/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150706.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 133 Headlines A10 NETWORKS: Facing Suits by Warren Police, ATRS and Kaveny AAA SNE: Sued Over Insurance Coverage in "Gricci" Class Action AIRPORT TERMINAL: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation in N.Y. AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ALIMENTS CANDESA: Recalls Corn Products Due to Sulphites AMERICAN WATER: Federal District Court Denied Motion to Dismiss ANTHEM INC: Faces "Leniski" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ARCHER-DANIELS: Class Action Parties in Pretrial Proceedings BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Court Proceedings Stayed in "Surrett" CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Motion Filed in "Wilson" Case CENTURYLINK INC: To Contest Claims in Fulghum & Abbott Cases CENTURYLINK INC: Settlements in 32 States Win Final Approval CLEARSPRING LOAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Perez" Suit Claims COMMUNITY HEALTH: Case Management Held in Shareholder Cases CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation CRICKET WIRELESS: Removes "Barraza" Class Suit to N.D. California CSOS LLC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CYNOSURE INC: Falsely Marketed PicoSure Products, LDGP Suit Says DALLAS BARBER: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiff in O&R Case to Limit Class DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Altaflo Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Files Answer to Amended Sentry Complaint E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decision in "Scranton" Case Under Appeal E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Dropped as Defendant in Amended Complaint E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action by Ty Rayner EMPIRE STATE: Bid to Approve Settlement Fund Distribution Pending EMPIRE STATE: Defendants File Brief in Class Action Appeal EXELIS INC: Two Class Actions Consolidated in S.D. Indiana EXIT PROS: Faces "Zamborowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FELLERS INC: Faces "Roddin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Aug. 10 Implementation of Cressy Settlement FIDELITY & GUARANTY: No Trial Date Set in "Ludwick" Action FIRM BAXTER: Recalls Clinimix Products Due to Particulates FORD: Recalls 18,226 Escape & Transit Connect SUVs FORD: Recalls Escape & Transit Connect SUVs in Canada GLOBAL NITROGEN: "Kaminski" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GRAYSON COUNTY GLASS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GROUPON INC: Deadline to Elect to Terminate Deal Has Passed HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Seven State Actions Consolidated H-E-B: Recalls Hamburger & Hotdog Buns Due to Foreign Material HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Court Okayed $450,000 in Plaintiff Atty. Fees HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Accord in Securities Suit Has Final Approval HSN INC: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware Chancery Court IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Dismissal of Nasyrova Complaint Sought IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: "Rothenberg" State Court Complaint Dismissed JAMP PHARMA: Recalls Piperacillin & Tazobactam Powder JAYCO: Recalls 2014 Starcraft Ar-One Models Due to Crash Risk JL INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Mayonnaise, Dressing, & Tartar Sauce LAMA MEDITERRANEAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages LEGGETT & PLATT: Parties in Direct Purchaser Cases Must Talk LEGGETT & PLATT: Appeal in Direct Purchaser Cases Goes to 6th Cir LEGGETT & PLATT: Trial to Begin in Mid-October in Ohio Case LEGGETT & PLATT: Trial in 12 Direct Purchaser Cases to Begin Aug. LEGGETT & PLATT: Ohio Court Says Kansas Case Must Be Remanded LEGGETT & PLATT: Cert. Motion in "Robillard" Still Pending LEGGETT & PLATT: No Ruling on Missouri Case Reconsideration Bid LES DEPENDANCES: Recalls Munster Gerome Cheese Due to Bacteria LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Recalls Women's Top Due to Injury Risk LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Chapman" Suit in Iowa District Court MIXTURA LATINA: Recalls Peeled White Hominy Due to Sulphites MOBILE MAINTENANCE: "Erickson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT NASDAQ OMX: Reply Due in "Providence v. BATS Global" Case NASDAQ OMX: "Lanier v. BATS Exchange" Case Dismissed NASDAQ OMX: Faces Class Action by Stephen Rabin NATURAL BALANCE: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation NEWS CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in NAM 4th Amended Complaint NORTHERN TOOL: Recalls Little Digger Toys Due to Lead Content NU SKIN: Defending Against Class Action Over China Probe OFT INC: Recalls Beef Bone Extract and Beef Concentrate Products PETM CANADA: Recalls Plastic Aquarium Heaters Due to Fire Hazard PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Ranch Salad Dressing Due to Eggs PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Stuffing Baked Turkey Products POSITEC TOOL: Recalls Worx Electric Blowers Due to Shock Hazard RAND BK: Recalls Raw Cashew Due to Salmonella RESONANT INC: Defending Against John Paggos Class Action RESONANT INC: Defending Against John DeVouassoux Class Action RESONANT INC: Defending Against Ramon Arias Class Action RGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation SAPUTO INC: Recalls Roquefort Cheese Due to Staphylococcus SAVIT COLLECTION: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls NeoRok Stools Due to Fall Hazard SHRED-TECH CORP: Recalls Business Class M2 106 Model Trucks SOLARCITY CORP: Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Due SR SUNTOUR: Recalls 101,600 Bicycles in U.S. and Canada SUN-MAID GROWERS: Sued Over Improper Pay and Rest/Break Policies SUNSHINE USA: Sued Over Fair Labor Standard Act Violation SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassification Class Action in Discovery SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Developments in Calif. Wage Class Suits SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Class Action Currently Stayed SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wash. OT Class Suit to Move Into Discovery SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Case v. Central Refrigerated in Discovery TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action in Early Stages of Discovery SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Posting Order Settlement Has Final Approval SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: TelexFree Litigation Plaintiffs Drop Claims TOP RANK: Faces "Schofield" Suit in N.J. Over Pacquiao's Injury TRANS CONTINENTAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation TRANSOCEAN LTD: No Oral Argument Yet in Securities Class Action US GYPSUM: Removes "Arredondo" Labor Suit to S.D. California US SECURITY: Faces "Decaro" Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Parties in TTM Merger Suit Entered Into MOU WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella WILLBROS GROUP: CEO Added as Defendant in Consolidated Complaint WORLD JOURNAL: Sued Over Alleged Age & Racial Discrimination WPX ENERGY: Parties Agree to Stay New Colorado Lawsuit WPX ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek to Conduct Additional Discovery YAMAHA: 1,815 Motorcycles Recalled Due to Injury Hazard ZUFFA LLC: Four Suits Transferred From N.D. California to Nevada ********* A10 NETWORKS: Facing Suits by Warren Police, ATRS and Kaveny ------------------------------------------------------------ A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will vigorously defend lawsuits filed by City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System, Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, and Kaveny. The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, the Company, the members of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the underwriters of our March 21, 2014, initial public offering were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CE-276207. Several substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants, captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CE-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CE-279006 (filed April 6, 2015). The complaints seek to allege violations of the federal Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the initial public offering, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Based on information currently available, we are unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, in regards to these lawsuits; therefore, no accrued liabilities has been recorded in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets." AAA SNE: Sued Over Insurance Coverage in "Gricci" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Insurance Company v. AAA of Southern New England, Case No. 1:15-cv-12067 (D. Mass., June 3, 2015) seeks a declaration of Federal's alleged rights and obligations under Forefront Portfolio Policy For Not-For-Profit Organizations, Policy No. 8160-2913, issued to AAA SNE, with respect to a putative class action brought by John Gricci against AAA SNE, pending in the Court under Docket No. 1:15-cv-10589-MLW. The Plaintiff alleges that an actual controversy has arisen between the parties as to whether Federal has a duty to defend and indemnify AAA SNE with respect to the Underlying Action under the Policy. The Underlying Action was originally filed by John Gricci in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, on January 12, 2015. AAA SNE filed a notice of removal and removed the Underlying Action to the Court on February 27, 2015. In the Underlying Action, Mr. Gricci alleges he owns and operates a towing and repair facility business, Shamrock Towing, located in Winthrop, Massachusetts, which provided roadside assistance and towing services to AAA SNE's members in Massachusetts pursuant to a Second Amended and Restated Roadside Assistance Agreement with AAA SNE. Mr. Gricci alleges, among other things, that AAA SNE misclassified him and the Individual Class Members as independent contractors rather than employees, and failed to pay them wages and benefits as employees, in violation of the Massachusetts General Laws. Federal Insurance Company is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Warren, New Jersey. AAA of Southern New England is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. McGivney, Esq. David B. Stanhill, Esq. RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 330-7000 Facsimile: (617) 439-9556 E-mail: jmcgivney@rubinrudman.com dstanhill@rubinrudman.com AIRPORT TERMINAL: Accused of Discrimination & Retaliation in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox Bailey v. Airport Terminal Services, Inc, and Youliana Kouumdjieva, Individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-03161-FB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2015) seeks to redress alleged injuries the Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being subjected to discrimination solely based on his race (black) and retaliation for complaining about race discrimination. ATS is a Missouri domestic business corporation headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. ATS provides services to the aviation community. Youliana Kouumdjieva, an ATS employee, was the Plaintiff's supervisor. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicole Welch, Esq. Dorina Cela, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 620 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212)248-7431 Facsimile: (212) 901-2107 E-mail: nwelch@tpglaws.com dcela@tpglaws.com AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- James S. Murphy v. Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-00120 (E.D. Mo., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. is a Texas corporation that manufactures frozen ethnic foods and appetizers. The Plaintiff is represented by: James S. Murphy, Esq. PRO SE Patterson, MO 63956 RR 1, Box 13360 ALIMENTS CANDESA: Recalls Corn Products Due to Sulphites -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Aliments Candesa Foods Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9901 Industry is recalling Phoebe brand Mote Blanco / White Corn products from the marketplace because they may contain sulphites which are not declared on the label. People with sensitivity to sulphites should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have sensitivity to sulphites, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Phoebe Mote Blanco/ 396.9 g All codes 16712 01525 6 White Corn (14 oz) Phoebe Mote Pelado Blanco / Peeled White Corn 50 lb This product may have been sold in bulk. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected product are advised to contact their retailer. None Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/7EPQPP AMERICAN WATER: Federal District Court Denied Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------------- American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 9, 2015, the federal district court denied a motion to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal jurisdiction in a case relating to the Freedom Industries' spill. A separate motion to dismiss filed by American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC") and West Virginia - American Water Company ("WEAWC") (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses remains pending. Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended consolidated class action complaint for those cases ("federal action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to water contaminated with Crude MCHM and provided by WEAWC in Logan, Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam, and Kanawha Counties and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West Virginia as of January 9, 2014. The consolidated complaint names several individuals and corporate entities as defendants, including AWWSC, WEAWC and the Company. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for alleged business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a mechanism for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss of use of property, personal injury and other consequences allegedly suffered by purported class members; punitive damages and certain additional relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members from an alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent disease. ANTHEM INC: Faces "Leniski" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Leniski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-02992-HRL (N.D. Cal., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information from data breach. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eve H. Cervantez, Esq. Jonathan Weissglass, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421-7151 Facsimile: (415) 362-8064 E-mail: ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com jweissglass@altshulerberzon.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Lisa M. Port, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: lport@barrack.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq. Michael Stewart, Esq. Karla Campbell, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH AND JENNINGS, PLLC 227 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 250-3937 E-mail: gerards@BSJFirm.com mikes@BSJFirm.com karlac@BSJFirm.com ARCHER-DANIELS: Class Action Parties in Pretrial Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------------ Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are currently engaged in pretrial proceedings. On April 22, 2011, certain manufacturers and distributors of sugar cane and beet sugar products filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, other manufacturers and marketers of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), and the Corn Refiners Association, alleging that the defendants falsely claimed that HFCS is "natural" and nutritionally equivalent to sugar. Plaintiffs have submitted an expert report alleging as much as $1.6 billion in damages against all the defendants in the case, including the Company. Defendants vigorously deny the plaintiffs' allegations and have filed a counterclaim. The parties are currently engaged in pretrial proceedings. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain of the company's current and former executive officers and its board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of the company and issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin product, and other quality matters. Plaintiffs allege these actions damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the board of directors and certain of the company's current and former executive officers, and other damage to the company. A consolidated derivative suit filed in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois was settled with the plaintiffs in February 2015, and as a result the two other derivative actions previously filed in state courts, one in Lake County, Illinois and one in the Delaware Chancery Court, were dismissed. Separate from these actions, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the company and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock and the parties are currently proceeding with discovery. In April 2013, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action, which motion is pending. CAREER EDUCATION: Court Stayed "Enea" Case Pending Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has stayed the case Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc., pending a ruling on an appeal. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well- regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the appeal. CAREER EDUCATION: Trial Court Proceedings Stayed in "Surrett" ------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that all proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. "The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and we are awaiting the Court's decision. All proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal," the Company said. CAREER EDUCATION: Summary Judgment Motion Filed in "Wilson" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a motion for summary judgment in the case, Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. The Company said, "On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan." "On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied. "The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties have completed fact discovery as to the issue of liability. On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment." CENTURYLINK INC: To Contest Claims in Fulghum & Abbott Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants will continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott cases. The Company said, "In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims." "On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the plaintiffs. "On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. "On February 24, 2015, the Tenth Circuit ruled that the plan documents reviewed do not support any claim for vested benefits, and affirmed the district court's dismissal of claims based on those documents. The Tenth Circuit decision allows a subset of claims for vested benefits to return to the district court for further proceedings. "As to the subset, defendants anticipate successful motion practice in the district court. The Tenth Circuit also affirmed the district court's dismissal of all age discrimination claims. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's determination that ERISA's statute of repose is a time bar to the breach of fiduciary duty claims of fifteen named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs petitioned for further Tenth Circuit review on their claim for vested benefits. "We petitioned for further Tenth Circuit review regarding the ERISA statute of repose. On April 27, 2015, a revised Tenth Circuit panel opinion was issued with no material change in the outcome, and en banc review was denied. As to any further proceedings that may occur in the district court, defendants will continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and Abbott. We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability." CENTURYLINK INC: Settlements in 32 States Win Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that to date, parties in several class action lawsuits related to rights-of-way disputes have received final approval of settlements in 32 states. Several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) "For the most part, the complaints challenge our right to install our fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way," the Company said. "The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of- way as an easement that did not include the right to permit us to install our cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages." After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by- state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 32 states. The settlement administration process, including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing in relation to a number of these settlements. The parties have not yet received final approval in one state (New Mexico). There is one state where an action was at one time, but is not currently, pending (Arizona). "We have accrued an amount that we believe is probable for resolving these matters; however, the amount is not material to our consolidated financial statements," the Company said. CLEARSPRING LOAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Perez" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Myla A. Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ClearSpring Loan Services, Inc., NPA Associates LLP, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-01031 (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants are in the business of attempting to collect a debt. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Thomas Weber, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. WEBER 17155 New Hope Street Suite H Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Telephone: (657) 235-8359 Facsimile: (714) 459-7853 E-mail: ed@eweberlegal.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Case Management Held in Shareholder Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that case management was set for May 11, 2015, in the shareholder federal securities cases. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. The Company's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and remains pending before the court. Case management was set for May 11, 2015. The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case. CORELOGIC SAFERENT: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Witt, Tyrone Henderson, James O. Hines, Jr., John Moore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC, Docket No. 3:15-cv-00386-REP (E.D. Va., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. Matthew James Erausquin, Esq. CONSUMER LITGATION ASSOCIATES PC 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 273-7770 Facsimile: (888) 892-3512 E-mail: casey@clalegal.com matt@clalegal.com CRICKET WIRELESS: Removes "Barraza" Class Suit to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Barraza v. Cricket Wireless, LLC, et al., Case No. CGC 15-545624, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv- 02471-DMR to the proceeding. According to Top Class Actions, the lawsuit claims that the Defendants falsely advertised that they could provide customers with unlimited 4G/LTE services; however, actual coverage was rare. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith Allyn Robinson, Esq. 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (310) 849-3135 Facsimile: (818) 279-0604 E-mail: keith.robinson@karlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Raymond Paul Bolanos, Esq. AT&T SERVICES, INC. LEGAL DEPT. 525 Market Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 778-1357 Facsimile: (415) 882-4458 E-mail: rb2659@att.com CSOS LLC: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CSOS, LLC f/k/a Cornell Solutions, LLC and KLX Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00845 (W.D. Pa., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate an oilfield service company providing pressure control, well testing, flow-back, and other services to the oilfield with significant operations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com CYNOSURE INC: Falsely Marketed PicoSure Products, LDGP Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LDGP, LLC, d/b/a Hartsough Dermatology and all others similarly situated v. Cynosure, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-50148 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2015), is a class action based upon the alleged false and misleading representations and omissions of material fact made by the Defendants regarding the PicoSure Picosecond Aesthetic Workstation's ability to eliminate tattoos through the use of laser technology. Cynosure, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which specializes, in part, in the marketing and sale of medical devices including in the field of dermatology. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon C. Bruce, Esq. Joseph A. Power Jr., Esq. Jonathan M. Thomas, Esq. POWERS, ROGERS & SMITH 70 West Madison Street, Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-9381 E-mail: dbruce@prslaw.com jpower@prslaw.com jthomas@prslaw.com - and - Marc Gravino, Esq. John Holevas, Esq. Joel Huotari, Esq. WILLIAMS MCCARTHY, LLP 120 W. State Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 219 Rockford, IL 61105-0219 Telephone: (815) 987-8900 E-mail: mgravino@wilmac.com jhuotari@wilmac.com jholevas@wilmac.com DALLAS BARBER: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Brannon Morris v. Dallas Barber & Stylist College, Incorporated, Case No. 3:15-cv-02147-p (N.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Dallas Barber & Stylist College, Incorporated owns and operates a cosmetology school with its principle place of business located at 9357 Forest Lane, Dallas, TX 75243. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Urquidez, Esq. URQUIDEZ LAW FIRM, LLC 5440 Harvest Hill Rd., Suite 145E Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (214) 420-3366 Facsimile: (214) 206-9802 E-mail: tom@tru-legal.com DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiff in O&R Case to Limit Class ------------------------------------------------------ The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.), plaintiff has informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington. On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In April 2015, the Company entered into an agreement with the parent company of DBCC, Credibility, to acquire Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and equitable relief. On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices allegations. The Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motion and granted it. Specifically, the Court dismissed a contract claim with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the Company's motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims based on a joint venture or agency liability theory brought against the Company. The Court denied the motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the Company answered the SAC. At a court conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington. DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case ------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in the case, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)). On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die- Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation, and negligence. The complaint alleged deceptive trade practices, negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court, Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder product. On March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the amended complaint. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case ---------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in the case, Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv- 00451 (C.D. Cal.)) On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation ("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in violation of Sec. 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation claims. On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Vinotemp filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case --------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in the case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.)) On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Altaflo Case --------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in the case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)) On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. DUN & BRADSTREET: Files Answer to Amended Sentry Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint in the case, Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company v. The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01952 (SRC) (D.N.J.) On March 17, 2015, Sentry Insurance filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (collectively, the "Company"). The Complaint seeks a judicial declaration that Sentry, which issued a General Commercial Liability insurance policy (the "CGL Policy"), to the Company, does not have a duty under the CGL Policy to provide the Company with a defense or indemnification in connection with five putative class action complaints (the "Class Actions") filed against the Company and DBCC. Against the Company, the Class Actions complaints allege negligence, defamation and violations of state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's marketing and sale of credit monitoring products. Sentry's Complaint alleges that the Company is not entitled to a defense or indemnification for any losses it sustains in the Class Actions because the underlying claims in the Class Actions fall within various exceptions in the CGL policy, including exclusions for claims: (i) that arise from D&B's provision of "professional services"; (ii) that are based on intentional or fraudulent acts; and (iii) that are based on conduct that took place prior to the beginning of the CGL Policy periods. On March 26, 2015, Sentry filed and served an Amended Complaint which added several exhibits but did not otherwise materially differ from the original Complaint. The Company filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on April 16, 2015 and also asserted counterclaims. In addition, the parties have held informal discussions regarding a possible resolution to the dispute. The Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Decision in "Scranton" Case Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiff in the class action by John Scranton has filed a Notice of Appeal on April 27, 2015. On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company misrepresented through its website that it would always automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13, 2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint. A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March 11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10, 2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27, 2015. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Dropped as Defendant in Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a consolidated amended complaint does not identify the Company as a defendant or make any allegations regarding the Company. On April 18, 2014, a putative class action was filed by the City of Providence, Rhode Island against 41 high frequency trading firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that the high frequency trading firms, certain broker-dealers managing dark pools, and the exchanges manipulated the U.S. Securities markets, and that numerous market-makers and broker-dealers participated in that manipulation by doing business with the high frequency traders. As to the Company, the Complaint alleges violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On May 2, 2014, a similar putative class action was filed by American European Insurance Company against forty-two high frequency trading firms, stock exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action filed by American European Insurance Company made allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the City of Providence complaint. On June 13, 2014, a putative class action was filed by James J. Flynn and Dominic Morelli against twenty-six firms including the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Flynn Complaint made allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the City of Providence Complaint. The consolidated amended complaint does not identify the Company as a defendant or make any allegations regarding the Company. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action by Ty Rayner -------------------------------------------------- E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and attorneys' fees. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend indefinitely the due date for a response to the claim. The Company will defend itself vigorously in this matter. EMPIRE STATE: Bid to Approve Settlement Fund Distribution Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs' counsel has filed a motion with the court for its approval of distribution of the net settlement fund. No opposition to the motion was filed and it is currently pending. According to the Company, "In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the "Original Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County by investors in certain of the existing entities (constituting the predecessor and the non- controlled entities) (the "existing entities") on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March 12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffs asserted claims against our predecessor's management companies, Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M. Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that the terms of the consolidation and the process by which it was structured (including the evaluation that was employed) are unfair to the investors in the existing entities, the consolidation provides excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC (now our subsidiary) and its affiliates and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation filed with the SEC failed to make adequate disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about the consolidation. The complaints sought money damages and injunctive relief preventing the consolidation. The Original Class Actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel were appointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June 26, 2012. Further, an underlying premise of the Original Class Actions, as noted in discussions among plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel, was that the consolidation had been structured in such a manner that would cause investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. Associates L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the "subject LLCs") immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities." "The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received adequate access to relevant information, including the independent valuer's evaluation process and methodology, that the disclosures in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits, including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation, that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of the named class representatives intends to support the consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures, appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be consolidated into our company, and the interests of the investors in the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and they have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidation on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff class. "The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs. The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed, after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering, defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. "The payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and certain investors in the existing entities who agree to contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment. The settlement further provides for the certification of a class of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of the members of the class against the defendants and related persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors. The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed, so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to review such supplement. There was no such supplement that plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was subject to court approval. It was not effective until such court approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal. Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions. On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final settlement hearing. "On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non- consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of "fair value" in violation of the New York Limited Liability Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors' assertion that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary approval of the settlement. "Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC's favor, holding that such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New York Limited Liability Company Law. "On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement. On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are investors in all of the existing entities included in the consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can pursue separate claims for monetary damages. "Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on attorneys' fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0 million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are included within the $55.0 million settlement payment). "The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice of appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved before the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013, these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to perfect the appeal. "On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company, the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply. Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors who opted out of the class action settlement could pursue appraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of (and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing) any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the six investors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in fact opted out of the class action settlement. On September 13, 2013, these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed the motion to dismiss. On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief on the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to address the matter directly on the appeal, effectively referring the issues raised in the motion to the panel that was to hear the appeal itself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21, 2013, and in a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the trial court's ruling. "In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013 granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17, 2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6, 2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals were perfected by March 17, 2014. "On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court's ruling to the New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on April 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22, 2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals for leave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion was filed on July 11, 2014 and the court dismissed the motion by order dated September 18, 2014. On October 20, 2014, the investors moved to re-argue that dismissal. That motion was denied on December 17, 2014, and counsel for these investors has represented that the investors do not intend to pursue further appellate review of the court's April 30, 2013 ruling rejecting the challenge to the buyout provision. On March 3, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion with the court for its approval of distribution of the net settlement fund. In that motion plaintiffs' counsel also asked for additional fees and expenses to be paid out of the fund. On March 20, 2015, Malkin Holdings LLC filed a response to that motion in which it supported distribution of the fund and took no position on additional fees and expenses. No opposition to the motion was filed and it is currently pending. "On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions noted above perfected an appeal from the court's May 17, 2013 Final Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original Class Action Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and costs. By stipulation of all counsel to the appeal dated September 12, 2014, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. No other appeals were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the appeals court in its February 6, 2014 order. The Original Class Actions Settlement is final and non-appealable." EMPIRE STATE: Defendants File Brief in Class Action Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Defendants' brief in a class action appeal was filed April 22, 2015, and any reply was due May 1, 2015. The Company said, "Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions were consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages." "On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. "On January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal to include additional materials from the Original Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The motion was denied on March 5, 2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal by filing their brief and the appellate record with the court on March 23, 2015. Defendants' brief was filed April 22, 2015, and any reply is due May 1, 2015. Thereafter the appeals court will schedule argument. "We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If an appeal were successful and the court were ultimately to rule against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of monetary damages or other equitable relief." EXELIS INC: Two Class Actions Consolidated in S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------------- Exelis Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that two putative class action lawsuits were consolidated by order of the court dated April 20, 2015. On February 5, 2015, the Company entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Harris under which the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Harris when the transaction closes. Under the Merger Agreement, at the time of the merger, all issued and outstanding shares of Exelis common stock will be canceled and Exelis shareholders will receive $16.625 in cash and 0.1025 of a share of Harris common stock for each share of Exelis common stock they own. Upon closing, Harris shareholders will own approximately 85 percent of the combined company and Exelis shareholders will own approximately 15 percent. The proposed merger has been approved by the boards of directors of both companies. The transaction is expected to close during the second quarter of 2015, subject to customary closing conditions. There are no assurances that the proposed merger with Harris will be consummated on the expected timetable, or at all. The completion of the proposed merger is subject to certain conditions, including: (1) the approval of the Merger Agreement by Exelis' shareholders (on May 22, 2015, Exelis shareholders will vote to approve the Merger Agreement at a special meeting); (2) the expiration or termination of the applicable waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended; (3) receipt of required regulatory approvals, including all consents required to be obtained from the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to communications laws in connection with the merger; (4) the absence of certain legal impediments preventing the consummation of the merger; (5) the approval by the New York Stock Exchange of the listing of the shares of Harris common stock issuable to Exelis shareholders under the merger agreement; (6) the effectiveness of the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Harris relating to the shares of Harris common stock to be issued in the merger; (7) the truth of the representations and warranties of the parties and the compliance of the parties with their respective covenants, subject to customary qualifications including with respect to materiality; and (8) the absence of a material adverse effect occurring with respect to Exelis. To date, two putative class action lawsuits, captioned McGill v. Hake et al., Case No. 1:15-ce-00217, and The George Leon Family Trust, et al. v. Exelis Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-ce-00466, which are referred to collectively as the shareholder litigation, have been filed by purported Exelis shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against Exelis, the members of Exelis' board of directors, Harris and Harris Communications Solutions (Indiana), Inc. ("Merger Sub") in connection with the announcement of the merger. The two actions were consolidated by order of the court dated April 20, 2015. The operative complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Exelis have breached their fiduciary duties owed to shareholders by approving the proposed acquisition of Exelis by Harris, that Exelis, Harris and Merger Sub have aided and abetted the directors of Exelis in breaching their fiduciary duties, and that Exelis and its directors have made untrue statements of material fact and omitted material facts in the registration statement filed by Harris in connection with the merger, in violation of federal securities laws. Among other things, the shareholder litigation seeks to enjoin the merger. Exelis, Harris, Merger Sub, and their respective directors believe that the shareholder litigation and the underlying claims are without merit. EXIT PROS: Faces "Zamborowski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Zamborowski, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Exit Pros, LLC and William Heavener, Case No. 6:15-cv- 01050-ACC-KRS (M.D. Fla., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Volusia County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelly Hagan Chanfrau, Esq. CHANFRAU & CHANFRAU 701 N Peninsula Dr Daytona Beach, FL 32118 Telephone: (386) 258-7313 Facsimile: (386) 238-1464 E-mail: kelly@chanfraulaw.com FELLERS INC: Faces "Roddin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- April Roddin, Dennis Blades, and Dustin Contine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fellers, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00560 (W.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Fellers, Inc. is a wholesale supplier of wrap and banner products that is authorized to do business in Texas and is doing business in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Harris Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 98 San Jacinto Blvd. Suite 540 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 553-9390 Facsimile: (512) 692-2788 E-mail: akaplan@kaplanlawatx.com FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Aug. 10 Implementation of Cressy Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that implementation of the settlement in the Cressy class action shall commence on or about August 10, 2015. "Except for the Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et al. class action Complaint and the complaint filed by Dale R. Ludwick, there has been no material updates to our legal proceedings during the period," the Company said. "On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et al. Case No. BC-514340. The state court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5 million to settle the claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An Amended Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014. On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment in Cressy, finally certifying the class for settlement purposes, and finally approving the class settlement. The implementation shall commence on or about August 10, 2015. The parties will advise the Court when the settlement is complete. At March 31, 2015, the Company estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9 million and established a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $3 million. The Company has incurred and paid $4 million related to legal fees and other costs and $2 million related to settlement costs as of March 31, 2015. Based on the information currently available the Company does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. The Company is seeking indemnification from OM Group (UK) Limited ("OMGUK") under the First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock Purchase Agreement") between HFG and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. The Company has established an amount recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4 million, the collection of which the Company believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than the Company's estimate, but the Company anticipates that the amount recovered will not be materially different than its current estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves." FIDELITY & GUARANTY: No Trial Date Set in "Ludwick" Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has not set a trial date in the class action filed by Dale R. Ludwick. On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint asserts claims of violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and injunctive and declaratory relief. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages in an amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and injunctive relief, among other forms of relief. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a joint motion to dismiss the complaint that was filed by all of the defendants. As of March 31, 2015, the Company did not have sufficient information to determine that the Company is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million, which was accrued during the three months ended March 31, 2015. On April 2, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which requires the parties to: (i) hold a discovery conference by June 1, 2015; (ii) submit a discovery plan by June 15, 2015, with Plaintiff's counsel taking the lead "in preparing the proposed plan"; (iii) designate a mediator by June 15, 2015 (unless the discovery conference is held earlier, and then the designation is fourteen days after the conference); (iv) hold a mediation within 75 days after June 1, 2015, which would be approximately August 15, 2015. The Court has not set a trial date. FIRM BAXTER: Recalls Clinimix Products Due to Particulates ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2015 Posting date: June 22, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53900 Reason: Particulate matter found in the solution. Depth of distribution: Hospital Pharmacy Affected products: A. Clinimix DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02046709 Dosage form: Liquid Strength: Dextrose - 16.6 g/100 mL Glycine - 1040 mg/100 mL Histidine - 220 mg/100 mL L-Alanine - 1040 mg/100 mL L-Arginine - 520 mg/100 mL L-Isoleucine - 240 mg/100 mL L-Leucine Hydrochloride - 310 mg/100 mL L-Lysine Hydrochloride - 290 mg/100 mL L-Methionine - 290 mg/100 mL L-Phenylalanine Hydrochloride-310 mg/100 mL L-Proline - 210 mg/100 mL L-Threonine - 210 mg/100 mL L-Tyrosine - 20 mg/100 mL L-Valine - 230 mg/100 mL Tryptophan - 90 mg/100 mL Lot or serial number: W4J03C2 W4J14C1 W4J14C1S Recalling: Firm Baxter Corporation 7125 Mississauga Road Mississauga L5N 0C2 Ontario CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Baxter Corporation 7125 Mississauga Road Mississauga L5N 0C2 Ontario CANADA FORD: Recalls 18,226 Escape & Transit Connect SUVs -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 18226 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015278TC ID number: 2015278 Manufacturer recall number: 15C03 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 - Controls and Displays. The instrument cluster may not display safety warning lamps/messages, and sound chimes when the ignition key is first turned on, contrary to the requirements of the standard. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the instrument cluster. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FORD ESCAPE 2014 FORD TRANSIT CONNECT 2014 FORD: Recalls Escape & Transit Connect SUVs in Canada ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: SUV Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 18226 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015278TC ID number: 2015278 Manufacturer recall number: 15C03 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 - Controls and Displays. The instrument cluster may not display safety warning lamps/messages, and sound chimes when the ignition key is first turned on, contrary to the requirements of the standard. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the instrument cluster. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FORD ESCAPE 2014 FORD TRANSIT CONNECT 2014 GLOBAL NITROGEN: "Kaminski" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Kaminski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Nitrogen Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01830 (S.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Global Nitrogen Services, LLC owns and operates an oilfield service company providing nitrogen related services to the oilfield with significant operations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com GRAYSON COUNTY GLASS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grayson County Glass, Inc. d/b/a Nortex Glass & Mirror, and Woodrow J. Reid, Case No. 3:15-cv-02166 (N.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide glass and mirror services to customers throughout North Texas and Southern Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com forester@l-b-law.com GROUPON INC: Deadline to Elect to Terminate Deal Has Passed ----------------------------------------------------------- Parties in a class action against Groupon Inc., had until June 22, 2015 to make an election to terminate a settlement agreement or supplement the record consistent with an appellate court opinion in an effort to seek re-approval of the settlement, Groupon said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. In 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in a series of class actions that came to be consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The consolidated actions are referred to as In re Groupon Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. The Company denies liability, but the parties agreed to settle the litigation for $8.5 million before any determination had been made on the merits or with respect to class certification. Because the case had been filed as a class action, the parties were required to provide proper notice to the settlement class and obtain court approval for the settlement. During that process, certain individuals asserted various objections to the settlement. The parties to the case opposed the objections and on December 14, 2012, the district court approved the settlement over the various objections. Subsequent to the entry of the order approving settlement, certain of the objectors filed a notice of appeal, contesting the settlement and appealing the matter to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company and the Plaintiffs opposed the appeal and sought confirmation of the settlement approved by the District Court. On February 19, 2015, the Court of Appeals vacated the settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the proposed settlement consistent with the Court of Appeals' opinion. The litigation is now pending in the District Court. The parties have the right to terminate the settlement. Pursuant to an agreement of the parties and an order of the court, the parties have until June 22, 2015 to make this election or supplement the record consistent with the opinion from the Court of Appeals in an effort to seek re-approval of the settlement. The Company is presently analyzing its options with respect to this matter. HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Seven State Actions Consolidated --------------------------------------------------- Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., and Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has consolidated seven state actions under the caption, In re Consolidated HEI Shareholder Cases. Since the December 3, 2014 announcement of the merger agreement, eight purported class action complaints were filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit for the State of Hawaii by alleged stockholders of HEI against HEI, Hawaiian Electric (in one complaint), the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The lawsuits are captioned as follows: Miller v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14- 1-2531-12 KTN (December 15, 2014) (the Miller Action); Walsh v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2541-12 JHC (December 15, 2014) (the Walsh Action); Stein v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2555-12 KTN (December 17, 2014) (the Stein Action); Brown v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2643-12 RAN (December 30, 2014) (the Brown Action); Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-1-2642-12 KTN (December 30, 2014) (the Cohn State Action); Guenther v. Watanabe, et al., Case No. 15-1- 003-01 ECN (January 2, 2015) (the Guenther Action); Hudson v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0013-01 JHC (January 5, 2015) (the Hudson Action); Grieco v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-1-0094-01 KKS (January 21, 2015) (the Grieco Action). On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs in the Miller Action, the Walsh Action, the Stein Action, the Brown Action, the Guenther Action, and the Hudson Action filed a motion to consolidate their actions and to appoint co-lead counsel. The Court held a hearing on this motion on February 13, 2015 and granted consolidation and appointment of co-lead counsel on March 6, 2015. On March 10, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated state action filed an amended complaint, and added J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (JP Morgan), which was HEI's financial advisor for the Merger, as a defendant. On March 17, 2015, plaintiffs in the consolidated state action moved for limited expedited discovery. After limited discovery, the parties in the consolidated state action stipulated and the Court ordered that the deadline for defendants to respond to the amended complaint is extended indefinitely. On April 30, 2015, the Court consolidated the seven state actions under the caption, In re Consolidated HEI Shareholder Cases. On January 23, 2015, the Cohn State Action was voluntarily dismissed. Thereafter, the same alleged stockholder plaintiff filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii against HEI, the individual directors of HEI, NEE and NEE's acquisition subsidiaries. The lawsuit is captioned as Cohn v. Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. et al., 15-ce-00029-JMS-KSC (January 27, 2015) (the Cohn Federal Action). The actions allege, among other things, that members of HEI's Board breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction, and that the Merger Agreement involves an unfair price, was the product of an inadequate sales process, and contains unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. The complaints further allege that HEI, NEE and/or its acquisition subsidiaries aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek, among other things, (i) a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of HEI's directors' fiduciary duties, (ii) an injunction enjoining the HEI Board from consummating the Merger, (iii) an order directing the HEI Board to exercise their duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of HEI's stockholders, (iv) a rescission of the Merger to the extent that it is consummated, and/or (e) damages suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged actions. Plaintiffs in the consolidated state action also allege that JP Morgan had a conflict of interest in advising HEI because JP Morgan and its affiliates had business ties to and investments in NEE. The consolidated state action also alleges that the HEI board of directors violated its fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form S-4. In addition, the Cohn Federal Action alleges that the HEI board of directors violated its fiduciary duties and federal securities laws by omitting material facts from the Registration Statement on Form S-4. HEI and Hawaiian Electric believe the allegations of the complaints are without merit and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. H-E-B: Recalls Hamburger & Hotdog Buns Due to Foreign Material -------------------------------------------------------------- H-E-B, committed to the quality of its products, is issuing a voluntary recall for H-E-B brand hamburger and hotdog buns and Hill Country Fare hotdog buns due to the possible presence of foreign material that might impact the quality of the product. A terry cloth glove used for handling hot pans could have broken up in the dough, resulting in a potential choking hazard. No incidents have been reported. Product on the shelf as of Friday June 26 is not included in this recall. The voluntary recall impacts the following products: Description UPC Best Before Date Tie Color ----------- --- ---------------- --------- Hamburger Buns H-E-B 4.5 %100 4122083056 7/2/15-7/4/15 Org/Grn/Blue Wheat H-E-B TX Plain 4122074226 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue H-E-B TX Seeded 4122021761 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue H-E-B 4.5 Plain 4122023498 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue H-E-B 4.5 412210127 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue Seeded H-E-B 4.5 Whole 4122019164 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue Wheat Hotdog Buns H-E-B Wheat 4122019165 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue Coney HCF Coney 4122060201 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue (8 ct) HCF Coney 4122041461 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue (16 ct) H-E-B Coney 4122083910 7/3/15-7/4/15 Green/Blue (8 ct) Customers who purchased the product can return the product to the store for a full refund. Customers with any questions or concerns can contact H-E-B Customer Service at 1-855-432-4438. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm452998.htm HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Court Okayed $450,000 in Plaintiff Atty. Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heritage Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has approved the settlement in a class action and entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses totaling $450,000 and terminating the litigation. On April 4, 2014, Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage entered into and documented an agreement in principle among Washington Banking, its directors, Heritage and the plaintiffs for the settlement of the putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned In Re Washington Banking Company Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 13-2-38689-5 SEA, pending before the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County (the "Action"). The Action alleged that Washington Banking's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Washington Banking and its shareholders in connection with the transactions contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 23, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"), under which Washington Banking and Heritage combined their organizations in a strategic combination, with Washington Banking merging with and into Heritage. The Action also alleged, among other things, that Heritage aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by Washington Banking's directors and that the public disclosures concerning the Washington Banking Merger are misleading in various respects. On December 15, 2014, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement of the consolidated litigation and ordering WBCO to provide notice of the proposed settlement to those persons who held Washington Banking shares during the purported class period. On February 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing to consider whether the settlement was fair and reasonable to the class members and, if so, to approve the settlement and to consider plaintiffs' counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and costs from Washington Banking. At the hearing, the Court approved the settlement and entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice awarding plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses totaling $450,000 and terminating the litigation. The settlement of the Action did not affect the Washington Banking Merger consideration paid to Washington Banking's shareholders in connection with the completion of the Washington Banking Merger on May 1, 2014. Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage took the position that the Action was without merit and denied any wrongdoing of any kind. Washington Banking, its directors and Heritage entered into the settlement solely to eliminate the costs, risks, burden, distraction and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest. Nothing in the stipulation of settlement or any public filing, including this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity of filing or the materiality under applicable laws of any of the additional information contained herein or in any public filing associated with the settlement of the Action. HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Accord in Securities Suit Has Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Hi-Crush Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has issued a final Approval Order approving the proposed Settlement and dismissing with prejudice the complaints contained in the consolidated action. Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi- Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement with Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. ("Baker Hughes") in response to the repudiation of the agreement by Baker Hughes, the Partnership, our general partner, certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters were named as defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits brought by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, styled In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Cie-8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 15, 2013. That complaint asserted claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Partnership's Registration Statement and a subsequent presentation. Among other things, the consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to the market certain alleged information relating to Baker Hughes' repudiation of the supply agreement. On March 22, 2013, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 2, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the claims relating to the Partnership's Registration Statement, but did not dismiss the claims relating to alleged misrepresentations concerning the Partnership's relationship with Baker Hughes after the IPO. On September 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for the settlement of the consolidated action and release of all claims for $3.8 million, subject to the court's approval. On January 5, 2015, the court issued a final Approval Order approving the proposed Settlement and dismissing with prejudice the complaints contained in the consolidated action. HSN INC: Faces Stockholder Class Suit in Delaware Chancery Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- HSN, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company said, "in April 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the members of our Board of Directors and Bank of America Corporation ("BAC"). The complaint is captioned David Shave Profit Sharing Account v. HSN, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 10919-CB. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the members of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that BAC aided and abetted such breaches, in connection with the Credit Agreement dated as of January 27, 2015 (the "Credit Agreement"). The complaint alleges that the Credit Agreement contains a so-called "dead hand proxy put" provision that (a) defines the election of a majority of directors whose initial nomination arose from an actual or threatened proxy contest to be an event of default that triggers the lenders' right to accelerate payment of the debt outstanding under the Credit Agreement; and (b) thereby coerces stockholders and entrenches the members of the Board of Directors. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of costs and disbursements including attorney's and experts' fees. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the lawsuit. While an estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the range of loss cannot be made, we do not believe it will be material." IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Dismissal of Nasyrova Complaint Sought -------------------------------------------------------- Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Nasyrova class action lawsuit on April 13, 2015. A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of veltuzumab. On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 24, 2014 the District Court entered an order appointing John Neff as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. The defendants believe that the allegations in the class action complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014. On January 29, 2015 the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court's opinion concluded that Immunomedics had no duty to disclose issues raised with Takeda- Nycomed prior to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. The Court granted Plaintiffs thirty days from the date of the opinion in order to file an amended complaint. On February 27, 2015 a second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff alleging failure to disclose information related to the status of the agreement. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 13, 2015. The defendants continue to believe that the allegations in the class action complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: "Rothenberg" State Court Complaint Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Imperial Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Harry Rothenberg voluntarily dismissed a state court complaint. On January 20, 2015, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, and the individual members of the Board of Directors, in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, entitled Harry Rothenberg v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al. (the "State Court Complaint"), The Rothenberg State Court Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties of due care and seeks to invalidate the bylaw amendment adopted by the Board of Directors on October 30, 2014, which requires current and former shareholders who wish to file a class or derivative action against the Company, its directors or its officers to first obtain written consent from shareholders beneficially owning at least 3% of the outstanding shares of the Company. On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and motion to strike certain allegations in the State Complaint. On April 20, 2015, Mr. Rothenberg filed a Verified Shareholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the "Federal Court Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which names the same defendants and asserts similar claims as in the State Court Complaint. The Federal Court Complaint also alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Act, and asserts derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duty, among other claims, based on the previously disclosed IRS Investigation and allegations regarding our prior structured settlement business made in a case styled Michael Lafontant v. Washington Square Financial, LLC, et al. ("Lafontant Complaint"), which was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company has moved to dismiss the Lafontant Complaint based on contractual arbitration provisions, which is pending an order by the district court. On April 21, 2015, Mr. Rothenberg voluntarily dismissed the State Court Complaint, without prejudice. The Company has not established any provision for losses in respect of this matter. JAMP PHARMA: Recalls Piperacillin & Tazobactam Powder ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 23, 2015 Posting date: June 29, 2015 Type of communication: Drug Recall Subcategory: Drugs Hazard classification: Type I Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-53970 Reason: Potential presence of particulate matter. Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and pharmacies Affected products: AJ-PIP/TAZ (Piperacillin/Tazobactam) for injection DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM DIN 02391546 Dosage form: Powder for solution Strength: Piperacillin 4 g/vial Tazobactam 0.50 g/vial Lot or serial number: 7103921 7103959 7103960 Recalling Firm: JAMP Pharma Corporation 203 - 1380, rue Newton Boucherville J4B 5H2 Quebec CANADA Marketing Authorization Holder: Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC 85 Advance Road Etobicoke M8Z 2S6 Ontario CANADA JAYCO: Recalls 2014 Starcraft Ar-One Models Due to Crash Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 18, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Label Units affected: 20 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015273TC ID number:2015273 On certain travel trailers, the certification, tire and loading information labels do not contain correct tire size information. The labels incorrectly indicate a tire size of ST205/75R14C while the correct tire size is LT235/75R15C. As a result, the vehicle may inadvertently be fitted with incorrect replacement tires. Overloaded tires may lead to poor vehicle handling characteristics, which could result in a crash causing property damage and/or injury. Correction: Updated labels will be mailed to owners of affected vehicles, along with instructions for proper installation. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- STARCRAFT AR-ONE 2014 JL INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Mayonnaise, Dressing, & Tartar Sauce -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: JL International Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9893 Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Girard's Custom Real 2 x 1 gal All codes 034629 510176 Extra Heavy (US) where Mayonnaise mustard is not declared on the label. Girard's Custom Real 30 lb All codes 034629 510893 Extra Heavy where mustard Mayonnaise is not declared on the label. Girard's Custom Real 30 lb All codes 034629 510183 Extra Heavy where mustard Mayonnaise is not declared on the label. Girard's Cilantro 1 gal All codes 034629 559878 Pepita (US) where mustard Dressing is not declared on the label. Girard's Olde World 1 gal All codes 034629 592271 Bacon (US) where mustard Dressing is not declared on the label. Girard's Classic 1 gal All codes 034629 553579 Chunky (US) where mustard Bleu Cheese is not declared Dressing on the label. Girard's Seafood 1 gal All codes 034629 551377 Grotto Tartar (US) where mustard Sauce is not declared on the label. Girard's Creamy 1 gal All codes 034629 581275 Caesar (US) where mustard Dressing is not declared on the label. LAMA MEDITERRANEAN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Rodriguez-Flores, Allan Rodriguez-Flores, Roberto Flores, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Lama Mediterranean Cafe, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01833 (S.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Lama Mediterranean Cafe, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant specializing in fresh Mediterranean cuisine in Shenandoah, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM LLP 9801 Westheimer Road, Ste. 302 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 623-6399 E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com LEGGETT & PLATT: Parties in Direct Purchaser Cases Must Talk ------------------------------------------------------------ Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has ordered all parties in the U.S. Direct Purchaser class action cases to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing. The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in three pending direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15, 2010) on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products. The direct purchaser class action cases were all filed in or were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of direct purchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations. We filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser class actions in the consolidated case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim, which were denied by the Ohio Court. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the direct purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the Court certified the direct purchaser class. We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which was denied. The Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing." LEGGETT & PLATT: Appeal in Direct Purchaser Cases Goes to 6th Cir ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has transferred the appeal in certain U.S. Direct Purchaser class action cases to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Company said, "We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. direct purchaser class action cases on August 14, 2014, by agreeing to pay an aggregate amount of $39.8, inclusive of plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but settled the direct purchaser class cases to avoid the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The settlement was subject to Court approval. We recorded a $39.8 (pre-tax) accrual for the settlement in the third quarter 2014. In the fourth quarter of 2014, we paid $4 to the Court related to the settlement. Since the accrual is partially attributable to our former Prime Foam Products business, which was sold in the first quarter of 2007, $8.3 of expense was reflected in discontinued operations. The deadline for direct purchasers to exclude themselves from the litigation and settlement classes was January 26, 2015. A final fairness hearing was held on February 3, 2015, and on February 26, 2015, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and order granting the motion for final approval of the class settlement. Subsequently, final judgments of dismissal with prejudice were entered on March 13, 2015. On March 20, 2015, an objector filed a notice of appeal of the order approving the class settlement to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The direct purchaser class plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer the appeal on March 27, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss and transferred the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit." LEGGETT & PLATT: Trial to Begin in Mid-October in Ohio Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial is tentatively set to begin in mid-October 2015 in certain U.S. Indirect Purchaser class action cases. The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21, 2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers, bring damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer protection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount of damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future violations." "We filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action, for failure to state a legally valid claim. The Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss. Discovery is substantially complete in this case. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the Court certified the indirect purchaser class. The deadline for indirect purchasers to exclude themselves from the litigation was March 13, 2015. "We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which was denied. On November 18, 2014, we filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on March 2, 2015. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing. Trial is tentatively set to begin in mid-October 2015." LEGGETT & PLATT: Trial in 12 Direct Purchaser Cases to Begin Aug. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that trial in 12 of the individual direct purchaser cases is set to begin on August 18, 2015. The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in 34 pending individual direct purchaser cases filed between March 22, 2011 and October 16, 2013, which were filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The claims in the individual direct purchaser cases are generally the same as those asserted in the direct purchaser class action case. Additionally, several individual direct purchaser plaintiffs bring state claims under individual states' consumer protection and/or antitrust statutes in addition to their federal claims. Once pretrial practice concludes, some of the individual direct purchaser cases are scheduled to be tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and others will be remanded back to the federal district courts where the cases were originally filed for trial. Trial in 12 of the individual direct purchaser cases is set to begin on August 18, 2015." LEGGETT & PLATT: Ohio Court Says Kansas Case Must Be Remanded ------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an Ohio court has entered an order suggesting to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that a Kansas lawsuit be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The Company said, "We have been named as a defendant in two individual cases alleging direct and indirect purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, one filed on November 29, 2012 and the other on April 11, 2013. These two cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The claims and allegations of these plaintiffs are generally the same as the other direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs, with the exception that the Kansas plaintiffs seek full consideration damages (their total purchase amounts for the allegedly price-fixed polyurethane foam products). On April 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two actions filed a motion for immediate remand of those actions back to the District of Kansas federal district court for further pretrial practice and trial. On May 5, 2015, the Ohio Court entered an order suggesting to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that the Kansas case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas." LEGGETT & PLATT: Cert. Motion in "Robillard" Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, has a pending motion for certification, which has been postponed indefinitely. The Company said, "We were named in two Canadian class action cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al. in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CE- 10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CE-11-17279 (issued December 30, 2011). In each of these Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100 million, punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action. The first issued class action is on behalf of a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is on behalf of purchasers of carpet underlay. We are not yet required to file our defenses in these or any other Canadian actions." "In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et al. in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which was granted. This action has a pending motion for certification, which has been postponed indefinitely. We also were notified in June 2014 of two motions to add us as parties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Those proceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that one proposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (Majestic Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. ELC-S-S-106362 Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers of carpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 Vancouver Registry). The motion to add us as parties to these actions was heard on April 7, 2015 and the British Columbia Supreme Court ordered our addition as parties to the two actions in British Columbia. The British Columbia actions involve British Columbia purchasers only whereas the Ontario actions propose classes of Canadian purchasers." LEGGETT & PLATT: No Ruling on Missouri Case Reconsideration Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- Leggett & Platt, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has yet to receive a ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in a Missouri class action. The Company said, "On June 22, 2012, we were made a party to a lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CE15179 under the caption "Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees. We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied. Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification. A hearing on the motion was held, and the Court subsequently entered an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification on March 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of that order on March 30, 2015, but we have yet to receive ruling." LES DEPENDANCES: Recalls Munster Gerome Cheese Due to Bacteria -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Other Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Les Dependances Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9899 Les Dependances is recalling La Cigogne brand "Munster Gerome" cheese from the marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described below. These products may have been sold in smaller packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected products should check with their retailer. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ----------- La Cigogne "Petit 200 g All Best 8 31014 41380 3 Munster Before dates Gerome" up to and including 2015 AU 06 None La Cigogne "Munster 800 g All Best Gerome" Before dates up to and including 2015 AU 06 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/NATFLw LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Recalls Women's Top Due to Injury Risk ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with lululemon athletica of Vancouver, B.C., announced a voluntary recall of About 133,000 lululemon women's top in the United States and 185,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. When the elastic draw cord with a hard tip in the hood or around the neck area is pulled or caught on something and released, it can snap back, impact the face area and result in injury. The recalled tops have an elastic draw cord with hard metal or plastic tips in the hood or around the neck area. Recalled tops come in a variety of colors and styles, including Carry and Go Hoodie; Cool Down Jacket; Course-ette Jacket; Cozy Up Jacket; Dance Studio Jacket; Dance Sweat Shirt; Don't Hurry Be Happy Pullover; Gratitude Wrap; Necessity Jacket; Proactive Jacket; Refresh Snap Up; Run Sun Blocker Pullover; Run Track N Field Jacket; Run With It Jacket; Sanctuary Jacket; Savasana Tunic; Sing, Floss, Travel Jacket; Stow 'N Go Jacket; Stride Jacket; Summertime Tunic; Varsity Hoodie; Victory Jacket and Wear With All Jacket. Each top displays an embroidered or printed lululemon logo; the location of the logo varies with the style of the garment. There were seven reported incidents, resulting in seven injuries to the face and eye. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/1ECNDa The recalled products were manufactured in Bangladesh, China, Indonesia and Peru and sold at lululemon stores, online at www.lululemon.com and through select sales partners between January 2008 and December 2014 for $75-260. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Chapman" Suit in Iowa District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Chapman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holding, Inc., and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03118-MWB (N.D. Iowa, June 3, 2015) asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Granfield Arato, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROB TULLY 2501 Westown Parkway, Suite 1201 West Des Moines, IA 50266 Telephone: (515) 221-2600 E-mail: ben@robtullylaw.com MIXTURA LATINA: Recalls Peeled White Hominy Due to Sulphites ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Mixtura Latina Co. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9900 The food recall warning issued on June 19, 2015 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Mixtura Latina Co. is recalling Mixtura Latina Co. brand Mote Blanco Pelado / Peeled White Hominy from the marketplace because it may contain sulphites which are not declared on the label. People with a sensitivity to sulphites should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have a sensitivity to sulphites, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC Additional name ----------- ---- product --- info ----- ---------- ---------- Mixtura Mote Blanco 14 oz./ None None Sold from Latina Co. Pelado / 396.9 g Mixtura Peeled White Latina Co. Hominy located at 1104 Wilson Avenue in Toronto, Ontario. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/xp3Baj MOBILE MAINTENANCE: "Erickson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Steele Erickson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mobile Maintenance, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv- 00043 (N.D. Tex., June 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Mobile Maintenance, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that serviced fleets in numerous industries, including construction equipment, medium duty delivery, public transit, DOT, oilfield equipment and others. The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Alexander, Esq. Craig M. Sico, Esq. SICO WHITE HOELSCHER HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP 900 Frost Bank Plaza 802 N Carancahua Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 653-3300 Facsimile: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com csico@swhhb.com - and - Timothy D. Raub, Esq. RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C. 814 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 880-8181 Facsimile: (361) 887-6521 E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com NASDAQ OMX: Reply Due in "Providence v. BATS Global" Case --------------------------------------------------------- The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's reply was due on May 8, 2015, in the case, City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al. The Company said, "We are named as one of many defendants in City of Providence v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.), which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high- frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, as well as under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014. In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on March 24, 2015. Our reply is due on May 8, 2015." "On January 12, 2015, the court consolidated this case in a multi- district litigation proceeding under the heading In re Barclays Liquidity Cross and High Frequency Trading Litigation, 14-md-02589 (S.D.N.Y). The consolidated cases bring claims against Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital alleging that certain marketing materials about Barclays LX contained false or misleading statements. Although the Providence matter has been consolidated with the Barclays matter, separate motions to dismiss have been filed for each case. Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However, we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them vigorously." NASDAQ OMX: "Lanier v. BATS Exchange" Case Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the district court has entered an order dismissing the complaints Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al. The Company said, "we are named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories under state law based on these alleged breaches." "On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaints. The court heard oral argument on the motion on January 16, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing the complaints with prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act and in any event do not state a claim under the contracts." NASDAQ OMX: Faces Class Action by Stephen Rabin ----------------------------------------------- The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on February 5, 2015, I. Stephen Rabin filed a putative class action, Rabin v. John Doe Market Makers, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, and NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that options traders on the Nasdaq PHLX exchange were damaged when market makers on that exchange manipulated options in advance of dividend payments on underlying stock and exchange traded funds for their personal benefit. Plaintiff further alleges that -- with the assent of the Nasdaq defendants -- the unidentified market maker defendants (plaintiff states an intention to seek their identities from the Nasdaq defendants in discovery) damaged other writers of call options by executing among themselves prearranged manipulative matched options trades on an underlying security immediately prior to the date for the that security's dividend payment. The alleged class period is from February 6, 2010 through the present. Based on these allegations, plaintiff asserts claims against all defendants for securities fraud pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and for unjust enrichment. "We believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them vigorously," the Company said. NATURAL BALANCE: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Michele Madau, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. Natural Balance Pet Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04875-SJO-AJW (C.D. Cal., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bicvan T. Brown, Esq. Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Jennifer Han, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP APC 249 East Ocean Boulevard Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 E-mail: bbrown@mahoney-law.net kmahoney@mahoney-law.net jhan@mahoney-law.net NEWS CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in NAM 4th Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that The NAM Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is proceeding. On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which The Dial Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms, Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum Brands, Inc. ("Spectrum") allege various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America Incorporated ("NAI"), News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM FSI"), and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM In-Store Services" and, together with News Corporation, NAI and NAM FSI, the "NAM Group"), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on consent of the parties. The fourth amended complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on behalf of two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs' purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The NAM Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is proceeding. The District Court subsequently permitted Spectrum to voluntarily dismiss its claims without prejudice, subject to certain conditions. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April 5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not, however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing insert coupons. The NAM Group filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion on October 10, 2014, and the District Court heard oral argument on the motion on December 12, 2014. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. NORTHERN TOOL: Recalls Little Digger Toys Due to Lead Content ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Northern Tool + Equipment Company, Inc. of Fredericksburg, Va., announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 Little Digger Toy. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The red paint on the Little Digger toy frame contains excessive levels of lead, which is prohibited under federal law. This recall involves Wel-Bilt brand Little Diggers, Item # 28303. It is a stationary scooper toy with moveable poles that allow the child to scoop items up into the bucket. The item has a red powder-coated steel frame with a black plastic seat and black adjustable scoop with two yellow plastic grips on the poles and a six-sided frame base. The measurements are about 17 inches high and 25 inches wide. It has a manufacture date of August 2014 through June 2015. Wel-Bilt is printed on the front of the bucket and the manufacture date is written on the tracking label located on the bucket. The item number #28303 is printed only on the toy's packaging Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/yexAOT The recalled products were manufactured in China and Northern Tool + Equipment retail stores and catalogs and online at www.amazon.com, www.kotulas.com and www.northerntool.com from August 2014 through June 2015 for about $30. Consumers should immediately stop using the Little Digger Toy, put it out of reach of children and contact the firm for a full refund. NU SKIN: Defending Against Class Action Over China Probe -------------------------------------------------------- Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is currently being sued in a purported class action lawsuit and derivative claim relating to negative media and regulatory scrutiny regarding the Company's business in Mainland China and the associated decline in the Company's stock price. Beginning in January 2014, six purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. On May 1, 2014, the court consolidated the various purported class actions, appointed State-Boston Retirement System as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and appointed the law firm Labaton Sucharow as lead counsel for the purported class in the consolidated action. On June 30, 2014, a consolidated class action complaint was filed. The Company sought to dismiss the case; that motion was denied by an order issued on February 26, 2015. The consolidated class action complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of certain of the Company's stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Nu Skin Enterprises, Ritch N. Wood, and M. Truman Hunt and to assert claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Messrs. Wood and Hunt. The consolidated class action complaint alleges that, inter alia, the Company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its sales operations in and financial results derived from Mainland China, including purportedly operating a pyramid scheme based on illegal multi-level marketing activities. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the consolidated class action complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. OFT INC: Recalls Beef Bone Extract and Beef Concentrate Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- OFT Inc., a Henderson, Nev., establishment, operating as Whakyung Foods, Inc., is recalling approximately 67,232 pounds of commercial-use beef leg bone extract and beef concentrate products produced in Australia and New Zealand that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists. The concentrated extract items were produced and imported from July 29, 2014 through June 2, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 44 pound bags contained in brown cardboard boxes marked "Beef Leg Bone Extract" Manufactured by Est. 662, CJ Nutracon Ltd (Australia) --- 44 pound bags contained in brown cardboard boxes marked "Beef Leg Bone Extract" Manufactured by TBE1, Taranaki Bio Extracts Ltd (New Zealand) --- 44 pound bags contained in brown cardboard boxes marked "Beef Concentrate with Salt" Manufactured by Est. 662, CJ Nutracon Ltd (Australia) The products subject to recall bear the establishment certification "New Zealand TBE1 Inspected" for the beef leg bone extract and identifier "Est. 662 PRODUCT OF AUSTRALIA" for the beef leg bone extract and beef concentrate with salt. The problem was discovered on June 8, 2015 during routine FSIS surveillance activities of imported products conducted by the Recall Management and Technical Analysis Staff (RMTAS). FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Jason Lee, President of OFT, Inc, at (702) 778-6401. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. PETM CANADA: Recalls Plastic Aquarium Heaters Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2015 Posting date: June 22, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Electrical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-53815 This recall involves 50W, 100W, 150W, 200W and 250W Top Fin brand plastic aquarium heaters. The black cylindrical-shaped heaters are about 4 centimeters in diameter and about 33 centimeters in length. Heaters with the following model numbers are included in this recall. Top Fin Plastic Aquarium Heater (50W, 100W, 150W, 200W, 250W) Model UPC Description Certification Number --- ----------- authorization ------ number ------------- HT50 73725745804 Top Fin plastic aquarium 50W UL E230625 heater HT100 73725745800 Top Fin plastic aquarium 100W UL heater E230625 HT150 73725745801 Top Fin plastic aquarium 150W UL heater E230625 HT200 73725745802 Top Fin plastic aquarium 200W UL heater E230625 HT250 73725745803 Top Fin plastic aquarium 250W UL heater E230625 Model numbers are printed on the side of the heater near the top. The aquarium heaters may overheat or short circuit, posing a fire or electrical shock hazard. Neither Health Canada nor PetSmart has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada related to the use of these aquarium heaters. PetSmart, Inc. has received reports of 13 incidents in the United States, including four reports of minor electrical shock to consumers, seven reports of water tanks overheating and one report of minor property damage due to an electrical shortage resulting in fire. Approximately 4830 units were distributed to PetSmart's retail stores across Canada. Approximately 112,200 were distributed to PetSmart, Inc. stores in the United States. The recalled products were sold from August 2014 to March 2015 in Canada and from August 2014 to April 2015 in the United States. Manufactured in China Manufacturer: Shenzhen Xing Risheng Industrial Co., Ltd. CHINA Importer: PETM Canada Corporation, operating as PetSmart Burlington Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled aquarium heater and return it to any PetSmart store for a full refund. For more information, consumers can contact PetSmart toll-free at 1-888-839-9638 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. MT, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website and click on " Product Recalls" listed under the "Shop With Us" category. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Ejsqov PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Ranch Salad Dressing Due to Eggs -------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Foods Group LLC is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of its Wish-Bone Ranch Salad Dressing variety, due to the product containing Wish-Bone Blue Cheese Dressing, inadvertently packed in Ranch Salad Dressing bottles and was brought to our attention by a consumer. This product contains eggs, a known allergen not declared on the packaging. Those people who have allergies or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. If you are not allergic to eggs, this product is safe to eat. No illnesses have been reported to date. The Food and Drug Administration has been made aware of this recall. The product was produced on April 23, 2015 by a contract manufacturer. In total, 8,678 cases of Wish-Bone Ranch Salad Dressing in 24 oz. bottles, distributed nationwide, are involved in the recall. The 'Best Used By' date can be found on the neck label of the bottle. No other Wish-Bone products are included in this recall. Specific details of the product being recalled are outlined below. Flavor UPC CODE Best Used By date ------ -------- (found on neck label of bottle) ------------------------------ Wish-Bone Ranch 0-41321-00661-6 FEB 17 16 Salad Dressing - 24 oz. All affected distributors and retail customers, as well as the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN), are being notified and the affected product is being removed from store shelves. Consumers who may have purchased the recalled product can return it for a full refund at the place of purchase. Consumers with questions should call 1-888-299-7646 Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm452492.htm PINNACLE FOODS: Recalls Stuffing Baked Turkey Products ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: June 23, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Labelling Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Pinnacle Foods Canada Corporation Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9903 Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC name ----------- ---- product --- ----- ---------- Swanson Stuffing 383 g MAR-06-15 to 6 91479 11914 2 Baked Turkey SEP-01-16 POSITEC TOOL: Recalls Worx Electric Blowers Due to Shock Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Positec Tool Corp., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 24,300 Worx electric blower/vacs and 370 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The grounded and ungrounded wiring in the electric blower/vacs could be reversed, posing a shock hazard to consumers. This recall involves Worx brand electric blower/vacs. The blower/vacs are black, measure 11 inches high by 19.5 inches long and have the "Worx" logo printed on the side of the motor housing. The model and serial numbers are printed on the opposite side of the motor housing. Model number WG507 and a serial number in one of the following ranges are included in this recall. Model Number Serial number ranges ------------ -------------------- WG507 201418000134 through 201418018263 201418018268 through 201418021382 201511000379 through 201511001397 No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/LMk7LQ The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Menards and Walmart stores nationwide from January 2015 through May 2015 for about $40. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. RAND BK: Recalls Raw Cashew Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------- RAND BK CORP. of MASPETH, NEW YORK is recalling 450 CASES OF GOODIES CASHEW RAW 9OZ, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The product was labeled as "GOODIES BY NATURE RAW CASHEWS 9oz." and was packed in 9oz. clear plastic tubs. The recalled product has sell-by dates of 04.29.2016 and 05.02.2016 and a UPC code of 846034010055. Recalled items were sold in NY, NJ, PA, VA, MD, and GA in "H Mart "retail stores. No illnesses have been reported to-date. Based upon routine testing conducted by an FDA-contracted laboratory, it was determined that the raw cashew tested positive for Salmonella. Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and may bring in their receipt to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718- 417-5607, Monday through Friday 9am,-5pm, EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453007.htm RESONANT INC: Defending Against John Paggos Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 17, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company, Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John Paggos v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-ce-01970-SJO-EBK. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. "The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between August 14, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the "Paggos Class Period"). The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Paggos Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action," the Company said. RESONANT INC: Defending Against John DeVouassoux Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 19, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company, Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John DeVouassoux v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-ce-02054-JFW-EBK. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. "The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between November 6, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the " DeVouassoux Class Period"). The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our financial well-being and prospects, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the DeVouassoux Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action," the Company said. RESONANT INC: Defending Against Ramon Arias Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company, Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Ramon Arias v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-ce-02369-DDP-MAN. Later the same day, an amended complaint was filed. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. "The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between August 14, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the "Arias Class Period"). The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Arias Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action," the Company said. RGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Liebowitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RGS Financial, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-04454-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com SAPUTO INC: Recalls Roquefort Cheese Due to Staphylococcus ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Saputo Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9895 The food recall warning issued on June 17, 2015 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Industry is recalling Papillon brand Roquefort Cheese from the marketplace because it may contain the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected product should check with their retailer. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ --- Papillon Roquefort Variable All codes up to Variable and including Best Before: 2015.09.15 SAVIT COLLECTION: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Alexa Politi, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Gil Vigneault, Savit Collection Agency, and Savit Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv- 04425 (D.N.J., June 26, 2015), Case No. MID-L-03209-15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-04425-PGS-DEA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claim under the Fair Debt Collection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ivan Rubin, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545-7900 E-mail: drubin@wolflawfirm.net SCHOOL SPECIALTY: Recalls NeoRok Stools Due to Fall Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with School Specialty, Inc. of Greenville, Wisc., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,350 Classroom Select NeoRok Stools. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The stool can break during use, posing a fall hazard. This recall involves three models of Classroom Select NeoRok Stools with a tilting and rocking feature, for use by children in the classroom. Recalled stools were sold in three sizes: 15 inch tall (Item Number 1496633), 18 inch tall (Item Number 1496340) and 20 inch tall (Item Number 1496342). The Classroom Select logo/name is printed on one side of the base and the NeoRok name is printed on the other side of the base. The stools have a round black rubber seat insert with a solid color plastic seat and black rimmed base. The stools were sold in five colors: Pistachio (green), Paprika (orange), Periwinkle (light blue), Cardinal (red) and Marine (navy blue). School Specialty has received two reports of stools breaking. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/IF9Edd The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Classroom Direct catalogs, School Specialty Furniture and Equipment catalogs, School Specialty Education Essentials catalogs, School Specialty Early Childhood catalogs, and on www.schoolspecialty.com from May 2015 through June 2015 for between $105 - $115. Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled stools and may contact School Specialty. School Specialty is contacting consumers directly and sending free replacement stools with a prepaid return shipping label and instructions. SHRED-TECH CORP: Recalls Business Class M2 106 Model Trucks ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 19, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 12 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015276TC ID number: 2015276 On certain mobile document shredder vehicles, installation of the shredding equipment combined with the increased weight of additional emissions components may have caused the vehicle weight to exceed the front gross axle weight rating (GAWR). This would result in vehicle being overloaded, potentially affecting vehicle handling characteristics, which could result in a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: For vehicles built on the Freightliner M2 106 chassis, dealers will place a new compliance label to reflect an increased GAWR (to 9000 lbs from 8000 lbs). For vehicles built on the Hino 258LP chassis, correction to be determined. SOLARCITY CORP: Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint Due ------------------------------------------------- SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs had until June 19, 2015 to file an amended complaint to attempt to remedy the defects in the original complaint. On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its officers. The complaint alleges claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the District Court dismissed the complaint. The plaintiffs had until June 19, 2015 to file an amended complaint to attempt to remedy the defects in the original complaint. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. SR SUNTOUR: Recalls 101,600 Bicycles in U.S. and Canada ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with SR Suntour North America, of Vancouver, Wash. (bicycle forks), announced a voluntary recall of about 68,000 Bicycles with SR Suntour bicycle forks in the United States and 33,600 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The bolt that attaches the upper part of the bicycle's fork to the lower part of the fork can break or separate and cause the front wheel to come off the bicycle. This is a crash hazard for riders. This recall involves Cannondale, Diamondback, Giant, GT, INA International, Schwinn, Scott and Trek brand bicycles with SR Suntour bicycle forks models M3010, M3020, M3030, NEX and XCT. The recalled forks have serial numbers in the top row beginning with "K" and ending with a number between 141101 and150127. The fork model and serial numbers are located on the back of the fork's crown. The serial number is the first row. The model number is in the second row. "SR Suntour" is printed on stickers on both sides of the fork legs. A detailed list of the specific model numbers included in the recall is on the firm's website. There have been 15 reports of the bolts breaking or separating from the bicycles, including two reports of minor injuries, including abrasions, cuts and bruises. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/h1bLYE The recalled products were manufactured in Kunshan, China and sold at bicycle stores, sports stores and mass merchandisers from November 2014 through May 2015 for between $300 and $400 for the bicycles. Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles with the recalled SR Suntour bicycle forks and return the bicycle to the place of purchase for a free inspection and repair. SUN-MAID GROWERS: Sued Over Improper Pay and Rest/Break Policies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathon Talavera, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Sun-Maid Growers of California, a California Corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 1:15- cv-00842-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal., June 3, 2015) challenges the Defendants' alleged policy and practice of requiring their nonexempt employees, including the Plaintiff, to work substantial amounts of time without pay and failing to provide their nonexempt employees with the meal and rest periods to which they are entitled by law at their plants in California. Sun-Maid Growers of California, is a California Corporation. The Company is a food processor in Fresno County, California. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cory G. Lee, Esq. THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 291-3333 Facsimile: (610) 813-4579 E-mail: downeyjusticelee@gmail.com SUNSHINE USA: Sued Over Fair Labor Standard Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------- Yanhua Zhang, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Sunshine USA, Inc., d/b/a Wu Liang Ye, Ru Qiu Li, and Liang Zhang, Case No. 1:15-cv-05031 (S.D.N.Y., June 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yanhua Zhang PRO SE SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Motion to Decertify Class Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to decertify the entire class in the case, Arizona Owner- operator Class Action Litigation, remains pending before the court. On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CE7-472 ("the Garza Complaint"). The putative class originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and because the named owner-operator class representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month period under a one-year contract that no longer exists. In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court. On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class size based on statute of limitations. On November 13, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to add new class representatives for the employee class and therefore the employee class remains without a plaintiff class representative. On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions for summary judgment 1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee class since there is no class representative; and 2) to dismiss plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Swift filed a motion to decertify the entire class which remains pending before the court. The matter is scheduled for trial in October 2015. The Company intends to continue to pursue all available appellate relief supported by the record, which the Company believes demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further, that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassification Class Action in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Ninth Circuit Owner-operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation remains pending in the District Court and is currently in discovery. On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 9-CIE-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("the Sheer Complaint"). The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30, 2010, the District Court granted Swift's motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of arbitration. The District Court further denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class certification. The District Court also denied plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class. The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the District Court's September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and thereafter the District Court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010 order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the District Court's September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration, alleging that the agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration agreements. On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, stating its prior published decision, "expressly held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA as a threshold matter." As a consequence of this determination by the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of certiorari. The matter remains pending in the District Court and is currently in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any proceedings. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Developments in Calif. Wage Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there have been no significant developments since December 31, 2014, to the California Wage, Meal and Rest Employee Class Actions. On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Case No. CIEDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Bernardino ("the Burnell Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. EDCE10-809-EAP. The putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the four years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment. The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of proceedings pending determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift, Brinker v. Hohnbaum, which was then pending before the California Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the Brinker matter and in August 2012 the stay in the Burnell Complaint was lifted. On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the California Labor Code. Plaintiff has appealed. Minimum wage claims (specifically that pay per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving-related services), timeliness of such pay and the issue of class certification remain pending. On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the Burnell Complaint. This class action is James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIEDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino ("the Rudsell Complaint"). The Rudsell Complaint has been stayed pending a resolution in the Burnell Complaint. The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the court will address the merits of the case, and the Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages pending a determination of class certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the class in both matters, as well as the merits of these matters, should the classes be certified. The final disposition of both cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be determined at this time. There have been no significant developments to these cases since December 31, 2014. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Class Action Currently Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action by Lawrence Peck is currently stayed. On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift Transportation Co. Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside ("the Peck Complaint"). The putative class includes current and former non-exempt employee truck drivers who performed services in California within the four-year statutory period alleging that Swift failed to pay for all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses, failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wage statements. Peck is currently stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell and Rudsell cases, based on the similarity of the Peck claims to the claims in those earlier filed cases. The final disposition of the case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wash. OT Class Suit to Move Into Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Washington Overtime Class Action is anticipated to move into discovery. On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County ("the Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2- 114380. The putative class includes all current and former Washington State-based employee drivers during the three-year statutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit through to present and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they suffered unlawful deductions from wages. On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as it pertains to "dedicated" drivers and did not certify any other class, including any class related to over the road drivers ("OTR Drivers"). The parties dispute the definition of "dedicated" as used by the court and a class notice has not yet been issued. The matter is now anticipated to move into discovery. The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the merits of these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Case v. Central Refrigerated in Discovery --------------------------------------------------------------- Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a collective action involving Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., et al., is currently in discovery. On June 1, 2012, a collective and class action complaint was filed by Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons against Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes: Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree individually and on behalf themselves and all similarly situated persons v. Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. ED CE 12-00886 ("the Cilluffo Complaint"). The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Central misclassified owner-operators as independent contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit also raises a claim of forced labor and state law contractual claims. On September 24, 2012, the California District Court ordered that the FLSA claim proceed to collective arbitration under the Utah Uniform Arbitration Act ("UUAA") and not the FAA. The September 24, 2012 order directed the arbitrator to determine the validity of proceeding as a collective arbitration under the UUAA, and then if the arbitrator determines that such collective action is permitted, then the arbitrator is to consider the plaintiff's FLSA claim. On November 8, 2012, the California District Court entered a clarification order clarifying that the plaintiff's FLSA claim was to proceed to collective arbitration under the UUAA, but the plaintiff's forced labor claim and state law contractual claims were to proceed as individual arbitrations for those plaintiffs seeking to pursue those specific claims. Central filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion for interlocutory appeal of the California District Court's orders, both of which were denied and the claims are proceeding to collective and individual arbitration as originally ordered. On December 9, 2013, the arbitrator determined that the issue of misclassification as it relates to the FLSA will proceed as a collective arbitration; however, the plaintiffs forced labor claim and state law claims of contractual misrepresentation and breach of contract must proceed on an individual arbitration basis and not as a class. The matter is currently in discovery. Central intends to vigorously defend collective arbitration in the Cilluffo Complaint, as well as the merits of the FLSA claim and any individual arbitration matters that are filed, and proceed on the forced labor and state contract law claims. The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time. TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action in Early Stages of Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a consolidated class action lawsuit is now in the early stages of discovery. The Company, two of its former executive officers, five of its outside directors, and certain companies affiliated with the directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., et al. Several related actions were filed in 2013, and then consolidated. The plaintiffs are three investors who seek to represent a class or classes consisting of (1) all purchasers of Tile Shop common stock between August 22, 2012 and January 28, 2014 (the "alleged class period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) all purchasers of Tile Shop common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's December 2012 and June 2013 registration statements, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Eight firms who were underwriters in the December 2012 and June 2013 secondary public offerings are also named as defendants. In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint") filed on May 23, 2014, the plaintiffs allege that certain defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact in press releases and SEC filings about the Company's relationships with its vendors, its gross margins, and its supply chain and producer relationships, and that defendants failed to disclose certain related party transactions. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In addition to attorney's fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the members of the purported classes. The defendants are vigorously defending the matter. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in July 2014, and that motion was granted in part and denied in part by an Order of the court on March 4, 2015. The matter is now in the early stages of discovery. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Posting Order Settlement Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the District Court has granted final approval of the Posting Order Settlement Payment. On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and Trust Company, a division of Synovus Bank, were named as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. On August 23, 2014, Synovus reached a settlement in principle with plaintiffs' counsel to settle the Posting Order Litigation. Under the settlement in principle, Synovus shall cause to be paid $3.75 million plus payment of $150,000 in settlement expenses (the "Posting Order Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Posting Order Litigation and other material and customary terms and conditions. The District Court granted final approval of the Posting Order Settlement Payment on April 2, 2015. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: TelexFree Litigation Plaintiffs Drop Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Synovus Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by Plaintiffs in the TelexFree Litigation. On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re: TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH, United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit. An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. The claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus- related entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending. TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC "Base Commerce", an independent sales organization/member service provider sponsored by Synovus Bank. The purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services and that the various defendants, including Synovus Bank, provided financial services to TelexFree that allowed TelexFree to conduct its business operations. Synovus Bank believes it has substantial defenses related to these purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims asserted. Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate losses attributable to this matter. TOP RANK: Faces "Schofield" Suit in N.J. Over Pacquiao's Injury --------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Schofield and Nycole Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04540-NLH-KMW (D.N.J., June 26, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015. Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc A. Goldich, Esq. David Jacoby, Esq. Kimberly Aponte Borden, Esq. SHELLER, P.C. 1528 Walnut St., 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 790-7300 Facsimile: (215) 546-0942 E-mail: mgoldich@sheller.com djacoby@sheller.com kaponte@sheller.com - and - David Woloshin, Esq. Jordan Schlossberg, Esq. ASTORWEISS KAPLAN & MANDEL, LLP 200 South Broad Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 790-0100 Facsimile: (215) 790-0509 E-mail: dwoloshin@astorweiss.com jschlossberg@astorweiss.com TRANS CONTINENTAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Gayyell N. Cammock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trans Continental Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-05023-AJN (S.D.N.Y., June 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City PLaza, Ste 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile: (516) 281-7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com TRANSOCEAN LTD: No Oral Argument Yet in Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that oral argument has not yet been scheduled in a proposed federal securities class action. The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming us, former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired companies as defendants. In the action, a former shareholder of the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement relating to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of the alleged violations and sought compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the plaintiff and the proposed class members. In connection with this action, we are obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to a deductible. On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the claims as time-barred. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and filed an opening brief on December 19, 2014. On February 17, 2015, defendants filed their brief in opposition. On March 3, 2015, plaintiffs filed their reply brief. Oral argument has not yet been scheduled." US GYPSUM: Removes "Arredondo" Labor Suit to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Arredondo v. United States Gypsum Company, et al., Case No. ECC08706, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Imperial to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01247- BAS-KSC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq. SULLIVAN LAW GROUP LLP 2330 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 702-6760 Facsimile: (619) 702-6761 E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com The Defendants are represented by: Tracey Adano Kennedy, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com US SECURITY: Faces "Decaro" Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Decaro, on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated individuals v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv- 01329-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla., June 3, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com VIASYSTEMS GROUP: Parties in TTM Merger Suit Entered Into MOU ------------------------------------------------------------- Viasystems Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in the litigation relating to the Technologies, Inc. ("TTM") Merger entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, documenting the agreement-in-principle for the settlement of the Missouri Lawsuit. The Company said, "Since the public announcement on September 22, 2014, of the proposed Merger with TTM, we, the Company's board of directors, TTM and Merger Sub, have been named as defendants in two putative class action complaints challenging the Merger. The first lawsuit, filed on September 30, 2014, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri (the "Missouri Lawsuit"), and the second lawsuit, filed on October 13, 2014, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Lawsuit" and, together with the Missouri Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"), generally allege, among other things, that the Merger fails to properly value our company, and that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger agreement and that those breaches were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub and the Company." "The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other allegations, that (1) the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly inadequate consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with deal protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the Company's board of directors and management are divided; (2) the Voting Agreements prevent the Company's stockholders from providing a meaningful vote on the proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM, Merger Sub, and the Company. "Further, the Missouri Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other allegations, that (1) the Merger is the result of an unfair and flawed process because TTM's financial advisor conspired with the Company's two largest stockholders and their affiliates to sell the Company to TTM without the knowledge of the Company's board of directors; (2) the Merger is unfair because it undervalues Viasystems; (3) the Company's board of directors and the Company's management have a conflict of interest due to the cash pool bonus and change in control payments to be made to certain executive officers and key employees if the Merger is consummated; (4) the Merger is unfair because the Merger Agreement contains preclusive deal protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer for Viasystems and prevent the Company's stockholders from providing a meaningful vote on the proposal to adopt the Merger Agreement; and (5) the definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus mailed on or about November 10, 2014 to the Company's stockholders of record as of November 6, 2014 (the "Proxy Statement") failed to provide the Company's stockholders with material information regarding the Merger. The Lawsuits seek, among other things, injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the terms therein, costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief as the court deems proper. Viasystems believes the Lawsuits are without merit. "On December 8, 2014, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit agreed in principle to resolve all claims against the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, TTM, and Merger Sub. The agreement contemplated a release and settlement by the Company's stockholders of all claims against the Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, TTM, and Merger Sub, and in exchange Viasystems would promptly make certain agreed-upon supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger that the plaintiff in the Missouri Lawsuit alleged were material to the Company's stockholders considering whether to vote to adopt the Merger Agreement. On December 9, 2014, in accordance with the parties' agreement, Viasystems filed with the SEC on Form 8-K the agreed- upon supplemental disclosures regarding the Merger (the "Supplemental Disclosures"). "On January 6, 2015, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, documenting the agreement-in-principle for the settlement of the Missouri Lawsuit. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be received by the Company's stockholders pursuant to the Merger Agreement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a definitive settlement agreement, or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such definitive settlement agreement. In the event that the parties enter into a definitive settlement agreement, a hearing will be scheduled, following notice to the Company's stockholders, at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions (including the Delaware Lawsuit) that were or could have been brought challenging or otherwise relating to any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith. The defendants to the Lawsuits deny all fault or liability, and deny that they have committed any of the unlawful or wrongful acts alleged in the Lawsuits or otherwise in relation to the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or any of the events/actions related thereto, and specifically deny that any further disclosure was required to supplement the Proxy Statement under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The Company agreed to provide the Supplemental Disclosures solely to minimize the cost of defending the Lawsuits and to permit the stockholder vote on the Merger Agreement to proceed without delay." WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Raw Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market is voluntarily recalling packaged raw macadamia nuts due to possible Salmonella contamination. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The product was labeled as "Whole Foods Market Raw Macadamia Nuts" and was packaged in 11 oz. plastic tubs. The recalled product has best-by dates of March 19, 2016 through June 21, 2016 and a UPC code of 0-76958-62059-1. Recalled items were sold in AR, AZ, CA, CO, HI, KS, LA, NM, NV, OK, TX, and UT Whole Foods Market Stores. No illnesses have been reported to-date. Based upon routine testing conducted by an FDA-contracted laboratory, it was determined that the raw macadamia nuts tested positive for Salmonella. Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and may bring in their receipt for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Whole Foods Market Customer Service, 512-477-5566 ext. 20060 Monday to Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm CDT. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm452907.htm WILLBROS GROUP: CEO Added as Defendant in Consolidated Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willbros Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a consolidated complaint was filed in which the Company's current chief executive officer was added as a defendant. After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 28, 2014 seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants in the case are the Company and its former chief executive officer and current chief financial officer. On January 31, 2015, the court named two employee retirement systems as Lead Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2015, a consolidated complaint was filed in which the current chief executive officer of the Company was added as a defendant. The complaint in the case, now entitled In re Willbros Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising out of the restatements of the Company's first and second quarter 2014 financial statements and seeks undisclosed damages. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the case. As this matter is at a very early stage, the Company is not able at this time to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. WORLD JOURNAL: Sued Over Alleged Age & Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Yun Fang Teng, Eshin Nee and Ming Hong Han, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. World Journal LLC and Jen Feng Yang, Case No. 1:15-cv-03743-MKB-VVP (E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2015), arises out of the Defendants discriminatory practices based on the age and national origin discrimination. The Defendants operate and distribute one of the largest Chinese- language newspapers in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com WPX ENERGY: Parties Agree to Stay New Colorado Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties have agreed to stay the new lawsuit filed in the District Court, Garfield County. In September 2006, royalty interest owners in Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in District Court, Garfield County, Colorado, alleging we improperly calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for proceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extracted products, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners, recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments related to calculation errors. "We entered into a final partial settlement agreement," the Company said. "The partial settlement agreement defined the class for certification, resolved claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding royalty payments, established certain rules to govern future royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the future, and reserved two claims for court resolution. We have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on the first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain lease agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of whether we are required to have proportionately increased the value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline transmission lines and, if required, whether we did so and are entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs in calculating royalty payments." "Plaintiffs had claimed damages of approximately $20 million plus interest for the period from July 2000 to July 2008. The court issued pretrial orders finding that we do bear the burden of demonstrating enhancement of the value of gas in order to deduct transportation costs and that the enhancement test must be applied on a monthly basis in order to determine the reasonableness of post-production transportation costs. Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether we have met that burden. "Following that trial, the court issued its order rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position as to the methodology to use in determining the standard by which our activity should be judged. We have completed the accounting process under the standard and have obtained the court's approval. However, as we continue to believe our royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and Colorado law, we have appealed this matter to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs have now filed a second class action lawsuit in the District Court, Garfield County containing similar allegations but related to subsequent time periods. The parties have agreed to stay this new lawsuit pending resolution of the first lawsuit in the Colorado Court of Appeals." WPX ENERGY: Plaintiffs Seek to Conduct Additional Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit have not timely filed an appeal of this denial but have filed a motion seeking to conduct additional discovery in order to attempt to redefine their proposed class. The Company said, "In October 2011, a potential class of royalty interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint against us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs sought monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining activities relating to production, payments and future reporting. This matter was removed to the United States District Court for New Mexico." "In March 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have not timely filed an appeal of this denial but have filed a motion seeking to conduct additional discovery in order to attempt to redefine their proposed class. "In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against us in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado. Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment, accounting and injunction. At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to these claims." YAMAHA: 1,815 Motorcycles Recalled Due to Injury Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: June 22, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Electrical Units affected: 1815 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015277TC ID number: 2015277 Manufacturer recall number: M15-099 On certain motorcycles, the stator coil insulation could become damaged and short circuit due to insufficient heat resistance. This could decrease electrical output which could allow the battery to discharge. This low battery voltage could result in a loss of speedometer function and could cause the engine to stall and unable to be restarted, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the stator coil with a new one with sufficient heat resistance. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- YAMAHA 2008, 2008, 2010 ZUFFA LLC: Four Suits Transferred From N.D. California to Nevada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Four class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas): * Vazquez, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05591. The Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01055-APG-GWF to the proceeding; * Vera, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05621. The Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01056-RFB-GWF to the proceeding; * Ruediger, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00521. The Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01057-JCM-CWH to the proceeding; and * Le, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-05484-EJD. The Nevada District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL to the proceeding. The lawsuits are civil antitrust actions brought under the Sherman Act for treble damages and other relief arising out of the Defendant's alleged overarching anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its (a) monopoly power in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional mixed martial arts bouts, and (b) monopsony power in the market for live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services. The relevant geographic market for both the Relevant Input Market and Relevant Output Market is limited to the United States and, in the alternative, North America. The Vazquez, Vera and Le Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com jdavis@saverilawfirm.com apurdy@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com - and - Robert C. Maysey, Esq. Jerome K. Elwell, Esq. WARNER ANGLE HALLAM JACKSON & FORMANEK PLC 2555 E. Camelback Road, Suite 800 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 264-7101 Facsimile: (602) 234-0419 E-mail: rmaysey@warnerangle.com jelwell@warnerangle.com - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Hiba Hafiz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com hhafiz@cohenmilstein.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net - and - Frederick S. Schwartz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FREDERICK S. SCHWARTZ 15303 Ventura Boulevard, #1040 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 986-2407 Facsimile: (818) 995-4124 E-mail: fred@fredschwartzlaw.com The Le Plaintiffs are also represented by: Patrick Fanning Madden, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: pmadden@bm.net - and - Richard Adam Koffman, Esq. COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005-3964 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com The Ruediger Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene A. Spector, Esq. Jay S. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, 25th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 Facsimile: (215) 496-6611 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com jcohen@srkw-law.com jcorrigan@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com - and - Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Andrew M. Purdy, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com mweiler@saverilawfirm.com jdavis@saverilawfirm.com apurdy@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: John F. Cove, Jr., Esq. Perry Maxwell Grossman, Esq. Steven Christopher Holtzman, Esq. Suzanne Elizabeth Jaffe, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 Facsimile: (510) 874-1460 E-mail: jcove@bsfllp.com pgrossman@bsfllp.com sholtzman@bsfllp.com sjaffe@bsfllp.com - and - Richard James Pocker, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER AND FLEXNER LLP 300 S. Fourth St., Suite 800 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-7300 Facsimile: (702) 382-2755 E-mail: rpocker@bsfllp.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Ave. NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com - and - Donald Jude Campbell, Esq. Jon Colby Williams, Esq. CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 700 South 7th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222 Facsimile: (702) 382-0540 E-mail: djc@cwlawlv.com jcw@cwlawlv.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2015. 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *