/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150820.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 166 Headlines 3D SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit ALPHA GAS: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Warnock" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Disappointed with Counsel's Actions AMERICAN EXPRESS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit APPLE INC: "Backhaut" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action APPLE INC: Suit Over Lost Text Messages Can't Proceed as Class ATHENAHEALTH INC: Answer to Third Amended Complaint Filed AUTOLIV INC: Additional Deals Reached with Direct Purchasers AUTOLIV INC: Faces Class Action Filed by Truck Dealers AUTOLIV INC: No Class Certification Timeline in Canadian Suits AXA EQUITABLE: 'Shadow Transaction' Class Suit Dismissed BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" 2nd Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" 3rd Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme BRASKEM SA: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Plavix Product Liability Suits BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Reglan Product Liability Suits BRISTOL-MYERS: Defending 480 Lawsuits Related to Byetta CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Has Not Ruled on Motion to Exclude CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motions Pending in Indirect Purchasers Case CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motions by Non-Class Plaintiffs Still Pending CHOBANI LLC: "Clay" Class Suit Moved to S.D. California CIOTOLA SPRINKLER: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime COGGINS PRODUCE: Faces "Owen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Second Classs Suit Over Data Breach CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces New Train Car Derailment Class Suit CSX TRANSPORTATION: First Trial Date Set in Derailment Cases CSX CORPORATION: Class Cert. Hearing Set for Early November 2015 CVS PHARMACY: Faces Suit for Overpricing Generic Medicines DELTA DELI: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime EASTERN COMPANY: Barington Class Action Dismissed EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Caldera" Suit Over Automated Calls EFT HOLDINGS: Order to Show Cause Set for December 4 EHARMONY INC: Suit Alleges Unlawful Discrimination FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in D. Del. FEDEX CORPORATION: Limited Discovery Conducted in Oregon Cases FGX INTERNATIONAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims FIFA: Hagens Berman Seeks Info on Youth Soccer Head Injuries FLIGHT SERVICES: "Pointer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FLORIDA GARDENS: "Artigas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime FTD.COM INC: Settles "Substitution Policy" Class Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Says 100 Consumer Suits Pending Thru July 20 GENERAL MOTORS: 21 Class Actions Pending in Canada GENERAL MOTORS: 172 Class Actions Over Injuries Pending GENERAL MOTORS: 204 Cases Transferred to MDL GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Case Still Pending GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismissed Plaintiff Dealers' Claim v. GMCL GENERAL MOTORS: Wage Cases Pending in Korean Courts GENERAL MOTORS: 2nd Circuit Denied Petition for Rehearing GOOGLE: IndieGoGo Campaign Launched to Fund Class Suit GRILL ON 2ND: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime HAGGEN: Sued Over Disabled Employees' Unfair Lay Off HANNAY REALTY: Faces "Silvernail" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HERTZ GLOBAL: Brief Filed in Concession Fee Recoveries Action HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation ICONIX BRAND: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Nasyrova" 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed INDIANA SAFETY: Faces "Blake" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports J. CREW GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Class Action Cases Dismissed KRAFT FOODS: Removes "Appel" Class Suit to C.D. California LA VIE: Faces "Ching" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LAWRENCE D. BRUDY: Faces "Schneck" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Reached Tentative Class Action Settlement LOUIS CRUISE: Class Suit Over Norovirus Outbreak Dismissed LOUISIANA: LSBN Sued Over Grambling BSN Program Termination MAPP CONSTRUCTION: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MAYER BROWN: Error in $1.5BB Loan to GM Yields 2 Class Suits MDC PARTNERS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit MDC PARTNERS: Sued in NY Court for SEC Violations MEN'S MEDICAL CLINIC: Probed Over Prescription Treatment NETFLIX INC: Continues to Face Shareholder Class Actions NPC INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Deal" Suit Claims PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Action Still Pending PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend "Michaeli" Lawsuit PFIZER: Philips Pension to Share in $400MM Class Settlement PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Class Action Pending in Quebec Court PINTO TRANSFER: "Carrandi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations PMFG INC: Bridges Files Amended Suit Over CECO Merger PMFG INC: Terry and Georgia Brown File Class Action PRO TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Silva" Suit Claims RENO HOUSING: Faces "Roces" Suit Over Failure to Pay All Wages RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT: Court Approves $335MM Class Settlement SAYVILLE TOWN: "Ellsayed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SCHIFF NUTRITION: Sued in Cal. Over False Product Advertising SCOTTS MIRACLE: Court Certifies EZ Seed(R) Labelling Suit SIMS MUNICIPAL: Faces "Lugo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SIRIUSXM RADIO: Reaches $1.2-Mil. Settlement in Intern's Suit SOLAZYME INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces "Selmon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Overtime UNITED CONTINENTAL: Anticipates Consolidation of Class Suits UNIVITA HEALTH: Terminated Employees File Class Suit V&J SUSHI: Sued Over "White Tuna" V&J UNITED: Illegally Retains Drivers Gratuities, Suit Claims VISA INC: 1,179 Merchants Want to Rejoin Cash Settlement Class VISA INC: Appeals Filed in Consumer Interchange Litigation VISA INC: Reached Deal With Some Merchants Over Payment Cards VISA INC: Webloyalty.com, GameStop Seek to Dismiss Suit VISION GUIDANCE: "Stanley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages VOLVO CARS: Faces "Jenner" Suit Over Defective Rdar Software WCA MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages WCA WASTE: "Ordonez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WIRELESS AND BEYOND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages WOLVERINE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Lane" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT XOMA CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit XUNLEI LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ZIRTUAL INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice ********* 3D SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of 3D Systems Corporation ("3D Systems") between October 29, 2013 and October 22, 2014. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. If you purchased or otherwise acquired 3D Systems Corporation shares between October 29, 2013 and October 22, 2014, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/3dsystemsor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding: (a) the Company's ability to increase the capacity of its metal printing business; (b) demand for its consumer products; (c) the value of multiple companies it was acquiring; and (d) the Company's expected earnings. If you suffered a loss in 3D Systems you have until August 11, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004 Toll free. 877-363-5972 T. 212-363-7500 F. 212-363-7171 jlevi@zlk.com ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law firm, advises investors of the September 28, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (NYSE:WMS) ("Advanced Drainage" or "the Company"). If you have losses in Advanced Drainage securities during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling (510) 725-3000, emailing WMS@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb-securities.com/investigations/WMS. The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who purchased Advanced Drainage securities between September 5, 2014 and July 14, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). No class has been certified in this case. Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures, and markets thermoplastic corrugated pipes and related water management products for both residential, commercial, and agriculture customers in the United States and abroad. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period defendants mislead investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's inventory values and cost of sales were misstated; (2) Advanced Drainage's transportation and equipment leases should be recorded as capital leases; and (3) as a result, Advanced Drainage's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Investors learned the truth when on July 15, 2015, the Company announced that it had delayed the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. In its release, Advanced Drainage announced that any necessary adjustments to its previously issued earnings release for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2015 would be made with the filing of its Form 10-K. As a result of this news, shares of Advanced Drainage Systems fell $0.56 per share to close at $28.69 per share on July 15, 2015. If you were negatively impacted by your investment in Advanced Drainage between September 5, 2014 and July 14, 2015, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, please contact us for your no- cost evaluation. Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel. (206) 623-7292 Fax. (206) 623-0594 http://www.hbsslaw.com/ ALPHA GAS: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------- Shaun Zinck, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a consumer is suing a New York gas company, alleging it called individuals soliciting services without prior consent. Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, filed the class action lawsuit July 8 in U.S. District Court Southern District of New York against Alpha Gas and Electric, alleging the telemarketing calls violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, Abramson received a phone call from the defendant on June 1 on his cellphone. The lawsuit said federal law prohibits automated or prerecorded telephone calls unless the other party gives consent to receive the calls. "The TCPA categorically bans persons and entities from initiating telephone calls using an automated telephone dialing system [or 'autodialer'] to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service," the lawsuit said. "A telemarketer may use an autodialer to call a telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, however, the telemarketer must have the call recipient's prior express written consent." The lawsuit said consent must be given in writing with the phone number owner's signature authorizing the calls. The suit seeks class status for those who received an unsolicited phone call from Alpha Gas within the last four years. The lawsuit also seeks and unspecified amount in damages plus court costs. Abramson is represented by attorneys Aytan Y. Bellin of Bellin & Associates in White Plains, N.Y.; Edward A. Broderick and Anthony Paronich of Broderick Law, in Boston; and Matthew P. McCue of The Law Office of Matthew P. McCue in Natick, Mass. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case number 7:15-cv-05299. ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the putative securities class action filed by West Palm Beach Firefighter's Pension Fund, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighter's Pension Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against Altisource and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 with regard to disclosures concerning pricing and transactions with related parties that allegedly inflated Altisource share prices. The court subsequently appointed the Pension Fund of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 35 as Lead Plaintiffs. On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint which adds Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant, and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014 and an unspecified amount of damages. Altisource intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit and moved to dismiss it on March 23, 2015. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------- Shearson Publishing, and all others similarly-situated v. American Airlines, Inc., American Airlines Group, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc., and United Continental Holdings, Inc., Case No. 00:15-cv-03198 (D. Minn., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages, equitable relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from the Defendants' alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Both American Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries. United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six continents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Ste 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com - and - Brett Cebulash, Esq. TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP 80 Maiden Lane, Ste 1204 New York, NY 10038 Tel: (212) 931-0704 Fax: (212) 931-0703 E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Warnock" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Rose Warnock, and 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. 0:15-cv-03194 (D. Minn., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from the Defendants' alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Both American Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries. United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six continents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Ste 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com - and - Daniel J. Mogin, Esq. THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C. 707 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 687-6611 Fax: (619) 687-6610 E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Disappointed with Counsel's Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that tearing up the long-awaited settlement on August 4 between American Express and major U.S. corporations, a federal judge found that improper emails between the lead class counsel and an attorney for MasterCard tainted the entire process. The emails -- in which the two attorneys traded confidential information and legal strategies -- were a clear conflict of interest, and led to a settlement with worse terms for the class than they might have secured otherwise. Slamming the communications between the attorneys, U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said "the improper and disappointing conduct of co-lead class counsel Gary B. Friedman -- gfreidman@gss-law.com -- with Greenfield Stein & Senior, LLP, has fatally tainted the settlement process." "This smacks of blatant collusion," Garaufis wrote. "Have class counsel lost sight of the fact that they purport to represent merchants?" As in a related enforcement action that the U.S. government and attorneys generals of 17 states brought against AmEx in the same court, the class action at hand challenged nondiscrimination provisions of contracts that AmEx makes retailers sign to process transactions involving its credit cards. After a seven-week bench trial in the related case, a federal judge agreed with the government that nondiscrimination policy prevents the 3.4 million merchants that take AmEx credit cards from steering customers to other methods of card payments, which are typically less expensive. Unlike the government, however, the retailers expressly did not challenge the anti-surcharging rules that the settlement reached in 2013 modified. Objections from almost one-fifth of the class members -- two groups led by 7-Eleven and Target -- failed to block tentative approval of the settlement, which was expected to about $75 million in attorneys' fees for class counsel. A number of the objections contended that the settlement benefited only some class members and failed to boost competition between credit cards. Opponents of the deal found more ammunition when attorneys for MasterCard at Willkie Farr & Gallagher discovered that one of their lawyers, Keila Ravelo, had documents from the AmEx case subject to a protective order though MasterCard was a not a party to the action. An investigation soon revealed Friedman had been communicating about the case with Ravelo, his friend since 1992 when they were associates at the same law firm. The two vacationed also together with their families, according to court documents. Ravelo was arrested this past December on charges that she and her husband, Melvin Feliz, had for over two years conspired to overbill and defraud Willkie, MasterCard and the law firm of Hunton & Williams of millions of dollars. Judge Garaufis noted that the court relied partly on the "honesty and integrity" of class counsel to determine the settlement's appropriateness. Precedent dictates that class counsel misconduct requires denial of class certification. The court's opinion, which contains several redactions, finds that Friedman committed several "blatant violations" of protective orders by sending dozens of emails to Ravelo containing American Express' confidential information. In one case, the attorney for the class sent Ravelo a copy of the proposed settlement's material terms two weeks before it was executed. Friedman also asked Ravelo's advice on discovery process, damages approaches and settlement strategy, the court found. One email shows Friedman telling Ravelo that an attorney for Amex called the proposed settlement amount "a huge f'ing number that made him 'gag,'" while Friedman confided in Ravelo in a different email that the "Amex negotiation has gotten crazy." At the end of many of the emails, Friedman wrote "burn after reading." Garaufis noted that the settlement Friedman reached was the same "fantasy resolution" for AmEx he described in a November 2011 email to Ravelo: one that included parity surcharging, where MasterCard and Visa were charged alongside American Express. "Amex would be thrilled" by such a settlement, Friedman wrote. Garaufis said he was "troubled" by the fact that it was Friedman who signed the response to the allegations of impropriety between him and Ravelo, and that the attorney remained co-lead counsel for the plaintiff class on the date of his judgment. Merchants objecting to the settlement say the emails show that Friedman treated Ravelo as a "sounding board," but should not have been talking so freely with counsel for MasterCard, which had completely different interests than his clients had. In a July brief, Friedman and co-counsel argued that Friedman had sought Ravelo's expertise as a defense-side attorney, and that her insight had helped benefit class members. Saying that the objecting merchants "can point to nothing that would remotely substantiate such a serious allegation," they claimed that there was no basis for the allegations of impropriety and an interattorney conspiracy to water down the Amex settlement. Garaufis found that claim hard to swallow, ordering Friedman's removal as co-lead counsel and calling on the other attorneys involved in the case to prove why they should continue as interim class counsel, given the fact that they allowed Friedman to remain involved after the emails came to light. Those attorneys have a Sept. 8, 2015, deadline to prove their integrity. "The court questions whether not only Friedman, but also the other co-lead class counsel, have the independence, judgment, and integrity necessary to serve as class counsel for a mandatory class," Garaufis wrote. American Express called the order disappointing. "We continue to believe the agreement is fair to merchants, providing them with additional flexibility while ensuring our card members are treated fairly at the point of sale," the company said in a statement. "We believe we have strong defenses against the merchants' claims and will continue to fight our case in court." Performance Labs initiated the class action against AmEx in 2006, with companies like Rite Aid and Walgreen signing on over the years. American Express often tacks on an additional 1 percent or 2 percent processing surcharge on goods paid with by an American Express credit card. Some stores prefer to "steer" consumers to use other credit cards to avoid this surcharge. Ravelo had defended MasterCard against similar claims in a class action that ended in a $7.25 billion settlement in 2013 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of American Express Company ("American Express" or the "Company"). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980. The investigation concerns whether American Express and certain of its officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 12, 2015, American Express announced that it had lost the U.S. Costco co-branding relationship and that the financial impact of the loss would be severe. The company disclosed that the co-branding agreement had generated 8 percent of the company's 2014 revenues and accounted for the issuance of one in ten American Express cards in the United States, and that 20 percent of the company's outstanding loans had been made pursuant to that agreement. American Express stated that the company's 2015 and 2016 profits would suffer and that the loss of the co-branding agreement was a significant setback for the company's efforts to increase earnings per share, which were unlikely to increase until 2017 at the very earliest. On this adverse news, the price of American Express stock fell 7.87, more than 9%, to close at 77.55 on February 13, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Florida, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW Fax: 212.661.8665 http://pomerantzlawfirm.com/ APPLE INC: "Backhaut" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh denied the request of Adam Backhaut and Kenneth Morris to pursue a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Apple, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege that Apple violated the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510 and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200. First Am. Compl. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' FAC is that Apple wrongfully intercepts, stores, and otherwise prevents former Apple device users from receiving text messages sent to them from current Apple device users. Apple opposed the Plaintifffs' motion for class certification. The case is, ADAM BACKHAUT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02285-LHK (C.D. Cal.). A copy of the Court's August 13, 2015 Order is avialable at http://is.gd/0U90OP from Leagle.com. The Plaintiffs are represented by William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Joshua Caleb Ezrin, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Theodore H. Chase, Audet and Partners, LLP. Apple Inc., is represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, Kai Shields Bartolomeo, Morrison Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung, Morrison & Foerster LLP. APPLE INC: Suit Over Lost Text Messages Can't Proceed as Class -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge denied class certification of a lawsuit against Apple over lost text messages. Adriene Moore sued Apple in 2014, claiming the tech giant failed to warn iMessage users that messages would go undelivered if they switched to a different brand of cellphone. In November 2014, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed with prejudice Moore's claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and related unfair competition and unfair business practices claims. But Koh left intact Moore's claims of a tortious interference with contract claim and unfair competition claims related to the tortious interference claims. In her Aug. 4 ruling, Koh found Moore offered sufficient [proof] that Apple device users, including her boss, sent her text messages that were never delivered to her Samsung Galaxy S5, establishing her own standing to file the complaint. However, Koh ruled that Moore's proposed class was too broad because it included individuals that could not have been injured by Apple's alleged wrongful conduct. "While many wireless service agreements may include the contractual right to send and receive text messages, plaintiff does not and cannot contend that every proposed class member's wireless service agreement included the right to receive text messages," Koh wrote in the 26-page ruling. Moore had argued that "virtually all" wireless service agreements provide for text messaging and that an "overwhelming majority" offer unlimited text messages. Koh rejected Moore's argument, finding merit in Apple's contention that several factors can cause a person not to receive text messages, including their individual wireless plans, errors in the cellular network, blocked senders, operating system bugs, and applications that interfere with receiving messages. The judge denied Moore's request for class certification, ruling that the court would be forced to examine each situation of undelivered text messages on an individual basis to determine if Apple interfered with the proposed class members' contractual right to send and receive text messages. Moore's attorney, Roy Katriel -- rak@katriellaw.com -- of the Katriel Law Firm in La Jolla, and Apple's attorney, David Walsh -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster in Los Angeles, did not immediately return requests for comment. ATHENAHEALTH INC: Answer to Third Amended Complaint Filed --------------------------------------------------------- athenahealth, Inc. filed its answer to the third amended complaint denying the allegations in the class action lawsuit filed by Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011. On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On December 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 4, 2014, the court issued an order dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which asserts substantially similar claims as those set forth in the first amended complaint. On July 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On October 2, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint by October 23, 2014, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on October 23, 2014, which asserts substantially similar claims on behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February 1, 2011, and August 9, 2011. "We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on November 10, 2014, and the court denied the motion on March 13, 2015. On April 27, 2015, we filed our answer to the third amended complaint denying the allegations," the Company said. AUTOLIV INC: Additional Deals Reached with Direct Purchasers ------------------------------------------------------------ Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims which were not covered by its U.S. direct purchaser settlement. The total amount of these additional settlements was $81 million. The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti- competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Plaintiffs in these civil antitrust class actions generally allege that the defendant suppliers of occupant safety systems have engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices of occupant safety systems or components thereof in violation of various antitrust laws and unfair or deceptive trade practice statutes. Plaintiffs in these civil antitrust class actions make allegations that extend significantly beyond the specific admissions of the Company's DOJ plea. The Company denies these overly broad allegations. Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases seek to represent purported classes of direct purchasers, auto dealers and end-payors (i.e. consumers) who purchased occupant safety systems or components either directly from a defendant or indirectly through purchases or leases of new vehicles containing such systems. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs in the Canadian cases seek to represent purported classes encompassing direct and indirect purchasers of such products and seek similar relief under applicable Canadian laws. Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its competitors are defendants in a total of nineteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between July 2012 and June 2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and have been consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On May 30, 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability, entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives of each of the three classes of plaintiffs in the MDL, not including the recent truck dealer class action, subject to final approval by the MDL court following notice to the settlement class, an opportunity to object or opt-out of the settlement, and a fairness hearing. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of $65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims regarding their U.S. purchases that were or could have been asserted on behalf of the class in the MDL. In July 2014, the three settlements received preliminary court approval. Following notice to the direct purchaser settlement class and the receipt of opt- out notices from members of that class, the class settlement amount was by the terms of the settlement agreement reduced to approximately $35.5 million. Following a fairness hearing on December 3, 2014, the MDL court on January 7, 2015 entered an order granting final approval to the direct purchaser class settlement. Notices to the settlement classes and the fairness hearings for the other two class settlements have been deferred by the plaintiffs and the MDL court for processing with additional, future settlements due to the cost of giving notice to large settlement classes. The three class settlements will not resolve any claims of settlement class members who opt out of the settlements or the claims of any purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities. In March 2015, Autoliv reached agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims which were not covered by its U.S. direct purchaser settlement. The total amount of these additional settlements was $81 million. In entering into these agreements, Autoliv did not admit any liability and settled for the purpose of avoiding the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of potential litigation or other adversarial proceedings and in the interest of maintaining positive relationships with its customers. AUTOLIV INC: Faces Class Action Filed by Truck Dealers ------------------------------------------------------ Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in June 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by truck dealers seeking to represent a class of truck and equipment dealers that directly or indirectly purchased occupant safety products in the U.S. Plaintiffs generally alleged that the Company and its competitors who were also named as defendants have engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices of the subject products in violation of antitrust laws and unfair or deceptive trade practice statues. Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages for their direct purchases and for their indirect purchases in states whose laws permit antitrust damages claims by indirect purchasers. This lawsuit was assigned to the MDL court and will be processed as part of the MDL. The Company is currently unable to predict the duration or ultimate outcome of this lawsuit and the Company cannot estimate the financial impact this class action will have, including an amount of loss or range of loss. No provision for a loss has been recorded as of June 30, 2015. AUTOLIV INC: No Class Certification Timeline in Canadian Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that there is currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian cases. The remaining four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. The Company denies the overly broad allegations of these lawsuits and intends to defend itself in these cases. While it is probable that the Company will incur losses as a result of these Canadian antitrust cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has been recorded as of June 30, 2015. There is currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian cases. These class actions have been stayed pending proceedings in certain earlier-filed auto parts cases. AXA EQUITABLE: 'Shadow Transaction' Class Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Harris Martin Publishing, reported that a New York federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit accusing AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. of violating New York insurance law by failing to disclose its "shadow transactions" with its captive reinsurers, finding the plaintiffs failed to allege an "actual or imminent injury" sufficient to establish Article III standing. In a July 21, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted the plaintiffs failed to allege that they were financially harmed by purchasing life insurance from AXA. Jonathan Ross and David Levin filed a putative class. BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01345-RDP (D. Ariz., July 16, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in the health services. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Van Bunch, Esq. Kimberly C. Page, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C. 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com kpage@bffb.com - and - Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 488-1200 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: tbrown@whatleykallas.com jwhatley@whatleykallas.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" 2nd Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01346-RDP (D. Kansas, August 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to significantly decrease competition in the markets for healthcare financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in the health services. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 488-1200 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com - and - Edith M. Kallas, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 573-5118 Facsimile: (617) 371-2950 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Deborah J. Winegard, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1068 Virginia Avenue, NE Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 607-8222 Facsimile: (404) 607-8451 E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com - and - Henry C. Quillen, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 159 Middle Street, Suite 2C Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 294-1591 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com - and - E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM LLC P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (205) 705-1223 E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net - and - Debra B. Hayes, Esq. Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq. THE HAYES LAW FIRM 700 Rockmead, Suite 210 Kingwood, TX 77339 Telephone: (281) 815-4963 Facsimile: (832) 575-4759 E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com chunter@dhayeslaw.com - and - Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq. Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com pprieto@podhurst.com - and - Dennis Pantazis, Esq. Brian Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com bclark@wcqp.com - and - U.W. Clemon, Esq. J. Mark White, Esq. Augusta S. Dowd, Esq. Linda G. Flippo, Esq. WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C. The Massey Building 2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 323-1888 Facsimile: (205) 323-8907 E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com adowd@whitearnolddowd.com mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" 3rd Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01347-RDP (S.D. Miss., July 20, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in the health services. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 488-1200 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com - and - Edith M. Kallas, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 573-5118 Facsimile: (617) 371-2950 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Deborah J. Winegard, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1068 Virginia Avenue, NE Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 607-8222 Facsimile: (404) 607-8451 E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com - and - Henry C. Quillen, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 159 Middle Street, Suite 2C Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 294-1591 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com - and - E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM LLC P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (205) 705-1223 E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net - and - Debra B. Hayes, Esq. Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq. THE HAYES LAW FIRM 700 Rockmead, Suite 210 Kingwood, TX 77339 Telephone: (281) 815-4963 Facsimile: (832) 575-4759 E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com chunter@dhayeslaw.com - and - Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq. Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com pprieto@podhurst.com - and - Dennis Pantazis, Esq. Brian Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com bclark@wcqp.com - and - U.W. Clemon, Esq. J. Mark White, Esq. Augusta S. Dowd, Esq. Linda G. Flippo, Esq. WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C. The Massey Building 2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 323-1888 Facsimile: (205) 323-8907 E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com adowd@whitearnolddowd.com mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com BRASKEM SA: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law firm, reminds investors of the upcoming August 31, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or "the Company"). If you have losses in BAK American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling (510) 725-3000, emailing BAK@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb- securities.com/investigations/BAK. The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who purchased Braskem ADRs between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). No class has been certified in this case. The deadline to move for the position of lead plaintiff in the case is August 31, 2015. You do not need to move for lead plaintiff to be a member of the Class or to participate in any recovery. Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company and is Latin America's largest petrochemical producer. A key ingredient for Braskem's products is called naphtha, and during the Class Period, Braskem purchased naphtha from Petroleo Brasileiro ("Petrobras") under long-term agreements. The complaint alleges that Braskem was a player in a massive kickback scheme to line the pockets of Petrobras executives. As a result of this conduct, statements made to investors about the Company's business, operational, and compliance policies were allegedly false and misleading. On March 11, 2015, a local newspaper implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal unfolding around Petrobras. The paper reported that testimony from former Petrobras executives and others demonstrated that between 2006 and 2012, Braskem paid Petrobras representatives at least $5 million annually. On this news, Braskem's ADRs declined $1.80, or over 20%, to close on March 11, 2015 at $7.05. If you were negatively impacted by your investment in Braskem ADRs between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, please contact us for your no-cost evaluation. Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel. (206) 623-7292 Fax. (206) 623-0594 http://www.hbsslaw.com/ BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Plavix Product Liability Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*. Currently, over 5,200 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a multidistrict litigation to coordinate Federal pretrial proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Reglan Product Liability Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is one of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits, on behalf of approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury plaintiffs claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan* or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary, Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits. The resolution of these pending lawsuits, however, is not expected to have a material impact on the Company. BRISTOL-MYERS: Defending 480 Lawsuits Related to Byetta ------------------------------------------------------- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Amylin, a former subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over 480 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of over 2,300 active plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S. The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 510 of these claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases are pending in Federal Court in San Diego in a recently established multidistrict litigation, with the next largest contingent of cases pending in a coordinated proceeding in California Superior Court in Los Angeles. Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the potential impact on the Company. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Has Not Ruled on Motion to Exclude --------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 30, 2015, that the Court has not ruled on the motion filed by Kraft Foods Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company either to exclude themselves from the settlement between the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company or to enlarge their time to opt-out of the settlement between the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company and modify the final judgment entered on November 25, 2014. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On November 25, 2014, after approving the parties' settlement of the case, the Court entered final judgment dismissing all claims against the Company with prejudice and dismissing the Company from this direct purchaser class action. On January 23, 2015, direct action plaintiffs Kraft Foods Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company filed a motion either to exclude themselves from the settlement between the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company or to enlarge their time to opt-out of the settlement between the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company and modify the final judgment entered on November 25, 2014. On February 13, 2015, the Company filed its response in opposition. On July 1, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on this motion. The Court has not ruled on this motion. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motions Pending in Indirect Purchasers Case ------------------------------------------------------------ Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 30, 2015, that the Court has not indicated when it will rule on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment in the indirect purchaser putative class action. Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md- 02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of action. On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court has not ruled on that motion. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case. On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust laws. Briefing on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment will continue over the next two months, and the Court has not indicated when it will rule on these motions. The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative class action seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting on January 1, 2000 and running "through the present," the Court ruled that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred outside the state-specific statute of limitations period applicable to most causes of action asserted, with the precise damages period determined on a state-by-state and claim-by-claim basis. The indirect purchaser putative class action seeks injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under certain statutes and the common-law of various states. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motions by Non-Class Plaintiffs Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 30, 2015, that six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004. The parties have completed nearly all fact discovery related to these cases. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the claims in all of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of these cases. On July 2, 2015, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal antitrust law. Briefing on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment will continue over the next two months, and the Court has not indicated when it will rule on these motions. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against the Company. In four of the remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements. CHOBANI LLC: "Clay" Class Suit Moved to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- Chayla M. Clay removed the class action lawsuit entitled Chayla M. Clay, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Chobani LLC, Safeway Inc., The Vons Companies, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2014-00028267-CU-BT-CTL, from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court of California, Southern District. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 14-cv-2258-BEN-DHB. The Plaintiff asserts that the labels of forty-three varieties of Chobani products are false and misleading. The Defendant is represented by: Dale J. Giali, Esq. Michael L. Resch, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (212) 506-2828 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com mresch@mayerbrown.com - and - Hannah Y.S. Chanoine, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019-5820 Telephone: (212) 506-2828 Facsimile: (212) 262-1910 E-mail: hchanoine@mayerbrown.com CIOTOLA SPRINKLER: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ciotola Sprinkler Systems, Inc., d/b/a Evergreen Irrigation, and Pietro Ciotola, Case No. (S.D.N.Y., 7:15-cv-06311, August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a transportation services company with its principal place of business located in Patterson, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee Nuwesra, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1132 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 370-8707 E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net COGGINS PRODUCE: Faces "Owen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- William L. Owen III, and Rupert Whitehead, III, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly-situated v. Coggins Produce Georgia, LLC, Case No. (N.D. Ga., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Coggins Produce Georgia, LLC operates a farm in Lake Park, Georgia, at which it grows and packs fruit and vegetables for shipping throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Prabhaker Reddy, Esq. THE REDDY LAW FIRM, P.C. 1325 Satellite Boulevard, Suite 1506 Suwanee, GA 30024 Telephone: (678) 629-3246 Facsimile: (678) 629-3247 E-mail: kpr@reddylaw.net COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Second Classs Suit Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Alison Nash, writing for Business Journal, reported that a second putative class-action lawsuit has been filed against Community Health Systems related to its August 2014 data breach. The Nashville Post reports the suit was filed July 28 on behalf of 16 former CHS patients who allege the company made no effort to protect data after the Heartbleed computer virus was announced. The suit seeks monetary damages and 25 years of credit/bank monitoring and identity theft protection. CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces New Train Car Derailment Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- WBIR.com reported that three residents who say they were within an evacuation zone when a CSX rail car derailed and burned July 1 in Maryville filed a federal suit, alleging the railroad was negligent in the incident. Dedra Jones, Tracy L. Milani and Sarah K. Headrick seek $25 million in damages in the U.S. District Court in Knoxville action. They also seek to have their complaint handled as a class action suit. The Louisiana law firm of Fayard and Honeycutt and the Bryant Law Center, of Kentucky, filed the action on behalf of the plaintiffs. Named as defendants are CSX and the Union Tank Car Company. A car carrying acrylonitrile, a hazardous and potentially toxic chemical, ruptured and caught fire near Old Mount Tabor Road, forcing the evacuation or warning to leave of some 5,000 people within about two miles of the surrounding area. Jones, Milani and Headrick say they were among those who were evacuated. Jones alleges she was exposed to smoke and fumes and couldn't return home until the evacuation was lifted. Milani alleges she breathed smoke and fumes and suffered watery eyes and a burning sensation in her mouth and throat. Their lawsuit asserts claims of negligence, nuisance, economic loss, trespass and also seeks medical monitoring for people exposed to the toxic materials. The CSX train had left Cincinnati and was bound for Waycross, Ga. "When you regularly haul toxic chemicals past homes and apartments, you hold a public trust to do that with the utmost care," said Bryant. Attorney Mark Bryant, working with Knoxville attorney Doug Nichol, has visited the area and met with dozens of evacuees, including about 150 at a public meeting. The legal team said it has opened a field office in Maryville to assist clients with paperwork and preparing claims. Dozens of people reported injuries from exposure to air from the burning car. This is the second federal lawsuit to be filed as a result of the fire. A Blount County Circuirt Court suit also has been filed. CSX TRANSPORTATION: First Trial Date Set in Derailment Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Rebecca Forand, writing for NJ.com, reported that a federal judge has scheduled the first trial date for the civil cases regarding the November 2012 Paulsboro train derailment for Sept. 8. The derailment, in which seven tanker cars fell off the track over Mantua Creek -- with four of them ending up in the water below -- leaked thousands of pounds of toxic vinyl chloride into the borough's air, forcing more than 100 households to evacuate for nearly two weeks. Dozens of individuals sought medical attention immediately following the accident and more than 2,000 people have filed suit. The suits name Conrail, CSX and Norfolk Southern as defendants, claiming the railroad companies were negligent in maintaining the century-old swing bridge over Mantua Creek and in training employees properly. While a class action suit was denied by Judge Robert B. Kugler, he has allowed the individual suits to continue, with many of them to be heard simultaneously. The first cases include multiple residents of Paulsboro, as well as the Paulsboro Public School System, as plaintiffs. In an order dated July 30, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Williams stated the first case to proceed to trial will begin on Sept. 8 with the second case to begin on Sept. 28. There are currently nine cases ready for trial, and a pretrial conference for all of them is scheduled for Sept. 3. The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the accident, cited a failure in the bridge's locking mechanism as the main cause of the accident, while also saying a lack of training for Contrail employees and a lack of comprehensive safety management programs were contributing factors to the derailment. CSX CORPORATION: Class Cert. Hearing Set for Early November 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 26, 2015, that the District Court remand proceedings are underway and a class certification hearing has been scheduled for early November 2015 in the fuel surcharge antitrust litigation. In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue. In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs' claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court to reconsider its class certification decision. The District Court remand proceedings are underway and a class certification hearing has been scheduled for early November 2015. The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings. CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit. Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full year. CVS PHARMACY: Faces Suit for Overpricing Generic Medicines ---------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action accuses CVS pharmacies of overcharging customers for generic prescription drugs by as much as 400 percent and submitting fraudulently inflated claims to insurers. Christopher Corcoran is the lead plaintiff in the July 30 complaint against CVS over its so-called Health Savings Pass, "the centerpiece of its fraud." Corcoran's case was the Top Download for Courthouse News. The Health Savings Pass "includes long-term maintenance medications, which, in many instances, are prescribed to elderly and disabled patients on a regular basis," the complaint states. Customers claim that by law the co-pay that CVS takes from insured customers "may not exceed CVS's usual and customary price, which is generally defined as the cash price to the general public for the same drug," but that a CVS co-pay often does exceed that customary price -- and that CVS also bills the insurer for it. The 48-count, 84-page lawsuit claims that CVS has overcharged insured customers "in many cases by more than three or four times the usual and customary price," since at least November 2008. "CVS is a major pharmacy chain throughout the United States," plaintiffs' attorney Christopher Lebsock said. "Through this litigation our clients hope to ensure that CVS lives by its commitment to price drugs fairly to all of its customers. We look forward to presenting our claims to the court as soon as possible." With 7,866 U.S. outlets, CVS is the nation's largest purchaser of drugs, according to the complaint. Half of the population are customers, and it fills or manages more than 1 billion prescriptions a year -- nearly one-third of the prescriptions in the nation, the complaint states. It reported net revenue of $139.4 billion, $67 billion of it from its retail pharmacy business, the class claims. The plaintiffs claim that CVS charges cash-paying customers less than it charges insured ones. They claim that CVS is required to disclose its regular prices for every transaction when it submits electronic claims to third-party payors, but it knowingly inflates these prices. "By submitting false and inflated usual and customary prices to third-party payors, CVS knowingly and wrongfully overcharged plan participants co-pay amounts that often exceeded the HSP drug prices available to the general public for the same drugs," the complaint states. "In essence, the unlawful scheme that CVS designed allowed CVS to have its cake and eat it too: CVS could maintain and increase its cash-paying customer base while also maintaining higher reimbursement payments from third-party payors and higher co-pays from plan participants who filled their prescriptions at CVS pharmacies." CVS did not respond to a request for comment. Attorney Lebsock is with the Hausfeld firm in San Francisco. Christopher Lebsock, Esq. Hausfeld 165 Broadway Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006 646-357-1100 212-202-4322 fax http://www.hausfeld.com/ info@hausfeld.com DELTA DELI: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Castillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Delta Deli Ltd. d/b/a All American Deli, Jimmy Saadany, Amr Saadany, and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-06324 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a deli and restaurant located at 42 Water Street, New York, New York 10002. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212)317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com EASTERN COMPANY: Barington Class Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------- The Eastern Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, that a court has approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of the class action lawsuit filed by Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P. On April 17, 2015, Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P. ("Barington") filed a purported class action lawsuit (Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P. v. The Eastern Company, et. al., Case No. UWY-CV-15-026955-S (the "Action")) against The Eastern Company (the "Company") and its board of directors (the "Board") in the Superior Court of Waterbury, Connecticut (the "Court"). The Action alleged, among other things, that the Eastern Board breached its fiduciary duties by amending the Company's bylaws to allow the board to fill vacancies resulting from an expansion of the number of board seats without shareholder approval. The Action also challenged the Board's announced intention to increase the size of the Board and appoint a new director after the May 20, 2015 Annual Meeting without shareholder approval and sought, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the Board from nominating a new director to fill a vacancy that is the result of an expansion of the number of board seats. On July 13, 2015, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal (the "Stipulation") entered into by the parties in connection with the Action. The Stipulation provides for, among other things, the dismissal of the Action after the requisite notice period to shareholders has expired. Attorneys for Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P.: BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Christopher J. Orrico, Esq. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 554-1400 - and - FITZPATRICK MARIANO SANTOS SOUSA P.C. Edward G. Fitzpatrick Alicia K. Perillo 203 Church Street Naugatuck, CT 06770 Tel: (203) 729-4555 Attorneys for Defendants The Eastern Company, Leonard F. Leganza, John W. Everets, Charles W. Henry, David C. Robinson and Donald S. Tuttle, III: CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSY LLP James K Robertson, Jr., Esq. Ann H. Rubin, Esq. 50 Leavenworth Street, Esq. Waterbury, CT 06721 Tel: (203) 573-1200 - and - WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP John A. Neuwirth, Esq. Stefania D. Venezia, Esq. Robert S. Ruff III, Esq. Amanda K. Pooler, Esq. 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Tel: (212) 310-8000 A copy of the Stipulation http://is.gd/eFzV3E EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Caldera" Suit Over Automated Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Lucy Caldera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Education Management Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv- 06095-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting consumers on the cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Education Management Corporation provides satellite television services and offers a variety of consumer and business related satellite television services throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com EFT HOLDINGS: Order to Show Cause Set for December 4 ---------------------------------------------------- An order to show cause is set for December 4, 2015, in lawsuits against EFT Holdings, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of one or more of the Company's products against the Company and Jack Qin in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A first amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all class claims with prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014 Order. On January 7, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims for breach of warranty with prejudice and all claims against Jack Qin without prejudice, and clarified that Plaintiff cannot seek disgorgement or state claims based on any stock-related fraud. On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging individual claims for unfair competition, false advertising and fraud. The second amended complaint sought, among other things, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the Wang, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. action. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of the individual plaintiffs without prejudice. On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's products against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A first amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all class claims with prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014 Order. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs' corporate waste and gift claims, and Plaintiffs' Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claims based on alleged corporate looting and operation of a pump-and-dump scheme. The Court further dismissed Plaintiffs' deception and common law fraud claims with respect to all defendants except the Company and Jack Qin. On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging individual claims for operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, and RICO violations. The complaint sought, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive damages. On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the Wang, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. action. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of the individual plaintiffs without prejudice. On January 30, 2015, a class action entitled Wang, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's products against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On April 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. and Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. actions. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which is currently pending. On May 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended and consolidated complaint, alleging claims for operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, unfair completion, false advertising, and RICO violations. On May 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the class allegations from the second amended and consolidated complaint, which is currently pending. The case is currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. On December 6, 2013, the Company named George Curry (a former director and officer of the Company) as one of the defendants in the Superior Court of California, county of Los Angeles, with reference to the CTX investment transaction, in which the Company alleges, among other things, that Mr. Curry breached his fiduciary duty and committed fraud and misrepresentation in respect of the Company's investment in CTX Virtual Technologies, Inc. ("CTXV"). On April 18, 2014, George Curry filed a Notice of Removal for the action above to be brought in the District Court of Claifornia, Los Angeles (Western District). In the same action, he brought a counterclaim against EFT Holdings, Inc., Jack Qin and Pyng Soon and sought implied and equitable indemnity, declaratory relief and apportionment of fault. On or around December 11, 2014 George Curry filed a Motion for Summary Judgement against EFT and all other Cross Defendants in the matter. The Motion was heard on February 26, 2015, wherein the Court denied George Curry's Motion. The final resolution of the entire matter is still pending.. On May 30, 2014, the Company filed a civil lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles - East District against Meifu and others. alleging deceit, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and money had and received against the defendants. Also named as defendants in this action are TransGlobe, Peng Cheng-Hao (President of Meifu) and Thomas Chen, a former director of EFTI. On June 9, 2014, the arbitrators awarded in favor of Ezone, with counterclaims of Excalibur dismissed by the arbitrators. After taking into account the advice from the Company's solicitors, the Company has decided not to appeal the arbitration award. On March 4, 2015, the Company filed a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, against CTX, Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Cliff Rhee and Peter Lau alleging breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, negligent misrepresentation and negligence. On April 14, 2015, Defendant CTX filed a Motion to Dismiss. On May 28, 2015, the Court granted CTX's motion, in part, with leave to amend. The Company filed a First Amended Complaint on June 8, 2015, asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) fraud-misrepresentation; and (4) fraud-concealment. On June 24, 2015, CTX filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint. Buckman, Buckman & Reid and Peter Lau filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint on July 9, 2015. On April 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. and Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. actions. On May 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended and consolidated complaint, alleging claims for operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, unfair completion, false advertising, and RICO violations. On May 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the class allegations from the second amended and consolidated complaint, which is currently pending. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of the individual plaintiffs without prejudice. On June 4, 2015, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles ruled that since the Company has its principal place of business in California, the matter is stayed to allow the Company time to file in the appropriate forum. The Court further ordered that Taiwan is a suitable forum for the Company's complaint. An order to show cause is set for December 4, 2015. EHARMONY INC: Suit Alleges Unlawful Discrimination -------------------------------------------------- Mary West, and all others similarly-situated v. eHarmony, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06080 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2015), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages for Defendant's alleged unlawful discrimination under Title III of the American with Disabilities Act, 42, U.S.C. section 12181, et seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff claimed that by failing to make its website accessible to blind persons, eHarmony is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law. The Defendant is an American for-profit corporation with principal office in Santa Monica, California. eHarmony owns and operates an online service that matches singles seeking relationships through its website eHarmony.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th St., 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in D. Del. ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Jacobs and Gary E. Hindes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of the Federal National Mortgatge Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the U.S. Treasury, challenging the legality of the government's use of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under what is known as the Third Amendment Sweep, and makes the claim that the Net Worth Sweep is an improper term for a preferred stock instrument under Sec. 151 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The complaint initiating was filed in Jacobs v. FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00708 (D. Del.). The legal arguments underpinning the challenge based on Sec. 151 are detailed in an Amicus Brief filed by the Center for Individual Freedom in support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders litigating in Perry v. Lew, No. 14-5243 (D.C. Cir.). Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes and the Center are all represented by Myron T. Steele at Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP. Mr. Steele is former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware, a Judge of the Superior Court, and a Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery An updated chart is available at no charge at: http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201508.pdf to help organize information about the many lawsuits challenging the Third Amendment and Net Worth Sweep, including the cases challenging the sweep as a confiscation of private property for public use by our government without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution before Judge Sweeney in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; the proceedings pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; and Saxton v. FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00047 (N.D. Iowa). At this time, jurisdictional discovery is underway in Fairholme v. U.S., Case No. 13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), and (subject to further extensions), jurisdictional discovery is currently scheduled to wrap up by Sept. 4, 2015. Completion of jurisdictional discovery in Fairholme -- on whatever date it actually happens -- will unleash a flurry of activity in Judge Sweeney's court including Fairholme filing its response to the government's motion to dismiss its complaint and other pre-trial filings by the government and other aggrieved shareholders. Briefing in the appellate proceedings before the D.C. Circuit have been stayed pending resolution of a motion to supplement the record based on newly discovered evidence the shareholders say Judge Lamberth should have considered last year when he dismissed lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. FHFA and Treasury are planning to file their motions to dismiss the Saxton lawsuit in Iowa by Sept. 4, 2015, and the Court is looking for briefing on those motions to dismiss to be completed by Nov. 23, 2015. FEDEX CORPORATION: Limited Discovery Conducted in Oregon Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2015, that parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages in the Oregon class action cases. FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits (including 25 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors. Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit were stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme Court. On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20 factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground has requested that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. "During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case that was required to be recognized pursuant to applicable accounting standards. This amount was immaterial," the Company said. On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding that the class members are employees, not independent contractors. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a representative of the court for purposes of setting a case management conference to address briefing and argument for those cases. The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received court approval. One of the cases is currently pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Another case was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals where the court reversed the class-wide summary judgment decision on May 28, 2015 and remanded the case for trial, holding that there are disputed issues of fact as to whether the class members are employees or independent contractors. Two cases in Oregon and one in California were appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon were employees as a matter of law and remanded the cases to their respective district courts for further proceedings. "In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in those cases that was required to be recognized pursuant to applicable accounting standards. This amount was immaterial," the Company said. In June 2015, the parties in the California case engaged in mediation and reached an agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and the Company has increased the accrual to that amount. The settlement agreement has been filed with the court for approval. In the Oregon cases, material exposure above the accrued amount is reasonably possible. "We continue to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss," the Company said. "For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued. The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of full-time drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on whatever criteria may be established. "In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on evidence pertaining to individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be produced in the cases. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the court, including on the merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground's defenses, and on evidentiary issues." "With respect to the matters that are pending outside of Oregon, it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material. Similar to our analysis of loss contingency in the Oregon cases, we continue to evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss. As a consequence of many of the same factors described above, as well as others that are specific to these cases, we are not currently able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. We do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters." FGX INTERNATIONAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Thomason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FGX International Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv- 03161-RBH (D.S.C., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly pay minimum wages, straight time and overtime compensation. FGX International Inc. is a Delaware Business Corporation that designs and markets non-prescription reading glasses and sunglasses. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Scott Kozacki, Esq. WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A. Post Office Box 1909 Florence, SC 29503-1909 Telephone No: (843) 622-3258 Facsimile No: (843) 662-1342 E-mail: skozacki@willcoxlaw.com FIFA: Hagens Berman Seeks Info on Youth Soccer Head Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------ Business Wire reported that parents of children who have played youth soccer or continue to play youth soccer and have sustained head injuries during play are encouraged to contact Hagens Berman, a national consumer-rights and sports litigation law firm that has sued multiple soccer organizations for failing to protect players from head injuries. Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of several current and former soccer players against soccer's worldwide governing body, FIFA, and affiliated soccer organizations in the United States including U.S. Youth Soccer and American Youth Soccer -- leagues responsible for over three million child and adolescent soccer players in the United States -- for allegedly failing to incorporate up-to-date guidelines into their concussion policies. The suit states that no rule limits headers in children's soccer, and children are often taught to head the ball from the age of three. A dedicated youth player might sustain 1,000 headers per year, and a high school player more than 1,800 headers. The lawsuit seeks the following: -- Require FIFA and its U.S. affiliates to implement up-to-date guidelines for detection of head injuries and for return to play after a concussion. -- Regulation of heading by players under 14 years old. A rule change to permit substitution of players for medical evaluation purposes. The lawsuit alleges that these groups have failed to adopt effective policies to evaluate and manage concussions, a common occurrence at all levels of the game. They also claim that a lack of effective policies poses a greater danger to women and children players, who are more vulnerable to traumatic and long-lasting brain injury. Hagens Berman recently led a separate class action and settlement that if approved by the court will reform concussion policies across the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Ashley Klann,Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 206-268-9363 ashleyk@hbsslaw.com FLIGHT SERVICES: "Pointer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rodney Pointer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 03398 (E.D. La., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Flight Services & Systems, Inc. operates an airline services company in Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher L. Williams, Esq. WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C. 639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850 New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 308-1438 Facsimile: (504) 308-1446 E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com FLORIDA GARDENS: "Artigas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto A. Artigas, Silvia Cuellar, and other similarly situated individuals v. Florida Gardens Thrift, Inc., Brandon S. Klien, Jose A. Carrion, and Hilda Segal, Case No. 0:15-cv-61679-BB (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a thrift store in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com FTD.COM INC: Settles "Substitution Policy" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reported that FTD.com Inc. has settled a proposed class action filed in California court on, which alleged that the company swaps subpar flowers into floral arrangements under a "substitution policy" FTD has deliberately concealed, a spokeswoman for the company confirmed. Details of the settlement have not been disclosed, but FTD said in a statement that it agreed to settle solely to avoid costly litigation and expressed confidence that it would have won the case, which the company said was "completely without merit." "Due to our high-quality standards and the perishable nature of flowers or local market conditions, substitution may be necessary to ensure a customer's arrangement is fresh and delivered within the requested timeframe," FTD said. "Our substitution policy is clearly disclosed in multiple places on FTD.com for consumers to review at the point of purchase." Plaintiff Rachelle Erratchu claimed that the details of FTD's policy are only accessible via a hidden, linked disclaimer that customers have to locate and click on during checkout, and said that most customers will never realize they received different flowers than the ones they ordered because they're sending arrangements to other people. The link to the policy is shown in the same font as a one-line message regarding regional availability that also appears during checkout, and only becomes underlined -- indicating that it's a link -- if a user happens to move their mouse cursor over it, according to Erratchu's complaint. Erratchu said that she purchased two "Thinking of You" bouquets through FTD's website in January 2014 for sisters whose uncle had recently died, but the arrangements didn't look "remotely alike" and neither looked like the bouquet pictured on FTD's website. The plaintiff claimed that she didn't get the benefit of the bargain because of FTD's "deceptive" policy, and that she had counted on the company to deliver two identical bouquets so that each sister felt like she was being treated equally. "Every floral arrangement containing substitutions purchased by a consumer that viewed the misleading pictures on FTD's website results in unlawfully gained profits for FTD, as it acquired the profits from the purchase of floral arrangements it would/may not have received, had it not used the misleading pictures and hidden its substitution policy on its website," Erratchu said. The complaint included claims of unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation, and also accused FTD of violating California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act as well as various provisions of the state's business and professions code. Counsel for the plaintiff didn't respond to a request for comment. In a separate case, FTD and social networking site Classmates Inc. agreed in May to pay $11 million to resolve allegations that they had violated the Restore Shoppers' Confidence Act by sharing customers' information with third parties and duped users into auto-renewing memberships. Erratchu is represented by: Shawn Westr, Esq. Kawahito Shraga & Westrick LLP 1990 S Bundy Dr #280, Los Angeles, CA 90025 Toll Free: +1 310-746-5300 FTD is represented by Christopher Lovrien of Jones Day. The case is Rachel Erratchu v. FTD.com Inc., case no. BC859687, in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. GENERAL MOTORS: Says 100 Consumer Suits Pending Thru July 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 20, 2015, the Company was aware of 100 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). "In the year ended December 31, 2014 we announced various recalls relating to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash," the Company said. "Through July 20, 2015 we were aware of 100 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). GENERAL MOTORS: 21 Class Actions Pending in Canada -------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 20, 2015, the Comopany was aware of 21 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief similar to that sought in the economic-loss cases in the U.S. In the aggregate these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages and injunctive and other relief. GENERAL MOTORS: 172 Class Actions Over Injuries Pending ------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 20, 2015 we were aware of 172 actions pending in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. against GM alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases). Additionally, through July 20, 2015, we were aware of 9 actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief similar to that sought in the personal injury cases in the U.S. In the aggregate these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief. GENERAL MOTORS: 204 Cases Transferred to MDL -------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 20, 2015, 204 pending cases have been transferred to, and consolidated with, the multidistrict litigation. Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued orders from time to time directing that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits involving alleged faulty ignition switches or other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in the year ended December 31, 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through July 20, 2015, 204 pending cases have been transferred to, and consolidated with, the multidistrict litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties to the multidistrict litigation engage from time to time in discussions of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation. "Because many of the plaintiffs in the actions are suing over the conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted against us for, among other things, personal injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors Corporation (successor liability claims)," the Company said. "On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a Decision precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement and claims that could be asserted against us only if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision. We have also filed a notice of cross appeal to preserve our rights on appeal." GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Case Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Defendants' motion to dismiss a shareholder class action is now fully briefed and awaiting decision by the court. In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the court appointed the New York State Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current and former officers and employees (Defendants). On behalf of purchasers of GM common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements. On March 13, 2015 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Defendants' motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and awaiting decision by the court. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismissed Plaintiff Dealers' Claim v. GMCL ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Ontario Superior Court has dismissed the plaintiff dealers' claim against GMCL. On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against GMCL on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" CAD $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association; (3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more specific information regarding its restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4) whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual damages). A number of former dealers opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial of the class issues was completed in the three months ended December 31, 2014. On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff Dealers' claim against GMCL, holding that GMCL did not breach any common law or statutory obligations toward the class members. The court also dismissed GMCL's counterclaim against the Plaintiff Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to them by GMCL as well as for other relief. The parties have the right to appeal from this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeals once all outstanding issues before the trial judge have been completed. GENERAL MOTORS: Wage Cases Pending in Korean Courts --------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the GM Korea Wage cases are currently pending before various district courts in Korea and the Supreme Court. Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former hourly employees of GM Korea Company (GM Korea) filed eight separate group actions in the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in aggregate involve more than 10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea failed to include bonuses and certain allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act. On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court) and initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation of the relevant statute. In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case involving another company not affiliated with us which addressed many of the issues presented in the cases pending against GM Korea and resolved many of them in a manner which we believe is favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while the Supreme Court held that fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain circumstances. On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its December 2013 ruling. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in Ordinary Wages retroactively to March 1, 2014. "Therefore our accrual related to these cases was reclassified from a contingent liability to the Pensions liability," the Company said. "We estimate our reasonably possible loss, as defined by ASC 450, "Contingencies," in excess of amounts accrued to be 574 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $515 million) at June 30, 2015, which relates to periods before March 1, 2014. We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation. At June 30, 2015 we have identified a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount of our accrual of 173 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $155 million)." Both the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual claim elements may change if new information becomes available. These cases are currently pending before various district courts in Korea and the Supreme Court. GENERAL MOTORS: 2nd Circuit Denied Petition for Rehearing --------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Inventory Management Securities Class Action, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. On June 29, 2012 a putative securities class action was filed against us and a number of our past and current officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (George G. Scott v. General Motors Company et al). "Purporting to sue on behalf of owners of common stock deriving from our 2010 initial public offering, plaintiff asserts non-fraud prospectus based liability claims under various federal securities statutes alleging that the Company has made false statements about its vehicle inventory controls and production decisions, particularly with respect to full-size trucks," the Company said. The plaintiff's complaint requests compensatory damages, rescission and litigation costs, fees and disbursements. On November 21, 2012 the court appointed the Teamster's Local 710 Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the matter. On February 1, 2013 the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On September 4, 2014 the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an appeal. On May 28, 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the district court. On July 9, 2015 the appeals court denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc. GOOGLE: IndieGoGo Campaign Launched to Fund Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Google and Microsoft's search engines post ads that general billions of dollars in income each year. Often, these ads are placed alongside organic search results based on the keywords a user inputs. Costs for these ads are based on the popularity of keyword searches and can run from five cents to double-digit dollars. Now, the giant companies have marked low-price keywords "irrelevant" and have stopped offering ads based on these keywords, creating artificial shortage and pushing ad prices to the dollar range. $2 per click ads are even made part of the organic listing tempting the unsuspected searcher to click on it thinking it organic result. Further, the two companies have confiscated certain keywords to further generate artificial shortages and push prices up. All of these activities affect private entrepreneurs and small businesses. Now, a group has launched an IndieGoGo campaign to raise legal fees to file a class action lawsuit against Microsoft and Google for these practices. The goal of the crowd funding resource is to generate half a million dollars to pay for legal fees. If successful, this lawsuit would require Google and Microsoft to release banned and "irrelevant" keywords to the public and compensate businesses for their losses. The originator of the class action lawsuit idea is also an active high-tech entrepreneur who has created a cyber security program known as "Magen-Malware Vigilance." It can be downloaded to protect personal identity as well as prevent computer hacking. GRILL ON 2ND: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Saul Quizet Rivera, Angel Castillo, Francisco Sapon Baquiax, Ivan Soto Garzon, Magdaleno Perez Gonzalez, Alfonso Leal,and Efren Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Grill On 2nd LLC d/b/a Tuttles Bar and Grill, Garrett Patrick Doyle, Patrick M. Brady, and Patrick Lane, Case No. 1:15-cv-06293 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant located at 735 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10016. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212)317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com HAGGEN: Sued Over Disabled Employees' Unfair Lay Off ---------------------------------------------------- Edhat reported that a class action discrimination lawsuit was filed in Santa Barbara against Haggen asserting that developmentally disabled courtesy clerks were unfairly laid off. The lawsuit was filed on July 31 in Santa Barbara Superior Court on behalf of 60-year-old William Morris, a developmentally disabled man who worked at the Fairview Vons for over three years. When Haggen Food & Pharmacy bought out several Vons and Albertson's location, Morris and several other developmentally disabled courtesy clerks were let go. HANNAY REALTY: Faces "Silvernail" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Brad Silvernail v. Hannay Realty Advisors, LP, an Arizona Limited Partnership, R. Craig Hannay and Jane Doe Hannay, husband and wife, Case No. 2:15-cv-01553-JAT (D. Ariz., August 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate an RV park in Mesa, Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillips Dayes, Esq. NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 288-1610 ext. 301 E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com HERTZ GLOBAL: Brief Filed in Concession Fee Recoveries Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the Concession Fee Recoveries class action lawsuit filed their answering brief and opening brief on their cross-appeal. In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or "Enterprise," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees and costs. In 2010, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed settlement. Although the court tentatively approved the settlement in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011. Following additional activity in the case, in March 2013, the court granted, in part, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect to restitution and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification while denying the Company's motion for partial summary judgment. In October 2014, the court entered final judgment, merging all of its prior rulings and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution fund. In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or mislead the class members. In April 2015, Hertz filed its opening brief. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their answering brief and opening brief on their cross-appeal. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not be material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------- Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. continues to defend the Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. In August 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss and also filed a motion to strike certain exhibits which were included in Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. The motion to strike was dismissed as moot. In November 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint which shortened the putative class period such that it is not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and makes allegations that are not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior complaint. In early 2015 this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss in January 2015. In February 2015, Hertz Holdings filed its reply to Plaintiffs' opposition. Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against these allegations, but litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings, however, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses, but they could be material. ICONIX BRAND: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICON) securities between February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015 The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (b) the Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; and (c) as a result of the aforementioned, the Company's earnings and revenues were overstated. On April 17, 2015, Iconix announced that the Company's Chief Operating Officer had resigned. Then on April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners published an Equity Research Note criticizing the Company's alleged accounting irregularities. If you suffered a loss in Iconix you have until August 24, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/ICON-Info-Request- Form-798. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Vincent Wong, Esq. The Law Offices of Vincent Wong 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Nasyrova" 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Immunomedics, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2015, that a putative class action lawsuit has been dismissed. As reported by Immunomedics, Inc. (the "Company") in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), including the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc. (the "Lawsuit"), was filed on February 27, 2014, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "District Court"). The Lawsuit alleged that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the Company's license agreement with Nycomed GmbH relating to the Company's veltuzumab product candidate (the "Nycomed Agreement"). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute relating to a delay in the development of veltuzumab. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014. On January 29, 2015 the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The District Court's opinion concluded that the Company had no duty to disclose issues raised with Nycomed GmbH prior to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. The District Court granted Plaintiffs thirty days from the date of the opinion in order to file an amended complaint. On February 27, 2015, a second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") was filed by the plaintiff alleging failure to disclose information related to the status of the agreement. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 13, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the District Court issued an Order and Opinion dismissing with prejudice the Second Amended Complaint. INDIANA SAFETY: Faces "Blake" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Blake, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Indiana Safety Co., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00114-RLY- WGH (S.D. Ind., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor and Standards Act. Indiana Safety Co., Inc. is a supplier of safety and industrial equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq. Lauren E. Berger, Esq. BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC 411 Main Street Evansville, IN 47708 Telephone: (812) 424-1000 Facsimile: (812) 424-1005 E-mail: kfb@bdlegal.com lberger@bdlegal.com INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Christine M. Bernacchi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Investment Technology Group, Inc., Robert C. Gasser, Steven R. Vigliotti, and Mats Goebels, Case No. 1:15-cv- 06369 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 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. Investment Technology Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a brokerage and financial markets technology firm, located at 165 Broadway, New York, New York 10006. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Donald R. Hall, Esq. Jeffery P. Campisi, Esq. Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com dhall@kaplanfox.com jcampisi@kaplanfox.com jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES & KAPETAN, P.A. 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 570-8989 Facsimile: (954) 354-0205 E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com J. CREW GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS --------------------------------------------------------------- National Federation of the Blind, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Arthur Jacobs, Dishon Spears, Richard King, Stacy Cervenka, and Jeanine Lineback, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J. Crew Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-06337 (S.D.N.Y. August 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's point-of-sale devices that use a visual, touchscreen interface that is not accessible to the blind. J.Crew Group, Inc. operates approximately 42 retail stores in New York and is headquartered in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jana Eisinger, Esq. MARTINEZ LAW GROUP, P.C. 244 5th Avenue, #E208 New York, NY 10001-7604 Telephone: (212) 726-1079 E-mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com - and - Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq. THE MEHDI FIRM, PC One Market Spear Tower, Suite 3600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 293-8039 Facsimile: (415) 293-801 E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com - and - Scott C. LaBarre, Esq. LABARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1660 South Albion Street, Suite 918 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 504-5979 E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com - and - Kevin W. Williams, Esq. COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION LEGAL PROGRAM 655 Broadway, Suite 775 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (720) 336-3584 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Class Action Cases Dismissed -------------------------------------------------- Kansas City Southern said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that pursuant to a joint agreement between the parties, class action cases were dismissed by the District Court on June 30, 2015. On April 15, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The securities class action is styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-cv-00345- BCW. On April 16, 2014, the first of two shareholder derivative actions purportedly brought on behalf of the Company (which is named as a "nominal defendant") was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri against certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers. The first derivative action is styled as Webster v. Starling, et al., 4:14- cv-00349-BCW. The second derivative action was filed on June 6, 2014, and is styled as Lerner v. Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00509- BCW. The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company made misrepresentations or omitted to disclose certain facts in connection with its volume guidance for fiscal year 2013. Pursuant to a joint agreement between the parties, these cases were dismissed by the District Court on June 30, 2015. These disputes were resolved without payment by the Company. KRAFT FOODS: Removes "Appel" Class Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Lawrence Appel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC587662, was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-06081-AB-FFM to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that the package labeling of "Knudsen Hampshire Sour Cream" is false, misleading, or misbranded because it inaccurately states the amount of calories, saturated fat, sodium, and sugar contained in a one-half cup serving. The Defendant is represented by: Kenneth K. Lee, Esq. Daniel D. Welsh, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054 Telephone: (213) 239-5100 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199 E-mail: klee@jenner.com dwelsh@jenner.com - and - Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com LA VIE: Faces "Ching" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Chu Kwan Ching, on behalf of himself and similarly situated v. La Vie En Szechuan Restaurant Corp., d/b/a La Vie En Szechuan, Savour Sichuan Inc. d/b/a Savour Sichuan, Yi Zhang and Suk wun Fung, Case No. 1:15-cv-06313 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a Chinese restaurant enterprise in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com LAWRENCE D. BRUDY: Faces "Schneck" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie L. Schneck, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Lawrence D. Brudy & Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01058-RCM (S.D. Pa., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Lawrence D. Brudy & Associates, Inc. is a law firm that operates throughout Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq. HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C. The Frick Building 437 Grant Street, Suite 620 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 315-7195 Facsimile: (412) 315-7386 LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Reached Tentative Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Lennox International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in an attempted class action lawsuit alleging evaporator coils in the Company's residential air conditioning products are susceptible to a type of corrosion that can result in coil leaks. "We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit. We have reached tentative settlement terms, preliminarily approved by the court, and recorded a liability of $2.4 million in Accrued expenses on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Any additional liability resulting from the proposed settlement is not currently reasonably estimable, but we do not expect the proposed settlement to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations," the Company said. LOUIS CRUISE: Class Suit Over Norovirus Outbreak Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Phil Davies, writing for Travel Weekly, reported that a UK class action case involving a norovirus outbreak onboard a cruise ship has been successfully defended in what is being seen as a landmark decision. The case involved an outbreak of gastroenteritis on board the Thomson Spirit, chartered from Louis Cruise Lines. The class action involved 43 passengers, 28 who alleged they suffered from bacterial illness with the balance claiming breach of contract. Lawyers acting for the claimants had alleged that the outbreak was bacterial, caused by negligence on the part of the cruise line and poor adherence by the crew to the ship's established outbreak response plan. Judge David Mitchell, sitting in the Central London County Court, found in favour of the cruise line, saying that it was a very well-controlled outbreak and that the company applied and implemented its systems well and that the cruise line was not negligent. In coming to his decision, the judge took into account not only the evidence taken from the ship but also evidence from passengers. This included complaints about not being able to have self-service food, being given paper napkins and being confined to their cabins. However, the judge found that these complaints were deemed to be evidence of compliance with the ship's outbreak plan. He ruled the ship was not contaminated when the claimants commenced their cruise. Maria Pittordis, head of marine, trade and energy and a partner at law firm Hill Dickinson, said: "The court accepted that the systems onboard had been fully implemented by the officers and the crew to bring the virus under control and was influenced by the documentation produced to support the case, the fact that Louis tested for pathogens and the deployment of systems beyond the levels that were required for the numbers of illness. "This was a great example of team work between owners, charterers, external health hygiene auditors, the authorities and lawyers." She added: "The judgment is the first claim of its type to be successfully defended at trial in the UK. "It is of great importance to the cruise industry in recognising that norovirus is not caused by the ship and that even with high levels of implementation of industry procedures, outbreaks of norovirus do occur." LOUISIANA: LSBN Sued Over Grambling BSN Program Termination ----------------------------------------------------------- Kourtney Shari Rodgers v. The Louisiana State Board of Nursing, Case No. 3:15-cv-02176 (W.D. La., August 12, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's unlawful conspiracy to exclude the Grambling State University Baccalaureate Science of Nursing Program from recognition as an accredited or compensable educational provider of Baccalaureate Nursing Studies in the State of Louisiana. The Louisiana State Board of Nursing is an appointed regulatory board of private citizens vested with regulatory responsibilities for the practice of nursing in the State of Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: William T. Hughey, Esq. THE HUGHEY LAW FIRM P.L.L.C. P.O. Box 2012 Marshall, TX 75670 Telephone: (903) 935-5550 Facsimile: (866) 823-7185 E-mail: Hugheylaw@sbcglobal.net - and - Dianne Hill, Esq. HILL LAW OFFICE 1401 Hudson Lane Suite 137 Monroe, LA 71201 Telephone: (318) 325-6398 Facsimile: (318)) 325-6399 E-mail: D9hill@yahoo.com MAPP CONSTRUCTION: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Reyes, Jorge Guillen, and Elin Javier Zelaya Funez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. MAPP Construction, LLC and JC Works Construction Solutions, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02328(S.D. Tex., August 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a construction company doing business in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 MAYER BROWN: Error in $1.5BB Loan to GM Yields 2 Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Claire Bushey, writing for Crain's Chicago Business, reported that a law firm error that hurt creditors holding a $1.5 billion loan to General Motors has yielded two class-action federal lawsuits against Mayer Brown alleging negligence and malpractice. The suits, filed July 31 in U.S. District Court by municipal pension funds in Alabama and California, seek unspecified damages. The Employees' Retirement System of Montgomery, Ala., and the Oakland, Calif., Police and Fire Retirement System belonged to a group of more than 400 lenders that in 2006 issued through New York bank JPMorgan Chase a $1.5 billion term loan to GM, secured by company assets, according to the lawsuits. But two years later, Mayer Brown played a role in erasing that secured interest, the lawsuits say. Now unsecured creditors are seeking to claw back payments made during GM's bankruptcy to the two pension funds and others holding slices of the $1.5 billion loan, saying that as fellow unsecured creditors, the funds weren't entitled to them. "I've never seen an error of this kind with this consequence," said Edward Haber, a partner at Boston firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy who is representing the Montgomery pension fund. "We regret that we have to bring this action against a very respected law firm, but the damage was done, and it needs to be remedied." In 2008, GM wanted to pay off a debt, separate from the $1.5 billion loan, that was also administered by JPMorgan. While preparing documentation for that transaction, a Mayer Brown paralegal included paperwork terminating the agreement to secure creditors' claims to the 2006 loan. The work passed to an associate, who forwarded it to an attorney at JPMorgan's outside law firm, New York-based Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Both signed off on it. The Mayer Brown partner responsible for overseeing the associate who did the work never asked any questions about the erroneous termination agreement, the Oakland pension fund's lawsuit says. The mistake wasn't discovered until GM filed for bankruptcy in 2009. A Mayer Brown spokesman declined to comment. The pension funds also filed lawsuits July 30 in the U.S. Southern District of New York against JPMorgan and Simpson Thacher. Haber said it is likely the two suits against Mayer Brown eventually will be combined. MDC PARTNERS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased shares of MDC Partners, Inc. ("MDC Partners" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: MDCA), during the period between September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially false or misleading statements about MDC Partners' business, executive compensation, related-party transactions, goodwill, prospects and operations. These material misstatements and omissions had the cause and effect of creating in the market an unrealistically positive assessment of MDC Partners and its business, prospects and operations, thus causing the Company's common stock to be overvalued and artificially inflated. On April 27, 2015, the Company announced in press release its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. Additionally, the Company disclosed that: (a) since October 5, 2014, the Company has been actively cooperating with an SEC investigation relating to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the CEO, Miles Nadal; (b) Mr. Nadal agreed to reimburse the Company $8.6 million which the Company had sought for reimbursement; (c) During the quarter ended March 31, 2015, the Company incurred approximately $5.8 million in legal fees and other related expenses relating to the SEC inquiry; and (d) the Company reassigned its Chief Accounting Officer, Michael Sabatino to Senior Vice President, Special Projects. Following this news, shares of MDC Partners has fallen as much as $9.34 per share, or 33.38%, during intraday trading to trade at $18.64 on April 28, 2015. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in MDC Partners you have until September 29, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman, Esq. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC 144 N Beverwyck Rd, Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034 212-697-6484 info@bgandg.com MDC PARTNERS: Sued in NY Court for SEC Violations ------------------------------------------------- Steve McClellan, writing for Media Post, reported that MDC Partners has been sued in New York federal court for multiple counts of U.S. Securities and Exchange violations, including numerous "false and misleading statements" about its financial condition and the level of compensation received by former company CEO Miles Nadal. The suit, which seeks class action status, also cited the company's failure to disclose certain facts -- like an ongoing SEC investigation of the company -- which if known publicly, would have dissuaded investors from buying up company shares, traded on the NASDAQ Exchange. The suit, filed by a firefighters' pension plan, also named Nadal as a defendant. He resigned under fire from the company on July 20, and has already agreed to pay back to the company some $20 million in improperly expensed items and retention bonuses that he did not earn. Company CFO David Doft was also been named in the suit along with former Chief Accounting Officer Michael Sabatino, who was relieved of his duties in April and left the company around the same time as Nadal. The suit claims that the violations took place between September 24th of 2013 and April 27th of (the so-called "class period") when the company disclosed that it was being investigated by the SEC for trading and accounting irregularities, including the sketchy expense items claimed by Nadal. The suit cites numerous "false and misleading statements" in company SEC filings and other public statements during the class period. Nadal, CFO David Doft and Sabatino, the suit alleged, "are liable as participants in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of MDC common stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing materially false and material facts." That scheme misled investors about MDC's business, operations and management and the "intrinsic value of MDC common stock," per the complaint. The alleged deceptions enabled Nadal, Doft, Sabatino and other company insiders to collectively sell their personally held MDC common stock for proceeds in excess of $163.7 million according to the suit, while plaintiff and other shareholders were induced to purchase company shares at "artificially inflated prices." Plaintiff and other shareholders outside the company would have avoided the stock, at least at the prices they paid, "if they had been aware that the market prices had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements." Most of the insider gains during the class period were received by Nadal. During that time, Nadal sold 5.6 million MDC common shares for proceeds totaling approximately $146.2 million, per the suit. When MDC finally disclosed the ongoing SEC investigation in late April -- about seven months after it began -- the stock plummeted by nearly a third. The stock has continued to drift downward and is now about 40% down from its high. The shareholder suit was filed after the close of the stock markets. MDC Partners is down about 3% in midday trading to $17.06. MEN'S MEDICAL CLINIC: Probed Over Prescription Treatment -------------------------------------------------------- WFTV.com reported that an Orange County man claims an impotence clinic charged him thousands for prescription treatments that failed. The Men's Medical Clinic has dozens of complaints against it, and it was just sued by the Massachusetts attorney general for