/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150724.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 147 Headlines ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants in Actos Antitrust Case Moved to Dismiss ACTAVIS PLC: Still Facing AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Botox(R) Antitrust Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: Sanofi Controlling Defense of Cipro(R) Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: Warner and Mayne's Summary Judgment Motion Okayed ACTAVIS PLC: Five Retailers File Lidoderm(R) Antitrust Complaint ACTAVIS PLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Loestrin Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: Appeal in Namenda(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissed as Defendants in Opana Antitrust Case ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Antitrust Case ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Suits ACTAVIS PLC: No Bid for Certiorari Filed in Columbia Labs Case ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet on Forest Case Settlement ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet in Furiex Case Settlement AEP ENERGY: Consumer to Gain $12,500 in Class Action Settlement ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 30 ALICO INC: Faces Shiva Y. Stein Lawsuit AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Carte" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bangiyeva" Suit Over Airline Tickets AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Palmer" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Panzino" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Silver" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Raji" Suit Over Federal Antitrust Laws ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Filed Reply Brief in Appeal ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Company, CEO and COO Face Securities Suits ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Products Due to Salmonella AUDIENCE INC: Parties Reschedule Trial Date to March 2016 AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports BARRETT BUSINESS: To File Motion to Dismiss Class Action BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls IV Solutions Due to Particulates BP: Lafayette to Tap Law Firm to Resolve Settlement Claim C&J ENERGY: No Briefing Schedule Yet on Motion to Dismiss CARMA CINCO: Faces "Constenla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CELADON GROUP: Appealed Judgment in "Wilmoth" Case CELLADON CORP: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Securities Laws Violation CHIQUITA BRANDS: Appeals Court Tosses "Reverse FOIA Request" CHRISTIE'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File Labor Class Action CITIGROUP INC: Accord Reached in NJ Carpenters Fund Action CITIGROUP INC: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought COLE COUNTY: Detainees File Suit Over Jail Clothing Laundry Rules CORAL MARINE: "Ariano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages CVB FINANCIAL: Court of Appeals Has Not Scheduled Oral Argument CY'S KING: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages D&D FOODS: Recalls Macaroni Salad Due to Milk and Wheat DIODES INC: No Schedule Yet for Argument in Class Suit Appeal EBIX INC: To Defend Stockholder Litigation ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS to Fund Mesh Case Settlements by 2017 ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 640 MCP Cases Pending as of May 1 ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 46 Propoxyphene Cases Pending as of May 1 ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 296 Testosterone Cases Pending as of April 29 ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm(R) Case Trial to Begin April 2017 ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Facing Litigation Over Opana(R) ER EXCLUSIVE ENERGY: Faces "Lillis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT FIFA: Judge Dismisses U.S. Soccer Concussion Class Action FOOD CONCEPTS: "Epperly" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Still Defending Securities Class Action GENERAL CABLE: Motion to Amend Judgment Fully Briefed and Pending GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Puffs GFI GROUP: Continues to Defend "Szarek" Class Action in N.Y. GFI GROUP: Continues to Defend "Gross" Class Action in N.Y. GODADDY.COM: Faces "Careaga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GOLDFINGERS GENTLEMEN'S: Former Dancer Files Wage Class Action GOOGLE INC: Sued for Refusing to Provide Gift Card Cash Refunds HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown" Action in Discovery Phase HC2 HOLDINGS: No Responsive Pleading Filed in Schuff Litigation HOMEJOY INC: Worker-Misclassification Litigation Prompts Closure HOMEMADE OF LEAVENWORTH: Recalls Pickle & Sauce Products HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Salad Products Due to Misbranding IMPAX LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Suit Under Submission IMPAX LABORATORIES: Consolidated Suits Filed Over Opana Drug IMPAX LABORATORIES: Accord in Mulligan, Haverhill Cases Pending IMPAX LABORATORIES: Will Pay $4.75 Million to Settle Aruliah Case INNOVATIVE FOOD: Judge Referred 2 Lawsuits to Mediation Program INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Undergoing Discovery INTERNATIONAL FOLLIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensations IT TAKES: Recalls Kale Crisps Zen Nori Due to Undeclared Soy J.G. WENTWORTH: Defendants to Appeal N.D. Illinois Court Ruling J.G. WENTWORTH: To Defend Against Case Related to OAC Merger J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Class Action J2 GLOBAL: Briefing on Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Andre Free-Vychine Class Actions JAKKS PACIFIC: Third Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit LEVY ACQUISITION: Class Action Filed Related to Del Taco Merger LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Action LONGTOP FINANCIAL: October 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MCCORMICK & CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Slack-Fill Lawsuit MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Consolidated Class Suit MEILIN HAIR: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MIAMI TERMINAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Macais" Suit Claims MIDWEST PARTITIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MODEL N: Securities Class Actions Filed MONSTER BEVERAGE: Says False Advertising Cases Have "No Merit" MURRY'S INC: Recalls Gluten-Free Breaded Chicken Nuggets NATURAL DOG: Recalls Tremenda Sticks Pet Chews Due to Salmonella NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Filed Motion to Dismiss Rand-Heart Action OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Cal. for Non-Disclosure of Balloon Payment ON THE LEVEL: "Larue" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages OSAMU CORPORATION: Recalls Frozen Tuna Products Due to Salmonella P&S SELECT: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages PACIFIC GAS: Does Not Properly Pay CSRs, "Greer" Suit Claims PHOTOMEDEX INC: Court Dismissed Class Action Against Radiancy PHOTOMEDEX INC: Cantley Class Action in Discovery Phase POPULAR INC: "Valle" Case v. PCB Stayed Pending Ruling on Motions POPULAR INC: Conditional Certification Granted in "Quiles" Case POPULAR INC: "Fernandez" Remains Pending in New York Court POPULAR INC: Court Approves Dismissal of "Alvarez" Case POPULAR INC: Agreement in "Valle" Case v. BPNA Not Yet Final POPULAR INC: BPNA Settles Claims by Ex-Assist. Branch Managers POPULAR INC: BPPR Served with RadioShack ERISA Litigation PURE CANVAS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Espinoza" Suit Says RCI HOSPITALITY: Settled New York Wage and Hour Class Action Case SABINE OIL: Parties Negotiating Settlement of Forest Oil Suits SAUSAGE FACTORY: Recalls Sausage Products Die to Misbranding SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Delaware Suits SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Hearing Held on Settlement in Bally Class Suit SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Class Action v. Oregon State Lottery Dropped SMITHTOWN BANCORP: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SOTHEBY'S: 9th Circuit Affirmed Lower Court Decision SOTHEBY'S: No Stockholder Objections Filed to Settlement SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Action Mulled Over Rent Overcharges SUPERVALU INC: Recalls Danish Rolls Due to Milk Allergen STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Cert. Matter Remains Under Advisement SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Parties Settle Resolution Partners Complaint SYNTHES USA: Judge Tosses Plaintiff's Strict Liability Claims TD BANK: Settles Ponzi Scheme Class Action for $20 Million TEMPUR SEALY: Todd and Thompson Cases in Discovery Phase TESCO CORPORATION: Participating in Arbitration TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties in Shareholder Suit Agree to Talks TRICO BANCSHARES: To Fight Suit by Former Personal Banker TRICO BANCSHARES: To Fight Suit by Current Personal Banker UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Approved Settlement of Class Action UNITED STATES: ADX Prisoners Sue Over Solitary Confinement UNITED STATES: Faces Multiple Suits Over Indian Child Welfare Act URANERZ ENERGY: Shareholder Class Actions Filed Related to Merger VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Party Won't Oppose Lead Plaintiff Appointment VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Mark Youngers Files Class Action WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Sued in Fla. Over Blind Inaccessible POS Devices WORLD WRESTLING: Seeks to Halt Retired Wrestlers' Concussion Suits WSFS FINANCIAL: 3 Complaints Filed Over Alliance Bancorp Merger XTO ENERGY: Faces Class Action For Gas Lease Royalty Deductions * Lawsuits Over Alleged Arsenic-Tainted Wine Pending, No Recalls * Regulators Target "Pay-for-Delay" Settlements Between Drug Cos. * Washington Growers Urged to Adopt Piece-Rate Pay Practice Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Did Not Pay NARCO Trust as of June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Values Future NARCO Claims at $743MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,343 Bendix Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Fletcher" Partially Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Carter" ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Partial Dismissal in "Bridges" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Bazor" ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Boyd" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Law to Govern York Int'l. Insurance Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Refuses to Review "Spychalla" Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: April 15, 2014 NYCAL Order Modified ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Torbit" Enlarged ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Lucadamo" Enlarged ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Defeated in Bid to Junk "Bardone" ********* ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants in Actos Antitrust Case Moved to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants in the Actos(R) Antitrust Litigation have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions were filed in the federal court for the Southern District of New York against Actavis plc and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson" now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010 patent lawsuit settlement with Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd. related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin "Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several additional complaints have also been filed. Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20, 2014. The amended complaint, asserted on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges an overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Still Facing AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- The AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation remains pending, Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the State of California filed a lawsuit in federal district court in California alleging that the September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of AndroGel(R) in exchange for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote AndroGel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in federal district court in California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated claimants. On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The FTC and the private plaintiffs filed amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO"), conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation. Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of AndroGel(R). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") transferred all federal court actions then pending outside of Georgia to that district. The district court then granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims except the private plaintiffs' sham litigation claims. After the dismissal was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the FTC petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court AndroGel Decision"). The case in now back in the district court in Georgia August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which the Company answered on September 15, 2014. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Botox(R) Antitrust Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the Botox(R) Antitrust Litigation. On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec.1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Sanofi Controlling Defense of Cipro(R) Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi Aventis is currently controlling the defense of the Cipro(R) Antitrust Litigation, Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. While many of these actions have been dismissed, actions remain pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. There has been activity in Tennessee and Florida since 2003. In the action pending in Kansas, plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been fully briefed. In the action pending in the California state court, following the decision from the United States Supreme Court in the Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis matter involving AndroGel(R), Plaintiffs and Bayer announced that they reached an agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer and Bayer has now been dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants, including Watson and Rugby. The remaining parties submitted letter briefs to the court regarding the impact of the Supreme Court AndroGel Decision and on May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling, consistent with the Supreme Court AndroGel Decision, that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review. In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that various state and federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. ACTAVIS PLC: Warner and Mayne's Summary Judgment Motion Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has granted Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment and denied Mylan's summary judgment motion in the Doryx(R) Antitrust Litigation. In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against by purported indirect purchasers. In addition, four retailers filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). In each of the class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court. Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan's summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan has not yet indicated whether they will be appealing the court's ruling. The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar suits will be filed. The Company can offer no assurance as to whether Mylan will appeal the district court's ruling and, if it does, whether the Company will be successful on the appeal. ACTAVIS PLC: Five Retailers File Lidoderm(R) Antitrust Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a group of five retailers filed a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities regarding Lidoderm(R). On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches, "Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges that Watson improperly delayed launching generic versions of Lidoderm(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Endo in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations have followed on behalf of other classes of putative direct purchasers and suits have been filed on behalf of putative classes of end-payer plaintiffs. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations may be filed. On April 3, 2014 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") consolidated the cases in federal district court in California. Defendants filed motions to dismiss each of the plaintiff classes' claims. On November 17, 2014, the court issued an order granting the motion in part but denying it with respect to the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs then filed an amended, consolidated complaint on December 19, 2014. Defendants have responded to the amended consolidated complaint. On March 5, 2015, a group of five retailers filed a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities regarding Lidoderm(R) in the same court where it was consolidated with the direct and indirect purchaser class complaints. The retailer complaint recites similar facts and asserts similar legal claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Loestrin Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs in the Loestrin(R) 24 Antitrust Litigation are appealing the district court's decision to dismiss to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets, "Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations. After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs are appealing the district court's decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the district court's decision granting the Company's motion to dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Appeal in Namenda(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Forest Laboratories, Inc. ("Forest")'s appeal of the preliminary injunction order in the Namenda(R) Antitrust Litigation remains pending. On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda(R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November 2014 on the state's preliminary injunction motion. On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting the state's injunction motion and issued an injunction on December 15, 2014. Forest appealed the preliminary injunction order to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument on April 13, 2015. Forest's appeal remains pending. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissed as Defendants in Opana Antitrust Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the Opana Antitrust Litigation have agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Actavis defendants from the action without prejudice. On December 19, 2014, a putative class action was filed in California state court against Actavis, Inc. and Actavis South Atlantic LLC alleging, among other things, that Actavis' 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Opana ER(R) (extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride tablets) is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of a putative class of end payer plaintiffs, generally alleges that Actavis and Impax improperly delayed launching generic versions of Opana ER(R) in exchange for substantial consideration from Endo in violation of CA state antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks damages and other equitable relief. On March 4, 2015, plaintiffs in this action agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Actavis defendants from the action without prejudice. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations may be filed. However, this action and any others like it, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Antitrust Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Antitrust Litigation. On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a complaint in the federal district court in Delaware Senju Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)). On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions. Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in the federal district court Massachusetts (the "Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under the state consumer protection statutes and state common laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes. However, only the Missouri state class was certified. Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for $7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35 million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement. Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging that the Company's promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been deceptive. On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20, 2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the motion. On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December 12, 2014 ruling. On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014. Forest and certain of its affiliates are also named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court. These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to resolve each matter for payments that are not material to our financial condition or results of operations. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ACTAVIS PLC: No Bid for Certiorari Filed in Columbia Labs Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs in the Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On June 8, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed in the federal district court in New Jersey by a putative class of Columbia Laboratories' stock purchasers. The amended complaint generally alleges that between December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of Prochieve(R) progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories' developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth. Watson licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from Columbia Laboratories in July 2010. The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the statistical analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of Prochieve(R). The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On October 21, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed this decision. On March 10, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals court issued its ruling affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet on Forest Case Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the settlement in the Forest Laboratories Securities Litigation. In February and March 2014, several putative stockholder class actions were brought against Forest, Forest's directors, Actavis plc, and certain of Actavis's affiliates. Four actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in New York State Supreme Court. The amended complaints in these actions seek, among other remedies, to enjoin Actavis's proposed acquisition of Forest or damages in the event the transaction closes. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Forest Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process, and that the disclosure document fails to disclose allegedly material information about the transaction. The complaints also allege that Actavis, and certain of its affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged breaches. On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle both actions. The parties entered into a definitive stipulation of settlement on February 6, 2015 that remains subject to customary conditions, including court approval. A fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is not approved, the proposed settlement may be terminated. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet in Furiex Case Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the settlement reached in the Furiex Securities Litigation. In May 2014, four putative stockholder class actions were brought against Forest, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and Furiex's board of directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in North Carolina state court. These actions alleged, among other things, that the members of the Furiex Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Furiex for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. These actions also alleged that Forest aided and abetted these alleged breaches. These actions sought class certification, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Furiex, and an award of unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs. Two of the actions also sought rescission of the acquisition and unspecified rescissory damages if the acquisition was completed. On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs regarding a settlement of all actions, and on January 15, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement which is subject to court approval. A fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all four actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction and any disclosure made in connection therewith. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement may be terminated. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. AEP ENERGY: Consumer to Gain $12,500 in Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Gearino, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a Westerville man with a long record of suing companies that make unwanted phone calls is expected to gain $12,500 in a class-action settlement with an American Electric Power subsidiary. Other consumers are receiving postcards telling them that they may be eligible for their own, albeit much smaller, share of the proposed $6 million award. Philip Charvat sued AEP Energy in April 2014, saying that he received two phone calls asking him to sign up for home electricity contracts, even though he is on the National Do-Not- Call Registry. Under a settlement, AEP agrees to pay $6 million, of which $2 million will go to Mr. Charvat's attorneys; the remaining $4 million will be split among other consumers, and cover the costs of administering the agreement. To be eligible, a consumer must be located in the United States, have received more than one unwanted solicitation from AEP Energy between April 29, 2010, and June 18, 2015, and have been listed on the Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of the calls. The money will be divided equally among all of the consumers who respond, so the amount of each check depends on how many people choose to participate. AEP says the phone calls were made by a contractor, Infinity Marketing, which called customers on the Do-Not-Call list in violation of the contract with AEP. "Once AEP Energy's investigation confirmed that the vendor was acting in violation of the contract, we stopped doing business with them. AEP Energy no longer makes unsolicited, outbound calls to residential customers," said AEP spokeswoman Tammy Ridout. Last month, AEP sued Infinity in federal court, trying to recover costs from the Charvat case. Mr. Charvat, 66, answered the phone at his Westerville home on July 17 but declined comment. He is in line to receive $12,500 because of his status as lead plaintiff. He has a long record of suing companies for making unwanted calls, with dozens of cases in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, plus cases in various federal courts. The AEP Energy case is in federal court in Illinois. Among Mr. Charvat's adversaries has been this newspaper. He sued The Dispatch in 1998, a case that led to a 2002 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Charvat's favor. In that case, Mr. Charvat said that The Dispatch should not be allowed to solicit him for a weekday subscription, even though he was a subscriber to the paper's Sunday edition. The Dispatch's then-parent company argued unsuccessfully that Mr. Charvat's status as a subscriber meant that the company had an existing relationship with him, which is often an exception to the Do-Not-Call rules. A 2011 Dispatch story about Mr. Charvat's various legal actions said he had received $27,000 from one of the settlements, and received $15,000 from several cases involving The Dispatch. ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Albemarle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that te Superior Court of New Jersey has scheduled the final settlement hearing for July 30, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in the class action lawsuit related to the merger with Rockwood Holdings Inc. On July 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County ("Superior Court of New Jersey") relating to the Merger. On July 24, 2014, an additional putative class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey relating to the Merger. Both suits named the same plaintiff but were filed by different law firms. On August 1, 2014 and August 12, 2014, three additional putative class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") relating to the Merger. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey, Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings Inc., et al. ("Thwaites I"), Thwaites v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Thwaites II"), and the lawsuits filed in Delaware, Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., Riley v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., and North Miami Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., each named Rockwood, its former directors, and Albemarle as defendants. Thwaites II and the cases filed in Delaware also named Albemarle Holdings Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Albemarle, as a defendant. The lawsuits, which contained substantially similar allegations, included allegations that Rockwood's former board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by failing to ensure that Rockwood shareholders would receive the maximum value for their shares, failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting their own interests ahead of those of Rockwood shareholders. Rockwood and Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits sought a variety of equitable relief, including enjoining the former Rockwood board of directors from proceeding with the proposed Merger unless they acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value and rescission of the Merger to the extent implemented, in addition to damages arising from the defendants' alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites I filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to all defendants. On August 27, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the three Delaware cases consolidated and appointed co-lead counsel. The court also ordered that no response to the complaints would be due until after plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On September 19, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an amended complaint which included allegations that the registration statement failed to disclose material information. Plaintiffs in Thwaites II and in the Delaware consolidated action subsequently coordinated their litigation efforts, and the Delaware consolidated action was stayed pending the outcome of the Thwaites II litigation. In Thwaites II, the parties (including the Delaware plaintiffs) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on November 6, 2014, provisionally settling all claims in the pending actions and declaring the parties' intent to submit a settlement agreement for the court's approval within 90 days. On December 2, 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint in Thwaites II until February 4, 2015. The parties executed a final Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation") on February 4, 2015. In addition to extinguishing the current claims, the Stipulation contemplates broad releases of any and all actual and potential claims, whether known or unknown, by any member of the putative shareholder class against the defendants relating to or arising out of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the registration statement. On February 26, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, which was unopposed. The Superior Court of New Jersey granted the motion on March 31, 2015, and scheduled the final settlement hearing for July 30, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. In accordance with the terms of the Stipulation and the Court's Order preliminarily approving the settlement, notice of the settlement and final hearing date was provided to former Rockwood stockholders on April 14, 2015. On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. Upon final approval of the settlement by the Superior Court of New Jersey, plaintiffs in the Delaware actions will move to dismiss the pending consolidated action with prejudice, thereby terminating the litigation. ALICO INC: Faces Shiva Y. Stein Lawsuit --------------------------------------- Alico, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2015, by Shiva Y. Stein in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County, Florida, against Alico, Inc. ("Alico"), its current and certain former directors, 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC d/b/a Silver Nip Citrus ("Silver Nip"), 734 Investors, LLC ("734 Investors"), 734 Agriculture, LLC ("734 Agriculture") and 734 Sub, LLC ("734 Sub") in connection with the acquisition of Silver Nip by Alico (the "Acquisition"). The complaint alleges that Alico's directors at the time of the Acquisition, 734 Investors and 734 Agriculture breached fiduciary duties to Alico stockholders in connection with the Acquisition and that Silver Nip and 734 Sub aided and abetted such breaches. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and equitable relief, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses. "We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and intend to contest it vigorously," the Company said. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Carte" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Carte, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated 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. 2:15-cv-05208-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, 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: info@glancylaw.com - and - Brian Murray, Esq. Lee Albert, Esq. Thomas J. Kennedy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com tkennedy@glancylaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bangiyeva" Suit Over Airline Tickets -------------------------------------------------------------- Stella Bangiyeva and Charles Curley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co. and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04062-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas G. Amon, Esq. Peter B. Patterson, Jr. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON 250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316 New York, NY 10107 Telephone: (212) 810-2430 Facsimile: (212) 810-2427 E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com ppatterson@amonlaw.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Gregory E. Del Gaizo Leonid Kandinov, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com kseely@robbinsarroyo.com gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Kelly, on behalf of himself 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-03222-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq. Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq. Eric W. Buetzow, Esq. ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 693-0700 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com ahou@zelle.com ebuetzow@zelle.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Palmer" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Curtis Palmer, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-04047-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, PC 570 Lexington Avenue, 19th floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 702-7053 Facsimile: (212) 681-0300 E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Panzino" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colleen Panzino and Frederick Isaacson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01084-CKK (D.D.C., July 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Scott Simmer, Esq. SIMMER LAW GROUP PLLC 600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 10-A Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 333-4562 Facsimile: (202) 337-1039 E-mail: scott.simmer@simmerlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Silver" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Eileen Silver, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06099 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jayne Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP 1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 315-3454 Facsimile: (954) 315-3455 E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Raji" Suit Over Federal Antitrust Laws ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lilian M. Raji, and all others similarly-situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05384 (S.D. N.Y., July 10, 2015), seeks damages under the federal antitrust laws arising from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to restrict available flight capacity and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of passenger airline tickets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, are brought pursuant to sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. American sells and provides domestic air transportation services throughout the U.S. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta sells and provides domestic air transportation services throughout the U.S. Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Delta sells and provides domestic air transportation services throughout the U.S. United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. United sells and provides domestic air transportation services throughout the U.S. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Seth Garber, Esq. FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Ave, Ste. 220 White Plains, NY 10605 Tel: (914) 298-3281 Fax: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Filed Reply Brief in Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has filed his reply brief in an appeal. "Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against us and certain of our current and former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock," the Company said. "The complaints were brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that we and certain of our current and former employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief." "On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E. Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice. "On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20, 2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. "On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his reply brief. Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses relating to these claims." ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Company, CEO and COO Face Securities Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Arrowhead Research Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Operating Officer have been named as defendants in two securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug research. Both actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages in an unspecified amount. Two actions with similar claims under California State law are currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the facts underlying the Securities Claims. Each of these seven suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive relief. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in each of the matters. ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Products Due to Salmonella -------------------------------------------------------------- Aspen Foods, A Division of Koch Poultry Company, a Chicago, Ill. establishment, is recalling approximately 1,978,680 pounds of frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken product that may be contaminated with Salmonella Enteritidis, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken items were produced between April 15, 2015 and July 10, 2015 with "best if used by" dates between July 14, 2016 and October 10, 2016. --- Acclaim --- Antioch Farms --- Buckley Farms --- Centrella Signature --- Chestnut Farms --- Family Favorites --- Kirkwood --- Koch Foods --- Market Day --- Oven Cravers --- Princess --- Rose --- Rosebud Farm --- Roundy's --- Safeway Kitchens --- Schwan's --- Shaner's --- Spartan --- Sysco The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "P- 1358" inside the USDA mark of inspection. This product was shipped to retail stores and food service locations nationwide. FSIS was notified of a cluster of Salmonella Enteritidis illnesses on June 23, 2015. Working in conjunction with Minnesota State Departments of Health and Agriculture, FSIS determined that there is a link between the frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken products from Aspen Foods and this illness cluster. Based on epidemiological evidence and traceback investigations, three case- patients have been identified in Minnesota with illness onset dates ranging from May 9, 2015 to June 8, 2015. FSIS continues to work with the Minnesota Departments of Health and Agriculture as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on this investigation. Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after exposure to the organism. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health care provider. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be in consumers' freezers. Although the product subject to recall may appear to be cooked, this product is in fact uncooked (raw) and should be handled carefully to avoid cross-contamination in the kitchen. Particular attention needs to be paid to safely prepare and cook these raw poultry products to a temperature of 165ø F checking at the center, the thickest part and the surface of the product. This frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken product was labeled with instructions identifying that the product was raw and included cooking instructions for preparation. Some case-patients reported following the cooking instructions on the label and using a food thermometer to confirm that the recommended temperature was achieved. Therefore, FSIS advises all consumers to treat this product like a raw chicken product. Hands and any surfaces, including surfaces that may have breading dislodged from the product, should be cleaned after contact with this raw product. Also, keep raw poultry away from other food that will not be cooked. Use one cutting board for raw poultry and a separate one for fresh produce and cooked foods. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions can contact the company directly at (844) 277-6802. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem. AUDIENCE INC: Parties Reschedule Trial Date to March 2016 --------------------------------------------------------- Audience Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has not yet approved a stipulation to reschedule the trial date in a class action complaint to March 14, 2016. On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County against the Company, the members of its board of directors, two of its executive officers and the underwriters of its IPO. An amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO. On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice. The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, rescission and attorney's fees and costs. On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other grounds. The Court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013. On January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class. A trial has been scheduled for September 15, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the parties submitted a stipulation to reschedule the trial date to March 14, 2016. The Court has not yet approved the stipulation. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously contest the action. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense and it cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses the Company may experience in connection with this case. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this complaint on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., Thomas W. Chalberg, Jr., and Linda C. Bain, Case No. 3:15-cv-03185-SC (N.D. Cal., July 9, 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, issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. is a biotechnology company that uses its proprietary Ocular BioFactory(TM) platform for discovering and developing novel medicines with the potential to offer therapeutic benefit. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com BARRETT BUSINESS: To File Motion to Dismiss Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Barrett Business Services, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against BBSI and Michael L. Elich and James D. Miller, BBSI's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively. The action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise from the decline in the market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased workers compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including attorney fees and expert fees). On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint names the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserts similar claims for relief. Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v. Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint names the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserts similar claims for relief. On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The court also appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff. On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a consolidated amended complaint that asserts the same legal claims as the original lawsuits. BBSI intended to file a motion to dismiss the complaint no later than June 12, 2015. Discovery has not been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls IV Solutions Due to Particulates -------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling two lots of intravenous (IV) solutions to the hospital/user level due to the potential presence of particulate matter. The particulate matter in each case was determined to be an insect and was identified as a result of a customer complaint. The matter was identified prior to patient administration and there have been no adverse events associated with this issue reported to Baxter. Injecting a product containing particulate matter, in the absence of in-line filtration, may result in blockage of blood vessels, which can result in stroke, heart attack or damage to other organs such as the kidney or liver. There is also the possibility of allergic reactions, local irritation and inflammation in tissues and organs. This recall affects the following lots: Product Product Lot Number Expiration NDC Code Description ---------- Date --- ------ ----------- ---------- 2B1301 0.9 % Sodium P319921 12/31/2015 0338-0049-11 Chloride Injection, USP, 50 mL VIAFLEX Plastic Container 2B0043 0.9% Sodium P327635 12/30/2015 0338-0553-18 Chloride Injection, USP, 100 mL MINI-BAG Plus Container 0.9 % Sodium Chloride Injection, USP, 50 mL VIAFLEX Plastic Container is intended for intravenous use as a source of water and electrolytes. 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP, 100 mL MINI-BAG Plus Container is indicated as a source of water and electrolytes, and may also be used as a diluent for reconstitution of a powdered drug product packaged in a vial with a 20 mm closure. The lots being recalled were distributed to customers and distributors in the United States between October 7, 2014 and July 14, 2015. Baxter is directing customers not to use product from the recalled lots. Recalled product should be returned to Baxter for credit by contacting Baxter Healthcare Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time. Unaffected lots of product are available for replacement. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at 1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or e-mail Baxter at onebaxter@baxter.com. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to using these drug products. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Baxter International Inc. provides a broad portfolio of essential renal and hospital products, including home, acute and in-center dialysis; sterile IV solutions; infusion systems and devices; parenteral nutrition; biosurgery products and anesthetics; and pharmacy automation, software and services. The company's global footprint and the critical nature of its products and services play a key role in expanding access to healthcare in emerging and developed countries. Baxter's 50,000 employees worldwide are building upon the company's rich heritage of medical breakthroughs to advance the next generation of healthcare innovations that enable patient care. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455377.htm BP: Lafayette to Tap Law Firm to Resolve Settlement Claim --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Burgess, writing for The Acadiana Advocate, reports that the Lafayette Consolidated Government is reaching out to a New Orleans law firm to help navigate a possible settlement payment from BP in the massive class-action lawsuit for losses linked to the 2010 Gulf oil spill. BP agreed to a tentative settlement earlier this month to pay the federal government, Louisiana and four other states a total $18.7 billion. Louisiana is set to receive $6.8 billion, and local governments across the Gulf Coast are in line to share up to $1 billion. Several public entities in the state already have reached settlement agreements, but Lafayette's claim for a share of the BP pie has yet to be resolved. The city-parish filed a claim in 2013. City-parish officials argue the spill cooled the local economy and pulled down the sales tax revenue that fuels the city-parish budget. East Baton Rouge Parish made similar claims and recently agreed to a $2.1 million settlement with BP. Lafayette officials have declined to talk about how much money they are seeking or any aspect of the negotiations. The council discussed the issue in a closed-door executive session on July 7 but took no action. The council on July 14 is set to review a proposed contract with the New Orleans law firm of Lewis, Kullman, Sterbcow & Abramson to handle settlement negotiations and to advise city-parish government on whether it should "accept proposed payments, appeal or opt out of the settlement," according to documents filed with the council. A final vote on the contract is set for Aug. 4. The law firm's fee would be up to 15 percent of any payout. Any money Lafayette receives in a settlement likely would have no strings attached and could be used for whatever leaders decide. City-Parish President Joey Durel said in an email that there are no plans yet. "Since we are uncertain of where this might go, we have not had any discussion," he said. City-Parish Council Chairman Kenneth Boudreaux said he is reluctant to even consider how any extra cash might be spent, considering the uncertainty of the settlement. "We definitely don't want to jump the gun on anything," he said. The city-parish is one of several public entities in Acadiana that have made a claim in the BP case. Others include the Acadia Parish School Board; Franklin; St. Mary Parish government; the St. Mary Parish School Board; the Lafayette Convention and Visitors Commission; and the Twin Parish Port District in Delcambre. C&J ENERGY: No Briefing Schedule Yet on Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------- C&J Energy Services Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a briefing schedule has not yet been entered on the C&J Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit, City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al. On March 24, 2015, C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") and Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") completed the combination of Legacy C&J with Nabors' completion and production services business (the "C&P Business"), whereby Legacy C&J became a subsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd (the "Merger"). In July 2014, following the announcement Legacy C&J, Nabors, and New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of Legacy C&J challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.; C.A. No. 9980-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July 30, 2014 (the "Lawsuit"). Plaintiff in the Lawsuit generally alleges that the board of directors for Legacy C&J breached fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, candor and independence by allegedly approving the Merger Agreement at an unfair price and through an unfair process. Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Legacy C&J board directors, or certain of them (i) failed to fully inform themselves of the market value of Legacy C&J, maximize its value and obtain the best price reasonably available for Legacy C&J, (ii) acted in bad faith and for improper motives, (iii) erected barriers to discourage other strategic alternatives and (iv) put their personal interests ahead of the interests of Legacy C&J stockholders. The Lawsuit further alleges that C&J, Nabors and Red Lion aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Legacy C&J board of directors. On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. On November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the Legacy C&J board of directors to solicit for a period of 30 days alternative proposals to purchase Legacy C&J (or a controlling stake in Legacy C&J) that was superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined Legacy C&J from holding its stockholder meeting until it had complied with the foregoing. The order provided that the solicitation of proposals consistent with the order, and any subsequent negotiations of any alternative proposal that emerges, would not constitute a breach of the Merger Agreement in any respect. Legacy C&J complied with the Court of Chancery's order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On November 26, 2014, in response to, and in compliance with, the Court of Chancery's order, the C&J board of directors established a special committee, which retained separate legal and financial advisors, to proceed with the ordered solicitation. On December 19, 2014, following oral argument, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Chancery and vacated the order. As such, Legacy C&J's special committee immediately discontinued the solicitation required by the order. On March 25, 2015, the C&J Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. A briefing schedule on this motion has not yet been entered. "We cannot predict the outcome of this or any other lawsuit that might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the Lawsuit. We believe the Lawsuit is without merit and we intend to defend against it vigorously," the Company said. CARMA CINCO: Faces "Constenla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gustavo Alejandro Constenla and all others similarly situated v. Carma Cinco, LLC d/b/a The Knife, Carma LLC d/b/a The Knife, Jose Cejas, Guillermo Palmeiro, Case No. 1:15-cv-22584-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 9, 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 own and operate The Knife restaurant in 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 CELADON GROUP: Appealed Judgment in "Wilmoth" Case -------------------------------------------------- In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, Celadon Group, Inc. said that, "Our subsidiary has been named as the defendant in Wilmoth et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action proceeding. A summary judgment was recently granted in favor of the plaintiffs. We have appealed this judgment. We believe that we will be successful on appeal, but that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will be upheld. We estimate the possible range of costs associated with this claim to be between $0 and approximately $5 million. We currently do not have a contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to monitor the progress of this claim to determine if a reserve is necessary in the future." CELLADON CORP: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Securities Laws Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Norman Jacobs, and all others similarly-situated v. Celladon Corporation, Kristina M. Zsebo and Rebecque J. Laba, Case No. 3:15-cv-01529 (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover compensable damages pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal class action on behalf of persons who purchased Celladon securities between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015, inclusive. Celladon is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Diego, California. It is a clinical-stage biotechnology company. Its common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLDN." Ms. Zsebo was, at all relevant times, the Company's CEO and a member of its Board until May 29, 2015, at which time she resigned from the Company. During the Class Period, Zsebo sold 226,397 shares of Celladon stock for proceeds of over $4.1 million. Ms. Laba was, at all relevant times, the Company's Vice President, Core Operations. Laba sold 79,012 shares of Celladon stock for proceeds of over $1.3 million. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 9430 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 400 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (310) 209-2468 Fax: (310) 209-2087 E-mail: service@ssbla.com CHIQUITA BRANDS: Appeals Court Tosses "Reverse FOIA Request" ------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Beck, writing for Law.com, reports that Chiquita Brands International Inc. and its lawyers at Covington & Burling have failed to stop the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from releasing sensitive documents it obtained during its investigation of a Chiquita subsidiary's payments to Colombian paramilitary groups. The SEC has agreed to release these documents to the nonprofit National Security Archive, which had sought them through a Freedom of Information Act request. In a ruling on July 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the company's "reverse FOIA request," as it's known. Upholding a lower court, the appellate court held that Chiquita could not block the release of these documents by claiming that the information would jeopardize its right to a fair trial. Chiquita is a defendant in a pending human rights case in Florida brought by Colombian citizens who were tortured by the paramilitary and by family members of those who were murdered. Last year, Covington convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to dismiss claims filed under the Alien Tort Statute, because the alleged human rights abuses occurred outside the U.S. But other claims under Columbian law remain. Chiquita had turned over these documents to the SEC more than a decade ago when the agency was investigating payments made to the paramilitary group by the subsidiary, called Banadex. At the time the company asked the SEC to treat them as confidential. In 2001 the company reached a cease-and-desist settlement with the SEC on record-keeping charges. In 2007 the company pled guilty to a felony charge brought by the U.S. Department of Justice accusing it of engaging in unauthorized transactions with a global terrorist organization. The company, which has admitted making payments from 1997 to 2004, has maintained that it did this to protect its Colombian employees from being kidnapped, injured or murdered. In 2008 the National Security Archive, which is located at George Washington University, filed FOIA requests with the SEC, asking for documents related to the Banadex investigation. The SEC agreed to turn over 23 boxes of documents, including forms describing the payments to the paramilitary group, legal documents and transcripts of depositions of Chiquita's employees. (The SEC has agreed to redact certain names.) Covington argued that because the archive supports the Florida plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiffs would surely get these documents and Chiquita would be deprived of a fair trial. Discovery in the Florida case is stayed, so this FOIA release would give the plaintiffs access to these documents before they would have gotten them in the litigation. Covington pointed to an exception in FOIA that allows the withholding of documents if their release would deprive someone of a fair trial or an impartial adjudication. The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Griffith, stated that the company wouldn't be deprived of a fair trial merely because the plaintiffs got a head start on discovery. The court also rejected the company's position that this FOIA release was unfair because it wouldn't be able to get protective orders for some documents, as it could in the litigation. "[This exemption] is not a tool to protect reputation and privacy interests unless the damage disclosure might pose to such interests is likely to impact the ultimate fairness of a trial," wrote the court in an opinion that was joined by Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Robert Wilkins. Mark Lynch of Covington, the lead appellate counsel for Chiquita, referred Law.com to his client for comment. Law.com reached out to Chiquita but did not hear back. Sarah Hancur was the lead lawyer for the SEC. Adina Rosenbaum of Public Citizen Litigation Group argued for the National Security Archive. "The court of appeals' decision is an important victory for FOIA requesters and the public," said Rosenbaum in a press release. "The decision confirms that the government cannot withhold documents from the public just because they might be of interest to someone involved in litigation. A ruling for Chiquita would have created a huge exemption to the FOIA law, with far-reaching implications." CHRISTIE'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File Labor Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Sean Holstege, writing for The Arizona Republic, reports that about 120 exotic dancers are suing a Phoenix-area strip club for what the performers claim are unfair labor practices, in what has become a growing and lucrative area of legal practice around the country. Days before the most recent hearing in the Christie's Cabaret case this month, about 4,000 dancers in Florida won a $6 million settlement in an almost identical case. Houston-based law firm Kennedy Hodges brought both cases. The company also won a similar case in Dallas, has ongoing cases in North Carolina and Texas, and its attorneys have sued the Alaska Bush Co. and Bliss Show Club in Phoenix, said Beatriz Sosa-Morris, the attorney representing the Christie's dancers. Other firms have filed similar cases around the country in recent months. Christie's dancers have banded together in a class-action labor- rights lawsuit in federal court, claiming that since 2011, clubs in Phoenix and Tempe and their corporate owners have illegally classified them as independent contractors, rather than employees. The suit, filed in May 2014, seeks to recover overtime pay and unpaid hourly minimum-wage earnings. Lawyers for Christie's countered in U.S. District Court filings that the clubs have no record of some of the women ever working there. Lawyers also argued that the women mistakenly sued some wrong corporate entities and that they entered agreements to dance, knowing they were not employees. Records filed in court show that dancers are required to sign an "Independent Contractor Agreement," which states, "Company and contractor intend to create an independent relationship," and were not entering a relationship as employer and employee. In essence, the dancers were paying fees to lease the stage, DJ, lighting and venue in exchange for being allowed to keep their tips. The dancers and their attorney Sosa-Morris describe a workplace where the dancers are routinely exploited and strict rules govern almost every aspect of their work shifts. "These clubs will just take, take, take from the dancers," Ms. Sosa-Morris said. "These dancers are a lot of times abused by the system and just tossed into the sex industry." La'Shaunta Cooper, in a written statement in court, said she worked at the Tempe club for two years and that "the ultimate factors which control how much money we can make at Christie's Cabaret are largely out of our control." Ms. Cooper said in addition to required tips to the DJ, "house mom," bouncers and managers, she had to pay a set house fee as well as any fines for arriving late, leaving early or violating rules. Those rules are set forth in a seven-page document filed in court. Examples include: "no gum," "no negativity" and, "Don't talk about your personal problems to a customer. They are there to forget theirs." Christie's lawyers declined to comment for this story, but the club maintains in court records that it has no control over the dancers, whom it says simply lease space. The case is still in its early stages. Rulings are expected near the end of the year with the case, if there is no settlement. CITIGROUP INC: Accord Reached in NJ Carpenters Fund Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on February 2, 2015, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) and its remaining co- defendants filed a stipulation of agreement and settlement in the class action NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, ET AL. v. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL. This settlement is subject to court approval. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 08 Civ. 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.). CITIGROUP INC: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that beginning in September 2014, various plaintiffs filed putative class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup and other USD ISDAFIX panel banks, which are proceeding on a consolidated basis. On April 13, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims in plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket number 1:14-cv-7126 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman, J.). COLE COUNTY: Detainees File Suit Over Jail Clothing Laundry Rules ----------------------------------------------------------------- Garrett Bergquist, writing for Connectmidmissouri.com, reports that court action began on July 17 on a lawsuit claiming Cole County Jail inmates were forced to go naked while their clothes were laundered. According to a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, detainees at the Cole County Jail were given one set of clothing. In the suit, the detainees claimed if they wanted their clothes to be laundered, they would have to remain naked in their cell until they get their clothes back. On July 17, a federal judge denied a request by the plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order forcing the jail to provide additional clothing. Jason Ludwig, who is representing one current and two former jail detainees in the case, said he has never seen a case such as this before. He said the practice of issuing a single set of clothing represents a health risk to inmates who either choose not to launder their clothes or try to hand-wash them. Since jail rules forbid covering vents or draping clothing on racks, he said inmates would have to wear wet clothes after hand-washing them. "I've heard of people who just go as long as possible without washing their clothes, which of course creates a hygiene problem," he said. Jail rules state inmates will receive one full set of clothing and may not wear personal clothes. Jail-issued clothing is exchanged for clean items at pre-scheduled intervals. Michael Berry is representing Sheriff Greg White in the lawsuit. He said the jail alternates between laundering outer garments and undergarments, and inmates are never asked to go without clothing. Moreover, he said laundry is done at night, when inmates are sleeping. "Nobody has ever been punished for sleeping in their outerwear," he said, adding unavailability due to laundering would undoubtedly be an exception to jail rules requiring inmates to be clothed at all times. A preliminary injunction hearing on the suit is scheduled for Aug. 14. CORAL MARINE: "Ariano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Ariano, and all others similarly situated v. Coral Marine Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-02035 (W.D. La., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Coral Marine Services, LLC in the business of marine and industrial tank cleaning, gas freeing and marine salvage. It is headquartered in Amelia, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Henry Beaumont, Esq. William H Beaumont Law 3801 Canal St Ste 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Tel: (504) 483-8008 E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com CVB FINANCIAL: Court of Appeals Has Not Scheduled Oral Argument --------------------------------------------------------------- CVB Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court of appeals has not scheduled oral argument in a class action appeal. The Company said, "On July 26, 2010, we received a subpoena from the Los Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company's allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and the process for making provisions for loan losses. In addition, the subpoena requested information regarding certain presentations Company officers have given or conferences Company officers have attended with analysts, brokers, investors or prospective investors. We have fully cooperated with the SEC in its investigation, and we will continue to do so if and to the extent any further information is requested, although we have not been contacted by the SEC in connection with this matter since October 2011. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation or if it is still continuing." "In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation, on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants. "On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint." On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the District Court also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The consolidated complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported class. Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs, and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date of the order. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on May 9, 2013. Although the District Court's May 2013 order of dismissal provided the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended and restated complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the order, on June 3, 2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead filed a Notice of Intent Not to File an Amended Complaint, along with a request that the District Court convert its order to a dismissal with prejudice, so that plaintiffs could proceed straight to appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 30, 2013, the District Court entered its order dismissing the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on October 24, 2013. With respect to the appeal, the plaintiffs' opening brief was filed on June 7, 2014, the Company's reply brief was filed on July 7, 2014, and the plaintiff's rebuttal brief was filed on August 20, 2014. It is expected that the Court of Appeals will schedule oral argument at some point within the next nine to twelve months, and would then issue its opinion at some point nine to twelve months thereafter." The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the plaintiff's allegations in this case. CY'S KING: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Guillermo Quintero-Robles, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Cy's King Crab, Oyster Bar and Grill, Inc. and Nooshin Sadeghu, Case No. 1:15-cv-06119 (N.D. Ill., July 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant on Milwaukee Avenue in Chicago, 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 D&D FOODS: Recalls Macaroni Salad Due to Milk and Wheat ------------------------------------------------------- D&D Foods, Inc., based in Omaha, Nebraska, is recalling 3-pound containers of Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad because they were incorrectly labeled and may contain undeclared milk and wheat (gluten). People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk and wheat (gluten) run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The mislabeled 3-pound Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad product was distributed by D&D Foods, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hy-Vee, Inc., to all of Hy-Vee's 236 grocery stores located in Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The affected product is typically sold in stores' ready-to-eat refrigerated cases near the delicatessen. It is packaged in a frosted clear plastic tub with a black plastic lid. The recalled product is labeled as "Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad" on the lid but "Hy-Vee Dijon Mustard Potato Salad" on the tub. The product is actually Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad containing milk and wheat (gluten) ingredients, which are not declared on the tub. The recalled product has a best if used date of "7/31/2015" and a production lot code of "15177D" located on the side of the frosted clear tub. Only one product size and lot are affected by this recall. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after the incorrect packaging was discovered during routine product review. Consumers who have purchased Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad in these mismarked containers are urged to return it to any nearby Hy-Vee store for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact Hy-Vee Customer Care representatives 24 hours a day, seven days a week at 1-800-772-4098. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455097.htm DIODES INC: No Schedule Yet for Argument in Class Suit Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------- Diodes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has not yet set a date for argument in a class action appeal. On September 15, 2014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order regarding the putative securities class action entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13- cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action with prejudice. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the order dismissing the Class Action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed. The Court has not yet set a date for argument. EBIX INC: To Defend Stockholder Litigation ------------------------------------------ Ebix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend the Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation vigorously. "Following our announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs & Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery," the Company said. These complaints name as Defendants some combination of the Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCN. On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement. After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated proceeding, Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to drop their claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their allegations on an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the Company and Robin Raina. On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion. The only surviving counts are as follows: (i) Counts II and IV, but only to the extent the Plaintiffs seek non-monetary relief for alleged material misstatements related to the ABA base price in the 2010 Proxy Statement; (ii) Count II, but only to the extent it challenges the continued existence of the ABA as an alleged unreasonable anti-takeover device; and, (iii) Count V, but only to the extent that it relates to the compensation the Board received under the Company's 2010 Stock Incentive Plan. On September 15, 2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its Memorandum Opinion. On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order permitting Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint. On February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which is pending. The Company denies any liability and intends to defend the action vigorously. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS to Fund Mesh Case Settlements by 2017 ------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's AMS business and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product liability claimants, as of March 31, 2015, have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding settling up to approximately 45,600 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel. AMS expects to fund the payments under all settlement agreements by December 31, 2017. On October 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification regarding potential complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The notification provides recommendations and encourages physicians to seek specialized training in mesh procedures, to advise their patients about the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. In July 2011, the FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public and the medical community of the potential complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat POP and SUI. In this July 2011 update, the FDA maintained that adverse events are not rare, as previously reported, and questioned the relative effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a treatment for POP as compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The July 2011 notification continued to encourage physicians to seek specialized training in mesh procedures, to consider and to advise their patients about the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. The FDA also convened an advisory panel which met on September 8-9, 2011 to further address the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal surgical mesh used to treat POP and SUI. At the conclusion of the meetings, the advisory panel recommended reclassifying transvaginal mesh products used to treat POP to Class III devices (premarket approval) and recommended that manufacturers of these products be required to conduct additional post-market surveillance studies. The advisory panel recommended that transvaginal surgical mesh products used to treat SUI remain as Class II devices. Regarding retropubic and transobturator (TOT) slings, the advisory panel recommended that no additional post- market surveillance studies are necessary. Regarding mini-slings, the advisory panel recommended premarket studies for new devices and additional post-market surveillance studies. On January 3, 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal surgical mesh used for POP and of single incision mini-slings for urinary incontinence, such as our subsidiary AMS, to conduct post- market safety studies and to monitor adverse event rates relating to the use of these products. AMS received a total of nineteen class-wide post-market study orders regarding its pelvic floor repair and mini-sling products; however, the FDA agreed to place sixteen of these study orders on hold for a variety of reasons. Three of these post-market study orders remain active and AMS is continuing the process of complying with these orders. In these orders, the FDA also noted that it is still considering the recommendation of the September 9, 2011 advisory committee that urogynecological surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP be reclassified from Class II to Class III. On April 29, 2014, the FDA issued a statement proposing to reclassify surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair from Class II to Class III. Further, the FDA proposed to reclassify urogynecologic surgical mesh instrumentation from Class I to Class II, and to establish special controls for surgical instrumentation for use with urogynecologic surgical mesh. The FDA stated that it was proposing these changes based on the tentative determination that general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these devices. Although this proposal was subject to a 90-day comment period, to date the FDA has not taken further action regarding these proposals. Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the Company or certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in various state courts, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325), as well as in Canada, where various class action and individual complaints are pending, and other countries outside the United States alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control bowel function and permanent deformities. As of March 31, 2015, AMS and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding settling up to approximately 45,600 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs, which were executed at various times from June 14, 2013 through March 31, 2015, were entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or fault by the Company or AMS. All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation thresholds requiring participation by the majority of claims represented by each law firm. If certain participation thresholds are not met, then AMS will have the right to terminate the settlement with that law firm. In addition, one agreement gives AMS a unilateral right of approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in Qualified Settlement Funds are included in Restricted cash and cash equivalents in the March 31, 2015 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept confidential by all parties and their counsel. AMS expects to fund the payments under all settlement agreements by December 31, 2017. As the funds are disbursed out of the Qualified Settlement Funds from time to time, the product liability accrual will be reduced accordingly with a corresponding reduction to Restricted cash and cash equivalents. In addition, the Company may pay cash distributions to settle disputes separate from the Qualified Settlement Funds, which will also decrease the product liability accrual but will not decrease Restricted cash and cash equivalents. AMS and the Company intend to contest vigorously all currently remaining pending cases and any future cases that may be brought, if any, and to continue to explore other options as appropriate in the best interests of the Company and AMS. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 640 MCP Cases Pending as of May 1 ----------------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that approximately 640 MCP cases, some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company or certain of its subsidiaries as of May 1, 2015. Qualitest, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury resulting from the use of the prescription medicine metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movement disorders and death. Qualitest and the Company intend to contest all of these cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest. "Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought against the Company or its subsidiaries," the Company said. As of May 1, 2015, approximately 640 MCP cases, some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company or certain of its subsidiaries. In 2014, the Company and its subsidiaries have reached an agreement with certain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach resolution of substantially all of these pending MCP cases. The agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or fault by the Company or any of its subsidiaries. An essential element of these settlements will be participation by the majority of plaintiffs involved in pending litigation. If certain participation thresholds are not met, the Company will have the right to terminate the agreements. Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will be conditioned upon, among other things a full release and a dismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to the Company and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving an award, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to participating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation process and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept confidential by all parties and their counsel. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 46 Propoxyphene Cases Pending as of May 1 ------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of May 1, 2015, approximately 46 propoxyphene cases, some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company. Qualitest and, in certain cases, the Company or certain of its subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits originally filed in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury resulting from the use of prescription pain medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries including cardiac impairment, damage and death. In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and certain transferable cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No. 2226. On March 5, 2012 and June 22, 2012, pursuant to a standing show cause order, the MDL Judge dismissed with prejudice certain claims against generic manufacturers, including Qualitest and the Company. Certain plaintiffs appealed those decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the cases that had been pending as part of a consolidated appeal. In November 2012, additional cases were filed in various California state courts. While many of these cases were initially remanded and pending in a state court coordinated proceeding in Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc has reversed these remands, finding federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, these actions have been returned to the federal courts to which they were initially removed. On November 18, 2014, additional multi-plaintiff cases were filed in state court in Oklahoma. Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. "However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought against the Company or its subsidiaries, but Qualitest and the Company intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in the best interests of Qualitest and the Company," Endo said. As of May 1, 2015, approximately 46 propoxyphene cases, some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company. The Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this matter. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 296 Testosterone Cases Pending as of April 29 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that approximately 296 Testosterone Cases are currently pending against the Company and/or its subsidiaries; some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and including a class action complaint filed in Canada as of April 29, 2015. EPI, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its subsidiaries, including its new subsidiary Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of prescription medications containing testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel, Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and Striant(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries including pulmonary embolism, stroke, and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries. In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium, and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium that have been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and in certain other state courts. Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545. "However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be brought against the Company and/or its subsidiaries. The Company and its subsidiaries intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in the best interests of the Company," Endo said. As of April 29, 2015, approximately 296 cases are currently pending against the Company and/or its subsidiaries; some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and including a class action complaint filed in Canada. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm(R) Case Trial to Begin April 2017 -------------------------------------------------------------- Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that cases filed by multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) are proceeding to the discovery phase of the litigation in accordance with the pre-trial schedule, and trial is currently scheduled to begin in April 2017. Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed a number of cases against EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Teikoku) and Actavis plc., f/k/a as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and a number of its subsidiaries (collectively, Actavis or Watson). Certain of these actions have been asserted on behalf of classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others are individual cases brought by one or more alleged direct or indirect purchasers. The complaints in these cases generally allege that Endo, Teikoku and Actavis entered into an anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade through the settlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent). Some of the complaints also allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529 patent in the Orange Book as related to Lidoderm(R), that Endo and Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that Endo abused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizen petition and amendments solely to interfere with generic companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions of Lidoderm(R). The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1, 2) and various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes as well as common law remedies in some states. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order on April 3, 2014, transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation. The cases are proceeding to the discovery phase of the litigation in accordance with the pre-trial schedule. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in April 2017. ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Facing Litigation Over Opana(R) ER ------------------------------------------------------ Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Opana(R) ER have filed cases against EHSI, EPI, Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories Inc. in multiple federal courts. These cases generally allege that the agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to Opana(R) ER and EPI's introduction of the re-formulation of Opana(R) ER violated antitrust laws. The complaints allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1, 2), various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, as well as state common law. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, and some allege that they will seek to represent classes of direct and indirect purchasers of Opana(R) ER. "Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any such litigation will be brought against the Company or EPI," the Company said. The Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for these matters, if any, but will explore all options as appropriate in the best interests of EPI and the Company. EXCLUSIVE ENERGY: Faces "Lillis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Eddy Lillis, Eric Estrada, and Randy Eslinger, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Exclusive Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00295 (S.D. Tex., July 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Exclusive Energy Services, LLC operates an oilfield based service company that provides coil-tubing, work-over, water transfer and filtration, and bulk frac fluid services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert R Debes Jr., Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 Facsimile: (713) 621-0993 E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net FIFA: Judge Dismisses U.S. Soccer Concussion Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge has dismissed a lawsuit by soccer players and parents seeking to force FIFA and other governing bodies to change the sport's rules to limit the risk of concussions and other head injuries, especially for children. In a decision on July 16, Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the federal court in Oakland, California, said the plaintiffs could not use the courts to change FIFA's "laws of the game," noting it was their decision to play soccer. "Plaintiffs have acknowledged that 'injuries' are a 'part of soccer,'" Judge Hamilton wrote, citing the complaint. "Those who participate in a sporting activity that poses an inherent risk of injury generally assume the risk that they may be injured while doing so." The judge also said FIFA was not a proper defendant because there was "no connection" between the lawsuit and any activity that the sport's international governing body, which is based in Switzerland, undertook in California. Claims against FIFA were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be brought again. Judge Hamilton said claims against bodies such as the United States Soccer Federation and various youth and club soccer organizations can be brought again if the plaintiffs show they have standing to sue, including by demonstrating injury. "We will amend the complaint to satisfy the court's order and appeal the FIFA ruling," Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an e-mail. FIFA said in a statement that it welcomed the decision, and through its medical committee would continue monitoring issues affecting players' health. Lawyers for the other defendants did not respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit is not related to the ongoing corruption scandal at FIFA, whose full name is Federation Internationale de Football Association. Judge Hamilton's 46-page decision is a setback for efforts to make soccer, considered the world's most popular sport with roughly a quarter billion participants, safer to play. The proposed class-action lawsuit was brought on behalf of seven players, including four under the age of 17. They sought a variety of rule changes, including limiting headers by players under 17, and making it easier to substitute during games for players experiencing head trauma. The plaintiffs also sought medical monitoring for people who have played the sport since 2002. Money damages were not sought. Thousands of Concussions According to the complaint, 46,200 U.S. high school soccer players suffered concussions in 2010, more than from baseball, basketball, softball and wrestling combined. At least 30 percent of soccer concussions come from heading or attempting to head balls, the complaint said. But only one of the seven plaintiffs claimed she suffered a concussion from playing soccer, and Judge Hamilton said this appeared to be a one-time injury that ended with a full recovery. She also called it "too speculative" to assume the other plaintiffs might suffer concussions in the future, and thus they did not deserve standing to seek rule and protocol changes. Other lawsuits over concussions have been filed in recent years against the National Football League, the National Hockey League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. A recent settlement between the NFL and roughly 5,000 retired players could reach $1 billion. Though the soccer lawsuit was dismissed, "this is not the end of the day for claims against the soccer federations," said Michael Kaplen, a lawyer specializing in traumatic brain injuries who teaches at George Washington University Law School. "Groups are trying to market these sports as safe, when they are not," he said in an interview. "Unless and until officials and medical professionals testify under oath, the truth will never come out." The case is Mehr et al. v. Federation Internationale de Football Association et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 14-03879. FOOD CONCEPTS: "Epperly" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Cassandra Epperly v. Food Concepts International, L.P., Abuelo's International, L.P., and John Doe, Case No. 2:15-cv-02597-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and catering business in Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wesley Trenton Fortune, Esq. FORTUNE LAW LIMITED 701 Hill Road North Pickerington, OH 43147 Telephone: (614) 452-4201 Facsimile: (614) 569-0100 E-mail: wfortune@wtflegal.com GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Still Defending Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Galectin Therapeutics Inc. continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit and the lead plaintiff was expected to file a consolidated amended complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in certain press releases and other public statements in violation of the federal securities laws and seek class certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any obligation to respond to the complaints currently on file, and providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended complaint to be filed by the lead plaintiff appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated putative securities class action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The lead plaintiff was expected to file a consolidated amended complaint in May 2015. GENERAL CABLE: Motion to Amend Judgment Fully Briefed and Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Cable Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2015, that a class action Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend a January 27, 2015 judgment and for leave to file a proposed amended complaint is fully briefed and pending. "Litigation was initiated against us and certain of our current and former directors, executive officers and employees following the restating of our financial statements principally as a result of the matters described above under "Government and internal investigations" relating to our Brazilian business," the Company said. "Two civil complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory Kenny, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of Livonia Complaint"). "The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that we employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition, understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost through theft; that we issued materially false financial results that had to be restated on two occasions; and that statements of Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and found effective our internal controls over financial reporting and disclosure were false. "The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that as a result of the foregoing, our stock price was artificially inflated and the plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchase of our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. "On July 18, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the City of Livonia Complaint based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. After oral argument on January 7, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 27, 2015. "On February 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the January 27, 2015 judgment and for leave to file the proposed amended complaint, which we have opposed. That motion is now fully briefed and pending. " GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Puffs ------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Gerber, famous maker of healthy baby foods and an instantly recognizable household brand, got slapped with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging the company is misleading parents into buying a product that is far from nutritious. The product? Graduates Puffs food for toddlers. According to the Gerber Graduates lawsuit, the packaging for Puffs is dominated by pictures of fruit or vegetables: juicy peaches, slices of ripe banana, nutritious sweet potatoes. But the ingredients list belies these pictures. Banana-flavored Puffs contain no bananas, only a trace amount of banana flavoring. Sweet potato-flavored Puffs don't contain actual sweet potatoes, or any other vegetable, only miniscule amounts of sweet potato "flavor." The closest thing to a fruit or vegetable in Puffs is a very tiny amount of dried apple puree, powder, in other words. The suit alleges that parents trying to buy healthy and nutritious snacks for their toddlers have trusted Gerber's reputation and package presentations, paid Gerber's premium prices based on that reputation, and, in exchange, unwittingly provided their toddlers with empty calories. Far from the healthy treat the labels and Gerber's reputation suggest, Puffs are little more than flour and sugar. The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, and is titled Gyorke-Takatri, et al., v. Nestle USA, Inc. and Gerber Products Company. GFI GROUP: Continues to Defend "Szarek" Class Action in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ GFI Group Inc. continues to defend a stockholder class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in New York, challenging the merger with CME Group Inc., GFI said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Following the announcement of the CME Group Inc. Merger, nine putative class action complaints challenging the CME Merger were filed on behalf of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which also purported to be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, six in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Index No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4, 2014), Suprina v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3, 2014), Hughes v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103- VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11, 2014), Giardalas v. GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al., Civil Action No. 10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and Szarek v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 14, 2014). On September 26, 2014, the Court of Chancery granted voluntary dismissal of the Giardalas action. On October 6, 2014, a consolidation order was entered by Vice Chancellor Laster, consolidating the Delaware cases into the Consolidated Delaware Action. The consolidation order designated the complaint filed in City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.) as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The complaints named as Defendants various combinations of the Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the members of the Company's board of directors, GFI managing director Nick Brown, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and New JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders during merger negotiations by entering into the CME Merger Agreement and approving the CME Merger, and that the Company, CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer, Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New JPI aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints further allege, among other things, (i) that the merger consideration provided for in the CME Merger Agreement undervalued the Company, (ii) that the sales process leading up to the CME Merger was flawed due to the members of the Company's board of directors' and Jefferies' conflicts of interest, and (iii) that certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement inappropriately favored CME and precluded or impeded third parties from submitting potentially superior proposals. In addition, the Hughes complaint asserted a derivative claim on behalf of the Company against the members of the Company's board of directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care to the Company by negotiating and agreeing to the CME Merger and against Defendants Gooch and Heffron for usurping a corporate opportunity. The Michocki complaint alleged that the CME Merger is not a solitary transaction but a series of related transactions and further alleged that the IDB Transaction must be approved by an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms of the Charter. The complaints seek, among other relief: (i) certification of the class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii) a declaration that the members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members of the Company's board of directors to execute their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of the Company's stockholders, (v) rescission of the CME Merger to the extent already implemented, (vi) granting of rescissory damages and an accounting of all of the damages suffered as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, (vii) and reimbursement of fees and costs. The Coyne and Suprina Plaintiffs also demanded a jury trial. Certain Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated Delaware Action. A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i) the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina actions; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for consolidation and appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii) Plaintiff Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and expedite discovery. In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the Court ordered the Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated as In re GFI Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652668/2014. In another order filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff Suprina's motion to compel and expedite discovery. On March 26, 2015, the Court issued a decision and order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Coyne and Suprina actions on forum non conveniens grounds and in favor of the Consolidated Delaware Action. The decision and order were entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York on March 27, 2015. The Court's judgment dismissing the Coyne and Suprina complaints was entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York on April 29, 2015. On November 18, 2014, the Delaware court entered a Revised Order Setting Expedited Discovery Schedule in the Consolidated Delaware Action. On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Further Revised Scheduling Order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing for January 16, 2015. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, and a brief in support thereof, seeking to enjoin enforcement of Article V of the Support Agreement and preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the CME Merger until (i) certain additional disclosures were made and (ii) the Company's stockholders were provided the opportunity to vote on the CME Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction. On January 8, 2015, the parties agreed to move the preliminary injunction hearing from January 16, 2015 to January 20, 2015. On January 15, 2015, the preliminary injunction hearing (scheduled for January 20) was taken off the court's calendar. On January 15, 2015, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a brief in support thereof. On February 6, 2015, the Court scheduled a merits hearing for February 17 and 18, 2015. On February 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint, seeking certain additional injunctive and declaratory relief. On February 11, 2015, the Court, with the consent of the parties, moved the merits hearing (scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2015) to the first available dates on the Court's schedule after March 4, 2015. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that an expedited merits hearing was no longer necessary. On February 26, 2015, March 17, 2015, and March 18, 2015, the Court granted stipulations and orders extending the time for certain Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the operative complaint. On April 16, 2015, the Court granted a stipulation and order pursuant to which certain of the Defendants need not respond to the operative complaint or the supplements thereto and will have thirty days from the filing of an amended complaint to answer, move, or otherwise respond to it. To date, an amended complaint has not been filed. In the New York Szarek action, the Court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for December 16, 2014, which the Court adjourned upon application of the parties until March 12, 2015 and adjourned again upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015. GFI GROUP: Continues to Defend "Gross" Class Action in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------- GFI Group Inc. continues to defend the Gross securities class action lawsuit filed in federal district court in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws, captioned Gross v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint names the Company, Colin Heffron, Michael Gooch and Nick Brown as Defendants.. The complaint seeks, among other relief: (i) certification of the class, (ii) compensatory damages for Defendants purported wrongdoing and (iii) reimbursement of costs and expenses. On February 20, 2015, the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc. granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf of the putative class. The Court also extended Defendants' time to respond to the complaint from February 23, 2015 to March 25, 2015; granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 16, 2015; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to March 27, 2015. On March 10, 2015, Plaintiff requested additional time to file his amended complaint. On March 13, 2015, the Court extended Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended complaint from March 16, 2015 to May 15, 2015; set a June 5, 2015 deadline for Defendants to respond to the amended complaint; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference for June 19, 2015. Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously. GODADDY.COM: Faces "Careaga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Sal Careaga, Joshua Berry, and Amanda Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Godaddy.com, L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-01282-GMS (D. Ariz., July 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Godaddy.com, L.L.C. is a foreign limited liability company that provides numerous Internet related products and services including domain name registration and website hosting. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Rhodes Pruitt, Esq. Nathaniel James Hill, Esq. JACKSON WHITE PC 40 N Center St., Ste. 200 Mesa, AZ 85201 Telephone: (480) 464-1111 Facsimile: (480) 464-5692 E-mail: mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com GOLDFINGERS GENTLEMEN'S: Former Dancer Files Wage Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dorian Hargrove, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that a former dancer at Goldfingers Gentlemen's Club on Miramar Road has filed a class-action lawsuit faulting her ex-employer of failing to pay a living wage. It is the second class-action lawsuit filed against strip clubs this year: last month a former dancer at Cheetahs made similar accusations. The lawsuit, originally filed in state court in April of this year, was recently moved to federal court. Attorneys for Goldfingers estimate that if all dancers join the class-action lawsuit and if a judge rules in their favor, the lawsuit could mean a $5,000,000 payout by the club. The woman, known as Jane Doe, says that dancers and other employees were not given breaks during long shifts, nor were they paid an hourly wage. Instead, dancers relied on tips from patrons for onstage and private dances. "[Dancers were] forced to pay fees or tip out the DJ and/or bouncer, and/or 'house' for each dance performed . . . failure to comply with Goldfingers' request would prevent her or her colleagues from procuring or retaining employment with Goldfingers," reads the suit. The club's policy of hiring dancers as independent contractors instead of employees is an industry-wide standard, one that some general managers say benefits both the club and the dancer. "When we hire an entertainer, they are given the choice of being an employee or a space lessee, much like a hairdresser," said Cheetahs general manager Rich Buonantony in a June 22 email. "As an independent contractor, the girl comes and goes as she pleases, basically does what she wants whereas, an employee comes in set hours, dances who we tell them to dance for, and so forth. The women I have here prefer to be independent contractors." During the course of the past couple of years, strippers across the country have filed similar lawsuits. As a result, some strip clubs were ordered to pay out hefty sums to the women. In 2012, according to media reports, Santa Barbara strip joint Spearmint Rhino paid $12.9 million to dancers in their lawsuit. Both San Diego cases will work their way through the courts. GOOGLE INC: Sued for Refusing to Provide Gift Card Cash Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Fortune reports that a California woman filed a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming the company violates state laws by refusing to provide cash refunds when a gift card balance falls below $10. According to Lorena Hernandez, her daughter used a $25 Google Play gift card to buy Lego Movie for $9.99, and rent As Above, So Below for $4.99 and Bridesmaids for $2.99 -- leaving a balance of $7.03. Google then refused to issue Hernandez a cash refund for the amount, or allow her to combine it with another form of payment. Instead of forfeiting the $7.03, Ms. Hernandez purchased another $10 Google Play Card so her daughter could use the combined balance to buy Toy Story 2, and an app and a song (99 cents each) she did not really want. The legal complaint, which seeks to represent all other Google Play customers in the same position, says Google is engaging in the very practice that lawmakers intended to stop. Because Google refuses to refund the balance in cash, holders are left with the choice of forfeiting the balance or expending additional money by purchasing additional Google Play Gift Cards or Google Play Credits to purchase other items. There will virtually always be a balance that cannot be spent and that Defendants will not refund. California amended its consumer protections in 2007, requiring retailers to let customers get cash refunds for balances below $10, after concluding that about 10% of all gift card balances are never spent. The lawsuit also points out that Google Play's practices are different from competitors Apple and Amazon, which allow users to combine gift cards with other payment methods so as to zero out the value of the cards. Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment. If the allegations against Google are true, the company will hardly be the first to trip over gift card rules. Groupon recently agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a class action case over illegal expiration dates, while Starbucks paid $225,000 to settle with California over failing to refund balances below $10. McDonalds and the defunct bookseller Borders have also ran into trouble with the state law. Ms. Hernandez is asking a court to order Google to return the unpaid balances and to force it to change the Google Play policies. HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown" Action in Discovery Phase ------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action filed by Rosminah Brown is currently at the discovery phase. On May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County against the Company. The complaint alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics(R) brand and JASON(R) brand personal care products used prior to the Company's implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated certain California statutes. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed putative class action containing substantially identical allegations concerning only the JASON(R) brand personal care products. The consolidated actions seek an award for damages, injunctive relief, costs, expenses and attorney's fees, and are currently at the discovery phase. The Company will continue to defend this action vigorously and continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit. HC2 HOLDINGS: No Responsive Pleading Filed in Schuff Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no responsive pleading has been filed yet by the defendants in the case, Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation. On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the buyout by HC2 Holdings, Inc. of the noncontrolling interest in Schuff International, Inc. ("Schuff International") was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359. The Complaints allege, among other things, that in connection with the buyout, the individual members of the Schuff International board of directors and HC2 Holdings, the controlling stockholder of Schuff, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class. The Complaints seek a rescission of the buyout and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other relief. On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation) and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. No responsive pleading has been filed yet by the defendants. "We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously," the Company said. HOMEJOY INC: Worker-Misclassification Litigation Prompts Closure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that Homejoy Inc., the San Francisco-based house-cleaning platform, will cease operations on July 31. Homejoy's co-founder, Adora Cheung, cited pending worker-misclassification litigation targeting the three- year-old company as one of the reasons. "Although we succeeded in many ways, we also faced obstacles," Ms. Cheung wrote on July 17 on the company's blog. "There are still many unresolved challenges in the home services space." Ms. Cheung did not respond to an email seeking comment on the announcement. But in an interview with Re/code, she blamed four lawsuits alleging that Homejoy's cleaners should be classified as employees, not independent contractors, as the "deciding factor" to close. Homejoy is facing two worker-classification suits in San Francisco Superior Court, one a proposed class action and the other filed under the Private Attorneys General Act. Byron Goldstein -- brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com -- and Laura Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho and Browne Labor Law filed the suits in March. Mr. Goldstein said on July 17 that the suits have not progressed because "pretty much from the get-go of the litigation we had discussed resolution." A mediation session was scheduled on July 14, but Homejoy representatives canceled the meeting a few days before, he said. "Any excuse that Homejoy gives that it's closing because of the lawsuits is just using them as a scapegoat," Mr. Goldstein said, noting that there has been no judgment and little action generating much legal work. "It's too bad. Hopefully these workers will still be able to recover what's owed to them." Classifying workers is a hot-button issue in the so-called sharing economy, where companies including Lyft Inc., Uber Technologies Inc., Postmates Inc. and Homejoy competitor Handy are facing legal challenges to their practice of designating workers as independent contractors. Last month, the Office of the California Labor Commissioner held that an Uber driver, who had filed a claim for work-related expenses, was indeed an employee eligible for certain reimbursements and workplace protections. Ms. Cheung told Re/code the significance of the commissioner's finding, now being appealed by Uber, had been "blown out of proportion." HOMEMADE OF LEAVENWORTH: Recalls Pickle & Sauce Products -------------------------------------------------------- Homemade of Leavenworth, Washington is recalling pickle and sauce products because they may have been improperly produced. Washington State Department of Agriculture routine sampling discovered that a bottle of Homemade Bread and Butter Pickles had a pH level high enough to allow the growth of Clostridium botulinum. Required records were not available to support that safe processing guidelines were followed on all sauce and pickle products produced at Homemade. Foodborne botulism is a severe type of food poisoning caused by the ingestion of foods containing the potent neurotoxin formed during growth of the organism. Foodborne botulism can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled. Recalled products are packaged in clear glass bottles with metal caps. There are no lot codes or expiration dates on recalled products. The following products have been recalled: --- Bread and Butter Pickles (16 oz./454 g) --- Icicle Pickles (16 oz./454 g) --- Pickled Beets (16 oz./454 g) --- Chili Sauce (12 oz./340 g) --- Lite BBQ Sauce (12 oz./ 340 g) --- Medium BBQ Sauce (12 oz./340 g) --- Hot BBQ Sauce (12 oz./340 g) --- Horseradish BBQ Sauce (12 oz./340 g) The recalled products were sold from small retailers and fruit stands in Chelan and Douglas counties in Washington State. Homemade has made the decision to recall all pickle and sauce products to ensure the safety of their customers. To date the company has not been notified of illness associated with their products. Robert Eadie, owner of Homemade, believes that "the health of customers is a priority for my company, which is why I am working with the Washington State Department of Agriculture and a recognized process authority to take steps necessary to ensure the safety of my products." Consumers who have purchased recalled pickles and sauces are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 509-548-5301 Monday through Friday during the hours of 9AM to 5PM PST. HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Salad Products Due to Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------- Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc., a Fife, Wash. establishment, is recalling approximately 778 pounds of salad products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products may contain nitrites in the bacon that were not declared on the product label. The salad items were produced on July 14 and 16, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 9.5 oz. tray containers containing "Trader Joe's Cobb Salad" with the sell by date 7-20-15, 7-21-15 and 7-22-15. --- 11 oz. tray containers containing "Trader Joe's Uncured Bacon & Spinach Salad" with the sell by date 7-20-15 and 7- 21-15. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P- 11079A" or "EST. 11079" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations in Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The problem was discovered during FSIS in-plant verification activities. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Andy Foster, Vice President of Quality and Food Safety, at (323) 923-2905. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem IMPAX LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Suit Under Submission ---------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the motion to dismiss the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions remains under submission. From July 2013 to April 2015, 15 class action complaints were filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Oral argument on defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints took place on March 12, 2015, and the motion remains under submission. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Consolidated Suits Filed Over Opana Drug ------------------------------------------------------------ Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that consolidated amended complaints have been filed in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 class action complaints were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re- filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4, 2015. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Accord in Mulligan, Haverhill Cases Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement in the cases filed by Denis Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, respectively, remains subject to final court approval. On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities Class Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named officers and directors violated the federal securities law by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) and its generic version of Concerta(R). These two Securities Class Actions were subsequently consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead plaintiff has been chosen. The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18, 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2014, the Company, together with certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle this consolidated securities class action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $8.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this action. On January 16, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The Company said it will not be taking any charges for the settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains subject to final court approval and certain other conditions and does not resolve related shareholder derivative litigations. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Will Pay $4.75 Million to Settle Aruliah Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. will pay $4.75 million for a full and complete release of all claims in the class action filed by Linus Aruliah, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleged that the Company and those named officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's then branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) (which was subsequently approved by the FDA on January 7, 2015). On January 13, 2015, the Company, together with certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle this securities class action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $4.75 million for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this action. The Company will not be taking any charges for the settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court approval and certain other conditions and does not resolve the related shareholder derivative litigations. INNOVATIVE FOOD: Judge Referred 2 Lawsuits to Mediation Program --------------------------------------------------------------- Innovative Food Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a federal judge has stayed two class action lawsuits, and referred both of them to the Court's mediation program for further mediation. On June 1, 2012, nine persons, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, filed a Collective and Class Action Complaint in the New York Federal District Court, Southern District, against Late Night Express Courier Services, Inc. (FL) ("LNE") and The Fresh Diet Inc. ("The Fresh Diet") and certain individuals entitled Hernandez, et al. v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al., Case No. 12 CV 4339. On or about October 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint ("Complaint") adding additional individual Defendants. The Complaint seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages on behalf of drivers for LNE who delivered meals to The Fresh Diet customers in the tri-state area. In an opinion dated September 29, 2014 ("Opinion"), the District Court Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment which sought a holding that all the Plaintiffs were employees of Defendants, as was Defendants' cross-motion for Summary Judgment seeking a holding that Plaintiffs were independent contractors, the Court finding that there were questions of fact that could not be resolved on motions. In addition, the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of 109 drivers was denied. In the same Opinion, Defendants' motion to decertify the case from 29 potential opt-in Plaintiffs down to the 9 named Plaintiffs was granted, and the possible claims of the remaining 20 were dismissed without prejudice. On or about February 24, 2015, a second action was filed in the New York Federal District Court, Southern District, on behalf of 6 (of the 20) additional driver-Plaintiffs entitled Hernandez, et al. v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al. 15 CV 1338, containing essentially the same allegations, and adding the Company as a party defendant because of its acquisition of LNE. In addition, two of the Plaintiffs from the Complaint also joined the second lawsuit asserting claims for retaliation. The two cases were assigned to the same Federal Judge (since they are related), but were not consolidated for discovery or trial. Prior to the second action and on January 21, 2015, the parties appeared before Federal Magistrate Judge Cott for mediation. The Magistrate Judge did not succeed in settling the case. On March 17, 2015, the Federal Judge stayed both cases, and referred both of them to the Court's mediation program for further mediation within 60 days. The Company believes that mediation may lead to a global settlement with all existing Plaintiffs. With respect to the second instituted litigation, inasmuch as the litigation is in its early phase and discovery has not commenced it is too speculative to predict an outcome. "However, we believe we will have available to us many of the same defenses as in the first litigation and therefore do not believe that our exposure, if any at all, will likely exceed the amount of the first litigation, even if additional persons file claims. Accordingly, given the uncertainty of both of these cases and given the additional Plaintiffs in the second action, the Company has recorded a contingent liability of $400,000 representing the estimated potential amounts payable in the litigations, even though it is possible that the amount of liability or settlement may actually be less than the reserved amount," the Company said. INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Undergoing Discovery ------------------------------------------------------- Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties are currently undergoing discovery in relation to the class actions, Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively. On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014. The lawsuits allege that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9, 2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the order of the Court. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24, 2015. On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint on April 13, 2015. The parties are currently undergoing discovery in relation to this matter. The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit and intends to deny liability and defend itself vigorously. INTERNATIONAL FOLLIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Valente, and all others similarly situated v. International Follies, Inc. dba The Cheetah and William Hagood, Case No. 1:15- cv-02477 (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a strip club in Fulton County commonly known as The Cheetah. The Plaintiff is represented by: James F. McDonough, III, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC Suite 4320, 3621 Vinings Slope Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: (404) 996-0869 Fax: (205) 380-8076 E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com IT TAKES: Recalls Kale Crisps Zen Nori Due to Undeclared Soy ------------------------------------------------------------ It Takes a Village Foods LLC of Hailey, ID is recalling "Veggie Evolution Kale Crisps Zen Nori" because it contains undeclared soy. People who have allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. Veggie Evolution Kale Crisps Zen Nori was distributed to retail stores in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Wyoming and also sold on line at "VeggieEvolution.com" The firm distributed this product between 09/18/2014 and 07/15/2015. The Kale Crisps Zen Nori product is seaweed flavored dehydrated kale chips, available in a 1.5 oz. package, sold under the brand name of "Veggie Evolution". Product with the Best if Used By date stamp on or before 022116 is being recalled. The Best if Used By date is found at the lower left corner on the back side of a package. No illnesses have been reported to date from the consumption of this product. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that this product that contains soybeans, was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of soybeans in the product. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. If you have purchased this product you should contact Veggie Evolution at 208 721-0765 from 9am-5pm MST Monday thru Friday or at ittakesavillagefoods@gmail.com for information on how to get a full refund or properly labeled replacement. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455319.htm J.G. WENTWORTH: Defendants to Appeal N.D. Illinois Court Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants intend to appeal the order entered by the Northern District of Illinois court finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a class action lawsuit and remanded it to St. Clair County. In February 2014, a purported class action filing was made against the Company and various subsidiaries. The original class action complaint in this matter contained a single count alleging that the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by, among other things, marketing, soliciting, and engaging in transfers of structured settlement payment rights despite knowledge of anti-assignment clauses in the underlying structured settlement agreements. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint reciting the same facts and the same claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, but adding causes of action for common law fraud, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and two counts for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The first such claim alleges defendants violated law that proscribes conduct amounting to a pattern of racketeering activity conducted through an enterprise. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' use of mail in connection with the transfers constituted mail fraud. The second such claim alleged that the defendants conspired to commit other related violations. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. One defendant, Settlement Funding, LLC, filed a motion to defer responding to the plaintiff's complaint pending a ruling on the other defendants' motion to dismiss, and also filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay or dismiss the claims against it in federal court. The plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the motions to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration based on intent to file a second amended complaint. The plaintiff did file a second amended complaint asserting substantially similar allegations to those set forth in the initial amended complaint, and added four new named plaintiffs. Settlement Funding, LLC filed a petition to compel individual arbitrations in the Northern District of Illinois against those four new named plaintiffs in the second amended complaint who had previously entered into arbitration agreements with Settlement Funding, LLC. Defendants filed various motions challenging the second amended complaint in the Southern District of Illinois, seeking dismissal and/or transfer to the Northern District of Illinois. The Southern District of Illinois court granted transfer of the whole case to the Northern District of Illinois and deferred ruling on defendants' arguments for dismissal to the Northern District court. On March 5, 2015, the Northern District court entered an order finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case and remanded it to St. Clair County. Defendants believe this ruling on jurisdiction is incorrect and intend to appeal. Defendants also believe that the plaintiffs' claims in the second amended complaint are time-barred and/or without merit and defendants intend to vigorously defend these claims on a number of factual and legal grounds in arbitration and/or litigation. J.G. WENTWORTH: To Defend Against Case Related to OAC Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against a lawsuit related to its merger with Orchard Acquisition Company, LLC. On February 10, 2015, a competitor filed, in the United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division, a complaint alleging that the Company and certain of its affiliates have violated antitrust laws as a result of the OAC Merger and their post-merger activities, and has requested that the court find that there has been a Section 7 violation of the Clayton Act, that assets are to be divested, that an injunction should be issued and monetary damages should be awarded. The Company believes that the allegations made in these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend these allegations. J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by Paldo Sign and Display Co. On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former employee as additional defendants in an existing purported class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13- cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of the j2 Global affiliates' systems to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc., was added. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal jurisdiction. Discovery is ongoing. J2 GLOBAL: Briefing on Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that briefing on the appeal in a multi-district litigation has been stayed. On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of defendants. While claims against some defendants have been settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity of the patents-in-suit. On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-1611). Briefing on the appeal has been stayed, pending the Northern District of Illinois's resolution of the defendants' motion to declare the case exceptional. J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Andre Free-Vychine Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing in the class actions filed by Andre Free-Vychine and Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. and IV Pit Stop, Inc. On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a purported class action against a j2 Global affiliate in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles ("Los Angeles Superior Court"). The complaint alleges two California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine is seeking, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. and IV Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate purported class action against the same j2 Global affiliate in Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint alleges three California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global affiliate's customers, including those with eVoice(R) and Onebox(R) accounts. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons. On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court ordered both cases related and consolidated for discovery purposes. On March 13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in this action, which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added Christopher Dancel as a plaintiff. Discovery is ongoing. JAKKS PACIFIC: Third Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") has been filed in the class action lawsuit. On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett (collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company (collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the "Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel appointed. On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial projections and performance as part of its public filings and earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013. Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8, 2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with leave to replead. A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on March 23, 2015 with similar allegations. "We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit, and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action would not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations," the Company said. LEVY ACQUISITION: Class Action Filed Related to Del Taco Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Levy Acquisition Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a purported class action and derivative complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F. Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J. Duchossois, Ari B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn, Del Taco Holdings, Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"), was filed on April 23, 2015, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, relating to the proposed Merger pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The Complaint, which purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of all of the holders of the Company's common stock, generally alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by facilitating the proposed Merger and in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. The Complaint also alleges that the Company's preliminary Proxy Statement that was filed with the SEC on April 2, 2015 is materially misleading and/or incomplete. The Complaint further alleges that Del Taco and the Sponsor aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's directors. The Complaint seeks (a) a declaration that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties; (b) injunctive relief enjoining the Merger until corrective disclosures are made; (c) compensatory and/or rescissory damages; and (d) an award of costs and attorney's fees. The defendants believe that the Complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated has filed a motion to dismiss a Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. "On June 8, 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Genaera Defendants for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to Genaera shareholders," the Company said. "The lawsuit also names us and our CEO, as additional defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the Genaera Defendants' various breaches of fiduciary duties based on our purchase of a licensing interest in a development-stage pharmaceutical drug program from the Genaera Liquidating Trust in May 2010 and our subsequent sale of half of its interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc." Following an amendment to the complaint and a round of motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on August 12, 2013. Plaintiff appealed that dismissal on September 10, 2013, and the Third Circuit reversed on October 17, 2014. Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint with the district court, which the Company moved to dismiss on March 20, 2015. Plaintiff's opposition was due May 11, 2015. "We intend to continue to vigorously defend the claim against us and our CEO. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable," the Company added. LONGTOP FINANCIAL: October 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP regarding the In re Longtop Financial Technologies Limited Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE LONGTOP FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 11-cv-3658-SAS SUMMARY NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED $2.3 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT DEREK PALASCHUK, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Longtop Financial Technologies, Ltd. American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period from February 21, 2008 through May 17, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. Certain Persons are excluded from the definition of the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 18, 2015. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a settlement of the above-captioned litigation has been proposed with defendant Derek Palaschuk for $2.3 million in cash. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15C, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 2:30 p.m., on October 13, 2015 to determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Palaschuk, and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation should be granted; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved; (4) Lead Counsel's application for reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (5) Lead Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses (including lost wages) in connection with their representation of the Class should be approved. The proposed Settlement follows the November 2014 trial against Palaschuk, whereby a jury found Palaschuk liable for violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between February 10, 2010 and May 17, 2011. Further, as required under the Exchange Act, the jury apportioned liability for total damages determined at trial amongst the three named defendants in the Action as follows: Longtop (49%), Wai Chau Lin a/k/a Lian Weizhou (50%) and Palaschuk (1%). In addition to the jury verdict against Palaschuk, the Court previously entered a default judgment against Longtop and Lin, for violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act between February 21, 2008 and May 17, 2011. Pursuant to the default judgment, Longtop and Lin are jointly and severally liable to Lead Plaintiffs and the Class for damages totaling $882,300,000 plus 9% interest on such amount from February 21, 2008, through the date of payment. This amount is the maximum amount of damages available to the Class. Lead Plaintiffs' efforts to collect this judgment remain ongoing; however, given the complexities of the international laws implicated, Longtop's corporate structure and its potential lack of financial resources, the likelihood of Lead Plaintiffs collecting this judgment or any portion thereof is uncertain. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. A detailed Notice to Class Members of Proposed $2.3 Million Settlement with Defendant Derek Palaschuk, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Reimbursement of Litigation Expense and Proof of Claim and Release Form are currently being mailed to Class Members explaining Class Members' rights in connection with the Settlement and the process for submitting a claim. If you have not received a Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents, and other information about the Settlement and the Action, at www.longtopclassaction.com or by calling (855) 382-6454. In order to be eligible to share in the Settlement, you must submit a valid Claim Form postmarked no later than November 10, 2015, to Longtop Financial Technologies Securities Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10149, Dublin, OH 43017-3149. Please Note: As discussed in the previously disseminated Notice of Pendency of Class Action dated July 29, 2014, at trial, Lead Plaintiffs pursued claims based on Palaschuk's alleged misrepresentations during the period February 10, 2010 through May 17, 2011. Accordingly, only those Class Members who purchased or otherwise acquired Longtop ADS during the Trial Class Period and submit valid Claim Forms will be potentially eligible to share in the Settlement. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in this Action. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and you wish to remain excluded from the Class, no further action is required. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and you want to opt-back into the Class and be potentially eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a request to opt-back into the Class in writing such that it is received no later than September 22, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and do not opt-back into the Class in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement. If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the requests by Lead Counsel and Lead Plaintiffs for reimbursement of expenses. Any objections must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for the Settling Defendant such that they are received no later than September 22, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel: Gregory M. Castaldo and Kimberly A. Justice of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, (610) 667-7706, info@ktmc.com Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry in writing to the Claims Administrator, GCG, at the address and phone number listed above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: July 20, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: United States District Court For the Southern District of New York MCCORMICK & CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Slack-Fill Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul Ziobro, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that McCormick & Co. filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a smaller rival that alleged the spice maker deceived shoppers by putting less pepper in its tins while leaving the price unchanged. In a filing in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, McCormick said that privately held Watkins Inc. didn't show that it suffered any harm from McCormick's actions or that any consumers were deceived. "Without alleging such injury, plaintiff has no standing to bring this suit," McCormick said on July 17 in the filing. The Watkins lawsuit, filed last month, leaned on regulations governing how much air manufacturers are allowed to include in their packaging. So-called slack-fill laws allow empty space for reasons like protecting the contents from damage and limitations of the machines that pack them, but too much extra space can run afoul of the law. Watkins, which sells spices as well as other household products, argued that McCormick went too far when it cut the volume of pepper in its tins without changing the size of the packaging, creating what is known as nonfunctional slack fill. It said the change put it at a competitive disadvantage in the spice aisle and confused consumers too. McCormick's change essentially amounted to a stealth price increase. McCormick said last month it did so because of a sharp increase in pepper costs in recent years, including a 60% rise in the year before the change was made. A hearing has been scheduled for late September on the motion to dismiss. A McCormick spokeswoman said the company wouldn't comment beyond the filing. In a statement, Watkins reiterated that it believes McCormick "acted in an illegal and deceitful manner." Slack-fill violations have been fertile grounds for litigation in recent years, with district attorneys and plaintiffs alleging that consumers have been deceived by the size of the packaging on everything from snacks to deodorants. McCormick is facing a separate class-action suit, filed days after Watkins made its allegations, over the changes to its pepper packages. Earlier this month, Procter & Gamble Co. paid $850,000 in civil penalties and costs and agreed to change the packaging of some Olay skin-care products as part of a settlement with California prosecutors. MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Consolidated Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A court has granted McDermott International, Inc.'s' motion to dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint, with prejudice, McDermott said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged purchasers of our common stock filed purported class action complaints against us, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry L. Elders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Both of the complaints sought to represent a class of purchasers of our stock between November 6, 2012 and August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading information and failing to disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project management and losses in each of our reporting segments. Each complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs." "By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts substantially the same claims as were made in the two original complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs." On April 7, 2014, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On May 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and MII and the other defendants filed a reply in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss on June 23, 2014. "On March 13, 2015, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint, with prejudice. The period for filing an appeal of the Court's decision has since expired, without an appeal," the Company said. MEILIN HAIR: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yu Hao Liu and Si Qing Li, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Meilin Hair Salon Inc., Mei Lin Liu and Jian Qing Jiang, Case No. 1:15-cv-04085 (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a hair salon with a principal place of business at 7001 Amboy Road, Staten Island, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com - and - Vincent S. Wong, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG 39 East Broadway, Suite 306 New York, NY 10002 Telephone: 212) 349-6099 E-mail: vswlaw@gmail.com MIAMI TERMINAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Macais" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Silvio Cayetano Barreto Macias and all others similarly situated v. Miami Terminal Cold Storage, LLC, Lee E. Sigler, Case No. 1:15- cv-22587-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants operate a refrigerated warehousing and storage in Miami 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 MIDWEST PARTITIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Adan Rios, Jamie Banuelos, Jose Angel Gutierrez, Milton Rangel, Lazaro Hernandez, Huascar Polanco, and Wilmer Polanco, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midwest Partitions, Inc., D & F Partitions, LLC, Yolkins Res/Com Drywall, Inc., Allen Hall, Cesar Quintana, and Marcos Gutierrez, Case No. 1:15-cv-01456-PAB (D. Colo., July 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the construction business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Rosenblatt, Esq. ROSENBLATT & GOSCH, PLLC 8085 East Prentice Avenue Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2745 Telephone: (303) 721-7399 Facsimile: (720) 528-1220 E-mail: rrosenblatt@cwa-union.org MODEL N: Securities Class Actions Filed --------------------------------------- Model N, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that purported securities class action lawsuits were filed on September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the IPO. The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased the Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. The Company believes that the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain and an adverse result could have a material effect on its financial statements. However, based on currently available information, the Company does not expect that the ultimate outcome of these unresolved matters will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or financial position. MONSTER BEVERAGE: Says False Advertising Cases Have "No Merit" -------------------------------------------------------------- Monster Beverage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative class actions and in a private attorney general action. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled and advertised Monster Energy(R) brand products that allegedly were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further allege that the Monster Energy(R) brand products at issue are unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly could result in illness, injury or death. In connection with these product safety allegations, the plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure, palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief. The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual property litigation and claims from terminated distributors. MURRY'S INC: Recalls Gluten-Free Breaded Chicken Nuggets -------------------------------------------------------- Murry's, Inc., a Lebanon, Pa. establishment, is recalling approximately 20,232 pounds of gluten-free breaded chicken nugget product that tested positive for Staphylococcal enterotoxin, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The following product is subject to recall: --- 12-oz. boxes of "Bell & Evans Gluten Free Breaded Chicken Breast Nuggets" with a "Best By" date of March 25, 2016. The product, bearing establishment number "P-516" inside the USDA mark of inspection, was shipped to an establishment for distribution nationwide. The problem was discovered by the Colorado Department of Agriculture during a routine retail surveillance and sampling program, which is funded by the USDA at a Food Emergency Response Network (FERN) lab. After being notified of the positive test result, FSIS conducted traceback activities. Staphylococcal food poisoning is a gastrointestinal illness. It is caused by eating foods contaminated with toxin-producing Staphylococcus aureus. Staphylococcus aureus is a common bacterium found on the skin and in the noses of healthy people and animals. Staphylococcus aureus can produce seven different toxins that are frequently responsible for food poisoning. Staphylococcal enterotoxins are fast acting, sometimes causing illness in as little as 30 minutes. Thoroughly cooking product does not prevent illness, and symptoms usually develop within one to six hours after eating contaminated food. Patients typically experience several of the following: nausea, vomiting, stomach cramps, and diarrhea. The illness is usually mild and most patients recover after one to three days. To prevent Staphylococcal contamination, keep kitchens and food- serving areas clean and sanitized. Keep hot foods hot (over 140 F) and cold foods cold (40 F or under). Make sure to wash hands and under fingernails vigorously with soap and water before handling and preparing food. Do not prepare food if you have an open sore or wound on your hands or if you have a nose or eye infection. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Murry's Customer Service, at (800) 638-0215. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem NATURAL DOG: Recalls Tremenda Sticks Pet Chews Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Natural Dog Company, Inc. of Windsor, CO, is recalling its 12oz bags of 12" Tremenda Sticks pet chews because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating the product and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. The recalled 12" Tremenda Sticks were distributed to retail stores in CA, CO, FL, IL, MO MT, NC, OH UT and WA. The recalled product comes in a 12oz bag without a lot number or expiration date with UPC number: 851265004957. Products with new packaging, which includes both a lot number and expiration date but the same UPC are not affected by this recall. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The potential for contamination was noted after a Colorado Department of Agriculture inspection of the product revealed the presence of Salmonella in a sample taken from a 12oz package of 12" Tremenda Sticks. Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the company continue their investigation as to the source of the problem. Consumers who have purchased 12oz packages of 12" Tremenda Sticks should discontinue use of the product and may return the unused portion to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-888-424-4602 - Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm MST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455542.htm NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Filed Motion to Dismiss Rand-Heart Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Netsol Technologies, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit filed by Rand-Heart of New York, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On July 25, 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and three of its current or former officers and/or directors, which have been consolidated under the caption Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA (SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 premised on allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's next generation product, NFS AscentTM, and business prospects during the proposed class period of November 12, 2009 to November 8, 2013. On March 19, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2015, plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint that contains similar but more narrow allegations than the predecessor complaint. The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was scheduled to be heard on June 8, 2015. The Company continues to believe the amended allegations are meritless and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted. The Company has engaged counsel and has liability insurance. Given the early stage of the litigation, however, at this time the Company is unable to form a professional judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will or will not have a material adverse effect on the Company. OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Cal. for Non-Disclosure of Balloon Payment -------------------------------------------------------------- Dana D. Moody, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05186 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the California borrowers who have entered into an in-house loan modification agreement with the Defendant that contains a purported "Balloon Disclosure" provision which does not disclose the amount of the balloon payment that the borrower will owe at the end of the term of the loan. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage bank and home mortgage loan servicer, servicing mortgages on behalf of lenders and investors, including pooled mortgage-backed securities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Meredith S. Lierz, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com mlierz@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Todd S. Collins, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-875-3000 Facsimile: 215-875-4613 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net elechtzin@bm.net ON THE LEVEL: "Larue" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Larue, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. On The Level Construction Services, Inc. and Kirk L. McAlister, Case No. 5:15-cv-00339-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. On The Level Construction Services, Inc. provides construction service in the states of Florida, Illinois, Alabama, and Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC 200 Central Ave Ste 400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 823-0000 Facsimile: (352) 556-4839 E-mail: lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (210) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: Jbt@jbtlawgroup.com Nicholasconlon@jbtlawgroup.com OSAMU CORPORATION: Recalls Frozen Tuna Products Due to Salmonella ----------------------------------------------------------------- Osamu Corporation of Gardena, CA is recalling all of its frozen tuna (loin, saku, chunk, slice, and ground market forms) sourced from one processing plant in Indonesia because the Minnesota Department of Health Investigators found samples of this product from one retail location in Minnesota to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Persons developing these symptoms should seek medical attention. There have been two reports of illness associated with a single distributor in Minnesota. The frozen tuna was sold in bulk packaging to distributors who further sold it to sushi restaurants, and grocery stores who packaged sushi rolls made available for consumers to purchase and take home, throughout the U.S. from 05/09/14 to 07/09/15 containing all sequential four digit Purchase Order Numbers (PO#) of 8563 through 8599. The bulk frozen tuna products can be identified from the Purchase Order Number (PO#) printed on each product carton box end panel. Consumers concerned about whether the sushi they purchased may contain the recalled tuna product should check with the restaurant or store where they purchased the sushi. That store will be able to determine if it used the recalled product to prepare the sushi. At this time Osamu does not believe that the recalled product or sushi made with the recalled product is available for purchase by consumers. Customers who have purchased the frozen tuna products from their distributors are urged to return it to the distributor for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-310- 849-8881, Mondays through Fridays, 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. (PDT). Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455627.htm P&S SELECT: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Leoncio Torres, and others similarly-situated v. P&S Select Foods Inc., P&S Select Meats Inc., Ray Doe Sr., Gary Doe, Anthony Doe, and Ray Doe Jr., LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-05386 (S.D.N.Y., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants owned, operated and controlled a meat supply company in Bronx, New York under the name "P&S Select Foods". The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com PACIFIC GAS: Does Not Properly Pay CSRs, "Greer" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Becky Greer, Timothy C. Budnik, Rosario Saenz, and Ian Carty, individually and as class representatives v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01066- GSA (E.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages owed to all Customer Service Representative I personnel for all work performed at the proper rate of compensation. Pacific Gas and Electric Company is one of the largest combination natural gas and electric utilities in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dylan J. Crosby, Esq. Michael S. Helsley, Esq. Patrick D. Toole, Esq. WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC 265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310 P.O. Box 28340 Fresno, CA 93729 Telephone: (559) 233-4800 Facsimile: (559) 233-9330 E-mail: dcrosby@wjhattorneys.com mhelsley@wjhattorneys.com ptoole@wjhattorneys.com PHOTOMEDEX INC: Court Dismissed Class Action Against Radiancy ------------------------------------------------------------- PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President, in its entirety for failure to state a claim. On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or, alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date, Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached. On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business Law Sections 349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal jurisdiction over him by the Court. The Court denied the plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to amend the complaint. Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. PHOTOMEDEX INC: Cantley Class Action in Discovery Phase ------------------------------------------------------- PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products, is now in the discovery phase. On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various violations of state business and consumer protection codes including false and misleading advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification of the class, which consists of customers in the State of California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in the discovery phase. Radiancy and its officers intend to vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has now commenced in this action. At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent liability or reserve for these matters. POPULAR INC: "Valle" Case v. PCB Stayed Pending Ruling on Motions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case, Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, has been stayed pending a ruling on motions. On November 21, 2012, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") was served with a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in the New York State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, existing BPNA customers, allege among other things that BPNA has engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleges that BPNA improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and, additionally, that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by BPNA violate New York's usury laws. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and attorneys' fees and costs. BPNA removed the case to federal court (S.D.N.Y.) and plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New York account holders. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed in February 2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part BPNA's motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to BPNA's item processing policy. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to correct certain deficiencies noted in the court's decision and order. BPNA subsequently filed a motion in opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further sought to compel arbitration. The matter has been stayed pending a ruling on such motions. POPULAR INC: Conditional Certification Granted in "Quiles" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a Court has granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the class action filed by Neysha Quiles. Between December 2013 and January 2014, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR"), Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") and Popular, Inc., along with two executive officers, were served with a putative class action complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al. Plaintiffs essentially alleged that they and others, who have been employed by the Defendants as "bank tellers" and other similarly titled positions, were generally paid only for scheduled work time, rather than time actually worked. The Complaint sought to maintain a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all individuals who were employed or were currently employed by the Defendants in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, and Illinois as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time during the past three years and alleged the following claims under the FLSA against all Defendants: (i) failure to pay overtime premiums; and (ii) that the failure to pay was willful. Similar claims were brought under Puerto Rico law on behalf of all individuals who were employed or are currently employed by BPPR in Puerto Rico as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled positions at any time during the past three years. On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the complaint. On February 24, 2014, the parties reached an agreement to dismiss the complaint against BPNA and the named BPNA executive officer without prejudice. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs submitted a motion for conditional class certification, which BPPR opposed. On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby it granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the FLSA action. POPULAR INC: "Fernandez" Remains Pending in New York Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action case, Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., currently remains pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 5, 2014, a putative class action captioned Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies against various UBS entities, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and Popular Securities. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico is the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co- sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds. The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against all defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees. On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually identical complaint in the US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (USDC-PR) and requested that the case be consolidated with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services Securities Litigation, a class action currently pending before the USDC-PR in which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties. The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The Popular defendants joined this motion. By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court granted defendants' motion to transfer. The case currently remains pending in the SDNY. POPULAR INC: Court Approves Dismissal of "Alvarez" Case ------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a court has approved the dismissal of the case, David Alvarez, et al. v. Banco Popular North America. On May 6, 2014, a putative class action captioned David Alvarez, et al. v. Banco Popular North America was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs generally assert that BPNA has engaged in purported violations of Sec.2954.8(a) of the California Civil Code and Sec.17200 et seq. of the California Business Professions Code, which allegedly require financial institutions that make loans secured by certain types of real property located within the state of California to pay interest to borrowers on impound account deposits at a statutory rate of not less than two percent (2%). Plaintiffs maintain that BPNA has not paid interest on such deposits and demand that BPNA be enjoined from engaging in further violations of these provisions and pay an unspecified amount of damages sufficient to repay the unpaid interest on these deposits. PHH Corporation, which acquired the loans at issue in this complaint, has agreed to indemnify and tender a defense on behalf of BPNA. On March 11, 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement and release to fully and finally resolve the litigation and dismiss the case in its entirety and on March 24, 2015, the court approved the dismissal of the case. The terms of the settlement do not require that BPNA make any payment in connection thereof. POPULAR INC: Agreement in "Valle" Case v. BPNA Not Yet Final ------------------------------------------------------------ Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the agreement in principle reached in the case, Josefina Valle, et al. v. BPNA, is not yet final. On October 7, 2014, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") was served with a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina Valle, et al. v. BPNA, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint names the same plaintiffs who filed the overdraft fee class action suit. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that BPNA engages in unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices relative to the assessment of ATM fees on ATM transactions initialed at Allpoint branded ATMs. The complaint further alleges that BPNA is in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E with respect to ATM fees. On December 2, 2014, BPNA filed a motion to compel arbitration, which plaintiffs opposed. On February 2, 2015, the court entered an opinion and order granting defendant's motion to compel arbitration. On February 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit demanding that the court reverse the district court's ruling. On April 17, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter for approximately $25,000. This settlement is not yet final. POPULAR INC: BPNA Settles Claims by Ex-Assist. Branch Managers -------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as a result of the mediation, the parties in a potential class action submitted by two former assistant branch managers have entered into an agreement in principle to settle this claim. On October 3, 2014, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") received notice of a potential class action submitted by two former assistant branch managers. The purported action alleges various wage and hour violations arising from what they contend is an improper job classification under the FLSA and applicable state law equivalents. In December 2014, BPNA accepted plaintiffs' offer to mediate this dispute, and mediation took place on February 19, 2015. As a result of the mediation, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle this claim. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, subject to certain customary conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, defendant will pay the amount of $800,000. POPULAR INC: BPPR Served with RadioShack ERISA Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") was served on March 20, 2015, with a class action complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that certain employees of RadioShack incurred losses in their 401(k) plans because various fiduciaries elected to retain RadioShack's company stock in the portfolio of potential investment options. The complaint further asserts that once RadioShack's financial situation began to deteriorate in 2011, the fiduciaries of the RadioShack 401(k) Plan and the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan (collectively, "the Plans") should have removed RadioShack company stock from the portfolio of potential investment options. Popular was a directed trustee, and therefore a fiduciary, of the RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan ("P.R. Plan"). Even though the P.R. Plan directed Popular to retain RadioShack company stock within the portfolio of investment options, the complaint alleges that a trustee's duty of prudence requires it to disregard plan documents or directives that it knows or reasonably should know would lead to an imprudent result or would otherwise harm plan participants or beneficiaries. It further alleges that Popular breached its fiduciary duties by (i) failing to take any meaningful steps to protect plan participants from losses that it knew would occur; (ii) failing to divest the P.R. Plan of Company Stock; and (iii) participating in the decisions of another trustee (Wells Fargo) to protect the Plans from inevitable losses. PURE CANVAS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Espinoza" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Espinoza, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pure Canvas, Inc. and David Abellard, Case No. 9:15-cv-80950-DMM (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay their employees at least the federal minimum wage rate and overtime pay for all hours worked. The Defendants own and operate a digital printing company located at 4849 Lake Worth Road, Suite 202, Greenacres, Florida 33463. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Odato, Esq. Dennis A. Creed III, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A. 1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400 Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: jodato@ffmlawgroup.com dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com RCI HOSPITALITY: Settled New York Wage and Hour Class Action Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., have entered into an agreement to settle in full a New York based federal wage and hour class action case, RCI said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. "On April 1, 2015, we and our subsidiaries, RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., entered into an agreement to settle in full a New York based federal wage and hour class action case filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York," the Company said. The settlement has been filed with the court for preliminary approval. Trial was scheduled to begin April 27, 2015. Under terms of the agreement, RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. will make up to $15 million available to class members and their attorneys. The actual amount paid will be determined based on the number of class members responding by the end of a three-month notice period, with final court approval expected sometime after that. "Any unclaimed checks or payments will revert back to our subsidiaries," the Company said. Based on the current schedule, an initial payment of $1,833,333 will be made in approximately five months, with two subsequent payments of $1,833,333 each being made in equal annual installments. "As part of the settlement, we were required to guarantee the obligations of RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. under the settlement," the Company said. Filed in 2009, the case claimed Rick's Cabaret New York misclassified entertainers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs sought minimum wage for the hours they danced and return of certain fees. RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. maintained the dancers were properly classified, and alternatively, amounts earned were well in excess of the minimum wage and should satisfy any obligations. In accordance with GAAP, the Company has accrued $10.3 million as of March 31, 2015 as the estimated liability for its obligations under the settlement. SABINE OIL: Parties Negotiating Settlement of Forest Oil Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the cases, Stourbridge Investments, LLC v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Raul v. Carroll, et al., Rothenberg v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Jabri v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., are negotiating a stipulation of settlement, Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 651418/2014. On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC). The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are alleged against that entity. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as would have been required under the original transaction structure. The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial adviser for the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed Combination with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices" that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential transactions with other bidders. The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law, and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved. In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409- MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on June 13, 2014. The Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May 29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve the proposed Combination. The Olinatz Complaint names as defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any alleged benefits improperly received by defendants. On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to reopening on good cause shown. On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date. The settlement, if consummated, will also resolve the Colorado action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form 8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at least one additional independent director, as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required to be independent. In connection with the closing of the Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual, was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to replace an independent director who resigned from the board of directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs' position and believes it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding. In an attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered to: (i) appoint an independent director if an additional director was added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of directors eight) in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or waive the "Reincorporation Penalty" provision. Plaintiffs accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties' reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are presently negotiating. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the event the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith, including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney's fees and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the Actions. There can be no assurances that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the New York Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The parties are presently negotiating the stipulation of settlement. At this time, the Company is unable to guarantee the potential outcome of this litigation or the ultimate exposure. SAUSAGE FACTORY: Recalls Sausage Products Die to Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------ The Sausage Factory Inc., a Carson City, Nev. establishment, is recalling approximately 5,960 pounds of sausage products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Although produced under USDA inspection, some packages may not bear the USDA mark of inspection. The sausage items were produced on various dates between March 30 and June 12, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Banger 5 oz" and bearing case code 10025, batch #22318. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Bockwurst 2 oz" and bearing case code 10049, batch #22286. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Bockwurst 4-1" and bearing case code 10048, batch #22286. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Knockwurst 4-1" and bearing case code 10062, batch #22308. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Andouille 4-1" and bearing case code 10044, batch #22224. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Pulled Pork" and bearing case code 12152, batch #22164. --- 50-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Pulled Pork" and bearing case code 12153, batch #22164. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Sweet Italian Rope" and bearing case code 12156LV, batch #22216. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Banger 13- 1" and bearing case code 12235, batch #22238. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Della's Pork Sausage" and bearing case code 12581, batch #22130. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory 8" Old Fashioned Frank" and bearing case code 11254, batch #22337 and #22388. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory 7" Old Fashioned Frank" and bearing case code 10080, batch #22337 and #22388. --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory 6" 8-1 Hot Dog" and bearing case code 10085, batch #22388. The products subject to recall should bear the establishment number "EST. 6236" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to distribution locations in California and Nevada. The problem was discovered during routine FSIS verification activities. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Karla Bell, Office Manager, at (775) 882-8110. Media with questions about the recall can contact Steve Church, General Manager, at (775) 882- 8110. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://tinyurl.com/psfy7un SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Delaware Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has granted the motion of plaintiffs in the Delaware class action related to the acquisition of WMS Industries Inc., for voluntary dismissal of the consolidated Delaware actions. Complaints challenging the WMS acquisition were filed in early 2013 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of WMS stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the acquisition and in connection with their public disclosures concerning the acquisition. The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS, Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the consolidated Delaware action. The Lake County, Illinois actions were transferred to Cook County. All of the Illinois actions were consolidated in Cook County with Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540). In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on the acquisition. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in the Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all actions in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the acquisition. In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In September 2014, the plaintiffs' claims in the Illinois action were dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs in the Illinois action have filed a claim for attorneys' fees of $0.9 million, which we have opposed. In February 2015, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action moved to intervene in the Gardner action for the purpose of participating in the motion for attorneys' fees and in March 2015, the Illinois Court granted the motion. In March 2015, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action submitted a motion for voluntary dismissal of the consolidated Delaware actions. The Court granted the motion and the matter was dismissed. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Hearing Held on Settlement in Bally Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Nevada court was slated to hold a hearing on June 2, 2015, to consider approval of the settlement in the class action related to the acquisition of Bally Technologies, Inc. Complaints challenging the Bally acquisition were filed in August 2014 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders of Bally and name as defendants Bally, its directors, Scientific Games Corporation and certain of its affiliates. The complaints generally allege that the Bally directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the acquisition and that we aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, including to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs. All of the actions have been consolidated under the caption In re Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A-14- 705012-B) (the "Nevada Action"). In October 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited discovery in connection with an anticipated motion to enjoin the proposed transaction. Following that, in October 2014, Bally and its directors filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the count of the consolidated complaint alleging wrongdoing by Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates. Following that, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited discovery and the parties entered into preliminary settlement discussions. On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class- wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary and final approval of the Nevada court, which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally, Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims alleged in the Nevada Action. The MOU provided that Bally would make certain supplemental disclosures about the transaction in a definitive proxy statement, which it did on October 20, 2014. On November 18, 2014, Bally's stockholders approved the Bally acquisition and the Bally acquisition was consummated on November 21, 2014. After entering into the MOU, the plaintiffs completed confirmatory discovery and concluded that the settlement contemplated by the MOU is fair, reasonable and adequate and is in the best interests of the Bally public stockholders. On April 23, 2015, all parties to the Nevada Action entered into a definitive stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and release, providing for all claims that were or could be asserted in the Nevada Action to be dismissed with prejudice on a classwide basis in accordance with the terms of the MOU, subject to court approval. On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, class certification and notice to class members. The Nevada court had scheduled a hearing on June 2, 2015, to consider that motion. If plaintiffs' motion is granted, defendants will provide notice of the proposed settlement to persons who held shares of Bally stock between August 1, 2014 and November 21, 2014, inclusive, and the court will schedule a hearing at a future date where objections, if any, to the proposed settlement will be heard. There can be no assurance that the Nevada court will approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in connection with the settlement, which are subject to court approval, are not expected to be material. SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Class Action v. Oregon State Lottery Dropped -------------------------------------------------------------- Scientific Games Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a court has granted the Oregon State Lottery's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon Tort Claims Act. On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the "auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc. The suit alleges that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning. The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary damages. In February 2015, WMS Gaming Inc. and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss. On April 21, 2015, the court granted the Oregon State Lottery's motion to dismiss stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon Tort Claims Act. As a result of the dismissal, the court indicated that all claims against WMS Gaming Inc. are moot. The plaintiffs have 30 days after entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. SMITHTOWN BANCORP: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 17 issued the following statement regarding the Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK WATERFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SMITHTOWN BANCORP, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00864-SLT-RER CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED SMITHTOWN BANCORP, INC. ("SBI") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 13, 2008, THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 1, 2010 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a hearing will be held on September 28, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Courtroom 2E North, Brooklyn, New York 11201, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Action for the amount of $1,950,000.00 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice ("Judgment") should be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice and releasing the Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of Distribution for the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses should be approved. IF YOU PURCHASED SBI COMMON STOCK DURING THE TIME PERIOD FROM MARCH 13, 2008, THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 1, 2010 ("CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OF SBI COMMON STOCK DURING THE CLASS PERIOD. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Smithtown Bancorp Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990 or on the Internet at www.smithtownbancorpsecuritieslitigation.com If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release by mail or online no later than October 5, 2015 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you purchased SBI common stock during the Class Period and you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than September 8, 2015 in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All members of the Class who do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Distribution, or Lead Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, must be received by each of the following recipients no later than September 8, 2015: CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States Courthouse 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, NY 11201 Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP SAMUEL H. RUDMAN EVAN J. KAUFMAN 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Counsel for Defendants: KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP BRUCE G. VANYO WILLIAM M. REGAN 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above. DATED: June 16, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SOTHEBY'S: 9th Circuit Affirmed Lower Court Decision ---------------------------------------------------- Sotheby's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a decision affirming the lower court decision that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutional insofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of the state of California. Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists (and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the State of California or at auction by California sellers and for which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. On May 5, 2015, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court decision that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutional insofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of the state of California. SOTHEBY'S: No Stockholder Objections Filed to Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Sotheby's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no stockholder objections were submitted within the applicable 30 day notice period related to the settlement in the case, The Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP (Del. Ch. 2014). On April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so- called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed credit agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the putative class. On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs in this action and in the Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System action discussed below jointly filed a motion for an order dismissing the Stockholder Actions as moot and for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $3.5 million. On July 25, 2014, Sotheby's filed a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion. A hearing on the motion was held on August 14, 2014. Prior to the Court's resolution of the motion, the parties agreed to a settlement. On January 15, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation agreed to by the parties and an order regarding dismissal of the Stockholder Actions and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses (the "Order"). As required by the Order, Sotheby's is notifying stockholders that the Stockholder Actions are moot and that defendants, through their insurer, have paid to plaintiffs' counsel $1.6 million in full satisfaction of their application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Stockholder Actions. As Sotheby's directors and officers insurance carrier funded the full $1.6 million payment, the resolution of the Stockholder Actions did not result in any cost to Sotheby's. The Order further provided that the Stockholder Actions would be dismissed as moot without further action of the Court unless another stockholder of Sotheby's submitted a written objection to the Court within 30 days of the March 2, 2015 notice date. No stockholder objections were submitted within the applicable 30 day notice period. SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Action Mulled Over Rent Overcharges --------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Sausser, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that more than 300 adults with disabilities and special needs in South Carolina have been overcharged almost $2 million for rent since 2013 and it may take years to pay them back, a new report shows. State officials say some of these adults may be owed $10,000. Advocates for the disabled believe this new report only scratches the surface and that many disabled adults were probably cheated out of much more money. An investigation by the state Inspector General's Office revealed that 329 people, many of them diagnosed with autism or an intellectual disability, paid $1.2 million more than they should have in 2013 and 2014 for rent in county-level group homes run by local Department of Disabilities and Special Needs boards. Residents in some of these homes likely overpaid another $600,000 this fiscal year, the report said. The investigation blames 10 local boards, including the Charleston board, for mismanaging federal funds meant to offset housing costs for disabled adults. Mostly, the local boards made accounting errors, the report explained. They overcharged some residents for rent, and undercharged others. "In no instance did the (Department of Disabilities and Special Needs) audit or the (State Inspector General) review find any malicious or criminal intent," said Lois Park-Mole, a spokeswoman for the statewide Department of Disabilities and Special Needs. Bill Danielson of Lexington was the only member of the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs commission who answered questions about the report on July 17. The remaining six commissioners, all appointed by the governor, did not return messages or referred questions about the investigation to the state office. Mr. Danielson said commissioners have been asking questions about the report "behind closed doors." He said he couldn't discuss concerns that some adults may have been overcharged for rent in group homes before 2013. Deborah McPherson, a former member of the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs commission, said this problem definitely pre-dates 2013 and the new report doesn't acknowledge that. "It's just incredible the amount of money," Ms. McPherson said. "They haven't really delved into this. They didn't want to. I hate to say it but people with disabilities, nobody pays attention to this stuff." Lexington resident Brenda Bryant said her daughter Stephanie lived in a Department of Disabilities and Special Needs group home in Greenville County between 2003 and 2009. All that time, she said, the local Greenville board collected $650 a month in rent from Stephanie and failed to apply a $650 federal credit to her account. The board pocketed both the rent payment and the federal money every month for six years, Ms Bryant said. She estimates Stephanie should be paid back between $25,000 and $30,000. "They knew what they were doing," Ms. Bryant said. "They intentionally charged their consumers double bills. If you intentionally do something that is wrong, it's intentional. It's not a mistake." The Greenville County Disabilities and Special Needs board overcharged its residents a combined $327,498 between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2014, according to the new report, and technically undercharged residents $244 during the same window. The extra money -- more than $320,000 -- was absorbed into the board's bottom line. The report shows the Charleston board overcharged residents $53,547 during those two years and undercharged some adults $8,609. This isn't the first time the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs has drawn scrutiny for mismanaged rent payments. In May, the state office acknowledged that it broke federal rules for several years by charging Medicaid millions of dollars for these adults' room and board. The state owes the federal government $1.6 million for mistakes made during the 2010 fiscal year alone. This, too, was just an accounting error, Park-Mole said at the time. Now, the state office is pressing local Disabilities and Special Needs boards to pay back rent money that they owe residents. It won't happen overnight, partly because an influx of money for some of these adults might make them ineligible for the low-income Medicaid program. Beverly Buscemi, director of the statewide Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, said the money will be paid back over the course of three years, or "as quickly as possible in such a matter that it does not jeopardize their other benefits." Ms. Bryant isn't satisfied. She has considered filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of her daughter Stephanie and other adults who, she said, are owed thousands of dollars. "I think there are some serious problems here," she said. Ms. McPherson agreed that investigators need to dig deeper. "You can have a dog -- and I'm a true, true animal lover -- you can have a dog hurt and it's all over the papers, all over the news, but you let something happen to a person with a disability and it's like, 'So what?'" Ms. McPherson said. "It upsets me." SUPERVALU INC: Recalls Danish Rolls Due to Milk Allergen -------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. of Eden Prairie, Minn. is recalling 4ct. 13oz packages of Cub Foods and Rainbow Foods Danish Rolls because it may contain undeclared milk allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The Danish Rolls were produced in Cub Foods and Rainbow Foods locations in Minnesota and Illinois. The Danish rolls are packaged as a 4ct (13oz) in a clear plastic clam shell. The product is produced in-store at Cub and Rainbow locations in three varieties; Danish, Caramel Danish, and Caramel Nut Danish. The affected product would have been for sale on or before Monday, July 13, 2015 and have a three-day expiration date. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that Danish Rolls containing milk were produced and packaged with a label that did not indicate the presence of milk. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a switch in frozen Danish roll dough base that did not get updated onto the final product label. Consumers who have purchased the affected product can return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact SUPERVALU's customer service line at 1-855-282-3663. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455191.htm STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Cert. Matter Remains Under Advisement ----------------------------------------------------------- Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing on class certification was held on March 5 to 7 and April 11, 2014, and the matter remains under advisement. The company is involved, along with other steel manufacturing companies, in several class action antitrust complaints filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, which allege a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the United States during a period between 2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. One of the complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products. A second complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time period. An additional complaint was brought in December 2010, on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee and has been consolidated with the original complaints. All complaints seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in May 2012, and on February 28, 2013, Defendants filed their Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A hearing on class certification was held on March 5 to 7 and April 11, 2014, and the matter remains under advisement. It's unclear when the court will issue its ruling. SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Parties Settle Resolution Partners Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Symmetry Surgical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that parties in a class action complaint filed by Resolution Partners have settled the suit for no additional consideration, but left the issue of a claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either through agreement or via a court hearing. On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint challenging the company's former parent's merger and the Company's spin-out as a stand-alone public company was filed by Resolution Partners, an alleged stockholder of SMI, and all others similarly situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana. The complaint named as defendants Symmetry Medical Inc. ("SMI"), the members of the board of directors of SMI, Genstar Capital LLC, Tecomet's sponsor (''Genstar''), Tecomet, Holdings and TecoSym Inc. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint further alleges that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material information. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees. The parties settled the suit prior to the consummation of the transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either through agreement or via a court hearing. The Company has agreed with SMI to share equally in any fee award, up to 50% of the remaining insurance deductible. The Company does not believe this will have a significant impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows. SYNTHES USA: Judge Tosses Plaintiff's Strict Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal judge has rejected a plaintiff's strict liability claims against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective spinal implant that failed and led to a broken back. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled July 15 that an exclusion from strict liability claims that applies to prescription drugs should be applied to prescription medical devices as well. The judge also allowed the plaintiffs' manufacturing defect, negligent design, failure-to- warn and negligence per se claims to go forward against the implant manufacturer, Synthes USA Products. The ruling largely relied on a July 2014 ruling from the Eastern District, but said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet addressed whether the exemption for "unavoidably unsafe" products should be applied to prescription medical devices. "The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that there is 'no reason why the same rational[e] applicable to prescription drugs may not be applied to medical devices," Judge Schmehl said. "Further, numerous federal courts have applied the [reasoning in the state Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Hahn v. Richter] to medical device cases, finding that plaintiffs may not assert strict liability claims against manufacturers of medical devices." According to Judge Schmehl, plaintiff James P. Wilson had two N-Hance spinal fixation rods, which were manufactured by Synthes USA, implanted into his spine to help repair back injuries. About two years after the rods were implanted, the rods failed and Wilson's back had broken, Judge Schmehl said. Mr. Wilson alleged that a properly designed and manufactured spinal implant should not bend, fracture or break once implanted, and that the implants broke because of problems at the manufacturing plant and because of an inherent design defect. Synthes filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a strict liability cause of action against manufacturers of medical devices like the N-Hance rods. Products liability claims against medical device companies, Synthes argued, can only be brought under a theory of negligence. Synthes noted that, in the Hahn case, the court ruled that prescription drugs are "unavoidably unsafe," and are therefore excluded from strict liability claims under Comment k to the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Synthes further contended the reasoning in that case has been consistently applied by state and federal courts to cases that involve medical devices. Synthes also pointed out that U.S. District Judge Joel H. Slomsky predicted in the 2014 case Terrell v. Davol that the state Supreme Court would conclude all strict liability claims are barred in medical device cases. According to Judge Schmehl, Judge Slomsky had noted the state Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Lance v. Wyeth did not exempt manufacturing defects when it ruled that all strict liability claims are barred in prescription drug cases. Mr. Wilson argued Terrell was wrongly decided, and that Judge Schmehl should rely on the 2013 Western District of Pennsylvania decision in Kline v. Zimmer Holdings. That case allowed a strict-liability manufacturing defect claim to proceed against a medical device manufacturer. However, Mr. Wilson failed to show why Kline would apply over the Terrell decision. "Plaintiffs' only argument seems to be that medical devices can be 'altered or manufactured in different ways to render them more fit for their purposes,' and therefore should be 'subjected to equal or greater liability than most products,'" Judge Schmehl said. Judge Schmehl noted the Kline holding predates the Lance decision, and agreed with Synthes that Comment k of the Restatement (Second) imposed a ban on all strict liability claims against medical device manufacturers. The judge also disagreed with Mr. Wilson's arguments to distinguish devices from prescription drugs. "I find this attempt to distinguish medical devices from prescription drugs to be unpersuasive, as both medical devices and prescription drugs could be manufactured in different ways to make them more fit for the purpose," Judge Schmehl said. "Like prescription drugs, medical devices are known to cause possible harm, but the risks are outweighed by the benefits they provide for patients who need them." Synthes also argued the plaintiffs' claims were not specific enough to go forward, but Judge Schmehl denied all those challenges except for the challenge to Wilson's negligent marketing claims. "Although these allegations of plaintiffs' complaint are not extremely specific, I find that when the complaint is read as a whole, there is sufficient specificity," Judge Schmehl said. Wilson's attorney, Maxwell S. Kennerly of the Beasley Firm, did not return a call for comment, and Blank Rome attorney Terry Henry, who represented Synthes USA, also did not return a message seeking comment. TD BANK: Settles Ponzi Scheme Class Action for $20 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that TD Bank has agreed to pay $20 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing it of aiding a Ponzi scheme that allegedly bilked over a thousand European investors of more than $223 million, a lawyer for the investors said on July 17. The preliminary settlement, subject to court approval, resolves accusations that TD Bank, part of Canada's Toronto-Dominion Bank, failed to properly monitor trust accounts that held investors' money and ignored its duty to investigate suspicious activities under U.S. anti-money laundering rules. "This is a terrific result for the class," said David Buckner, a lawyer for the investors. A TD Bank spokeswoman said it is pleased the matter is close to a resolution. In court filings, lawyers for TD Bank said investors failed to show the bank had actual knowledge of misconduct. The bank provided routine banking services, which did not constitute substantial assistance to the alleged scheme, the lawyers said. Filed in 2014, the lawsuit sought damages for investors in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain who bought so-called life settlements marketed through Quality Investments, a Dutch company with offices at the World Trade Center Amsterdam. Life settlements are life insurance policies sold to investors who receive proceeds from death benefits when the insured person dies. Dutch authorities in 2011 arrested four people suspected of running a Ponzi scheme through Quality Investments involving the sale of U.S. life insurance policies. The settlement is the second in less than two years involving allegations that TD Bank failed to report suspicious activity in accounts allegedly used for a Ponzi scheme. In September 2013, it agreed to pay $52.5 million to settle U.S. civil regulatory charges that it failed to uncover and report suspicious activities by Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein, who was sentenced to a 50-year prison term for a $1.2 billion fraud. The latest lawsuit, filed in a South Florida federal court, said investors were assured their money and the insurance policies they invested in would be held in attorney trust accounts at TD Bank. Instead of being safeguarded, new investor funds were diverted to pay premiums on policies held for earlier investors, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit added that TD Bank failed to report suspicious activity in the accounts, including wire transfers of tens of millions of dollars to Cyprus, Turkey and other known money- laundering destinations. The case is Gevaerts et al v TD Bank et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No 14-cv-20744. TEMPUR SEALY: Todd and Thompson Cases in Discovery Phase -------------------------------------------------------- Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013, is in the discovery phase, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the first time in the case but with an amended petition adding additional class representatives for additional states. The purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable state laws. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend against the claims vigorously. This matter is in the discovery phase, and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of operations. TESCO CORPORATION: Participating in Arbitration ----------------------------------------------- Tesco Corporation is participating in an arbitration, based on the Company's dispute resolution process, with 28 current and former employees who had worked or are working in various states, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Employees claim that they are owed unpaid overtime wages including liquidated damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act and the applicable state laws of various states, including New Mexico and Colorado. The case is assigned to a three judge panel of arbitrators. The parties are litigating the issue of whether or not a Rule 23 style opt-out class action is appropriate in this case. That issue is fully briefed but has not been decided by the arbitrators. Once that issue is resolved, the parties will begin discovery on the merits and set a final hearing date. At March 31, 2015, the Company reserved an estimate for potential exposure in this matter. TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties in Shareholder Suit Agree to Talks ------------------------------------------------------------ TriCo Bancshares said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a memorandum of understanding entered into by parties in a shareholder class action lawsuit contemplates that they will negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation of settlement. On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed against TriCo, North Valley Bancorp and certain other defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the merger agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration; approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally shared by other North Valley Bancorp shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of the merger agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief. On July 31, 2014, the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this lawsuit. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding and in consideration for the full settlement and release of all claims, TriCo and North Valley Bancorp agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are contained in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by each of the companies. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to North Valley Bancorp's shareholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. TRICO BANCSHARES: To Fight Suit by Former Personal Banker --------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares intends to defend against the class action filed by a former Personal Banker, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On September 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to the observance of meal periods. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt 'personal bankers', or employees with the same or similar job duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California during the preceding four years." The Bank filed an Answer to the Complaint on November 6, 2014, denies the charges, and the Bank intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit against class certification and liability. TRICO BANCSHARES: To Fight Suit by Current Personal Banker ---------------------------------------------------------- TriCo Bancshares intends to defend against the class action filed by a current Personal Banker, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who worked for the Bank "during the time period beginning October 18, 2013 through the date of the filing of this action". The Company and the Bank have not yet responded to the First Amended Complaint, deny the charges, and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit against class certification and liability. UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Approved Settlement of Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Uni-Pixel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has approved the settlement of the Class Action Litigation. "In June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas against the Company and our CEO, CFO, and Chairman," the Company said. "The Southern District of New York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 2, 2013. The surviving complaint, with the caption Fitzpatrick, Charles J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., et. al. (Cause No. 4:13-cv-01649), alleges that we and our officers and directors violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning our licensing agreements and product development (the "Class Action Litigation"). The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013." "On July 25, 2014, the judge granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the case, significantly limiting the claims remaining in the Class Action Litigation. On August 25, 2014, we filed an answer to the complaint. "In November 2014, we entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Class Action Litigation. The proposed settlement would result in a payment of $2.35 million in cash to the settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses. In addition, Uni-Pixel would issue $2.15 million in common stock to the settlement class with a range of shares of common stock between 358,333 shares and 430,000 shares, calculated by using the trailing 5 day average stock price from the date of Court approval of settlement. "On April 30, 2015, the Court approved the settlement of the Class Action Litigation on the terms set forth above. As a result, the Company will issue 430,000 shares of common stock. The cash payment portion will be paid from insurance proceeds. The common stock portion of this settlement, totaling $2,150,000, is included in Other Expense and in current liabilities (Settlement of Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits) on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Following issuance of the common stock in May 2015, this amount will be reclassified to Additional Paid In Capital and Common Stock." UNITED STATES: ADX Prisoners Sue Over Solitary Confinement ---------------------------------------------------------- The Week reports that eleven ADX prisoners have filed a class- action lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) arguing that prolonged solitary confinement violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. One inmate, Jack Powers, said he was driven so mad by the lack of human interaction that he bit off his own finger and amputated his own testicle. "There are instances of people who literally go insane in solitary confinement," said psychology professor Craig Haney. "I've seen it happen." UNITED STATES: Faces Multiple Suits Over Indian Child Welfare Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Tolan, writing for Fusion, reports that one of the bedrock laws governing Native American family rights is being challenged by multiple lawsuits filed around the country in the last two months, setting up a case that experts say is likely to eventually end up at the Supreme Court. The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), passed in 1978, prevents states from removing Native American children from their families and placing them in non-Native foster families. The plaintiffs in these cases argue that ICWA and similar laws are harmful to Native American children by blocking their removal from unsafe family situations, while tribal leaders and advocates say it prevents families from being torn apart. For decades, thousands of Native American children were removed from their families and placed into Christian boarding schools or, later, adopted into white families. The children were forced to assimilate into American culture and leave their heritage behind -- one piece of the country's long history of violating Native American rights. According to some estimates, 25 to 35 percent of Native American children have been taken from their families. ICWA was passed to end that. According to the law, state agencies must first try to place Native American kids with a family member, a foster family from the same tribe, or a Native American foster family before they are placed in a non-Native foster family. They can only avoid this process if there's good cause not to put the kids with someone from their extended family or tribe. But in many states, the law is not fully enforced. An NPR investigation in 2011 found that more than half of the kids in the South Dakota foster care system were Native American and almost 90 percent of the Native American children in foster care were placed in non-Native homes. Often, social workers revoked a parent's custody of their child with very little supporting evidence. "It's gotten to the point where the exception now swallows the rule," Matthew Newman, an attorney at the Native American Rights Fund, told Fusion. "We're often finding states inventing any reason under the sun . . . not to place child with their family." Responding to cases like these, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs published guidelines and proposed new regulations in February that would reinterpret ICWA to limit that exception, narrowing what can be considered "good cause" to put Native American kids in non-Native foster families. These proposed regulations have angered opponents of the bill, including the lucrative adoption industry. Since the regulations were proposed, multiple lawsuits have been filed around the country challenging ICWA: A lawsuit filed in Virginia in May challenges the new federal guidelines; another class action lawsuit recently filed in Arizona by the conservative Goldwater Institute alleges the entire law violates the 14th Amendment because it discriminates against Native American children. A third lawsuit in Minnesota challenges a state law similar to ICWA. "What if a child is in a truly harmful situation and the law, which is designed to eradicate bias, poses such a high bar to removal that it makes a child disproportionately subject to harm?" asked Mark Fiddler, a lawyer who's challenging the Minnesota law. Citing higher rates of rape and alcohol abuse in Native American communities, he argued that ICWA and similar state laws are being "misused to keep children in Indian homes in circumstances where they shouldn't be." The days when Native kids were snatched from their homes by the hundreds are over, opponents say, and ICWA now puts the tribe's interest above the child's. "It's an issue of why should Indian children be treated differently than everybody else in the country," Laurie Goldheim, a former president of the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, a plaintiff in the Virginia case, told Fusion. Tribal officials and advocates say that doesn't make sense. They point out that the law protects Native American kids from being removed from their families, a practice that is still common, as the South Dakota cases show. "The best interests of the child is to be left with their Indian relatives, from which they've been taken by the state," Daniel Sheehan, the chief counsel for the Lakota People's Law Project, told Fusion. "It's the systematic removal of children from a minority group . . . The government has treaty obligations to protect the culture of the native people." The majority of cases where children were taken from their Native American parents were not because of abuse: In South Dakota, for example, where a majority of foster kids are Native American, only 11.6 percent of kids were removed from their homes because of physical abuse -- lower than the national average of 16.1 percent, as NPR's investigation noted. Social workers often cite "neglect," a label, tribes say, that is usually just poverty and can be tinged with cultural bias. Some Native Americans who were adopted and removed from their families are speaking out, such as Roger St. John, who was taken from his family in South Dakota to a white family in New York City with no paperwork in 1966. "We were brought up without our culture, which took a terrible toll on our lives," St. John told the news website Indian Country Today. "I grew up angry and miserable . . . It wounded me to my soul, because I felt no one was there for me." Both sides say there's a good chance that these lawsuits could eventually make their way to the Supreme Court. The Court has heard cases involving ICWA in the past, including a 2013 case in which the justices limited how the law applied to unwed fathers without custody when mothers voluntarily put their child up for adoption. But the Court did not make a decision about the constitutionality of the law itself. For now, the recent lawsuits have politicized debate over what is, for most of the country, an obscure and technical law. "There's a new kind of venom to what a lot of these folks are saying, that ICWA is a racist, unconstitutional law that violates the rights of children," Newman said. "It's really transformed the debate in child welfare circles." The Goldwater Institute's backing of the Arizona lawsuit was especially surprising for Native American advocates. The institute typically focuses on small government and states' rights issues -- according to a search of its website, this seems to be the first time it has ever gotten involved in a Native American law case. (A Goldwater spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.) Ironically, Barry Goldwater, the institute's namesake and a former Arizona senator and presidential candidate, voted in favor of ICWA. "I knew Barry Goldwater -- he was my friend and often came to me for advice on most tribal matters," the bill's sponsor, former South Dakota Senator James Abourezk, told Indian Country Today. "I wish he were alive to see this travesty because he would never approve of it, and you can quote me on that, and make sure you emphasize the word 'never.'" URANERZ ENERGY: Shareholder Class Actions Filed Related to Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Uranerz Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that shareholder class action complaints have been filed related the Agreement and Plan of Merger with Energy Fuels Inc. ("Energy Fuels"), an Ontario corporation, and EFR Nevada Corp., a Nevada corporation and indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels. "Since the announcement of our Merger on January 5, 2015, a number of putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, Energy Fuels, Inc. and EFR Nevada Corp. in the District Court, Clark County, Nevada and one in the District Court, Washoe County, Nevada, by purported Uranerz shareholders challenging the Merger. All of the cases in Clark County have been consolidated. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and to prohibit the defendants from consummating the Merger. The Company believes the claims asserted in the complaints have no merit, and it and all of the members of the Board of Directors intend to defend vigorously against them. The future impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements is not determinable at this time." VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Party Won't Oppose Lead Plaintiff Appointment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that one applicant has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion of Arkansas Teachers Retirement System to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case, Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et al. On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers (the "the defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 28, 2013 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds subadvised by F-Squared Investments. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. One of the motions has been withdrawn and on May 7, 2015 the other applicant filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion of Arkansas Teachers Retirement System to be appointed lead plaintiff. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Mark Youngers Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed by Mark Youngers, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by an individual who alleges he is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared Investments and formerly known as the AlphaSector Funds. The complaint purports to allege claims against the Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period'). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. The Company has not been served with the complaint. The Company believes the plaintiff's claims asserted in the complaint are without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Sued in Fla. Over Blind Inaccessible POS Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22607-UU (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired and who cannot access and comprehend, and safely and securely utilize the POS Devices located within the Defendant's chain of home goods and furniture stores for purchase of goods with debit cards. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. is a California corporation that owns and operates a chain of home goods and furniture stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 Facsimile: (786) 513-7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com WORLD WRESTLING: Seeks to Halt Retired Wrestlers' Concussion Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that in their years in the ring, pro wrestlers such as "Blackjack Mulligan" and the "Dynamite Kid" battled opponents, using such signature moves as the diving shoulder block. It's no secret that the match outcomes are scripted, but retired wrestlers say the physical contact is real and often painful. Several retired performers have filed lawsuits in the last nine months, claiming their jobs caused them to suffer numerous concussions and other long-term physical injuries. Now Stamford-based World Wrestling Entertainment is pursuing a different type of block -- a civil action to prevent the claims from moving forward. In late June, the WWE sued four named former performers, including Robert "Blackjack Mulligan" Windham, Thomas "Dynamite Kid" Billington, James Ware, Oreal "Ivan Koloff" Perras, and "various John Does" in U.S. District Court in Connecticut. The litigation seeks a court declaration that any claims relating to traumatic brain injuries, and other tort claims which the men have threatened against WWE, are time-barred by the three-year statute of repose under Connecticut law. (The "John Doe" defendants are any former wrestlers who have not performed for WWE within three years and who have signed retainer agreements with Massachusetts- based plaintiffs attorney Konstantine Kyros.) According to the lawsuit, Messrs. Windham and Billington last performed for WWE in the 1980s, Mr. Ware last did so around 1999, and Perras last performed for an entity known as Capitol Wrestling Corp. "The specifically named defendants did not complain to WWE regarding any alleged injuries supposedly caused by WWE in the decades since they last performed," the lawsuit states. In June, the ex-wrestlers sent the WWE letters through Mr. Kyros claiming for the first time that they were injured as a result of WWE's "negligent and fraudulent conduct," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit claims Mr. Kyros has been engaged in an improper "Internet solicitation scheme" attempting to recruit plaintiffs against WWE, patterned after cases lodged against the National Football League for alleged traumatic brain injuries. Earlier this year, a federal judge in Pennsylvania approved a plan to settle lawsuits by football players who claim to have been injured playing the game through a $1 billion payout, though some players are appealing. Attorney Jerry McDevitt of K&L Gates in Pittsburgh, who represents WWE, said he thinks the NFL litigation has been the genesis for the claims involving the wrestling community. "This is not a situation where people are hurt and go looking for a lawyer; it is the other way around," Mr. McDevitt said. "The WWE is not going to just settle to get rid of these cases." The company, in a statement, said: "It is unfortunate that some former performers have been improperly recruited under the guise of a big 'payday,' and we feel badly that these individuals are being misled and exploited." Since October 2014, Mr. Kyros' clients have filed five lawsuits in federal courts across the country against the WWE, claiming that blows to the head caused concussions and, eventually, a neuro- degenerative disease called chronic traumatic encephalopathy. The WWE disputes the injury claims and accuses Mr. Kyros of filing initial lawsuits so he can garner publicity and recruit new clients. It alleges he purposely has been pursuing actions in other forums in California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas to avoid Connecticut's three-year time limit. As of mid- July, three of the five cases have been transferred to federal court in Connecticut and WWE is attempting to get the other two transferred here. "These lawsuits are part of an ongoing scheme by Kyros to troll for and recruit new plaintiffs to file additional strike lawsuits against WWE in multiple jurisdictions to vexatiously increase the cost of defending stale and meritless lawsuits and to avoid the jurisdiction of this court and the application of Connecticut law to stale and meritless claims," the lawsuit states. None of the wrestlers who have filed suit so far lives in Connecticut. The WWE is claiming Connecticut has jurisdiction because it is based in Stamford and the contracts previously signed by some of the wrestlers were governed by Connecticut laws applicable to contracts. "We believe the cases will all be tossed out because of fraudulent claims and the statute of repose against stale claims," said Mr. McDevitt, who asserted that the WWE does take steps to ensure the health and safety of the wrestlers. "These people are professional wrestlers and stuntmen, and there is risk of injury involved. They are highly paid professionals, and they train to try to eliminate the risk of injury." When there is an injury, wrestlers are given on-the-spot care to diagnose any concussion or injury and treat it, he said. Mr. Kyros, of Hingham, Massachusetts, said the WWE is "trying to distract from the issues of the case" by focusing on him. "Attorneys routinely do outreach, and there is nothing unique about advertising on websites," Mr. Kyros said. "It is an attempt to get away from the issue, which is the health-care crisis in the wrestling community." As for any statutes of repose or limitations, Mr. Kyros said there is precedent for cases involving injured workers in which the symptoms appear years later. "People who have diseases that manifest later, like in asbestos claims, are not time-barred against making claims," Mr. Kyros said. Mr. Kyros asserted the WWE hasn't taken care of former wrestlers once their careers are over. He said many former wrestlers wind up in very poor health generally, with neurological issues. As wrestlers, "they are dropped frequently on their heads. Repetitive head injuries will impact people as they age. They are at an increased risk for developing serious neurological problems," he said. Mr. Kyros declined to provide a total number of former wrestlers who may ultimately be involved in the litigation. He did say he has clients whose cases haven't been filed in court yet. And he did agree with the WWE on one point: the wrestlers have been encouraged by the successful NFL concussion litigation. "If football players are eligible for help and wrestlers are not, and the NFL is doing assessments and studies, what is the WWE doing by way of contrast for its retired wrestlers?" he said. William Bloss of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport, is among those representing plaintiffs Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, both Pennsylvania residents whose case was recently transferred from federal court in Pennsylvania to Connecticut. The WWE has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, in part based on Connecticut statutes of limitations and repose. Mr. Bloss said attorneys are preparing a brief, due Aug. 10, in response to the WWE's motion to dismiss. He declined to comment further. According to Mr. Kyros, Mr. Singleton, who performed as Adam Mercer to 2013, is disabled because of brain trauma, and Mr. LoGrasso suffers from migraines, deafness, memory loss and depression after nearly a decade with the WWE. Mr. LoGrasso wrestled until 2007. The two wrestlers filed their lawsuit in January 2015, seeking class action status. "WWE has, for decades, subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality that it knew, or should have known, caused latent conditions and long-term irreversible bodily damage, including brain damage," the lawsuit stated. WSFS FINANCIAL: 3 Complaints Filed Over Alliance Bancorp Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- WSFS Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that three purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints relating to the pending merger with Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania have been filed. These actions, Parshall v. Stonier et al. (filed on April 20, 2015), Sloss v. Cirucci et al. (filed on May 4, 2015), and Hewes v. Cirucci et al. (filed on May 4, 2015) were all filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The complaints name as defendants Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania, its directors and certain of its officers, and the Company. The complaints in the merger litigation allege that the members of the board of directors of Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania breached their fiduciary duties to Alliance shareholders by approving the merger for inadequate consideration, approving the transaction in order to obtain benefits for Alliance directors and officers that are not equally shared by other Alliance shareholders, entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices, and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the Alliance shareholders. The complaints also allege claims against the Company for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Two of the complaints challenge the adequacy of the disclosures concerning the transaction in the registration statement on Form S-4 relating to the merger. The plaintiffs in these actions seek, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the merger is consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other and further relief. Each of the defendants believes the claims asserted in these actions are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceedings or their impact on the Company. XTO ENERGY: Faces Class Action For Gas Lease Royalty Deductions --------------------------------------------------------------- Jodi Weigand, writing for TribLive, reports that two Butler County families have filed a federal lawsuit claiming that XTO Energy violated their gas leases by inappropriately deducting expenses from royalty checks. Richard Marburger, trustee of the Olive M. Marburger Living Trust, and Edward and Lorraine Thiele, of the Thiele Family Partnership and Thiele Farm, filed the lawsuit on July 14. The families say they signed gas leases in 2007 with Phillips Production Co., which was acquired in 2011 by Exxon Mobile Corp. and operates locally under subsidiary XTO Energy. The lawsuit seeks class action status for others who signed leases with Phillips and are now having expenses deducted from royalties. "This has been something of a problem in the gas industry, and we'll wait and see how the court handles this," said Pittsburgh attorney David Borkovic, who represents the families. Suann Guthrie, XTO spokeswoman, said the company is reviewing the lawsuit. "Our relationship with companies and individuals who share ownership in oil and gas royalties is extremely important to us," she said via e-mail. "We are committed to properly paying our royalty owners under the terms of their leases and applicable state law and regulations." The Marburger Trust signed a gas lease on two parcels totaling 55 acres, from which it was to receive one-eighth of the total proceeds of gas sales. Well production began in 2009, during which time the trust was paid from the gross proceeds as per the lease agreement. Production ceased until after Phillips was sold. "Unlike (Phillips), XTO began to deduct expenses when it calculated plaintiff's royalty payments," according to the suit. The Thiele family had a similar experience with their lease on 148 acres in Jefferson Township, the lawsuit states. Mr. Borkovic said when the lease was assigned to XTO, no changes were permitted to be made. "It was the same paper, the same contract," he said. "XTO is now responsible for fulfilling the obligations that Phillips was responsible for before." The lawsuit asks the court to determine whether XTO breached the Phillips leases, acted in good faith when calculating royalties and if the company is liable for whatever expenses it deducted from royalty payments. * Lawsuits Over Alleged Arsenic-Tainted Wine Pending, No Recalls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bea Karnes, writing for Napa Valley Patch, reports that more than three months after a class-action lawsuit was filed alleging that dozens of wines contain unsafe levels of arsenic, not a single bottle has been recalled. No wineries recalled their products, and no retailers pulled wine from store shelves. Nancy Light of the Wine Institute of California told Patch on July 15 that a recall wasn't necessary because the wine is safe. Furthermore, Light says that wine sales have not dropped as a result of the litigation. "This lawsuit is patently false and has been largely ignored by consumers once they learned the facts," she said. "Wines from around the world contain trace amounts of arsenic -- as do fruits, vegetables, grains, water, juice and other beverages -- and do not pose a risk to consumers. The FDA has been testing the arsenic content in foods and beverages for more than 20 years and has not set a limit for wine because there is no evidence to suggest that the trace amounts put consumers at risk." The No. 1 goal of the lawsuit, according to the attorneys who filed it, was to get the wines off store shelves. Rob Feldman, a spokesman for the attorneys, told Patch that they were disappointed the wine was not recalled, but legal action is moving forward. The three law firms involved are actively recruiting consumers to take part in the litigation. So if you sign on, what can you expect? Mr. Feldman told Patch they want to force wineries to "reimburse people who have used the wine," although he doesn't promise full reimbursement. The majority of wines listed in the lawsuit cost less than $10 a bottle. Arsenic is all around us. It's found naturally in the air, soil, and water, which explains how it ends up in wine. In Canada, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario tested more than 17,500 wines from around the world, including more than 2,200 from California. Globally, 99.6-percent of wines contain 25 ppb or less of arsenic. For California, the number is 99.2-percent. * Regulators Target "Pay-for-Delay" Settlements Between Drug Cos. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that two years after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis erected a roadblock against pharmaceutical companies paying competitors to delay bringing generics to market, appeals courts are extending the ruling beyond cash deals. "What we're seeing is an explosion of litigation in the aftermath of Actavis," said Scott Hemphill, a New York University School of Law professor who studies competition in the pharmaceutical industry. "Actavis set the table for lower courts, and lower courts are now scrambling to fill in all the details." The high court held that government agencies and private parties could challenge "pay-for-delay" settlements between generic and brand-name drug companies. These agreements, also known as reverse-payment settlements, involve inducements by brand-name drug companies to generic manufacturers to keep out of the market. They generally come in the form of settlements of brand companies' patent lawsuits against generic drug makers seeking market entry. Since straight cash payments are more likely to face antitrust scrutiny, brand drug companies are coming up with increasingly creative ways to compensate generic drug companies. Challenges to those deals are making their way to state and federal appellate courts. The trend reflects the length to which brand companies will go to protect market dominance, said Michael Carrier, a Rutgers School of Law - Camden professor who participated as amicus in several post-Actavis appellate cases. "There's a lot of money at stake with these blockbuster drugs, and the brand companies are doing everything possible to delay generic entry as long as possible." In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in King Drug Co. of Florence v. Smithkline Beecham, analyzed an antitrust lawsuit involving Glaxo-Smith-Kline PLC's epilepsy and bipolar drug Lamictal. After the district court judge found Glaxo's main patent claim for the drug invalid, the parties reached a settlement whereby Glaxo allowed Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. to roll out a generic of its chewable version, which has a $50 million annual market size. Glaxo agreed not to launch its own unbranded version of the tablet form of the drug, which has an annual market size of $2 billion, during Teva's 180 days of market exclusivity as the first generic authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Third Circuit said that deal was subject to antitrust scrutiny. "[It] may represent an unusual, unexplained transfer of value from the patent holder to the alleged infringer that cannot be adequately justified," Judge Anthony Scirica wrote. The panel judges, he wrote, "do not believe that Actavis's holding can be limited to reverse payments of cash." The court vacated the District of New Jersey's dismissal of direct purchasers' case against the two and remanded to the trial court. It was the first court of appeals ruling applying Actavis, and also the first to frown on this sort of agreement by a brand drug company, said Markus Meier, who heads the health care division of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition. "The decision makes clear that it does and can give rise to antitrust liability," Mr. Meier said. His agency filed an amicus in support of the plaintiffs and participated in the oral arguments. Glaxo continues to defend such agreements. "Settlements like this one are pro-competitive because they allow parties to resolve expensive, business-disrupting litigation and permit competition," spokeswoman Jenni Brewer Ligday said in an email. Teva declined to comment. Two consolidated First Circuit cases confront the same issue. Direct purchasers and end-payers of the Loestrin 24 Fe contraceptive are suing Warner Chilcott PLC and generic makers including Lupin Ltd. and two units of Actavis Inc. over side deals that delayed generic entry. Actavis acquired Allergan and Warner Chilcott and later changed the corporate name to Allergan PLC. In May, the California Supreme Court in In re Cipro Cases I & II offered the first state appellate guidance on a pay-for-delay settlement post-Actavis. The court found that Barr Laboratories Inc.'s $398.1 million agreement with Bayer A.G. to postpone its generic version of the antibiotic Cipro violated state antitrust laws. The deal stemmed from Barr's challenge to Bayer's patent. The court held that a payment "purchasing freedom from the possibility of competition" is illegal. "The decision is a big win for consumers, because it means that the vast majority of pay-for-delay settlements will be illegal in California, and companies will be less likely to enter into those agreements if they are banned in the country's largest market," said Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School professor and Durie Tangri partner who argued for the plaintiffs. Kirkland & Ellis partner Edwin U, who argued for Barr's parent company, Teva, did not respond to a request for comment. Courts are also grappling with disputes involving more intricate deals. The Second Circuit held in May that Actavis' withdrawal of Alzheimer's drug Namenda IR near the end of its patent monopoly term was anti-competitive. The move forced patients to switch to a different formulation, Namenda XR, which relied on different patents. The court found that Actavis hoped through this so-called "product hopping" to maintain its monopoly in the face of expected generic drug entrants. Injunction Affirmed Judge John Walker Jr.'s opinion affirmed a December preliminary injunction in the Southern District of New York requiring Actavis to continue offering the first formulation. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office brought the case, People of the State of New York v. Actavis, but declined to comment on the outcome. The company intends "to continue our strong efforts to convey the significant benefits" of the new formulation, said then-Actavis chief executive Brent Saunders, now Allegan's chief executive, in a press release. Meanwhile, a District of Massachusetts case filed in late June against Novartis A.G. and two subsidiaries alleged the corporation filed a sham patent case against generic company Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Inc. so it could broker a settlement that delayed a generic version of Novartis' myeloid leukemia drug Gleevec for seven months. Two end-payer plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to stop the companies from enforcing their agreement. According to a press release from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro of Seattle, one of five plaintiffs firms that filed the purported class action, this is the first time drug buyers have tried to stop antitrust overcharges or damages tied to a delayed generic launch before it happened. In an email, Novartis spokesman Eric Althoff wrote, "We will vigorously defend our patent rights and litigate these improper allegations." The biotechnology and pharmaceutical worlds are watching the case, said Troy Groetken, a partner at Chicago intellectual property firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy whose practice includes litigation and transactional work. If Novartis' patent case was in fact frivolous, it would represent a new delay tactic, he said. "The outcome of this case will definitely set the tone for whether or not the court would allow such litigation tactics by brand against generics," he said. * Washington Growers Urged to Adopt Piece-Rate Pay Practice ----------------------------------------------------------- Don Jenkins, writing for Capital Press, reports that Washington growers should immediately start paying piece-rate workers separately for rest breaks, a lawyer who represents several farm groups said on July 17. Yakima attorney Sarah Wixson advised a speedy acceptance of the state Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling on July 16 that struck down the agricultural industry's practice of paying pickers by the pound, without extra pay for 10-minute breaks. The justices left open the possibility that workers can retroactively seek pay. The ruling makes farms, especially large ones, vulnerable to further lawsuits, Ms. Wixson said. The statute of limitations on wage claims is three years. The sooner a farm starts paying separately for rest breaks, the sooner time will run out on filing claims, she said. "Everybody has to hold their breaths for the next three years," Ms. Wixson said. The ruling stemmed from a 2013 federal class-action lawsuit filed against Skagit County berry company Sakuma Bros. Farms. The workers alleged wage violations, which were settled out of court last year. Workers asked the state Supreme Court whether going forward Sakuma had to pay piece-rate pickers separately for rest breaks. Company spokesman Roger van Oosten said on July 17 that Sakuma revised its wage structure for the 2015 harvest to pay separately for rest breaks. Workers are paid at least $10 an hour, with bonuses for the amount of berries picked. Pickers can earn up to $40 an hour, he said. "We've been doing it the whole picking season," he said. Ms. Wixson said the ruling invites lawsuits because workers' attorneys won't have to prove anything. "It's going to be low-hanging fruit," she said. "It's not going to be hard to prove that workers weren't paid for rest breaks because industry-wide, they weren't." Seattle lawyer Marc Cote, who represented Sakuma workers in the class-action lawsuit, said the ruling will affect thousands of workers, but questioned whether it will inspire a wave of back-pay claims. The Sakuma lawsuit grew from unusual circumstances related to a campaign to organize workers, he said. Most farmworkers won't be able to find advocates, he said. "I think migrant farmworkers face a lot of barriers to getting access to justice," Mr. Cote said. Washington State Labor & Industries spokesman Matthew Erlich said the department will send out notices to employees about the ruling. In an amicus curiae brief filed with the court before the ruling, Ms. Wixson and Wenatchee lawyer Kristin Ferrera asked that justices bar retroactive claims. They argued that farmers were following guidance from government agencies and that paying back wages could devastate growers. Ms. Wixson and Ms. Ferrera filed the brief on behalf of the Washington State Tree Fruit Association, Washington Growers League and Washington Farm Labor Association. Mr. Cote argued that the court was merely interpreting, not changing, what the law had been all along and that retroactive claims should be allowed. The court further ruled that rest break pay must be calculated based on how much the worker would have earned in 10 minutes of picking. Sakuma through a public relations firm issued a statement lauding its current pay system. "The ruling acknowledges that we are doing things right," CEO Danny Weeden said in a written statement. The Washington Farm Bureau e-mailed an alert about the decision. "The ruling will likely have drastic repercussions throughout all of labor-intensive agriculture in Washington," according to the organization. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Did Not Pay NARCO Trust as of June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc., has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims as of June 30, 2015, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust reviews submitted claims and determines award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues to provide, input to the design of control procedures for processing NARCO claims, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor the claims processors' adherence to the established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures. Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to annual caps of $140 million in the years 2015 through 2018 and $145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until fully utilized. As of June 30, 2015, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims. Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through four businesses that are reported as operating segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Values Future NARCO Claims at $743MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc., estimates the value of future NARCO asbestos claims at $743 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. Honeywell is responsible for payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which amounts are expected to be paid during the initial years of trust operations. The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for Pre-established Unliquidated Claims ($147 million), unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection ($34 million) and for the estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value of asbestos related future liabilities, including trust claim handling costs, based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts. Some critical assumptions underlying this methodology include claims filing rates, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in a range of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections and in connection with the recent implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO asbestos claims beyond 2018. "Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers. "Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update them based on our experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance recoveries." Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through four businesses that are reported as operating segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,343 Bendix Claims at June 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- There were 9,343 unresolved asbestos-related claims against Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix division, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize in the future. The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix- related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future claims using average resolution values for the previous five years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each year. The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for future claims is similar to that used to estimate the liability for future NARCO-related asbestos claims. Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers, judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our insurers. Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements are paid (collectively, the Variable Claims Factors) do not substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix- related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year. No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims Factors will not change." Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through four businesses that are reported as operating segments: Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials and Technologies, and Transportation Systems. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Fletcher" Partially Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------- Marcella Fletcher appeals from the order of the State Court of Thomas County granting summary judgment to Water Applications Distribution Group, Inc., and CertainTeed Corporation in a suit for personal injury arising out of the alleged negligence of the appellees, a vendor and manufacturer, respectively, of asbestos- containing cement water pipe. Fletcher averred that she was exposed to her father's asbestos dust-contaminated work clothing between 1960 and 1977 when she was responsible for washing her family's laundry at home and that, as a result of that exposure, she developed malignant pleural mesothelioma. The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellees, concluding that they owed no duty of care to Fletcher under these circumstances. In an opinion dated July 16, 2015, the Court of Appeals of Georgia, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Among other things, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to CertainTeed on the manufacturing defect claim but erred in granting summary judgment to CertainTeed on Fletcher's design defect claim and in granting summary judgment to CertainTeed on Fletcher's negligent failure to warn claim. The case is FLETCHER, v. WATER APPLICATIONS DISTRIBUTION GROUP, INC. et al., A15A0527 (Ga. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/3Q3jIdfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Carter" ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in an order dated July 15, 2015, granted in part and denied in part a defense motion for summary judgment in a pro se prisoner's civil rights action. Specifically, Judge Chen ordered that the motion for summary judgment will be granted in all respects except that it will denied as to the claim that defendant Joe Dobie was deliberately indifferent to a risk to plaintiff Markee Carter's health posed by asbestos and will be denied on the qualified immunity defense for Mr. Dobie regarding the asbestos exposure. The case is MARKEE D. CARTER, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH; et al., Defendants, NO. C-13-4373 EMC (PR)(N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Chen's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YJu64ofrom Leagle.com. Markee D. Carter, Plaintiff, Pro Se. Philip Earley, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins. Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins. Joe Dobie, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Partial Dismissal in "Bridges" ------------------------------------------------------------- In 2013, David Bridges and 10 other plaintiffs filed a Seaman's Petition for Damages in Louisiana state court, and the defendants subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The suit named 13 defendants, including multiple "Jones Act Defendants." The plaintiffs allege they were injured as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing drilling mud that was manufactured by one or more of the "Asbestos Defendants" while working for Jones Act Defendants. One of those defendants, Shell Oil Company, successfully filed a motion to dismiss or for more definite statement, and after the Court ordered the plaintiffs amend their petition, the plaintiffs opted to dismiss Shell. Noble Drilling Corp., ENSCO Offshore Company, Murphy Exploration & Product Co., and Murphy Exploration & Product Company-USA, then filed motions similar to Shell, and Judge Riedlinger held that the plaintiffs' original petition failed to state sufficient facts to determine whether any of the plaintiffs were Jones Act seamen to the moving parties. The plaintiffs timely filed an amended complaint, as Judge Riedlinger ordered, and it included the work history of seven of the eleven plaintiffs. Noble, ENSCO, and Murphy moved to dismiss again, this time focusing on claims asserted by the plaintiffs who did not work for the respective company and the general maritime law punitive damages claims, even for those plaintiffs who had worked for them. Later, Randy Newsome, Sr., filed a joint motion with ENSCO to dismiss, without prejudice, all of his claims against ENSCO while reserving all other claims; the Court granted that motion. Noble, ENSCO, and Murphy filed motions to dismiss all claims asserted against them by the plaintiffs with no work history for their respective company and all general maritime law punitive damages claims. U.S. District Judge James J. Brady, in a July 14, 2015, ruling, granted Noble's Motion to Dismiss in part with respect to all claims by David Bridges, John Courtney, Jerry Freeman, Sr., James Hardy, Terry Keith, Jerry Kitchens, Sr., Randy Newsome, Sr., Thomas Sullivan, Willie Thompson, and Percy Hall and with respect to the claims for punitive damages by Wyman Fuller and denied in part with respect to Wyman Fuller's claims for maintenance and care. Judge Brady also granted ENSCO's Motion to Dismiss in part with respect to all claims by John Courtney, Jerry Freeman, Sr., Wyman Fuller, Terry Keith, Jerry Kitchens, Sr., Thomas Sullivan, Willie Thompson, and Percy Hall and with respect to claims for punitive damages by David Bridges and James Hardy and denied in part with respect to claims for maintenance and care by David Bridges and James Hardy. Moreover, Judge Brady granted Mobile's Motion to Dismiss in part with respect to all claims by David Bridges, Jerry Freeman, Sr., Wyman Fuller, James Hardy, Terry Keith, Jerry Kitchens, Sr., Randy Newsome, Sr., and Thomas Sullivan and with respect to claims for punitive damages by John Courtney, Percy Hall, and Willie Thompson and denied part with respect to claims for maintenance and care by John Courtney, Percy Hall, and Willie Thompson. The case is BRIDGES, ET AL v. CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY, KP ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-477-JJB (M.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Brady's Decision is available at http://is.gd/yt8na1 from Leagle.com. David Bridges, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. John Courtney, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Jerry Freeman, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Wyman Fuller, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. James Hardy, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Terry Keith, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Jerry Kitchens, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Randy Newsome, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Thomas Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Willie Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Percy Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Deborah Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, Defendant, represented by Kathleen F. Drew, Adams & Reese & Gerard Joseph Gaudet, Adams and Reese LLP. Coastal Chemical Co., L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Campbell Edington Wallace, Frilot, LLC & Allen J. Krouse, III, Frilot, Partridge, Kohnke & Clements, LC. ENSCO Offshore Company, Defendant, represented by Delos E. Flint, Jr., Fowler, Rodriguez, Caitlin Byars, Mouledoux Bland Legrand & Brackett, E. Stuart Ponder, Fowler, Rodriguez & Lawrence Raymond DeMarcay, III, Fowler, Rodriguez. Noble Drilling Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ben Louis Mayeaux, Laborde & Neuner, Francis X. Neuner, Jr., Laborde & Neuner, Jed M. Mestayer, NeunerPate & Jeffrey K. Coreil, NeunerPate. Murphy Exploration & Production Company, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Christopher M. Hannan, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & James H. Daigle, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz. Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA, Defendant, represented by Robert S. Emmett, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, Christopher M. Hannan, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & James H. Daigle, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz. Montello Inc, Defendant, represented by David Cartan Loker Gibbons, Jr., Thompson, Gibbons & Westholz, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Bazor" ----------------------------------------------------------- Robert Bazor and Kay Bazor have brought suit against Dana Companies for injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos, which were allegedly caused by Dana Companies' asbestos-containing products. On November 11, 2014, Dana Companies filed a Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs served a Notice of a 30(b)(6) Deposition directed to the Defendant for purposes of discovering facts that would allow the Plaintiffs to establish that the Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. In a decision dated July 16, 2015, the Superior Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion in part, and denies it in part. The Superior Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate as to any "substantial" or "continuous and systematic" business contacts Dana Corporation may have had with Rhode Island. However, no additional discovery is necessary regarding Dana Holding or Dana Companies, the Superior Court said. The case is ROBERT BAZOR and KAY BAZOR, Plaintiffs, v. ABEX CORP., et al., Defendants, and MARTHANNE STEFANKO, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of KENNETH STEFANKO, Plaintiffs, v. ADIENCE CO., L.P., et al. Defendants, and RONALD BURDICK, as Executor of the Estate of WALTER BURDICK and Estate of EVELYN BURDICK, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al. Defendants, and DENNIS R. BAUMGARTNER and GAIL L. BAUMGARTNER, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., et al., Defendants, and BEVERLY TAYLOR, as Administrator of the Estate of ROBERT P. TAYLOR, and Individually Recognized as Surviving Spouse, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., et al., Defendants, and MARK COSTELLO and THERESA COSTELLO, Plaintiffs, v. AGCO CORPORATION, Individually and a Successor in interest to MASSEY FERGUSON and ALLIS CHALMERS, et al., Defendants, and CAROL WINCHESTER and DANIEL WINCHESTER, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. NOS. PC10-3965, PC11- 2352, PC11-3431, PC13-4151, PC14-1464, PC14-3741, PC14-4697 (R.I. Super.). A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision is available at http://is.gd/pFpYVhfrom Leagle.com. Donnie E. Young, Esq.; Robert J. Sweeney, Esq.; Jeffrey S. Kanca, Esq., for Plaintiff. Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq.; Stephen T. Armato, Esq. for Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Boyd" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jay C. Zainey of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied a motion to remand the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled PATSY S. BOYD, ET AL. v. BOEING CO., ET AL., SECTION: "A" (4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 15- 0025 (E.D. La.). A full-text copy of Judge Zainey's Decision is available at http://is.gd/0urZR8from Leagle.com. Patsy S. Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry & Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC. Wheldon J. Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry & Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC. Wayne P. Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry & Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC. Elizabeth Lagasse, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry & Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC. Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Glenn L.M. Swetman, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Christopher O. Massenburg, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP. United Technologies Corporation, formerly known as Pratt & Whitney, Defendant, represented by Joseph M. Guillot, Esq. -- jmguillot@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney, LLP. Parker-Hanifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP. Eaton Aeroquip, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Jane H. Barney, J. H. Barney Law Firm, LLC. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. CFM International, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C.. Chromalloy American, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Stephen Porter Hall, Esq. -- stephen.hall@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Shuman, Esq. -- eshuman@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC & Sarah Elizabeth McMillan, Esq. -- semcmillan@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Law to Govern York Int'l. Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In an insurance action for defense and indemnification of asbestos-related claims, York International Corporation seeks declarations regarding the rights and obligations of the parties under general liability insurance policies that it purchased from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as well as damages to remedy Defendant's alleged breach of contract. Cross-motions for partial summary judgment with regard to choice of law were filed wherein the parties dispute whether Pennsylvania or New York law should control the outcome of the case. The Plaintiff also filed a motion to strike, which attacks portions of an affidavit filed by the Defendant in support of its motion for partial summary judgment. In a memorandum dated July 9, 2015, Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to strike, and denied the Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Specifically, Judge Rambo finds that portions of the affidavit by Jerry McCullough submitted by Defendant contain inadmissible evidence and the court will therefore grant, in part, the Plaintiff's motion to strike. In response to the parties' cross- motions for summary judgment as to choice of law, the court finds that Pennsylvania has the most significant relationship to the insurance contracts and that Pennsylvania law will apply to the remainder of the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the court will grant the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The case is YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL NO. 1:10-CV-0692 (M.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Rambo's Decision is available at http://is.gd/iDrxZQfrom Leagle.com. York International Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Lee M. Epstein, Esq. -- lee.epstein@flastergreenberg.com -- Flaster/Greenbeg P.C.. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John C. Sullivan, Esq. -- jsullivan@christiesullivanyoung.com -- Christie Sullivan & Young, P.C. & Kathleen K. Kerns, Esq. -- kkerns@christiesullivanyoung.com -- Christie Sullivan & Young, P.C.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Refuses to Review "Spychalla" Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Boeing Company and Cessna Aircraft Company have filed motions for reconsideration of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin's June 3, 2015 decision and order denying their motions for summary judgment and disposing of a number of other pre-trial motions. Boeing also requests certification of an interlocutory appeal on the issue of whether the "bare metal defense" is consistent with Wisconsin law. The Plaintiff responded to these motions late. The motions were filed under Civil L.R. 7(h), but rather than respond in the required 10 days, the Plaintiffs merely filed an "objection" stating that the defendants failed to show good cause to expedite the motions. No such showing is required. Chief Judge William C. Griesbach, in an order dated July 8, 2015, denied the defendants' motions. Judge Griesbach held that, as stated in the July 3 Order, the defendants failed to establish that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law even if their findings of fact were deemed true, and even if the defendants were provided an opportunity to respond, all that would result is that Doss's opinions would be "disputed" for purposes of summary judgment. Moreover, Judge Griesbach held that as explained in the summary judgment decision, even if the Wisconsin Supreme Court would recognize the defense, the defendants failed to establish the defense -- as described by the leading courts that have recognized it -- applies in this case. The case is SHIRLEY D SPYCHALLA, Plaintiff, v. BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS INC. et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-497 (E.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Griesbach's Decision is available at http://is.gd/MPKsbSfrom Leagle.com. Shirley D Spychalla, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning, Howard P Goldberg, Manion Gaynor & Manning, Steven W Celba, Celba LLC, Timothy D Pagel, Celba LLC & Lance E Mueller, Mueller SC. Cessna Aircraft Company, Defendant, represented by Brett B Larsen, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell A Klingaman, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David M Setter, Esq. -- David.Setter@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP, Michael L Lisak, Esq. -- mlisak@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Timothy E Kapshandy, Esq. -- tkapshandy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Nora E Gierke, Esq. -- ngierke@gierkefrank.com -- Gierke Frank LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: April 15, 2014 NYCAL Order Modified ---------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated July 9, 2015, unanimously modified the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 15, 2014, which modified Section XVII of the New York City Asbestos Litigation Case Management Order, as amended May 26, 2011, to allow punitive damages claims to proceed, and denied Crane Co., et al.'s motion to vacate and declare inapplicable the Case Management Order. The April 15, 2014 Order is modified, on the law, to the extent of deleting the second sentence from the first decretal paragraph, remanding the matter to the Coordinating Justice for a determination of procedural protocols on the issue of punitive damages, staying implementation of the modified order until such a determination is made, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ALL NYCAL CASES, Plaintiff-Respondents, A.O SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, 40000/88, 190215/11, 190262/11, 15678, 190293/11, 190294/11, 190299/11, 190311/11, 15677, 15676, 15675 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Toqa9n from Leagle.com. K & L Gates LLP, Pittsburg, PA, ( Michael J. Ross, Esq. -- michael.ross@klgates.com -- of the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Crane Co., appellant. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, New York ( E. Leo Milonas, Esq. -- eleo.milonas@pillsburylaw.com -- of counsel), and Brennan Law Firm PLLC, New York ( Kerry A. Brennan of counsel) for Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., appellant. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York ( Erik C. DiMarco, Esq. -- erik.dimarco@wilsonelser.com -- of counsel), for Andal Corp., AT & T Corp, Carrier Corporation, Carver Pump Company, Chevron USA Inc., Clyde Union Inc., Control Components, Inc., Conwed Corporation, Electric Boat Corporation, Ericsson, Inc., Federal-Mogul Abestos, Personal Injury Trust, General Dynamics Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, Hess Corporation, Hyde Marine, Inc., International Comfort Products LLC, Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc., New Yorker Boiler Company, Inc., Otis Elevator Company, Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, S.W. Anderson Sales Corp., Scapa Group, Spencer Heater, TRIM-H LLC, Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Warner Communications, Inc., and Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation, appellants. Nixon Peabody LLP, Buffalo ( Samuel Goldblatt, Esq. -- sgoldblatt@nixonpeabody.com -- of counsel), for Patterson-Kelly Company, appellant. McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York ( Kerryann Cook, Esq. -- kcook@mklaw.us.com -- of counsel), for Bradco Supply Corporation, Spencer Turbine Company, Stockham Valves & Fittings, Sid Harvey Industries, Madsen & Howell, Inc., Triangle PWC, Inc., Homasote Company, Red Devil, Inc., Safeguard Industrial, Gerosa Incorporated, Patterson Pump Co, Fairbanks Company, Nash Engineering, Fay Spofford, Zurn Industries, Pecora Corporation, CCX, Inc., Gorman-Rupp, DAP, Inc., American Gilsonite, Falk Corporation, Flowserve Corp, Atwood & Morrill Co., Barnes and Jones, Algoma Hardwoods, Courter & Company, George A. Fuller Co, Water Applications & Systems Corporation, Rain Bird Sprinkler, Croll-Reynolds, Treadwell Corp., RCH Newco, Electric Switchboard Co., Levy Tishman Liquidating Corp., Columbia Boiler (NY), Lincoln Electric Products, Elixir Industries, Eckel Industries, AII, Acquisition (Holland Furnace), Serge Elevators, Approval Oil of Brooklyn, Simplex Wire, Bergen Industrial, J. Heller, New York Protective, ADSCO, Sunbeam, Siemens Water Technologies Corp, Henry Company, W.W. Henry Company, Costal Plumbing Supply, Andal Corporation, Alcoa, Inc., Zenith Radio, Seco/Warwick Corporation, J.A. Sexauer, Inc., American Wire & Cable and Twin City, appellants. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York ( Philip J. O'Rourke of counsel), for Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Peerless Industries, Inc., Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Henkel Corporation and NASCO Holdings, Inc., appellants. Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP, New York ( Jonathan Kromberg of counsel), for Amchem Products, Inc., Beazer East, Inc., Certainteed Corporation, Dana Companies, LLC, Gould Electronics Inc., Hobart Brothers Company, Lennox Industries Inc., The Lincoln electric Company, Linde, LLC, Union Carbide Corporation, appellants. McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, New York ( Joseph LaSala of counsel), for A.O. Smith Water Products Company, Tuthill Corp., Stewart Warner Corporation, Invensys Systems, Inc., Robertshaw Controls Company, Benjamin Moore & Company, Baker Perkins, Inc., Lipe Automation Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Rockwell Automation, Inc., Flowserve U.S. Inc., Edward Valves, Nordstrom Valves, Edward Vogt Valves, Burnham LLC, and Exxon Mobil Corporation, appellants. Timothy M. McCann, New York, for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., appellants. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, New York ( Matther S. Tamasco of counsel), for Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., appellant. Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York ( Shehzad Hasan of counsel), for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, appellant. Lynch Daskal Emery LLP, New York ( Scott R. Emery of counsel), for Georgia-Pacific LLC, appellant. Cullen and Dykman LLP, New York ( John J. Fanning of counsel), for Ajax Electric Company, Allied Building Products Corp., AWC 1997 Corporation, Burnham LLC, David Fabricators Of N.Y., Inc., Elof Hansson, Inc., Fordham Supply Co., Inc., Friedrich Metal Products Co., Inc., Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grandview Block & Supply Co., Howden North American, Inc., Long Island Lighting Company, Mario & DiBono Plastering Co., Inc., National Grid Generation LLC, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Sleepy Hollow Chimney Supply, Ltd., Spence Engineering Co., Inc., The Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Thermo Products LLC, and Webb & Sons, Inc., appellants. Ahmuty, Demers & Mcmanus, Albertson ( Frank A Cecere, Jr. of counsel), for EX-FM, Inc, Thomas & Betts Corporation, Tishman realty & Construction Co., Webster Plumbing Supply, Inc. and Yuba Heat Transfer, appellants. Thompson Hine LLP, New York ( Joseph Koczko of counsel), for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc., Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), American President Lines, Ltd., American Trading and Production Corporation, Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Chiquita Brands International, Inc., Farrell Lines Incorporated, Maersk B.V. and Waterman Steamship Corporation, appellants. Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York ( Nancy L. Pennie of counsel), for Ford Motor Company, appellant. Troutman Sanders LLP, New York ( Richard P. O'Leary of counsel), for Standard Motor Products, Inc., Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Cleveland Wheel and Brakes, Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C., Fisher Scientific International, Inc., Hercules, Inc., Champlain Cable Corporation, Ametek, Inc., Ashland, Inc., Mestek, Inc., Advanced Thermal Hydronics, Inc., Champlain Cable Corporation, Ametek Inc., Ashland Inc., Corporation, Mestek, Inc., Sulzer Pumps (US) Inc., and Sulzer Bingham Pumps, Inc., appellants. Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York ( Suzanne M. Halbardier of counsel), for 84 Lumber Company, Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Atlas Turner, Inc., Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., Blackman Plumbing Supply, Davis & Warshaw, Domco Products Texas, Inc., ECR International, Inc., Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., The Olympic Glove & Safety Company, Inc., R.W. Beckett Corporation, Security Supply Corporation, SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc. and Whip Mix Corporation, appellants. Waters, McPherson, McNeil, P.C., New York ( Giovanni Regina of counsel), for Riley Power Inc. and Turner Construction Company, Inc., appellants. Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP, New York ( Thomas M. Canevari of counsel), for Universe Tankships, Inc., National Bulk Carriers, Inc., and Crowley Marine Services, Inc., appellants. The Sultzer Law Group, P.C., New York ( Joseph Lipari and Jason Pisultzer of counsel), for Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc., AIW-2010 Wind Down Corp., Long Island Tinsmiths Supply Corp., H.G. Page & Sons, Inc., and Elementis Chemicals Inc., appellants. Law Offices Of David L. Ferstendig, LLC, New York ( David L. Ferstendig of counsel), for Amsted Rail Company, Inc., appellant. McGuireWoods LLP, New York ( Genevieve Macsteel of counsel), for ITT Corporation, appellant. Pascarella DiVita, PLLC, New York ( Lisa M. Pascarella of counsel), for Bird Incorporated, Rheem Manufacturing Company, Trane US, Inc., and Ingersoll Rand Company, appellants. Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, P.C., New York ( Christopher S. Kozak of counsel), for American Biltrite Inc., appellant. Lavin, O'Neil, Cedrone & DiSipio, New York ( Timothy J. McHugh of counsel), for 3M Company, appellant. Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, New York ( Paul J. Zoeller of counsel), for ArvinMeritor, Inc. and Maremont Corporation, appellants. O'Toole Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu, LLC, New York ( Steven A. Weiner of counsel), for Acme Heat & Power, Inc., Avocet Enterprises, Inc., Clark-Reliance Corporation, IMI Cash Valve/A.W. Cash Valve Manufacturing Company and Pennco Inc., appellants. Eckert Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains ( David Katzenstein of counsel), for Cargill, Inc., Superior Lidgerwood Mundy Corporation, Taco, Inc. and Navistar, and ( Thomas M. Smith of counsel), for Residual Enterprises Corporation, appellants. Damon Morey LLP, New York ( Heidi B. Ruchala of counsel), for Genuine Parts Company and National Automotive Parts Association. appellants. Garrity, Graham, Murphy, Garofalo & Flinn, New York ( Anthony J. Marino of counsel), for United Conveyor Corporation, appellant. McDermott Will & Emery LLP, New York ( Donald R. Pugliese of counsel), for Honeywell International Inc., appellant. Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, New York ( Edward P. Abbot of counsel), for Pneumo Abex LLC, appellant. Harris Beach PLLC, New York ( Cynthia Weiss Antonucci of counsel), for Albany International Corp., Auto Zone, Inc., Armstrong International, Inc., Barker Aggregates, Barker Marine, Ltd., Barker Boys Towing Corp., Cooper Industries, LLC., H.C. Oswald Supply Company Inc., Honeywell International Inc., Allied Chemical Corporation, Hubbell Incorporated, Hubbell Incorporated (Delaware), Hubbell Lighting, Inc., Prescolite Division, LeFrak Organization, Inc., Plastics Engineering Company, Progress Lighting Inc., Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. and Xerox Corporation, appellants. Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park & Kelly LLP, Purchase ( Diane H. Miller of counsel), for Kerr Corporation, Zy-Tech Global Industries, Inc., VWR International, LLC and Ballantyne Strong, Inc., appellants. Goldberg Corwin LLP, New York ( Zachary S. Goldberg of counsel), for Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, and Bridgestone Americas, Inc., appellants. Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas LLP, New York ( Monica R. Kostrzewa of counsel), for York International Corporation, Johnson Controls, Inc. and Kohler Co., appellants. Malaby & Bradley, LLC, New York ( Robert C. Malaby of counsel), for Alcoa, Inc., Bakers Pride Oven Co., Inc., Crown Boiler Company, Donald Durham Company, J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Met-Pro Technologies LLC, Morse Diesel, Inc., NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc., Qualitex Company, Reynolds Metals Company, Roper Pump Company, Sears, Roebuck and Co., Superior Boiler Works, Inc. and Terex Corporation, appellants. Reed Smith LLP, New York ( Christopher W. Healy of counsel), for BASF Catalysts LLC, appellant. Hodges Walsh & Messemer, LLP, White Plains ( George S. Hodges of counsel), for Electrolux Home Products Inc., Spirax Sarco, Inc. and Clark-Reliance Corporation, appellants. Harwood Lloyd, LLC, New York ( Russell A. Pepe of counsel), for Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, Inc. and Graham Corp., appellants. McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn ( Heidi C. Baker of counsel), for Eastern Refractories Co., Inc., and Tiswhman Realty & Construction Co., Inc., appellants. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York ( Alani Golanski of counsel), for respondents. Levy Komitor, New York ( Robert Komitor of counsel), for respondents ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Torbit" Enlarged ------------------------------------------------------------ The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated July 9, 2015, enlarged the time to perfect appeal enlarged to the December 2015 Term in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. TORBIT, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS - CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1835 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/HmaN9ufrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Lucadamo" Enlarged -------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated July 9, 2015, enlagrged to the December 2015 Term the to perfect appeal in the case IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. LUCADAMO, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS - CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1833 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full- text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Y8BoiLfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Defeated in Bid to Junk "Bardone" ----------------------------------------------------------- Bruce J. Bardone worked personally, and in the presence of others, as an electrician at various job sites throughout New York City from the early 1960s through the 1970 . While working at those job sites, the plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos- containing floor tiles manufactured, sold, and distributed by Defendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. On March 25, 2014, the plaintiff was diagnosed with lung cancer that he attributes, in part, to his alleged asbestos-exposure to Goodyear floor tiles. Goodyear moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as well as all cross-claims asserted against it in the action on the grounds that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was actually exposed to asbestos fibers released from a product manufactured, sold, distributed, and/or installed by Goodyear. Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated July 8, 2015, denied Goodyear's motion, holding that in this case, the plaintiff was able to assert the specific range of dates during which he would have been exposed to the defendant's tiles. Additionally, the defendant does not dispute the presence of its tiles at the job sites that the plaintiff worked at, Judge Moulton said. Most notably, here the plaintiff has not only submitted testimony with respect to unopened tile boxes, but affirmatively describes his recollection with respect to the contents of those boxes, Judge Moulton pointed out. Accordingly, the court finds that sufficient evidence has been proffered to defeat the defendant's motion. The case is BRUCE J. BARDONE and KATHERINE BARDONE, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190134/14, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/i6B27Qfrom Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *