/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150713.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 138 Headlines AMER SPORTS: Falsely Marketed Speedcross 3 CS Shoes, Suit Claims AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bidgoli" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Lavin" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Hersh" Suit Over Airfare-Price Fixing APPLE INC: Faces "Jacobson" Suit Over Devices Storage Capacity APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Sarasota Firefighters' Suit Over OM Merger AVALON RAY: Sued Over Alleged Bogus Legal Fees and Charges BALTIMORE OPTICAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims BANK OF THE OZARKS: Initial Appellate Brief in Walker Case Filed BIOSCRIP INC: Entered into MOU in Shareholder Class Action BRASKEM SA: Faces "Vitolo" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports BRINKER RESTAURANT: Removed "Quijada" Suit to C.D. California BROWNS HILL: Sued in Colo. Over Alleged Discriminatory Practices C SCAPES: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CCB CREDIT: Faces "Chung" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation CELLADON CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports CLARENCE DAVIDS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CLEAN HARBORS: 11 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed CLEAN HARBORS: Expects Approval of Fee Class Action Settlement CONTRACT SECURITY: Faces "Spinner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CUSTOM CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Orta" Suit Says CUYAHOGA, OH: Illegally Collects Convenience Fee, Suit Claims CYNOSURE INC: TCPA Case Appeal Remains Pending in 2nd Cir. DELTA AIR: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Illegal Payroll Policies DHL EXPRESS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DIANA ORIENTAL: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Hearing on Stockholder Case Accord Held DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: To Defend Against Remaining FLSA Lawsuits ESPAR INC: Faces Myers Suit Over Parking Heaters-Price Fixing FIBERGLASS SHOP: Faces "Estopinan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FIRST FINANCIAL: Faces "Gancfreid" Suit Over FDCPA Violation FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Class Action in Discovery Stage FLOWERS FOODS: Sued in Tenn. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Rufo" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation GALT SERVICES: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GEORGIA: Public Safety Dept. Faces "Abramyan" Class Suit GERON CORP: N.D. Cal. Court Dismissed Securities Case GESSHIN LA: Faces "Ericskon" Suit Over Mislabeled Seafood Menu HEALTH BENEFITS ONE: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Charvat" Suit Says HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Amended Class Action in Early Stage HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Consolidate INTL FCSTONE: Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Filed JB HUNT: Does Not Properly Pay Truck Drivers, "Silfani" Suit Says JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Falsely Marketed Bedtime Products, Suit Claims KRAFT FOODS: Falsely Marketed Cheese Products, Action Claims KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger LKH LLC: Faces "Ericskon" Suit Over Mislabeled Seafood Menu LUCKY PEARL: "Galvez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Sciabacucchi" Suit Over Sequential Merger MD PROFESSIONAL: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MGIC INVESTMENT: Remaining 5 Cases Dismissed in Q1 2015 MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Nhan T. Vo" Case in Discovery Phase NAPA CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Yossef" Suit Over FDCPA Violation NATIONAL RETAIL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Limon" Suit Says NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Thomas" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation NCJ SERVICE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Card Purchase NISKA GAS: Faces "Pappey" Suit Over Proposed Brookfield Merger NISKA GAS: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Proposed Swan Merger NRG ENERGY: Supreme Court Affirmed Ninth Circuit's Holding NRG ENERGY: Contests Plaintiffs' Bid to File Amended Complaint ONSTAR LLC: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Funds Transfers OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims v. Redbox PACIFIC PREMIER: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Held PALMETTO PRINTING: "Moreno" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime PDC ENERGY: Class Action Regarding Partnership Purchases Tossed PFIZER INC: $400MM Accord in Off-Label Promotion Suit Approved PFIZER INC: Motions to Dismiss End-Payer Claims Remain Pending PFIZER INC: Expects Neurontin Marketing Lawsuits to Be Resolved PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Cases in Quebec Remain Stayed PFIZER INC: Dismissal of Celebrex-Related Complaints Sought SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: To Respond to Amended Class Action SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Kader" Action SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit in Early Stages SHALEV SENIOR: Faces "Carani" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Proceeding in Junk Fax Lawsuit STEINER LEISURE: Facing "Nesbitt" Class Action STEINER LEISURE: 20 Individuals Join "Marlow" Class Action SUNEDISON INC: Defends Bid to Dismiss "Jerry Jones" Case SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Preliminarily Approved Colonial Settlement SUNTRUST BANKS: Plaintiff in "Bickerstaff" Case Loses Appeal SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss in ERISA Class Actions Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: Consolidated Appeal in ERISA Cases Pending SUNTRUST BANKS: "Brown" Case Stayed Pending "Tibble" Decision SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of "Morales" Class Action Sought SUNTRUST BANKS: Thurmond Reinsurance Class Action Remains Stayed TAQUERIA LOS: Faces "Garces" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Elpidio" Trespassing Suit in N.D. Cal. UNIT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Issues Pending in Panola ISD Case UTMOST BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Soda Products, Action Claims VAGOS SERVICES: Faces "Asbun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WEST LOOP: Faces "Laguna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued in Del. Over Merger With Energy Transfer WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Denial of Tolling Motion to Reduce Class Size WISCONSIN ENERGY: Expects Stipulation in Case Over Integrys Deal ********* AMER SPORTS: Falsely Marketed Speedcross 3 CS Shoes, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brendon Martin, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor Company and Amer Sports Company, jointly d/b/a Salomon North America, Case No. 2015-CH-10239 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers who purchased Salomon Speedcross 3 CS shoes, that were falsely marketed by the Defendants as having a Climashield membrane that provides the shoe's waterproof protection. The products at issue are not waterproof because only a portion of the front of the shoe is covered with Climashield membrane. The remainder of the shoe is merely treated with a chemical barrier that repels rather than blocks water. The Defendants are manufacturers, distributors, and marketers of technically advanced sports equipment, footwear, apparel and accessories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian Benjamin H. Richman Christopher L. Dore Amir C. Missaghi EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com cdore@edelson.com amissaghi@edelson.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bidgoli" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anooshirvan Bidgoli, Barbara Hunter, and Annie Migdal v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05903 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States. The Defendants are the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq. Brian H. Eldridge, Esq. SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD. 233 South Wacker Drive Sears Tower-Suite 5500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 645-7800 Facsimile: (312) 645-7711 E-mail: shart@smsm.com rmclaughlin@smsm.com beldridge@smsm.com - and - Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. Benjamin E. Shiftan, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 9000 Facsimile: (415) 433 9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com asheanin@pswlaw.com bshiftan@pswlaw.com - and - Clifford H. Pearson, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Alexander R. Safyan, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com bpouya@pswlaw.com asafyan@pswlaw.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. Heidi M. Silton, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com hmsilton@locklaw.com - and - Kevin Bruce Love, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9010 Facsimile: (305) 357-9050 E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Lavin" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn Lavin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-03090-JCS (N.D. Cal., July 2, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States. The Defendants are the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com hscherrer@hausfeld.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Hersh" Suit Over Airfare-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Hersh, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-03908-KAM-MDG (E.D.N.Y., July 3, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States. The Defendants are the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 702-7053 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 SW 57TH Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com APPLE INC: Faces "Jacobson" Suit Over Devices Storage Capacity -------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Jacobson, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. BC586787 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to disclose to consumers that a significant percentage of the advertised capacity of the 8GB and 16GB iPhones, iPads, and iPods will be used by the iOS8 and therefore be inaccessible for consumers who purchased devices with iOS8 installed. Based in Cupertino, California, Apple, Inc. is in the business of manufacturing and marketing its line of iPhone cellular telephones, iPad, and iPod. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Jennifer Duffy, Esq. Levi M. Plesset, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com jhh@kbklawyers.com jld@kbklawyers.com lp@kbklawyers.com APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces Sarasota Firefighters' Suit Over OM Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- City of Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apollo Global Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 11249-VCN (Del. Ch., July 3, 2015), is a class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of OM Group, Inc. to enjoin the agreement and plan of merger with Apollo Global Management, LLC by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate price. OM Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a technology-driven industrial company serving global markets, including automotive systems, electronic devices, aerospace and defense, industrial and medical. Apollo Global Management, LLC is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 9 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019. Apollo owns and operates an equity firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel Friedlander, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq. Benjamin P. Chapple, Esq. FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-3500 E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com jgorris@friedlandergorris.com bchapple@friedlandergorris.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com - and - Robert A. Sugarman, Esq. SUGARMAN & SUSKIND, P.A. 100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 529-2801 AVALON RAY: Sued Over Alleged Bogus Legal Fees and Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Lessoff, Howard Chung, all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. Avalon Ray Communities, Inc. and Avalon Bay Glen Cove, Case No. 6119/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 3, 2015), arises from the Defendants alleged scam of not notifying tenants of legal fees, making up bogus legal fees and charges, sending out bogus 30 day Notices to quit the premises, keeping all security fees and did not return them at the end of the tenancy. The Defendants own and operate apartment buildings in the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Lessoff, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF JEFFREY LESSOFF 125 Maiden Lane, Suite 3E New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 219-9257 BALTIMORE OPTICAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Alla Veltman v. Baltimore Optical, Inc., trading as Charm City Optical and Alla Deller, Case No. 1:15-cv-01961-ELH (D. Md., July 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' willful and unlawful conduct in failing to properly compensate the Plaintiff for all earned wages. The Defendants own and operate eye care center located at 6412 Reisterstown Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21215. The Plaintiff is represented by: Judd Garrett Millman, Esq. LUCHANSKY LAW 606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 522-1020 Facsimile: (410) 521-1021 E-mail: judd@luchanskylaw.com BANK OF THE OZARKS: Initial Appellate Brief in Walker Case Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bank Of The Ozarks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and its banking affiliate have filed their initial appellate brief in the appeal related to the Walker class action lawsuit. On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. and Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. CV-2011-777. In addition, on December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v. Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV-12-6043. The complaint in each case alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper, unfair, and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive overdraft fees from the plaintiffs. According to the complaints, plaintiffs claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software to automate its overdraft system, and that this system unfairly and inequitably manipulates and alters customers' transaction records in order to maximize overdraft penalties, particularly utilizing a practice of posting of items in "high-to-low" order, despite the actual sequence in which such items are presented for payment. Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements with customers do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft assessment policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair, and misleading. The complaint in each case alleges that these actions and omissions constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct, conversion, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The complaint in the Walker case also includes a count for conversion. Each of the complaints seeks to have the cases certified by the court as a class action for all Bank account holders similarly situated, and seeks a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies, restitution of overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class (defined as all Bank customers residing in Arkansas) as a result of the actions cited in the complaints, disgorgement of profits as a result of the alleged wrongful actions, and unspecified compensatory and statutory or punitive damages, together with pre-judgment interest, costs, and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The Company and Bank filed a motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration in the Walker case. The trial court denied the motion and found that the arbitration provision contained in the controlling Consumer Deposit Account Agreement was unconscionable and thus unenforceable on the grounds that the provision was the result of unequal bargaining power. The Company and Bank appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Court of Appeals on an interlocutory basis. On September 18, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded the case to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order compelling arbitration. On October 7, 2013, the plaintiffs filed petitions for reconsideration and review before the Arkansas Court of Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court, respectively. On October 30, 2013, the Arkansas Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' petition for reconsideration. In January 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for review. Oral arguments were presented to the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, the Arkansas Supreme Court vacated the Arkansas Court of Appeals' decision, reversing and remanding the case to the trial court to determine, in the first instance, whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes between the named plaintiffs and the Bank. An evidentiary hearing was conducted by the trial court on the arbitration issue on October 1, 2014, and the trial court took the matter under advisement. On October 30, 2014, the trial court issued an order once again denying the Company and Bank's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. The trial court ruled that the Consumer Deposit Account Agreement containing the arbitration provision was not enforceable because of a lack of mutual agreement and lack of mutual obligation. The Company and Bank have appealed the trial court's ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court on an interlocutory basis. The Company and Bank filed their initial appellate brief on April 14, 2015. The Plaintiff in the Muzingo case has agreed to stay the proceedings in that case pending the outcome of the appeal in the Walker case. The Company and the Bank believe the Plaintiffs' claims in each of these cases are unfounded and subject to meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. BIOSCRIP INC: Entered into MOU in Shareholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has entered into the Memorandum of Understanding in the Shareholder Class Action Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Subsequent to March 31, 2015, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") on April 30, 2015 to settle two separate putative class action lawsuits filed in connection with the so-called PIPE Transaction. As disclosed in the Company's definitive proxy statement filed on April 8, 2015 (the "Proxy Statement"), the Company is seeking Stockholder Approval. Until Stockholder Approval is obtained, the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock and the 2015 Warrants contain caps on the conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock into Common Stock and on the exercise of the 2015 Warrants to purchase Common Stock (the "Conversion Caps") and a cap on voting power (the "Voting Cap" and, together with the Conversion Caps, the "Caps") that prevent the issuance of Common Stock if a single holder would own or vote more than 19.99% of the Common Stock or have more than 19.99% of the voting power. If the Company does not receive Stockholder Approval by September 30, 2015, then the Caps will remain in effect and the dividend rates on the Series A Preferred Stock will increase (the "Dividend Rate Adjustment") from 8.5% to 13.5% for cash dividends and from 11.5% to 16.5% if the dividend is accrued and added to the liquidation preference of the Series A Preferred Stock. Subsequent to March 31, 2015, two separate putative class action lawsuits were filed on April 9, 2015 in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Court") by purported stockholders Lawrence Cline and Roger Rubin ("Plaintiffs"), respectively, against the Company, the individual directors of the Company and the PIPE Investors. The Plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the Dividend Rate Adjustment if the Company did not obtain Stockholder Approval by September 30, 2015 was invalid, that the Board had breached their fiduciary duties and that the stockholder vote on the Stockholder Approval scheduled for the 2015 Annual Meeting was coercive and based on inadequate disclosure. The Plaintiffs' complaint seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the vote on Stockholder Approval at the 2015 Annual Meeting, additional disclosures, certain declaratory relief, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. On April 17, 2015, the Delaware Court ordered expedited proceedings and set a preliminary injunction hearing for May 8, 2015, where the Delaware Court would have decided whether to enjoin the vote on the Stockholder Approval at the 2015 Annual Meeting. On April 17, 2015, the two separate class action lawsuits were consolidated by order of the Delaware Court as In re BioScrip, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 10893-VCG (the "Delaware Action"). In consideration for the full settlement and release of the Delaware Action (the "Settlement"), the Memorandum of Understanding provides for, among other things, agreement that: (1) additional disclosures will be made by the Company to stockholders regarding the PIPE Transaction and Stockholder Approval, as set forth in the supplement to the Proxy Statement filed on May 1, 2015 (the "Supplemental Disclosures"); (2) if Stockholder Approval is obtained at the 2015 Annual Meeting, causing the Caps to be removed and the Dividend Rate Adjustment to never go into effect, the Delaware Action will be dismissed with prejudice; (3) if Stockholder Approval is not obtained at the 2015 Annual Meeting, the Caps will remain in place and the Dividend Rate Adjustment will not go into effect unless the Delaware Court determines that the Dividend Rate Adjustment and the Caps are valid after a trial on the merits with a final judgment to be entered into no later than August 31, 2015, and (4) the Company will commence a previously announced rights offering (the "Rights Offering") on or before June 30, 2015, subject to confirmation regarding any required regulatory or other approvals. In addition, the Memorandum of Understanding provides for the withdrawal of the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in respect of the 2015 Annual Meeting. While the Company has entered into the Memorandum of Understanding, the Settlement will be subject to the parties entering into a formal stipulation of settlement and approval of the Delaware Court, which the parties to the Delaware Action will use their best efforts to agree upon, and execute prior to May 11, 2015. There can be no guarantee that the parties will be able to agree upon and execute a formal stipulation of settlement or, in the event that they do, that the settlement will receive the requisite court approval. In the event the Settlement is not effectuated for any reason, the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims, although there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. BRASKEM SA: Faces "Vitolo" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carmine Vitolo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Braskem S.A., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05183 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Braskem S.A. is the largest petrochemicals producer in Latin America by sales. Braskem is also the largest producer of thermoplastic resins in the Americas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com csadler@glancylaw.com BRINKER RESTAURANT: Removed "Quijada" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Belinda Quijada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brinker Restaurant Corporation, Ziosk, LLC, Tabletop Media, LLC, and Robert M Dawson, Case No. BC581254, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-05016 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action from the Defendants' alleged breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Belinda Quijada PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: Robert M. Dawson, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 555 South Flower Street 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 892-9200 Facsimile: (213) 892-9494 E-mail: robert.dawson@nortonrosefulbright.com BROWNS HILL: Sued in Colo. Over Alleged Discriminatory Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Hite v. Browns Hill Engineering & Controls, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01417-MJW (D. Colo., July 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged employment discrimination based on religion. Browns Hill Engineering & Controls, LLC is a Colorado Limited Liability Company and operates an electrical engineering consulting firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Claire E. Munger, Esq. MONTGOMERY AMATUZIO DUSBABEK CHASE, LLP-DENVER 4100 East Mississippi Avenue, 16th Floor Denver, CO 80246-3048 Telephone: (303) 592-6683 Facsimile: (303) 592-6666 E-mail: cmunger@hkm.com C SCAPES: Faces "Juarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Juarez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. C Scapes Artistic Landscaping, Inc., and Christopher Holmstrom, Case No. 1:15-cv-05904 (N.D. Ill., July 3, 2015), overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants are engaged in landscaping business in Will County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 219-6838 E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com CCB CREDIT: Faces "Chung" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Hyun Soon Chung, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. CCB Credit Services, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15- cv-05198-KM-MAH (D.N.J., July 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com CELLADON CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Gail Fialkov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Celladon Corporation, Krisztina M. Zsebo and Rebecque J. Laba, Case No. 3:15-cv-01458-AJB-DHB (S.D. Cal., July 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Celladon Corporation is a clinical-stage biotechnology company which is focused on the development of cardiovascular gene therapy and calcium dysregulation. The Plaintiff is represented by: David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: dwalton@rgrdlaw.com CLARENCE DAVIDS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ramiro Balderrama-Baca, a/k/a Balderrama-Baca and Salvador Mateos Sr., on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated plaintiffs known and unknown v. Clarence Davids and Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-05873 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Clarence Davids and Company provides landscaping and maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. State Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Facsimile: (312) 853-1459 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org - and - John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com CLEAN HARBORS: 11 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that from January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015, 11 product liability claims against Safety- Kleen were settled or dismissed. Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout the United States, including approximately 54 proceedings (excluding cases which have been settled but not formally dismissed) as of March 31, 2015, wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings typically involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that Safety- Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks, including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene. Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide coverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured retentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for punitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law or excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these claims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and intends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of its products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these matters as of March 31, 2015. From January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015, 11 product liability claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance coverage may not be available. CLEAN HARBORS: Expects Approval of Fee Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Clean Harbors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that court approval of the settlement of fee class action claims against Safety-Kleen was anticipated to occur in June 2015. In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and Missouri. On January 15, 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement of the pending class action lawsuits, which were broadened to include similar claims on behalf of customers in Florida, West Virginia and Arkansas. The settlement must be approved by the court in a fairness hearing, which was anticipated to occur in June 2015. The exact settlement cost is not yet determinable, but it is not expected to be material. CONTRACT SECURITY: Faces "Spinner" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Shauntay A. Spinner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Contract Security Forces, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00849-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Contract Security Forces, LLC operates a security services company located at 15338 Colonel Tansill Ct., Woodbridge, VA 22193. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barbara Allyn Queen, Esq. LAWRENCE & ASSOCIATES 701 E Franklin St, PO Box 495 Richmond, VA 23218-0495 Telephone: (804) 643-9343 E-mail: bqueen@lawrencelawyers.com CUSTOM CONTROLS: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Orta" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lazaro Orta and all others similarly situated v. Custom Controls Technology, Inc. and Gerardo Gallo, Case No. 1:15-cv-22520-JAL (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants are manufacturer of custom control panel systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM CUYAHOGA, OH: Illegally Collects Convenience Fee, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Haire, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated v. Cuyahoga County, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01308 (N.D. Ohio, July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the customers and users of Cuyahoga County services who have been charged an unauthorized, illegal convenience fee for payment via a financial transaction device, while paying for county services. Cuyahoga County is a charter-form of government operating under its own county charter and subject to Title 3 of the Ohio Revised Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Harvey III, Esq. Matthew B. Abens, Esq. Jason T. Hartzell, Esq. HARVEY ABENS IOSUE CO. LPA 3404 Lorain Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 651-0256 Facsimile: (216) 651-0233 E-mail: Dvdharv@harvlaw.com Mbabens@harvlaw.com Jhartzell@harvlaw.com CYNOSURE INC: TCPA Case Appeal Remains Pending in 2nd Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- Cynosure, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has notified the parties in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act litigation that it will not hear oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs. The Company said, "In 2005, a plaintiff, individually and as putative representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against us under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County, captioned Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. MICV2005-01778 (Superior Court, Middlesex County), seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint alleges that we violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA, recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500 per facsimile for knowing or willful violations. Based on discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately three million facsimiles were sent on our behalf by a third party to approximately 100,000 individuals. "In January 2012, the court denied the class certification motion. In November 2012, the court issued the final judgment and awarded the plaintiff $6,000 in damages and awarded us $3,495 in costs. The plaintiff appealed this decision, and oral argument on the appeal was held in October 2013 before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Appeals Court. In March 2014, the appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, and in April 2014 the plaintiff filed a request for further appellate review by the Supreme Judicial Court. On May 6, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court issued a Notice of Denial of Application for Further Appellate Review. No further appeals are possible in Massachusetts. In addition, in July 2012, the plaintiff filed a new purported class action, based on the same operative facts and asserting the same claims as in the Massachusetts action, in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, captioned Weitzner, et al. v. Cynosure, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-03668-MKB-RLM (U.S District Court, Eastern District of New York). "In February 2013, that court granted our motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. In March 2013, the plaintiff drafted a motion seeking reconsideration of the court's judgment and vacation of the court's order of dismissal. In April 2013, we drafted a response opposing the plaintiff's motion. In August 2013, plaintiff filed its motion with the court, although the deadline had been April 2013. We filed a letter with the court objecting to this untimely motion and requesting sanctions. In February 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion and denied our request for sanctions. On March 6, 2014, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's judgment entered on March 5, 2013. On July 23, 2014, the Second Circuit notified the parties that it will not hear oral arguments and will decide the case based on the briefs." No further updates were provided in the Company's quarterly report. DELTA AIR: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Illegal Payroll Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynaldo Lopez, Eunice Delgadillo, Umberto Mendoza, and Aveia Tautolo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. BC586813 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal payroll policies and practices to deprive their non-exempt employees all wages earned and due. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that operates an airline company in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Dalia R. Khalil, Esq. Matthew W. Gordon, Esq. Serena M. Patel, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com mgordon@maternlawgroup.com spatel@maternlawgroup.com DHL EXPRESS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DHL Express (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22505-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. DHL Express (USA) Inc. operates global logistics company providing international express mail services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil Barry Solomon, Esq. MCLAUGLIN & STERN, LLP 525 Okeechobee Blvd, Suite 1530 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 659-4020 Facsimile: (561) 659-4438 E-mail: nsolomon@mclaughlinstern.com DIANA ORIENTAL: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Hua Zhu Chen, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Diana Oriental Nails LLC, Diana Trim, and John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-05037-JHR-KMW (D.N.J., July 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a nail spa located at 266 White Horse Pike, Pomona, NJ 08240. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Michael Graziadei, Esq. FRANK M. GRAZIADEI, PC 130 Water Street, Suite 10-B NEW YORK, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 785-0885 E-mail: Grazlaw78@gmail.com - and - William Brown, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: wbrown@hanglaw.com DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Hearing on Stockholder Case Accord Held --------------------------------------------------------------- Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a settlement hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2015 in a purported stockholder class action complaint. In November 2012, a purported stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Court for Williamson County, Tennessee (21st Judicial District) against the Company's Board of Directors. This action alleges that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders related to its response to certain expressions of interest in a potential strategic transaction from Covington Investments, LLC ("Covington"). The complaint asserts that the Board failed to negotiate or otherwise appropriately consider Covington's proposals. