made to work, under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other Supervisors kept track of their time by either clocking in and out of a time keeping application or, if the application was not working, by writing their time down on a timecard. On days in which Plaintiff and other Supervisors recorded their time manually on timecards, the Defendant failed to add these hours to Plaintiff and other Supervisors time sheets. As a result, Plaintiff and other Supervisors were not paid for all hours worked over forty in a week. The Plaintiff and other Supervisors also did not receive all overtime compensation during weeks in which they worked more than 40 hours because it was the Defendant's commonly applied policy to pay Supervisors straight time for all hours worked. The Plaintiff and other Supervisors were and are entitled to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. The Defendants knew, or showed reckless disregard for whether, the way it paid Plaintiff and its other Supervisors violated the FLSA, the lawsuit says. New Entry, Inc. provides affordable residential substance use treatment services that is cheaper than most insurance deductables. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com OVASCIENCE INC: Adlard Files Securities Suit Over Millendo Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Adlard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OvaScience, Inc., Christopher Kroeger, Rich Aldrich, Jeffrey D. Capello, John Howe, Mary Fisher, Marc Kozin, John Sexton, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-12332 (D. Mass., November 6, 2018) is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other public stockholders of OvaScience, Inc. against OvaScience and the members of its Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 9, 2018, says the complaint, OvaScience and Millendo issued a press release announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated August 8, 2018 pursuant to which OvaScience will merge with Millendo in an all-stock transaction. On November 6, 2018, OvaScience filed a Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that OvaScience stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the financial projections for Millendo, relied upon by OvaScience's financial advisor, Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc. in its financial analyses; and (ii) the background process leading to the Proposed Transaction and Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act as OvaScience stockholders need such information in order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, says the complaint. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and until such Exchange Act violations are cured. The Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, a continuous stockholder of OvaScience. OvaScience is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 9 Fourth Avenue, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02451. OvaScience is a pharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and development of new treatment options for women and families struggling with infertility. The Company's common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker symbol "OVAS". Christopher Kroeger has been Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company since September 2017. Rich Aldrich co-founded OvaScience in April 2011, has been Lead Independent Director of the Board since March 2016 and a director of the Company since July 2011. Jeffrey D. Capello has been a director of the Company since March 2012. Mary Fisher has been a director of the Company since June 2013. John Howe, III has been a director of the Company since June 2015. Marc Kozin has been a director of the Company since January 2014. John Sexton has been a director of the Company since April 2015.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq. MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC 18 Grove Street, Suite 5 Wellesley, MA 02482 Phone: (781) 453-0100 Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com - and - Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 - and - Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 308-5858 Fax: (212) 486-0462 Email: fortunato@bespc.com OZARK WAFFLES: Butler Files Suit Over Tip Credit Deduction ----------------------------------------------------------- Byron Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ozark Waffles, LLC, WH Capital, LLC and Waffle House, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00746, (E.D. Ark., October 9, 2018) seeks monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of failure to pay lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Defendants own and operate restaurants in the United States under the "Waffle House" brand. Butler spent more than twenty percent of his time performing non-tipped duties yet Defendants took out a tip credit, thus lowering his rate equal than the applicable minimum wage per hour for their non-tipped work, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com SALSA AND BEER: Gets $369K Sanction in Velasquez for Non-compliance ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MOISES VELASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SALSA AND BEER RESTAURANT, INC., SALSA AND BEER, INC., NOB PATINO, PATRICIA PATINO, DIONISIO PATINO, and ISMAEL PATINO, Defendants, No. 5:16-CV-655-D (E.D. N.C.), Judge James C. Denver, III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted the Plaintiff's motion to strike the Defendants' answer and entered default judgment against the Defendants. On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff moved to strike the Defendants answer and for entry of default judgment, and filed a memorandum in support. The Defendants did not respond. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint against the Defendants claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. On March 29, 2017, the Defendants moved to stay discovery and for entry of anew scheduling order. On April6, 2017, the Defendants answered the amended complaint. On April26, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to stay discovery and directed the parties to submit a proposed revised scheduling order not later than June 16, 2017. On June 16, 2017, the parties submitted a proposed revised scheduling order. On July 12, 2017, the parties jointly moved to amend the scheduling order. On July 17, 2017, the Court granted the joint motion and extended the pre-certification discovery phase until July 31, 2017. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff moved to compel the Defendants to (1) produce Salsa and Beer, Inc.'s Rule 30(b)(6) designee for a deposition; (2) respond to his interrogatory number 13 and request for production number 17, relating to the production of gross sales and annual dollar volumes; (3) produce Defendant Noe Patino's discovery responses; and (4) produce Defendant Patricia Patino's verification concerning her discovery responses. The Plaintiff also moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. On March 5, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel and request for sanctions. It ordered that the Defendants respond to the Plaintiff's interrogatory number 13 and request for production number 17 not later than April 6, 2018, Defendant Noe Patino respond in full to the Plaintiff's discovery requests not later than April 30, 2018, and Defendant Patricia Patino verify her discovery responses not later than April 6, 2018. The Court also warned each Defendant that failure to comply with the Court's order may result in additional sanctions, up to and including striking the non-complying Defendant's answer. On March 29, 2018, the Plaintiff requested attorney's fees incurred in drafting his motion to compel, and filed a memorandum in support. The Defendants did not respond. On April 6, 2018, the Defendants' counsel moved to withdraw from the case. On April 11, 2018, the Court granted the counsel's motion to withdraw and directed that the individual Defendants file a notice of self-representation or cause new counsel to file a notice of appearance within 21 days and that entity parties cause the new counsel to file a notice of appearance within 21 days. The Court warned each defendant that failure to comply with the its order may result in sanctions up to and including a default judgment. On May 29, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. The Defendants have blatantly disregarded the Court's orders and warnings. They have not produced the required discovery, caused the new counsel to file a notice of appearance or filed a notice of self-representation, or paid the Plaintiff's attorney's fees. The Plaintiff asks the Court to strike the Defendants' answer, to enter default judgement against the Defendants, and award damages in the amount of $259,067.03 and attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $107,280.98 and $2,635.12, for a total amount of $368,983.13. Judge Denver finds that (i) the Defendants acted in bad faith by refusing to participate in the case; (ii) the Plaintiff has been prejudiced because the Defendants have blatantly disregarded and ignored the Court's orders and refused to participate in the case; (iii) the Defendants' "noncompliance, especially in ignoring the direct orders of the Court with impunity is misconduct which must obviously be deterred; and (iv) less drastic sanctions would not be effective. For these reasons, the judge granted the Plaintiff's motion for sanctions and struck the Defendants' answer. He awarded a judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $368,983.13. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/5DwueA from Leagle.com. Javier Tello, Movant, represented by Grant S. Mitchell, The Mitchell Law Group. Moises Velasquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilda A. Hernandez -- ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- The Law Offices of Gilda A. Hernandez, PLLC. Salsa and Beer Restaurant, Inc., Defendant, pro se. Noe Patino, Defendant, pro se. Patricia Patino, Defendant, pro se. Ismael Patino, Defendant, pro se. Dionisio Patino, Defendant, pro se. SOUTHERN COPPER: Settlement Hearing in Lacey Suit Set for Nov. 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Copper Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 31, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a settlement hearing is scheduled for November 27, 2018, in the case, Carla Lacey, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Southern Copper Corporation, and derivatively on behalf of Southern Copper Corporation. A purported class action derivative lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery was served on the Company and its Directors in February 2016 relating to the 2012 capitalization of 99.999% of MGE by Controladora de Infraestructura Energetica Mexico, S.A. de C.V., an indirect subsidiary of Grupo Mexico (the "CIEM Capitalization"), the Company's entry into a power purchase agreement with MGE in 2012 (the "MGE Power Purchase Agreement"), and the 2012 restructuring of a loan from the Company's Mexican Operations to MGE for the construction of two power plants to supply power to the Company's Mexican operations (the "MGE Loan Restructuring"). The action purports to be brought on behalf of the Company and its common stockholders. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the CIEM Capitalization, the MGE Power Purchase Agreement and the MGE Loan Restructuring were the result of breaches of fiduciary duties and the Company's charter. On March 20, 2018, as a result of post-mediation negotiations conducted through the parties and a mediator, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action. On March 23, 2018, the parties informed the Court of the settlement-in-principle to resolve all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants in the action and requested that the Court stay the action in its entirety pending filing by the parties of a stipulation of settlement. The Parties filed the executed stipulation on August 22, 2018. Under the proposed settlement, Grupo Mexico or Americas Mining would pay to the Company $50 million in cash less any attorneys' fees (including costs) awarded by the Court to Plaintiff's counsel (the "Net Settlement Amount") in return for a release of all derivative and direct claims. The Company will distribute the Net Settlement Amount via a special dividend to the Company's public stockholders (other than the director defendants, Grupo Mexico, Americas Mining, or any entity in which Grupo Mexico or Americas Mining has or had a direct or indirect controlling interest) who hold shares of common stock of the Company as of the date that is three days prior to the funding date, which funding date will be no later than ten days after a judgment approving the settlement becomes a final judgment. A settlement hearing is scheduled for November 27, 2018. The settlement is subject to the approval of the Court. Southern Copper said, "The Company can offer no assurance that the settlement will be approved or the timing or amount of any funding or dividend." Southern Copper Corporation engages in mining, exploring, smelting, and refining copper and other minerals in Peru, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Ecuador. The company was founded in 1952 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona. Southern Copper Corporation is a subsidiary of Americas Mining Corporation. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Class Action over $15-Per-Bag Fees Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues to defend itself from a putative antitrust class action lawsuit alleging monopolization of air travel by imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage . A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary AirTran Airways, Inc. (collectively with AirTran Holdings, Inc., "AirTran") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint sought injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees. On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta opposed. On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. On July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of all persons who paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the date on which AirTran stopped charging first bag fees). Defendants appealed that decision. On March 29, 2017, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against AirTran. On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the district court's judgment, and on April 24, 2017, AirTran filed a conditional notice of cross-appeal to appeal the Court's order certifying a class. On March 9, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to AirTran and Delta, and on June 8, 2018, the court of appeals denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Southwest Airlines said, "The time for plaintiffs to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari has not yet expired. AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation services in the United States and near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for March 2019 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a hearing to consider the fairness of a class action settlement is scheduled for March 22, 2019. On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this motion. On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the date of the settlement. The Company agreed to pay $15 million and to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in the settlement agreement. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 3, 2018, and approved the notice program on August 22, 2018. The fairness hearing for the settlement is scheduled for March 22, 2019. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation services in the United States and near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a class action complaint in Saskatchewan court has not been served on the Company. On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares for Canadian residents traveling in the United States and for travel between the United States and Canada. Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on October 6, 2015. In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the Federal Court, British Columbia, and Ontario proceedings and a discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec proceeding. The other defendants entered into an agreement with the same putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British Columbia, and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario. On June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and stayed the action against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the action against the Company in British Columbia. On February 14, 2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company and to stay that proceeding against the other defendants. On March 10, 2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's motion to discontinue that proceeding as to the Company. On September 29, 2017, the Company and the other defendants entered into a tolling agreement suspending any limitations periods that may apply to possible claims among them for contribution and indemnity arising from the Canadian litigation. The Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and the time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet begun to run. The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages (including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants as a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend this civil case in Canada. The Company does not currently serve Canada. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation services in the United States and near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in 1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas. ST. ELIZABETH: Court Denies Reconsideration Bid in Boden ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DOLORES JANE BODEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ST. ELIZABETH MEDICAL CENTER, INC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-49-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky.), Judge David L. Bunning of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington, denied the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's April 4, 2018 Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Five of the Amended Complaint against Defendants and Former Committee Members Garren Colvin, John Dubis, Randall Foltz, Nathan Van Laningham, Glenn Loomis, Daniel Rutterer, and Sarah Giolando, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). On March 17, 2016, Plaintiffs Jane Boden, Jeanine Godsey, and Patricia Schaefer, filed the putative class action suit alleging, inter alia, violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by St. Elizabeth's Medical Center, Inc., St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees' Pension Plan Administrative Committee, and several individuals involved in the administration of St. Elizabeth's Pension Plan. The case was stayed, pending resolution of Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding ERISA's exemption for churches. Upon resolution of the Stapleton case, the Court allowed the Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint on Aug. 1, 2017. The Amended Complaint included claims against St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc., and the individual members of the St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees' Pension Plan Administrative Committee concerning the St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees' Pension Plan. On Aug. 11, 2017, the Former Committee Members filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims against them. The Plaintiffs filed a response on Sept. 13, 2017, and the Former Committee Members replied on Sept. 21, 2017. The Court filed a Memorandum Opinion and Order on April 4, 2018 granting the Motion to Dismiss with regards to Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, and Seven, but denying the Motion to Dismiss for Counts One and Five. The Former Committee Members filed a Motion for Reconsideration on April 17, 2018 asking the Court to reconsider its ruling on Count Five. They put forth two reasons for the Court to reconsider its finding of standing. First, the Movants suggest that the Court clearly erred in its reading of Soehnlen v. Fleet Owners Insurance Fund. They also argue that reconsideration is required on the basis of Duncan v. Muzyn -- a recently decided Sixth Circuit case. Judge Bunning finds that while the Court previously mischaracterized the relief sought as monetary damages, this mischaracterization was inconsequential to the Court's analysis. Given the type of relief sought by the Plaintiffs, the Court was not incorrect in allowing Soehnlen to guide its standing analysis and, therefore, reconsideration on that ground is improper. Additionally, contrary to Movants' suggestion, the Judge finds that their Motion cannot be granted on the basis of Duncan. A comparison of the approach to standing taken in Duncan and Soehnlen highlights the necessity of the Court first determining the applicability of ERISA to the Plan. Briefing on whether ERISA applies to the Plan at issue in the case is forthcoming, and, therefore, a ruling on the applicability of Duncan is not yet proper. As with their previous Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the Movants' Motion to Reconsider attempts to sidestep the crucial issue in the case -- whether the plan is a church plan -- places the Court in the untenable position of being asked to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical determination of critical facts. The Court previously found standing for the Plaintiffs, and declines to reconsider the applicability of Duncan until a determination has been made regarding ERISA's application to the Plan. Accordingly, Judge finds that the Motion must be denied as premature as the Court has yet to decide whether ERISA governs the Plan. The Judge wishes takes the opportunity to correct a typographical error inadvertently included in its prior Opinion and Order. In the Court's previous Opinion and Order, Defendant Chris Carle was mistakenly substituted for Defendant John Dubis. As it was John Dubis, not Chris Carle, who moved for dismissal, the Judge clarifies that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, and Seven is granted as to Defendant John Dubis, and vacated as to Defendant Chris Carle. Therefore, for the reasons articulated in his Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge Bunning (i) denied the Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration; (ii) granted the Motion to Dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, and Seven as to Defendant Dubis; and (iii) vacated the Motion to Dismiss Counts Two, Three, Four, Six, and Seven as to Defendant Carle. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 5, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://is.gd/XTnKkj from Leagle.com. Dolores Jane Boden, on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated, Jeanine Godsey, on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated & Patricia Schaefer, on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Donna Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas P. Needham -- dneedham@ikrlaw.com -- Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP, pro hac vice, Erik David Peterson -- edp@austinmehr.com -- Mehr Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Julie Siebert-Johnson -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A. Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP, pro hac vice. St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc., The St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees' Pension Plan Administrative Committee & John Does, 1-20, Defendants, represented by Christopher B. Markus -- cmarkus@dbllaw.com -- Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C., Mark D. Guilfoyle -- mguilfoyle@dbllaw.com -- Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C., Mark R. Hervey & Richard G. Meyer -- rmeyer@dbllaw.com -- Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C. John Dubis, Martin Oscadal, Garren Colvin, Randall Foltz, Marianne Tait, Nathan Van Laningham, Chris Carle, Daniel Rutterer, M.D., Robert Pritchard, M.D., Robert Tracy, M.D., Patrick Burns, M.D., Bruno Giacomuzzi, Sarah Giolando, Lori Baldwin-Ritchey, Gary Blank & Glenn Loomis, M.D., Defendants, represented by Richard G. Meyer, Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C. & Mark D. Guilfoyle, Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C. Marianne Tait, Chris Carle, Randall Foltz, Robert Pritchard, M.D., Robert Tracy, M.D., Lori Baldwin-Ritchey, Bruno Giacomuzzi, Garren Colvin, Martin Oscadal, Daniel Rutterer, M.D., Gary Blank, Patrick Burns, M.D., John Dubis, Sarah Giolando, Glenn Loomis, M.D. & Nathan Van Laningham, Counter Claimants, represented by Mark D. Guilfoyle, Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C. The St. Elizabeth Medical Center Employees' Pension Plan Administrative Committee, John Does, 1-20 & St. Elizabeth Medical Center, Inc., Counter Claimants, represented by Christopher B. Markus , Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C., Mark D. Guilfoyle , Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C., Mark R. Hervey & Richard G. Meyer, Dressman Benzinger LaVelle P.S.C. Dolores Jane Boden, on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated, Jeanine Godsey, on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated & Patricia Schaefer, on behalf of themselves and all others similary situated, Counter Defendants, represented by Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Douglas P. Needham, Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP, Erik David Peterson, Mehr Fairbanks & Peterson Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Julie Siebert-Johnson, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Mark K. Gyandoh, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP & Robert A. Izard, Izard Kindall & Raabe LLP. UNIVERSITY OF FASHION: Sullivan Files ADA Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Fashion, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. University of Fashion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10245 (S.D. N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018). The Plaintiff filed the case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. University of Fashion (also known as UofF) is an online library of fashion design video lessons. The website is owned and operated by Francesca Sterlacci and Jeffrey Purvin and features how-to video lesson tutorials, taught by fashion school professors and industry professionals, teaching the key fashion design disciplines, e.g. draping, patternmaking, sewing, fashion art, knits, childrenswear, CAD, fashion business and fashion product development.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Lee Litigation Group, PLLC 30 East 39th Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 Email: cklee@leelitigation.com WABASH NATIONAL: Files Second Bid to Dismiss Indiana Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wabash National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company has filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and requested dismissal with prejudice. Prior to the Company's acquisition of Supreme, on November 4, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Supreme, Mark D. Weber (Supreme's former Chief Executive Officer) and Matthew W. Long (Supreme's former Chief Financial Officer) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by making material, misleading statements in July 2016 regarding projected backlog. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages. On February 14, 2017, the court transferred the venue of the case to the Northern District of Indiana upon the joint stipulation of the plaintiff and the defendants. An amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2017 challenging statements made during a putative class period of October 22, 2015 through October 21, 2016. On May 24, 2018, the Court granted Supreme's motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim. On July 13, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On August 24, 2018, the Company filed a second motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and requested dismissal with prejudice. The case is stayed as to discovery. Wabash National said, "Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of this case is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at this time, management believes that the allegations are without merit and is vigorously defending the matter. As a result, management does not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations." Wabash National Corporation manufactures and sells semi-trailers, truck bodies, specialized commercial vehicles, and liquid transportation systems. The company offers its products under the DuraPlate, DuraPlateHD, DuraPlate XD-35, DuraPlate AeroSkirt, ArcticLite, Transcraft, Benson, Walker Transport, Brenner Tank, Garsite, Progress Tank, Bulk Tank International, Extract Technology, Supreme, Iner-City, Spartan, and Kold King brands through independent dealer and company-owned retail networks to common carriers, leasing companies, and private fleet and package carriers. Wabash National Corporation was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Lafayette, Indiana. WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Defending Against Suits over No-Poach Policy -------------------------------------------------------------- Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company is facing a total of at least 30 plaintiffs who have filed class action claims relating to the alleged conspiracy between the company and Knorr-Bremse AG On April 3, 2018, the United States Department of Justice entered into a proposed consent decree resolving allegations that the Company and Knorr-Bremse AG had maintained unlawful agreements not to compete for each other's employees. The allegations also related to Faiveley Transport before it was acquired by the Company in November 2016. The proposed consent decree is pending review and approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No monetary fines or penalties have been imposed on the Company. The Company elected to settle this matter with the Department of Justice to avoid the cost and distraction of litigation. As of July 16, 2018, putative class action lawsuits have been filed in several different federal district courts naming the Company and Knorr as defendants in connection with the allegations contained in the proposed consent decree. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages on behalf of employees of the Company (including Faiveley Transport) and Knorr allegedly caused by the defendants’ actions. A federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL) Panel decided that cases will be consolidated and heard in the Western District of Pennsylvania. As of October 15, 2018, a total of at least 30 plaintiffs have filed class action claims relating to the alleged conspiracy. Westinghouse Air Brake said, "The litigation is in its very early stages and the Company does not believe that it has diminished competition for talent in the marketplace and intends to contest these claims vigorously." Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp., doing business as Wabtec Corp., provides technology-based equipment and services for the rail industry worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Freight Group and Transit Group. Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies was founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Wilmerding, Pa. WHOLE FOODS: Retirement System Suit Dismissal w/ Prejudice Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INCORPORATED; JOHN P. MACKEY; GLENDA JANE FLANAGAN; WALTER E. ROBB; A. C. GALLO; DAVID LANNON; KENNETH J. MEYER, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-50840 (5th Cir.), Judge Carolyn Dineen King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim. Whole Foods, an international grocery-store chain specializing in organic products, recently ran into trouble with several state and local consumer-protection agencies for weights-and-measures violations. On multiple occasions, Whole Foods admitted to mislabeling prepackaged foods such that it charged consumers for more food than the packages actually contained, in violation of national standards and local laws. Whole Foods subsequently faced lawsuits from or on behalf of consumers who overpaid. This is not such a case. Rather, the Plaintiffs in the putative class-action lawsuit allege that in perpetuating this weights-and-measures fraud against customers, Whole Foods and several of its executives also defrauded Whole Foods shareholders in violation of federal securities law. The putative class Plaintiffs purchased Whole Foods common stock between July 31, 2013, and July 29, 2015. They say that during this period, Whole Foods made various fraudulent statements that artificially inflated the price of its stock. Then, they allege, when the extent of Whole Foods' weights-and-measures issues came to light, Whole Foods stock declined to reflect its true value, harming those investors that purchased the stock at artificially inflated prices. Yochanan Markman, a Whole Foods stockholder, initially brought this action in the district court against Whole Foods, Mackey, Robb, and Flanagan. Markman alleged that the Defendants each violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving Markman and other investors into purchasing Whole Foods stock at artificially inflated prices. He further alleged that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by controlling Whole Foods' unlawful conduct. And he purported to represent a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The district court later substituted the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as the lead Plaintiff. The Retirement System filed an amended complaint in which it added corporate officers Gallo, Meyer, and Lannon as the Defendants. On the Defendants' motion, the district court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. The Retirement System filed a second amended complaint, which included additional factual allegations. Most notably, the Retirement System attached an affidavit that a Whole Foods data analyst prepared for a separate lawsuit, which detailed Whole Foods' total sales on certain perishable products in New York State between June 2012 and June 2015. The Defendants again moved to dismiss and the district court again granted the Defendants' motion -- this time with prejudice. The district court explained that the affidavit did not cure the Plaintiffs' prior pleading deficiencies because its conclusion was hypothetical and was based on aggregate sales and inventory records not pertaining to the weight and pricing of prepackaged products. It further concluded that the Plaintiffs' new allegations about the Defendants' knowledge still failed to identify what each individual Defendant knew about the falsity of his statements. It accordingly concluded that the Plaintiffs again failed to state a §Section 10(b) claim and therefore also failed to state a derivative Section 20(a) claim. The Plaintiffs appeal. Judge King agrees with the district court that the Plaintiffs fail to allege that the Defendants' particular statements about Whole Foods' prices are false. Similarly, they fail to allege that Whole Foods' true prices were not comparable to its competitors' prices or were otherwise unattractive to consumers. Therefore, she concludes that the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege with requisite particularity that the statements about Whole Foods' price competitiveness were misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs cannot state a Section 10(b) claim based on the Defendants' comments about Whole Foods' prices. The Judge also agrees with the district court that the Defendants' comments about Whole Foods' commitments to transparency and quality -- even if false -- are immaterial. She concludes that, as the district court held, the Defendants' generalized statements about Whole Foods' transparency, quality, and responsibility are the sort of puffery that a reasonable investor would not rely on. Accordingly, as the district court correctly held, the Plaintiffs cannot state a Section 10(b) claim based on the Defendants' generalized statements about Whole Foods' transparency, quality, and integrity. All that remains is the Plaintiffs' claim that the Defendants consistently exaggerated Whole Foods' financial results by counting towards its revenues receipts that Whole Foods fraudulently collected by overcharging customers. The Judge holds that even assuming arguendo that the Plaintiffs allege falsity in reported revenues with particularity, she will nonetheless affirm because they do not allege that Whole Foods' inflated revenues caused the Plaintiffs' loss. Accordingly, they fail to identify a decline in stock price that shortly followed a corrective disclosure. They therefore fail to plead a Section 10(b) violation. Their Section 20(a) claims likewise fail because they are derivative of their Section 10(b) claims. For the foregoing reasons, Judge King affirmed the district court's judgment. A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 3, 2018 Order is available at https://is.gd/a60soN from Leagle.com. Jason Scott Lewis -- jason.lewis@dlapiper.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Susan Katina Alexander -- salexander@rgrdlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Gregory John Casas -- casasg@gtlaw.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Jesse Wadell Wainwright, for Defendant-Appellee. Andrew Love -- alove@rgrdlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant. ********* 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. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, 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 ***