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to certify the action as a class action, which is not currently set for hearing. On May 23, 2014, the plaintiff and defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of a settlement subject to the execution of definitive documentation and court approval. The agreement provides that the Company will adopt and maintain certain corporate governance procedures for a period of at least three years. This settlement has not yet been approved by the court. The settlement hearing was scheduled for May 22, 2015. DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: To Defend Against Remaining FLSA Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in June 2012, a collective action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas against us and certain of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and seeks unpaid overtime wages as well as liquidated damages. The Court conditionally certified a nationwide class of all of the Company's hourly employees, but recently decertified the class. After the class was decertified, the law firm initiating the action filed three new separate actions in federal courts in Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas, naming as plaintiffs many of the individuals who had filed claims in the first Arkansas action. The new actions assert the same claim as was asserted in the original Arkansas action. The original action has been settled and dismissed. The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously. ESPAR INC: Faces Myers Suit Over Parking Heaters-Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Myers Equipment Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Espar Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03872- JG-JO (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix prices for parking heaters sold in the aftermarket for use in commercial vehicles. Espar Inc. is a Canadian company that manufactures and supplies fuel operated air and coolant heater products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Steyer, Esq. D. Scott Macrae, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Third Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415)421-3400 Facsimile: (415) 421-2234 E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com smacrae@steyerlaw.com FIBERGLASS SHOP: Faces "Estopinan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Fernandez Estopinan v. The Fiberglass Shop of Ft. Lauderdale, Corp., Loman & Company, Inc., and Richard Loman, Case No. 0:15-cv-61384-WJZ (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of conducting fiberglass repair and fabrication, painting, rigging, and modification of vessels in South Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Howard Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 230-4884 Facsimile: (305) 230-4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com FIRST FINANCIAL: Faces "Gancfreid" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Jacob Gancfreid, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. First Financial Asset Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03883-RJD-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com FIRST NATIONAL: "Saxe" Class Action in Discovery Stage ------------------------------------------------------ First National Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on September 17, 2013, Charles Saxe, III individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated filed a consumer class action against the Bank in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code in connection with the repossession and resale of financed vehicles. This matter is in the discovery stage. At this time the Company cannot reasonably determine the outcome or potential range of loss. FLOWERS FOODS: Sued in Tenn. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacky Stewart and Brandy Anderson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking Co. of Batesville, LLC, and Ambassador Personnel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01162 (W.D. Tenn., July 2, 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 bakery with its principal place of business located at 1919 Flowers Circle, Thomasville, Georgia 31757. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Weinman, Esq. WEINMAN & ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 266 112 S. Liberty St., Ste. 321 Jackson, TN 38302 Telephone: (731) 423-5565 Facsimile: (731) 423-5372 E-mail: Mike@weinmanandassoc.com FRONTLINE ASSET: Faces "Rufo" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Rufo, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05197-ES-JAD (D.N.J., July 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com GALT SERVICES: "Cabrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Anibal Oscar Gaythan Cabrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Galt Services, LLC and Oil Mop, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02456 (E.D. La., July 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing cleaning and remediation services to vessels and watercraft. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LITIGATION, LLC 639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850 New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 308-1438 Facsimile: (504) 308-1430 E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com GEORGIA: Public Safety Dept. Faces "Abramyan" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Dmitriy Abramyan, Abdilahi Awale, Lennybenuihis, Mohamed A. Hussein, Dmitry Mogilevich, and all persons similarly situated v. State of Georgia and Georgia Department of Public Safety, Case No. 2015CV262742 (Ga. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the owners of at least one CPNC (Certificate(s) of Public Necessity and Convenience) issued by the City of Atlanta, who suffered diminution in the value of their CPNCs as the result of the Defendants' conduct and enactment of new state laws affecting their constitutional rights. State of Georgia served upon it by serving Governor Nathan Deal at his offices located at 203 State Capitol Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30334. Georgia Department of Public Safety may be served upon it by serving its Commissioner, Colonel Mark W. McDonough at 959 Confederate Avenue, SW, Atlanta, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Pannell, Esq. WILLIAM A. PANNELL, PC 433 Chateau Drive, NW Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 353-2283 Facsimile: (404) 237-2384 - and - Keith E. Fryer, Esq. FRYER, SHUSTER & LESTER, PC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338-7701 Telephone: (770) 668-9300 Facsimile: (770) 668-9465 E-mail: kfryer@galegal.com GERON CORP: N.D. Cal. Court Dismissed Securities Case ----------------------------------------------------- Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a California district court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company and denied the Company's motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company. The Company said, "On March 14, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, or the California District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees." "On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on June 6, 2014, a third purported securities lawsuit, not styled as a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual background as the purported securities class action lawsuit that commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both of the purported class actions filed in the California District Court and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent the purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended complaint, which was filed on September 19, 2014. "On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the purported securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the California District Court. On November 4, 2014, the Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the case to the California District Court, which was thereafter consolidated with the class actions. On November 18, 2014, we filed a motion with the California District Court to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. "The plaintiff's opposition to our motion to dismiss was filed on January 20, 2015, and we filed our reply in support of our motion to dismiss on February 25, 2015. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint occurred on April 10, 2015. At the hearing, the California District Court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to some of the allegedly false and misleading statements made by us and denied our motion to dismiss with respect to other allegedly false and misleading statements made by us." GESSHIN LA: Faces "Ericskon" Suit Over Mislabeled Seafood Menu -------------------------------------------------------------- Cyntia Erickson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Gesshin L.A., Inc., d/b/a En Sushi, Chang Won Lee, and Does 1-10, Case No. BC586833 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), arises from the Defendants' misleading practice of selling cheaper mislabeled seafood to consumers instead of what they actually ordered from the menu. The Defendants own and operate En Sushi restaurant in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wade A. Miller, Esq. WADE MILLER LAW 235 East Broadway, Suite 424 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 437-6300 E-mail: wmiller@wademillerlaw.com HEALTH BENEFITS ONE: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Charvat" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Philip J. Charvat and Eric Olson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Health Benefits One, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-61388-KAM (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2015), arises from the unsolicited calls made by the Defendants to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiffs and others using an automatic telephone dialing system and to residential telephones of the Plaintiffs and others by using an artificial or prerecorded voice. Health Benefits One, LLC operates a call-center based insurance enrollment center engaged in the business of selling insurance products to consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bret L. Lusskin Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Ste. 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 125 Summer St., Suite 1030 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Facsimile: (508) 319-3077 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Amended Class Action in Early Stage ------------------------------------------------------- Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the amended class action lawsuit is in the early stage. The Company said, "On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and our chief executive officer alleging that we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic of Guinea. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although several lead plaintiffs were appointed by the Court and then withdrew from the matter, a lead plaintiff has now been appointed and a scheduling order governing briefing on a motion to dismiss has been entered by the Court." "On May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint adding our current and former chief financial officers as defendants, and defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 11, 2014. On August 20, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a response to our motion to dismiss, and we filed our reply on September 19, 2014. We have assessed the status of this matter and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the early stage of this dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations." HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Consolidate ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties in two class action lawsuits await a ruling on the motion to consolidate. The Company said, "Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and several officers of the Company alleging that we made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes and that we lacked adequate internal controls. The lawsuits seek damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not specified. On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending. Also, on May 12, 2014, lead plaintiff in the April 2012 lawsuit filed a motion to consolidate the March 2014 cases with the earlier case. The parties await a ruling on the motion to consolidate. Given the early stage of these disputes, we are unable to estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations." INTL FCSTONE: Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Filed --------------------------------------------------------- INTL FCStone Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's reply in support of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Securities Litigation was filed on April 27, 2015. In January 2014, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws, and claimed that the Company issued false and misleading information concerning the Company's business and prospects. The action sought unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's shares between February 17, 2010 and December 16, 2013. The lead plaintiff's amended complaint was filed in June 2014. The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was filed in July 2014. At the court hearing on February 4, 2015, the Company's motion was granted and the amended complaint was dismissed, however the lead plaintiff was given leave to amend its complaint. The lead plaintiff's second amended complaint was filed on March 6, 2015, and it narrowed the purported class to persons who purchased Company's shares between December 15, 2010 and December 16, 2013. On March 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The lead plaintiff's memorandum in opposition was filed on April 13, 2015 and the Company's reply in support of its motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April 27, 2015. JB HUNT: Does Not Properly Pay Truck Drivers, "Silfani" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abe Silfani, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Case No. MICV2015-04837 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of its contractual obligations to its truck drivers, specifically by failing to pay them in compliance with the rates in its own contract. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. is an Arkansas company that provides freight and package services throughout that United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hillary Schwab, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617)607-3260 Facsimile: (617)488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Falsely Marketed Bedtime Products, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Gallagher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Case No. L-002557-15 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., July 2, 2015), is an action to obtain redress for those who have purchased the Johnson & Johnson Bedtime Products that were falsely marketed to be clinically proven, help baby sleep better. Headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. is a pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods manufacturer. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Trimble Jr., Esq Katrina M. Geary, Esq. TRIMBLE & ARMANO Washington Professional Campus 900 Rt. 168 Black Horse Pike, Suites Bl-B3 Turnersville, NJ 08012 Telephone: (856) 232-9500 Facsimile: (856) 232-9698 E-mail: john.trimble@trimbleandarmano.com katrina.geary@trimbleandarmano.com KRAFT FOODS: Falsely Marketed Cheese Products, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Milagros Quinones-Gonzalez, individually on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01892 (D.P.R., July 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all consumers, in the United States, Puerto Rico, and all U.S. Territories, seeking to redress the Defendant's false advertising of the Kraft Natural Cheese - Shredded Cheese -Cheddar Fat Free as all natural cheese, while failing to adequately disclose that such products contain artificial color, synthetic ingredients and additives. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. owns and operates a manufacturing and processing company, with principal place of business located at Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, Illinois 60093. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose R. Franco-Rivera, Esq. JOSE R. FRANCO RIVERA B-24 Mirador de Borinquen Gardens San Juan, PR 00926 Telephone: (787) 407-7041 E-mail: jrfrancolaw@gmail.com KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- William Barbour, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 11239-CB (Del. Ch., July 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., to enjoin the Kythera's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Allergan PLC for inadequate consideration and unfair price. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focused on the discovery, development, and commercialization of prescription products for the aesthetic medicine market in the United States and internationally. Allergan PLC is a global pharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing, and commercializing innovative branded pharmaceuticals, high-quality generic and over-the-counter medicines and biologic products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - J. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com mfortunato@kmllp.com LKH LLC: Faces "Ericskon" Suit Over Mislabeled Seafood Menu ----------------------------------------------------------- Cyntia Erickson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. LKH, LLC, Jung Woo Kang, and Does 1-10, Case No. BC586489 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 1, 2015), arises from the Defendants' misleading practice of selling cheaper mislabeled seafood to consumers instead of what they actually ordered from the menu. The Defendants own and operate Sushi of Naples restaurant in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wade A. Miller, Esq. WADE MILLER LAW 235 East Broadway, Suite 424 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 437-6300 E-mail: wmiller@wademillerlaw.com LUCKY PEARL: "Galvez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Olegario Galvez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Lucky Pearl, LLC, Nomad Hospitality, LLC, Wisewiz, LLC, Yorkville Hospitality, LLC, Atul Malhotra & Co., LLC, Atul Malhotra, Evan Stein, and Nercys Stein, Case No. 1:15-cv-05177 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate four restaurants under the common trade name Shorty's in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Sciabacucchi" Suit Over Sequential Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sciabacucchi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., et al., 11241-VCN (Del. Ch., July 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate price. Headquartered in New York, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is a globally recognized lifestyle company committed to providing consumers with inspiring content and well-designed, high-quality products. Sequential Brands is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 5 Bryant Park, 30th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Sequential Brands owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a portfolio of consumer brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle categories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 588-5516 E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com MD PROFESSIONAL: Sued in Fla. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Rogelio Garrote, and all others similarly situated v. MD Professional Group Corp. and Lazaro Moreira, Case No. 1:15-cv- 22519-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a hospital management services company that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM MGIC INVESTMENT: Remaining 5 Cases Dismissed in Q1 2015 ------------------------------------------------------- MGIC Investment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the remaining five RESPA class action cases against mortgage lenders and insurers were dismissed with prejudice in the first quarter of 2015. Since December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage lenders and other mortgage insurers has been named as a defendant in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S. District Courts. The complaints in all of the cases alleged various causes of action related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that the lenders' captive reinsurers received excessive premiums in relation to the risk assumed by those captives, thereby violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). Seven of those cases had been dismissed prior to 2015 without any further opportunity to appeal. The remaining five cases (listed below) were dismissed with prejudice in the first quarter of 2015 pursuant to stipulations of dismissal from the plaintiffs. Date Filed Court Date Terminated ---------- ----- --------------- 12/31/2011 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of PA 03/04/2015 04/05/2012 U.S. District Court for the Western District of PA 03/02/2015 06/28/2012 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of PA 02/24/2015 12/06/2012 U.S. District Court for the Western District of PA 02/26/2015 01/04/2013 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of PA 02/24/2015 MRV COMMUNICATIONS: "Nhan T. Vo" Case in Discovery Phase -------------------------------------------------------- MRV Communications, Inc. is in the discovery phase of the case, Nhan T. Vo, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees vs. the Company, Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. Management believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter and does not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect on its business or financial condition. However, depending on the actual outcome of this case, provisions could be recorded in the future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results. NAPA CREDIT BUREAU: Faces "Yossef" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Roisy Yossef, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credit Bureau of Napa County, Inc., d/b/a Chase Receivables, Case No. 1:15-cv-03885-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com NATIONAL RETAIL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Limon" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Limon, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. National Retail Transportation and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. RG15776483 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay straight time and overtime wages, and rest and meal period compensation. National Retail Transportation owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and industrial work sites and has conducted business in Alameda County and elsewhere within California. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2433 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: bturney@turneylawfirm.com dmara@turneylawfirm.com NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Thomas" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Erica K. Thomas, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. NCB Management Services, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05189-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com NCJ SERVICE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Card Purchase ---------------------------------------------------------------- Genevieve Barnes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. N.C.J. Service Station, Inc. a/k/a Millis Service Center, Case No. MICV2015-04906 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 3, 2015), is an action for monetary damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to disclose that consumers who used their debit cards to purchase gasoline and other motor fuels would be charged the higher credit card price. N.C.J. Service Station, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation that operates as a retail dealer of gasoline and motor fuels. The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. O'Connor Jr., Esq. NICKLESS, PHILLIPS and O'CONNOR 625 Main Street Fitchburg, Ma 01420 Telephone: (978) 342-4590 E-mail: joconnor.nandp@verizon.net NISKA GAS: Faces "Pappey" Suit Over Proposed Brookfield Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Pappey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., Case No. 11238-CB (Del. Ch., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public unit-holders of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Niska by Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, L.P., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC provides commercial, industrial, and retail natural gas marketing services via Access Gas Services in both British Columbia and Ontario, and also provides agency services to natural gas end-users in Eastern Canada through EnerStream Agency Services. Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, L.P. operates utilities, transport, and energy businesses in North and South America, Australia, and Europe. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Edward B. Gerard, Esq. Justin D. Rieger, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com egerard@robbinsarroyo.com jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com NISKA GAS: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Proposed Swan Merger ---------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Peterson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., Case No. 11234-CB (Del. Ch., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public unit-holders of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Niska by Swan Holdings LP, for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC provides commercial, industrial, and retail natural gas marketing services via Access Gas Services in both British Columbia and Ontario, and also provides agency services to natural gas end-users in Eastern Canada through EnerStream Agency Services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Edward B. Gerard, Esq. Justin D. Rieger, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com egerard@robbinsarroyo.com jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com NRG ENERGY: Supreme Court Affirmed Ninth Circuit's Holding ---------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the pending Natural Gas Litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the holding by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that plaintiffs' state antitrust law claims are not field-preempted. GenOn is party to several lawsuits, certain of which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG. In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the District Court. On August 26, 2013, GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Court of Appeals' decision. On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition. On April 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's holding that plaintiffs' state antitrust law claims are not field- preempted. The U.S. Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted on the basis of conflict preemption and directed that the case be sent to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada for further proceedings. NRG ENERGY: Contests Plaintiffs' Bid to File Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Coompany is contesting plaintiffs' request for leave to file an amended complaint in the Cheswick Class Action Complaint. In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against GenOn in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania alleging that emissions from the Cheswick generating facility have damaged the property of neighboring residents. The Company disputes these allegations. Plaintiffs have brought nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims seeking both damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class that consists of people who own property or live within one mile of the Company's plant. In July 2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In October 2012, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 20, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Court. On September 3, 2013, the Company filed a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeals which was subsequently denied. In February 2014, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review and reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision. On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Following the U.S. Supreme Court's denial of GenOn's petition for a writ of certiorari, the case continued to be litigated before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. After briefing by the parties on GenOn's motion to strike class allegations in the complaint, the court granted GenOn's motion, but allowed the plaintiffs the opportunity to re-file their complaint. On February 3, 2015, plaintiffs sought leave to file an amended complaint, which the Company is contesting. ONSTAR LLC: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Funds Transfers ------------------------------------------------------------- Kathryn M. Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OnStar, LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 201500022176-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants unauthorized electronic funds transfers and credit card charges. OnStar, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and a fully owned subsidiary of General Motors LLC. OnStar provides subscription-based communications, in-vehicle security, hands free calling, turn-by-turn navigation, and remote diagnostics systems throughout the United States, Canada, China and Mexico. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq. Andrew J. Kubik, Esq. EPPSTEINER & FIORICA ATTORNEYS, LLP 12555 High Bluff Dr., Suite 155 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 350-1500 Facsimile: (858) 350-1501 E-mail: sme@eppsteiner.com ajk@eppsteiner.com - and - Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq. Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq. THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP 44 Montgomery St., Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94194 Telephone: (415) 546-6800 Facsimile: (415) 546-6801 E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com krogers@kraloweclaw.com OUTERWALL INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims v. Redbox -------------------------------------------------------------- Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Redbox has appealed the dismissal of all remaining claims. The Company said, "In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012." "The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of class certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining claims on mootness grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion on December 11, 2014. The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015. We believe that the claims against us are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate." PACIFIC PREMIER: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Held ---------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing was scheduled for June 2015 to seek final approval of the settlement from the court in the case entitled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al." In February 2004, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit entitled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al," which alleged violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (the "MSMLA") by the Bank's predecessor, Life Bank. The lawsuit alleged that Missouri homeowners were charged closing costs and related fees exceeding the amount permitted by the MSMLA. While Life Bank did not originate these mortgages, it did ultimately own and service them for a period of time, which plaintiffs allege creates potential liability under the MSMLA. The class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri in 2000. After a lengthy period of inactivity, the Bank was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel to schedule depositions and discovery, and prepare the case to go to trial in 2015. The Board of Directors of the Company determined to establish a $1.7 million reserve related to the lawsuit during the fourth quarter of 2014, which the Board of Directors believes to be a reasonable estimate of the Company's exposure as of December 31, 2014. In March and April 2015, the Company entered into a proposed settlement agreement with plaintiffs to resolve the litigation as to the Company. The court granted preliminary approval for the settlement, and plaintiffs are currently in the process of notifying class members about the proposed settlement. A hearing was scheduled for June 2015 to seek final approval of the settlement from the court. The Company is not involved in any other material pending legal proceedings other than legal proceedings occurring in the ordinary course of business. Management believes that none of these legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse impact on the results of operations or financial condition of the Company. PALMETTO PRINTING: "Moreno" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ninoska Moreno, and other similarly situated v. Palmetto Printing Inc. and Eduardo Rivas, Case No. 2015-014975-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., July 2, 2015), seeks to unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a commercial printing company, having its main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: 305-416-5000 Facsimile: 305-416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com PDC ENERGY: Class Action Regarding Partnership Purchases Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- PDC Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action regarding the 2010 and 2011 partnership purchases has been dismissed with prejudice and all class claims were released. In December 2011, the Company and its wholly-owned merger subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of unit holders of 12 former limited partnerships, related to its repurchase of the 12 partnerships, which were formed beginning in late 2002 through 2005. The mergers were completed in 2010 and 2011. The action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and was titled Schulein v. Petroleum Development Corp. The complaint primarily alleged that the disclosures in the proxy statements issued in connection with the mergers were inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty. In January 2014, the plaintiffs were certified as a class by the court. In October 2014, the Company and plaintiffs' counsel reached a settlement agreement. That settlement agreement was signed in December 2014 and was given final court approval in March 2015. Under this settlement agreement, the plaintiffs received a cash payment of $37.5 million in January 2015, of which the Company paid $31.5 million and insurers paid $6 million. In March 2015, the class action was dismissed with prejudice and all class claims were released. As of December 31, 2014, the Company accrued a liability of $37.5 million related to this litigation, which was included in other accrued expenses in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. PFIZER INC: $400MM Accord in Off-Label Promotion Suit Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the Court has preliminarily approved the settlement in the Off-Label Promotion class action. The Company said, "In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Pfizer and several of our current and former officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Pfizer to make false statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail to disclose material information concerning the alleged off-label promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to physicians to promote the sale of those products and government investigations related thereto. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount. In March 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Pfizer common stock in the U.S. or on U.S. stock exchanges between January 19, 2006 and January 23, 2009 and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pfizer common stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations. In January 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter for $400 million. In March 2015, the court preliminarily approved the settlement." PFIZER INC: Motions to Dismiss End-Payer Claims Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in the Antitrust Actions related to Effexor XR. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims. PFIZER INC: Expects Neurontin Marketing Lawsuits to Be Resolved --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. expects the Neurontin marketing lawsuits by consumers to be resolved without a material impact on Pfizer, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015. The Company said, "A number of lawsuits, including purported class actions, have been filed against us in various federal and state courts alleging claims arising from the promotion and sale of Neurontin. The plaintiffs in the purported class actions seek to represent nationwide and certain statewide classes consisting of persons, including individuals, health insurers, employee benefit plans and other third-party payers, who purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin that allegedly was used for indications other than those included in the product labeling approved by the FDA. In 2004, many of the suits pending in federal courts, including individual actions as well as purported class actions, were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices and Product Liability Litigation MDL-1629) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts." "In the Multi-District Litigation, the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all individual consumers and third-party payers who allegedly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Neurontin for off-label uses from 1994 through 2004, and (ii) dismissed actions by certain proposed class representatives for third-party payers and for individual consumers. In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court dismissing the action by the third-party payer proposed class representatives and remanded that action to the District Court for further consideration, including reconsideration of class certification. "In December 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied our petition for certiorari seeking review of the First Circuit's decision reversing the dismissal of the third-party payer purported class action. In April 2014, we and the attorneys for the proposed class representatives and for the plaintiffs in various individual actions entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle the third-party payer purported class action, subject to court approval, as well as the pending individual actions by third-party payers, for an aggregate of $325 million. In November 2014, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to dismiss with prejudice all Neurontin marketing lawsuits by consumers, and have dismissed the purported statewide consumer class actions in California and Illinois. Some counsel have advised that certain plaintiffs can no longer be located. We expect the Neurontin marketing lawsuits by consumers to be resolved without a material impact on Pfizer." PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Cases in Quebec Remain Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits against Pfizer Inc. in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia related to the Chantix/Champix drug have been stayed in favor of a similar action in Ontario, which is proceeding on a national basis, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015. The Company said, "Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages." In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national basis. PFIZER INC: Dismissal of Celebrex-Related Complaints Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. has filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payors' amended complaints related to Celebrex class actions, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015. The company said, "Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payor cases, and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. In October 2014 and March 2015, we filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payors' amended complaints, respectively." SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: To Respond to Amended Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that purported class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29, 2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10, 2013 and November 11, 2013. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Sarepta and certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic candidate for DMD, and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Pursuant to the court's June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on August 18, 2014, and argument on the motion was held on March 12, 2015. On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs in the Corban suit have filed an amended complaint and the Company planned to file a response by the deadline provided by the court in May 2015. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Kader" Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 by William Kader, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., Christopher Garabedian, and Sandesh Mahatme (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318), asserting violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, Christopher Garabedian and Sandesh Mahatme. Plaintiffs' amended complaint, filed on March 20, 2015, alleges that the defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the sufficiency of the Company's data for submission of an new drug application for eteplirsen and the likelihood of the Food and Drug Administration accepting a new drug application based on that data. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees. The Company received service of the complaint on January 5, 2015. Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 4, 2015, pursuant to the scheduling order entered on February 20, 2015. SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit in Early Stages --------------------------------------------------------------- The Morning Song Bird Food Litigation is still in the early stages, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015. In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble); reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated action. "Given the early stages of the action, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with the action and, accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements with respect to the action. There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said. SHALEV SENIOR: Faces "Carani" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Carani, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Shalev Senior Living, Inc., The Crestview School, Marissa Levi, and DOE One through and including Doe Ten, Case No. BC596950 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate retirement homes in Van Nuys, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Ricasa, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN RICASA 2341 Westwood Blvd., Suite 7 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (424) 248-0510 Facsimile: (424) 204-0652 E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com - and - Briana M. Kim, Esq. BRIANA KIM, PC 249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (714) 482-6301 Facsimile: (714) 482-6302 E-mail: briana@brianakim.com STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Early Stages of Discovery ------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the multi-district litigation involving alleged excessive price increases is in the early stages of discovery. The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and injunctive relief." "The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal False Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tam complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed our answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. Also, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have issued civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided whether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in the early stages of discovery. "Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint, we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and allegations substantially similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) granted our Motion to Transfer these related actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action, generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is in the early stages of discovery. "We believe that we have operated in accordance with the terms of our customer contracts and that these complaints are without merit. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against each of these lawsuits. "We have not accrued any amounts in respect of these lawsuits, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) litigation is by its nature uncertain and unpredictable, (ii) the proceedings are at an early stage and (iii) in our judgment, there are no comparable proceedings against other defendants that might provide guidance in making estimates." STERICYCLE INC: Discovery Proceeding in Junk Fax Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery in the Junk Fax Lawsuit is proceeding. The Company said, "On April 2, 2014, we were served with a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) by an individual plaintiff for himself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" persons. The complaint alleges, among other things, that we sent facsimile transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to plaintiff and others similarly situated in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"). The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as a class action and the award to class members of the greater of actual damages or the sum of $500 for each violation and injunctive and other relief. Under the TCPA, the statutory remedy of $500 per violation may be trebled if the Court finds the violations to be willful or knowing. On May 22, 2014, we filed our answer to the complaint, generally denying the allegations therein. Discovery in the case is proceeding." "We have not accrued any amounts in respect of the TCPA action, and we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or the range of reasonably possible losses that we may incur. We are unable to make such an estimate because (i) the proceedings are at an early stage and discovery is ongoing and (ii) other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad range of outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own unique facts and circumstances. "We review all of our outstanding legal proceedings with counsel quarterly, and we will disclose an estimate of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses if and when we are able to make such an estimate and the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses is material to our financial statements." STEINER LEISURE: Facing "Nesbitt" Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Steiner Leisure Limited is defending against the case, Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "On April 7, 2014, a former student at our Schools Division's Denver School of Massage Therapy brought a putative class action against our Schools Division, Nesbitt v. FCNH, Inc. et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and various state wage and hour laws. The plaintiff alleges that, in performing certain therapies on individuals from the public as part of the requirements that students perform clinical services (required for a massage therapy license), she was acting as an employee for purposes of the FLSA and applicable state law and was entitled to wages for those services. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated at the schools operated by our Schools Division. "At this time, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss in this matter. Should we be found liable in this matter, the amount that we may be required to pay in connection with such liability could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations." STEINER LEISURE: 20 Individuals Join "Marlow" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Steiner Leisure Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that 20 individuals have joined the lawsuit, Marlow v. Ideal Image Development Corp., to date. On November 17, 2014, a former sales consultant brought a putative collective action against Ideal Image Development Corporation, Marlow v. Ideal Image Development Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, alleging violations of the FLSA. The plaintiff alleges that she and others working as sales consultants were not paid the applicable minimum wage for certain training and travel work and were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated across the country. Twenty individuals have joined the lawsuit to date. "At this time, we are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome, or provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss in this matter. Should we be found liable in this matter, the amount that we may be required to pay in connection with such liability could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations," the Company said. SUNEDISON INC: Defends Bid to Dismiss "Jerry Jones" Case -------------------------------------------------------- SunEdison, Inc. intends to vigorously defend its motion to dismiss the case, Jerry Jones v. SunEdison, Inc., et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") between September 4, 2007 and December 26, 2008, inclusive. The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that the defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and that the company's stock should not have been made available as an investment alternative in the Plan. The complaint also alleges that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price. "On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008 through the present, inclusive. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, including losses the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief and an award of attorney's fees. No class has been certified and discovery has not begun. The company and the named directors and employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009. The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding responses. "On March 17, 2010, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The SunEdison defendants filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of June 16, 2010. The parties each subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and corresponding responses. On October 18, 2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants' motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the parties supplement their arguments relating thereto. Both parties filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010. "On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal from the action. On June 29, 2011, the court entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in this action. The parties each have continued to file additional notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto. On September 27, 2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral argument on their pending motion to dismiss; plaintiff Manuel Acosta joined in the SunEdison defendants' motion for oral argument on October 9, 2012. "On March 24, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss but the plaintiffs filed, and the court in April 2014 granted, a motion to stay entry of final judgment pending a Supreme Court decision in a case that could have implications in this matter. That Supreme Court case was decided in June 2014, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the district court, based on that Supreme Court decision." "We believe that we continue to have good reason for a dismissal and intend to vigorously defend this motion," the Company said. "SunEdison believes the above class action is without merit, and we will assert a vigorous defense. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome or resolution of the foregoing class action proceedings or estimate the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect to these proceedings. An unfavorable outcome is not expected to have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We have indemnification agreements with each of our present and former directors and officers, under which we are generally required to indemnify each such director or officer against expenses, including attorney's fees, judgments, fines and settlements, arising from actions such as the lawsuits described above (subject to certain exceptions, as described in the indemnification agreements)." SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Preliminarily Approved Colonial Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has preliminarily approved a settlement reached in the Colonial BancGroup Securities Litigation. Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. or STRH, certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality. On February 3, 2015, the parties agreed to a settlement of this matter which was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 13, 2015. If finally approved by the Court, this settlement will resolve all remaining claims against STRH. SUNTRUST BANKS: Plaintiff in "Bickerstaff" Case Loses Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal by the plaintiff of the denial of class certification in the case, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, was denied by the Georgia Court of Appeals. This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010. Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that the appeal was prematurely granted. On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014. Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification on February 26, 2014. On March 30, 2015, this appeal was denied by the Georgia Court of Appeals. SUNTRUST BANKS: Motion to Dismiss in ERISA Class Actions Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the defendants in the putative ERISA Class Actions currently have a motion to dismiss pending with the District Court. Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in Company stock. The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Eleventh Circuit has remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer. Defendants currently have a motion to dismiss pending with the District Court. SUNTRUST BANKS: Consolidated Appeal in ERISA Cases Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated appeal taken by plaintiffs over the dismissal of two ERISA class action lawsuits remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, according to Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual Funds. This action was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District Court"). On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted. On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December 16, 2014. SUNTRUST BANKS: "Brown" Case Stayed Pending "Tibble" Decision ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., remains stayed pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in another case, Tibble v. Eidson International, according to Suntrust Banks, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson International. A decision was expected in Tibble by the end of June 2015. SUNTRUST BANKS: Dismissal of "Morales" Class Action Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that STM has filed a motion to dismiss the case, Douglas Morales v. SunTrust Mortgage, et al, a lender placed insurance class action. STM has been named in four putative class actions similar to those that other financial institutions are facing which allege that STM violated various duties by failing to properly negotiate pricing for force placed insurance and by receiving kickbacks or other improper benefits from the providers of such insurance. Three of the cases involve activity relating to STM's relationship with QBE First Specialty as STM's lender placed insurance vendor. The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. STM filed a motion to dismiss this case and this motion was granted in part and denied in part. The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. STM filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to transfer the case. The Court granted the motion to transfer this case to the Southern District of Florida. STM has entered into an agreement to settle these cases in the context of a nationwide settlement class, which was approved by the Court on October 24, 2014. However, the plaintiffs in Mahdavieh have opted out of the class action settlement and have settled separately from the Hamilton settlement. The fourth case, Douglas Morales v. SunTrust Mortgage, et al, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and involves activity relating to STM's relationship with Assurant as its lender placed insurance vendor. STM has filed a motion to dismiss. No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q Report. SUNTRUST BANKS: Thurmond Reinsurance Class Action Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Suntrust Banks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Thurmond reinsurance class action has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case currently before the Third Circuit. STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers certain loans referred to them by SunTrust results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of borrowers. The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v. SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the Edwards case also. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases were lifted. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond case which was granted in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled. Thurmond has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case currently before the Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their case. TAQUERIA LOS: Faces "Garces" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia Garces and Josefina Gutierrez v. Taqueria Los Comales #12, Inc., Ana Luisa Garcia, and Juan Garcia, Case No. 1:15-cv- 05900 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a restaurant and banquet hall in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Gerardo Becerra, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 332 S. Michigan, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 957-9005 Facsimile: (773) 890-7780 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Elpidio" Trespassing Suit in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ Monica Rodriguez Elpidio and Maria J. Barahona, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03071 (N.D. Cal., July 1, 2015), is an action that seeks to recover to the class of California property owners unpaid rents, damages, and interest, as a result of the Defendant's trespass upon the class's real property and wrongful occupation with the railroad to use the subsurface of the railroad right-of-way. Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Nebraska. Union together with its subsidiaries provides railroad freight transportation services in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com UNIT CORPORATION: Class Cert. Issues Pending in Panola ISD Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the merits of Plaintiffs' claims in the case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production. We have asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where, in addition to the defenses described above, we argued that the amended class definition is still deficient under the court of civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending. UTMOST BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Soda Products, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Toussaint, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Utmost Brands, Inc., Case No. 508127/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers in the State of New York who purchased any of the Utmost Brands' Grown Up Soda products, that were falsely marketed as "100% Natural". Contrary to the Defendant's claim, representation, and warranty, the products are not "100% Natural" because they contain synthetic ingredients caramel color, ascorbic acid and beta carotene. Utmost Brands, Inc. is a beverage company that owns the Gus Grown- Up Soda and Grown-Up Soda trademarks and brands. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lipari, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (646) 722-4266 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com VAGOS SERVICES: Faces "Asbun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Scarlett Anne Asbun, and all others similarly situated v. Joao A. Resende and Vagos Services, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-61370-KAM (S.D. Fla., July 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation off the Fair Labor Standard Act. Vagos Services, Inc. is a Florida for-profit corporation that providing trucking or moving services for long distance moves cross interstate borders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wayne Hudson, Esq. HUDSON & CALLEJA, LLC 355 Alhambra Circle, Suite 801 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-6628 Facsimile: (305) 444-6627 E-mail: rhudson@hudsoncalleja.com WEST LOOP: Faces "Laguna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Laguna, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. West Loop Auto Spa, Inc. and Anthony Vula, Case No. 1:15-cv-05905 (N.D. Ill., July 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a car wash located at 850 West Washington Boulevard in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos Gerardo Becerra, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 332 S. Michigan, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 957-9005 Facsimile: (773) 890-7780 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued in Del. Over Merger With Energy Transfer ----------------------------------------------------------------- Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 11236-VCN (Del. Ch., July 1, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of The Williams Companies, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the company by Energy Transfer Equity, for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. The Williams Companies, Inc. is one of the leading energy infrastructure companies in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Zeldin, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com - and - Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq. Joseph R. Seidman Jr., Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 E-mail: Bernstein@bernlieb.com Ottensoser@bernlieb.com Seidman@bernlieb.com WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Denial of Tolling Motion to Reduce Class Size ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a court has denied opt-in plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, which the Company anticipates will reduce the class size by an additional 15%. On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "FLSA Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and challenges the manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company classified its loan originators and compensated them for their work. The suit also seeks to assert these claims as a class. On September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class and setting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice recipients joined the class. On September 26, 2014, the Court stayed actions by opt-in plaintiffs with arbitration agreements, which reduced the class size by more than 40%. WISCONSIN ENERGY: Expects Stipulation in Case Over Integrys Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wisconsin Energy Corporation anticipates that a Stipulation of Settlement in the litigation relating to the acquisition of Integrys Energy Group, will be presented to the Court for approval after the merger closes, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Since the announcement of the proposed acquisition, Integrys and its board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy, have been named as defendants in ten separate purported class action lawsuits filed in Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases -- Rubin v. Integrys, et al., Blachor v. Integrys, et al., and Albera v. Integrys, et al.), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the cases -- Amo v. Integrys, et al. and Inman v. Integrys, et al.), Cook County, Illinois (two of the cases - Taxman v. Integrys, et al. and Curley v. Integrys, et al.), and the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v. Integrys, et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys, et al., and Collison v. Integrys, et al.). In the Tri-State Joint Fund case, Wisconsin Energy's CEO was also named as a defendant. The cases were brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of shareholders of Integrys. "The complaints allege, among other things, that the Integrys board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the value to be received by Integrys' shareholders, that Wisconsin Energy aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus contains material misstatements and omissions," the Company said. "The complaints seek, among other things, (a) to enjoin defendants from consummating the acquisition; (b) rescission of the Merger Agreement; and (c) to direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain the highest value possible for the Integrys shareholders. The Brown County and Cook County cases have been dismissed in favor of the Milwaukee County actions. On November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which provides the basis for a complete settlement of these actions. We anticipate that a Stipulation of Settlement will be presented to the Court for approval after the Merger closes." On June 29, 2015, Wisconsin Energy issued a statement announcing it has completed the acquisition of Integrys Energy, and forming the WEC Energy Group (NYSE: WEC). The deal is valued at $5.7 billion, according to a Chicago Tribune report. ********* 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 * * *