deceptive sales. Action 9's Todd Ulrich found the clinic's founder has been in trouble with Florida regulators before. An advertisement for Men's Medical Clinic claimed it offers 180 different prescription blends for erectile dysfunction. An Orange County man who wants to remain anonymous told Ulrich that he responded to the ad because other prescriptions had not been successful. "I was hoping they could help me because all the pills and stuff didn't help," the man said. He said the drug injection treatment at the company's Orange County clinic worked. Then, within minutes, someone had him sign a $4,200 contract to cover prescription injections. He claims it never worked again. "I thought I could get my money back, but they kept giving me more shots that didn't work either," the man said. Men's Medical Clinic is based in Orlando and has 11 locations. The company, founded by Dr. Kevin Hornsby, is rated F by the Better Business Bureau. There are more than 66 complaints, and most customers had issues with the product and how it's sold. Glenn Hunt said that after prostate cancer surgery, the drug triggered severe pain. He said he could not use it and could not get his $3,000 back. "I'll harass you guys to death -- call everybody I can. I'll go to small claims court," Hunt said. Massachusetts attorney general sued Men's Medical Clinic, which had a Boston office, and charged that it used deceptive tactics, including high-pressure sales and exaggerated claims. Twenty-three consumers complained to the Florida attorney general. In South Florida an uncertified class-action lawsuit claimed the company's sales tactics were deceptive, according to the lawsuit's attorney, Tony Marino. "There are not 180 unique blends. It is not unique to each patient. There is a lot of misinformation," Marino said. Men's Medical Clinic representatives canceled a scheduled interview with Ulrich. In a written response, company representatives said each clinic's doctor oversees individual care. Out of 33,000 patients only 66 complained to the BBB, and the company said the vast majority is satisfied, and it has challenged the bureau's rating. It blamed the state lawsuit on a former partner with a recently discovered criminal record. Men's Medical Clinic representatives also dismissed the class-action lawsuit as a frivolous action based on one patient. Florida's Department of Health found that Hornsby has prescribed testosterone without lab testing. He paid a $20,000 fine and has been banned from prescribing testosterone. The company said it stopped testosterone treatments four years ago. NETFLIX INC: Continues to Face Shareholder Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------- Netflix, Inc. continues to face shareholder class action lawsuits, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging substantially similar claims. These lawsuits were consolidated into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv- 00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs. On June 26, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on February 13, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the first amended consolidated complaint with prejudice on August 20, 2013, and judgment was entered on September 27, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and requested leave to file a second amended complaint on October 25, 2013. On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion. On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible however, based on its current knowledge, management does not believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of potential loss is reasonably estimable NPC INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Deal" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsie Deal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NPC International, Inc. and NPC Quality Burgers, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09206 (D. Kan., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked exceeding 40 in a workweek. The Defendants operate over 1,250 Pizza Hut units in 28 states and over 140 Wendy's units in 5 states throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100 Leawood, KA 66206 Telephone: (913) 766-5585 Facsimile: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com www.rmlegalgroup.com - and - Tracey F. George, Esq. DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 328 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 569-2629 Facsimile: (816) 447-3939 E-mail: tracey@davisgeorge.com PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Action Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend a securities related class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015. On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against us and certain of the Company's executive officers and one consultant (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's common stock. The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of the Company's bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)). After the court issued two separate orders granting the Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice. On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with respect to the court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Lead plaintiff's opening brief with respect to the appeal was filed on December 15, 2014 and the Defendants' answering brief was filed on January 30, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a reply brief on February 27, 2015. "We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action," the Company said. PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend "Michaeli" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit filed by Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015. "On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors," the Company said. "The complaint alleges that our directors and executives breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past three fiscal years, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past three fiscal years, of compensation to our non- employee directors." "In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The plaintiff is seeking recession of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non- employee directors during the three fiscal years prior to the filing of the complaint and other monetary relief for our benefit. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on February 5, 2014. We believe that the derivative/class action complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action." PFIZER: Philips Pension to Share in $400MM Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Gail Moss, writing for IPE, reported that Philips Pensioenfonds, the EUR17.8bn pension scheme of the Dutch electronics giant, will share in a total payout of $400m (EUR365m) to be made by Pfizer, after the US pharmaceutical company settled a securities fraud class action by investors who claimed it made false statements to them. After nearly five years of litigation, both sides reached a tentative agreement last January to settle the case for $400m plus accrued interest. The deal was finally approved by the district court for the Southern District of New York. Claims from class members are still being processed, so the precise amounts to be allocated to investors are not yet known. But Philips Pensioenfonds, as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, is likely to be one of the biggest beneficiaries. In a class action in the US, the lead plaintiff is appointed by the court, which generally chooses the party that has suffered the greatest economic loss. And, according to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd (RGRD), lead counsel for the class of Pfizer investors, not all class members are likely to claim, resulting in higher per-share distributions. In the lawsuit, investors alleged that Pfizer had illegally promoted Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug, and several other drugs 'off label' to boost sales. Off-label marketing is the promotion of pharmaceutical products for uses unapproved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Pfizer and its officers were alleged to have concealed from investors that the company was earning substantial revenue from this illegal promotion, and was subject to an extensive government investigation. Materially false and misleading statements were claimed to have been made to investors between January 2006 and January 2009 (the 'class period'). Furthermore, investors claimed that false financial results and reports were filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission that did not sufficiently account for, or disclose, probable loss contingencies resulting from Pfizer's off-label marketing, as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Three days after the end of the class period, Pfizer announced it had agreed to pay $2.3bn to settle allegations by the US Department of Justice that it had engaged in off-label marketing. That day, Pfizer's share price dropped from $17.45 to $15.65. Mike Dowd, partner at RGRD, said: "We are very pleased the court approved the settlement providing a $400m recovery for Pfizer investors. "In granting the approval, the court found that the settlement and the plan of allocation -- i.e. the formula for how the recovery will be shared among the class of Pfizer investors -- was fair and reasonable." The precise allocation to class members will be determined. PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Class Action Pending in Quebec Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris International Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2015, that the Quebec Court of Appeal has yet to issue its decision regarding a motion, heard by the court on July 9, 2015, to cancel the order of the Superior Court of the District of Montreal, issued on May 27, 2015, that PMI's Canadian affiliate, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), pay an initial deposit of approximately CAD 246 million into a trust account pending the merits appeal of the Quebec class actions judgment. The trial court had ordered, as part of its judgment, that RBH and the other defendants make initial deposits of a portion of the damages award within 60 days. Should the Court of Appeal deny the motion for cancellation of the order, PMI expects to incur a pre-tax charge of approximately CAD 246 million (approximately $199 million), or an after-tax charge of $0.09 per share. Depending on developments, this charge would likely be recorded as tobacco litigation-related expenses in the second quarter of 2015. In the event of a denial of the motion for cancellation by the court, revised Schedules and any other relevant information will be furnished promptly in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, to the extent relevant. The cases are Cecilia Letourneau v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and Conseil Quebecois sur le Tabac et la Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. JTI- Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. (Superior Court of the District of Montreal, Province of Quebec). PINTO TRANSFER: "Carrandi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------- Diandra Dian Carrandi, and all others similarly-situated v. Pinto Transfer & Packing Corp., Jenny Baez and Delse Perez, Case No. 1:15-cv-22879 (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for the Defendants' violations of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate a freight shipping and trucking company, running freight hauling business from Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. Feld, Esq. DANIEL T FELD P.A. 20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Ste 403 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (786) 923-5899 E-mail: danielfeld.esq@gmail.com - and - Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE 1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2 Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Tel: (305) 448-9292 Fax: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: mamane@gmail.com PMFG INC: Bridges Files Amended Suit Over CECO Merger ----------------------------------------------------- Robert M. Bridges ("Bridges"), individually and on behalf of similarly situated shareholders of PMFG, Inc. ("PMFG") and derivatively on behalf of PMFG, on May 19, 2015, commenced an action in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Action"). CECO Environmental Corp. ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO), Top Gear Acquisition II LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO) and each of the members of the board of directors of PMFG were named as defendants in the Texas Action. On July 10, 2015, Bridges filed an amended petition in connection with the Texas Action, PMFG, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 13, 2015. Among others, the lawsuit alleges that, "Unfortunately for PMFG's public stockholders, the Proposed Acquisition was a product of a hopelessly flawed and unfair process that was driven by one of the Company's largest stockholders, Cannell Capital LLC ("Cannell"). Cannell is an activist hedge fund that specializes in making investments in public companies that it deems to be underperforming or undervalued. Upon acquiring a substantial position in a target company, Cannell will utilize proxy contests and public castigation of the company's officers and directors in order to induce its desired course of action for that company." He is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: 214/744-3000 Facsimile: 214/744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619/231-1058 Facsimile: 619/231-7423 - and - Hamilton P. Lindley, Esq. DUNNAM DUNNAM HARMON WEST LINDLEY & RYAN LLP State Bar No. 24044838 4125 W. Waco Drive Waco, TX 76710 Telephone: 254/753-6437 Facsimile: 254/753-7434 A copy of the amended petition in the Texas Action is available at http://is.gd/sBhEYG PMFG INC: Terry and Georgia Brown File Class Action --------------------------------------------------- PMFG, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 13, 2015, that Terry and Georgia Brown, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated shareholders of PMFG, Inc. ("PMFG"), on July 17, 2015, commenced an action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Action"). CECO Environmental Corp. ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO), Top Gear Acquisition II LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO) and each of the members of the board of directors of PMFG were named as defendants in the Delaware Action. A copy of the verified class action complaint in the Delaware Action is available at http://is.gd/ljwYvx The Plaintiffs are represented by: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Tel: (610) 667-6200 PRO TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Silva" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Antonio Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pro Transport, Inc., Oscar Acharandio, and Tony Menendez, Case No. 1:15-cv-23028-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a Florida-based transportation company that provides logistic solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM RENO HOUSING: Faces "Roces" Suit Over Failure to Pay All Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Joaquin Roces, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Reno Housing Authority and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:2015-cv-00408 (D. Nev., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly pay all wages due in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Reno Housing Authority a municipal corporation under Chapter 315 Nevada Revised Statute. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Leah L. Jones, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NV 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermanbuck.com leah@thiermanbuck.com RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT: Court Approves $335MM Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ A Federal Court has finalized a $335 million global settlement of a class action lawsuit brought by New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund on behalf of purchasers of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) issued by Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., (RALI). Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC served as lead counsel in the consolidated class action. On July 31, 2015, Judge Katherine Failla, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, gave final approval to a $235 million settlement with underwriters Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., and UBS Securities LLC. She also approved a plan for distribution to investors of those funds as well as the previously approved $100 million settlement with RALI, its affiliates, and the individual Defendants that was reached in in 2013. This global settlement marks an end to a long and complicated class action over MBS offerings that RALI and certain of its affiliates issued and sold to the New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund and other investors from 2006 through 2007. The case took seven years of intense litigation to resolve. In terms of investor recovery, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs, Joel P. Laitman, of Cohen Milstein, termed the settlement "exceptional in that a meaningful recovery to investors was achieved despite enormous obstacles -- including the initial denial of class certification by the District Court and the affirmance of the denial of class certification by the federal appeals court." According to Cohen Milstein Managing Partner Steven J. Toll, "This settlement brings closure and substantial monetary relief to investors who suffered losses in connection with these RALI mortgage-backed securities. Our litigation team persevered against all odds to achieve this long-awaited settlement for this Class of investors." The case involved allegations that RALI and its affiliates committed Securities Act violations in connection with the public offerings of the MBS and systematically disregarded the applicable underwriting guidelines when originating the mortgage loans underlying the securities at issue. Despite RALI and its affiliates seeking voluntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the Plaintiffs in 2013 secured a $100 million settlement from RALI and its affiliates that is part of the $335 million total settlement. In addition to Laitman and Toll, the Lead Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Christopher Lometti, Michael Eisenkraft, Julie G. Reiser, Daniel B. Rehns, Kenneth M. Rehns, and S. Douglas Bunch, all of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases, including securities fraud actions, Cohen Milstein, with over 80 attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and Denver, Colo. For more information, visit http://www.cohenmilstein.comor call (202) 408-4600. Christopher Lometti,Esq. Michael Eisenkraft, Esq. Julie G. Reiser, Esq. Daniel B. Rehns, Esq. Kenneth M. Rehns,Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Ave NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 t: 202 408 4600 f: 202 408 4699 http://www.cohenmilstein.com/ SAYVILLE TOWN: "Ellsayed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Ellsayed, and all others similarly-situated v. Sayville Town House, Inc. dba Moriches Bay Diner, George Nikolopoulos, and Spiro Nikolopoulos, Case No. 2:15-cv-04506 (E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a diner operating as Moriches Bay Diner in Moriches, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Albert Adam Breud, II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT ADAM BREUD, PLLC 356 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ste. 3 Commack, NY 11725 Tel: (631) 543-3030 Fax: (631) 543-2888 E-mail: breudlaw@optonline.net SCHIFF NUTRITION: Sued in Cal. Over False Product Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. and Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03669-EDL (N.D. Cal., August 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged false and fraudulent advertising of MegaRed Omega-3 Krill Oil supplements in 300 mg, 500 mg, and 1000 mg strengths. The Defendants are manufacturers of household, cleaning, and food products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq. Dina E. Micheletti, Esq. FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315 San Ramon, CA 94583 Telephone: 925-543-2555 Facsimile: 925-369-0344 E-mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com dem@fazmiclaw.com - and - Thomas J. Misny, Esq. THOMAS J. MISNY, M.D., INC. 7319 Eagle Mills Road Waite Hill, OH 44094 Telephone: (440) 256-1950 Facsimile: (440) 256-1950 E-mail: misnynt@netscape.net SCOTTS MIRACLE: Court Certifies EZ Seed(R) Labelling Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The following statement regarding In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727, is being issued by Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and was authorized by a federal court. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. You may be affected by a class action lawsuit alleging fraud- based, warranty, contract, and unjust enrichment claims against The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Inc. and The Scotts Company LLC (collectively "Scotts") alleging that EZ Seed(R) does not grow grass at all or, in the alternative does not grow grass "50% Thicker With Half the Water* *Versus ordinary seed when each was watered at half the recommended rate. Results may vary," as advertised. The lawsuit is called In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No. 12-cv-4727, and is in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on behalf of a "Class," or group of people, that could include you. This notice summarizes your rights and options. More information is in a detailed Notice available at the website below. If you're included, you have to decide whether to stay in the Class and be bound by the results, or ask to be excluded and keep your right to sue Scotts. The validity of the claims has not been proven. There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will be. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Toll Free: (877) 247-4292 Phone: (212) 983-9330 jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com Bursor & Fisher, P.A 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 NY Office: 646-837-7150 CA Office: 925-300-4455 Email: info@bursor.com SIMS MUNICIPAL: Faces "Lugo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Lugo and others similarly situated v. Sims Municipal Recycling of NY LLC, Simsmetal East LLC d/b/a Sims metal Management, Case No. 1:15-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a metal recycling company that buys, processes and sells ferrous and non-ferrous recycled metals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Antollino, Esq. 275 7th Avenue, Suite 705 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (2120 332-7397 Facsimile: (212) 334-7399 E-mail: Gantollino@nyc.rr.com - and - Trang Q. Tran, Esq. TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P. 9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (713) 223-8855 Facsimile: (713) 489-7124 E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com SIRIUSXM RADIO: Reaches $1.2-Mil. Settlement in Intern's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- All Access reported that a motion for settlement has been filed in an intern's class action lawsuit against SIRIUSXM RADIO alleging that the company should have paid its interns but did not. SIRIUS will pay $1,297,350 into a settlement fund to settle the suit, covering awards to claimants, attorney's fees, and other fees. The motion was filed jointly on by the attorneys for plaintiffs JUSTIN VITETTA (who replaced MELISSA TIERNEY as named plaintiff) and DANIEL MILLER and attorneys for SIRIUSXM in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NEW YORK. The suit claimed that SIRIUSXM interns "routinely performed the most mundane and repetitive tasks that were nonetheless essential to SIRIUSXM's operations, and thus undeniably reduced the need for additional paid employees and greatly benefitted SIRIUS" but that "interns were not provided any training similar to an educational environment." SOLAZYME INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company") securities between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014. The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and omitted material information concerning the production capacity of its oil producing facility in Moema, Brazil. In particular, it is alleged that Solazyme improperly concealed ongoing construction delays caused by inadequate access to electricity and steam utility services. If you suffered a loss in Solazyme you have until August 24, 2015 to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/SZYM-Info-Request- Form-835. Vincent Wong, Esq. The Law Offices of Vincent Wong 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: www.wongesq.com/ TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces "Selmon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Selmon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation d/b/a Abrazo Health Care, Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a Abrazo Health Care, VHS of Arrowhead, Inc., d/b/a Arrowhead Hospital, Case No. 2:15-cv-01549- DMF (D. Ariz., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate several hospitals under the name Abrazo Healthcare in Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Bonnett, Esq. Ravi Patel, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C. 1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: dbonnett@martinebonnett.com rpatel@martinbonnett.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Ricardo Del Rio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-MEJ (N.D. Cal., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate the Uber ride sharing service. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. Amy T. Wootton, Esq. Evelina Serafini, Esq. HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC 555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 533-4160 Facsimile: (213) 533-4167 E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com awootton@hamnerlaw.com eserafini@hamnerlaw.com UNITED CONTINENTAL: Anticipates Consolidation of Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ United Continental Holdings, Inc. anticipates the class action lawsuits that asserted claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act will be consolidated into multi-district litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On June 30, 2015, UAL received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") seeking documents and information from the Company in connection with a DOJ investigation related to statements and decisions about airline capacity. "We are working with the DOJ to provide the requested documents and information. We are not able to predict what action, if any, might be taken in the future by the DOJ or other governmental authorities as a result of the investigation," the Company said. Beginning on July 1, 2015, subsequent to the announcement of the CID, UAL and United were named as defendants in multiple class action lawsuits that asserted claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, which lawsuits the Company anticipates will be consolidated into multi-district litigation. The complaints generally allege collusion among U.S. airlines on capacity impacting airfares and seek treble damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the class action lawsuits. UNIVITA HEALTH: Terminated Employees File Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Nina Lincoff, writing for Business Journal, reproted that a class action complaint was filed on behalf of about 1,000 terminated Univita Health employees in Delaware District Court. The Miramar-based home health care company allegedly terminated the employees on July 28, the day the company abruptly lost all of its HMO contracts to provide products and services to Medicaid patients in Florida. A representative for Univita did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The lead plaintiff in the case is Omar M. Olivier, a former employee at Univita's 15800 S.W. 25th St. facility in Miramar. He was one of about 1,000 employees who worked at or reported to the facility who received a termination letter on July 28 stating that they were terminated that day, according to the complaint. The problem is that the employees were not provided the 60 days' advanced written notice of their termination, according to the complaint. The complaint seeks to recover 60 days' worth wages and benefits for the terminated employees, as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. New York-based Outten & Golden LLP and Delaware-based Loizides, P.A. filed the complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs. Univita was previously based in Minnesota, but moved to South Florida in 2014. V&J SUSHI: Sued Over "White Tuna" --------------------------------- Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in a sushi class action, a diner claims a Southern California restaurant's "white tuna" is actually escolar, a "succulent" fish that induces diarrhea. Lead plaintiff Cyntia Erickson sued V&J Sushi dba Maki Yaki Costa Mesa and its owner In Won Ko, in Orange County Court. Erickson claims that in October 2014 she "ordered certain items off the restaurant menu including fish labeled 'white tuna.' Plaintiff discovered through a species identification test that the 'white tuna' was actually escolar, a completely different family of fish." Escolar, a type of snake mackerel found in deep tropical waters worldwide, cannot metabolize wax esters found in its natural diet. A leading flavor chemist told Courthouse News that many esters are flavorful compounds that lend food a rich, fatty taste, of the sort that humans crave. The esters the escolar cannot metabolize build up in its flesh. The resulting oily substance, gempylotoxin, in named after the fish's family, Gempylidae, and is similar to castor or mineral oil. Escolar flesh carries an oil content of around 25 percent, which acts like a natural laxative. Reports of illness related to the fish include cramping, nausea, diarrhea and other abdominal pains. Gempylotoxin, while indigestible, is not toxic to humans. Food writer Harold McGee described escolar's ill effects in "On Food and Cooking." "The wax esters therefore pass intact, their lubricating properties undiminished, from the small intestine into the colon, where a sufficient quantity will defeat our normal control over the ultimate disposition of food residues," McGee wrote. Aficionados call the firm, white fleshed fish "buttery" and "balanced," and suggest limiting portions to 6 ounces or less. The late chef Charlie Trotter, in ''Charlie Trotter's Seafood," called escolar "wonderfully succulent.'' "A spoon is all you really need,'' Trotter wrote. Trotter paired the fish with braised endive, fava beans and a veal stock reduction. Oceana, an environmental group, tested 114 samples of "tuna" from 2010 to 2013, and found that 84 percent of them were actually escolar. In her July 29 lawsuit, Erickson claims: "In Won Ko intentionally participated in the deceptive mislabeling of escolar by the combination of: (1) ratifying the restaurant menu that omits the word escolar and (2) approving purchases of escolar with knowledge that the restaurant menu omitted the word escolar and called it 'white tuna.'" Escolar and its West Coast cousin, walu, are often fraudulently sold as butterfish, super white tuna, oil fish or bincyo. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, after receiving complaints over diarrhea related to escolar consumption, issued a bulletin recommending against importation of the fish in the early 1990s. Italy and Japan banned the sale of escolar due to its side effects. Canada, Sweden and Denmark all require that all escolar come with warning labels. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency suggests grilling the fish to remove as much oil as possible. "Defendants' practice of bait and switch sale of seafood constitutes a violation of Civil Code section 1750 et seq.," Erickson's lawsuit states. Erickson's proposed class includes California residents who purchased white tuna from the defendants in the past 4 years, and "without their knowledge" were served escolar. She seeks class certification and punitive damages for deceptive advertising, unfair business practices and consumer law violations. She is represented by Wade Miller of Long Beach, who could not be reached for comment. A phone call to the restaurant was not answered. V&J UNITED: Illegally Retains Drivers Gratuities, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Crawford, William Lewis, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. V & J United Enterprise, LLC, V & J National Enterprise, LLC, and Pizza Hut of America, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-0098-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., August 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged retention of delivery drivers' gratuities. The Defendants are Pizza Hut franchisees and operates multiple Pizza Hut restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Lipsky, Esq. BRONSON LIPSKY LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Telephone: (212) 392-4772 E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com - and - Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 E-mail: nyj@aol.com danalgottlieb@aol.com VISA INC: 1,179 Merchants Want to Rejoin Cash Settlement Class -------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Interchange Multidistrict Litigation (MDL), on January 14, 2015, following a court-approved process to give class members who previously opted out of the damages portion of the class settlement an option to rejoin it, the class administrator submitted a report stating that it had received 1,179 requests by merchants to rejoin the cash settlement class, some of which may include multiple merchants. VISA INC: Appeals Filed in Consumer Interchange Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- On November 26, 2014, in the putative class action filed on behalf of an alleged class of Visa and MasterCard payment cardholders, the court dismissed plaintiffs' federal law claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claim. Both sides have asked the court to reconsider aspects of its decision, and have filed notices of appeal. No updates were provided in the Consumer Interchange Litigation in Visa Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. VISA INC: Reached Deal With Some Merchants Over Payment Cards ------------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of the date of filing this quarterly report, Visa has reached settlement agreements with a number of merchants representing approximately 27% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out in the Interchange Opt-out Litigation. Beginning in May 2013, more than 45 opt-out cases have been filed by hundreds of merchants in various federal district courts, generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. A number of the cases also include allegations that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments, and one of the cases seeks an injunction against the fixed acquirer network fee. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A., Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard International Incorporated, although some also include certain U.S. financial institutions as defendants. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its subsidiaries filed an opt-out complaint that also added Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe Services Inc. as defendants. Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe Services Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Wal-Mart's claims against them. As of the date of filing this quarterly report, Visa has reached settlement agreements with a number of merchants representing approximately 27% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out. On December 23, 2014, a similar case was filed in New Mexico state court by New Mexico's attorney general on behalf of the state, state agencies, and citizens of the state, generally pursuing claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. On May 15, 2015, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss. If this case is transferred to or otherwise included in MDL 1720, it will be covered litigation for purposes of the retrospective responsibility plan. In the Texas state court case filed by merchants, which generally pursues claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and, on May 19, 2015, the court entered an agreed final judgment. VISA INC: Webloyalty.com, GameStop Seek to Dismiss Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on January 9, 2015, Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa each filed motions to dismiss the second amended class action complaint in the Data Pass Litigation. VISION GUIDANCE: "Stanley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matlock Stanley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vision Guidance Services, L.P., Case No. 4:15-cv-02315 (S.D. Tex., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a Texas-based oilfield service company with significant operations in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com VOLVO CARS: Faces "Jenner" Suit Over Defective Rdar Software ------------------------------------------------------------ Theresa Jenner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 06152-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., August 12, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the current or former owners of a Volvo-branded car, with defect in the "rdar" software for the satellite receiver. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC conducts substantial business within New Jersey and throughout the United States through the marketing, distribution, and sale of Volvo-branded vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Alan Venti, Esq. WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC Woodland Falls Corporate Center 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1163 Telephone: (856) 667-0500 Facsimile: (856) 667-513 E-mail: joeventi@wcblegal.com - and - Michael J. Quirk, Esq. WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 557-0099 Facsimile: (215) 557-0673 E-mail: mquirk@wcblegal.com - and - Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Martin Woodward, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 6116 N. Central Expressway., Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 443-4300 Facsimile: (214) 443-0358 E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com - and - Andrew S. Kierstead, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW KIERSTEAD 1001 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (508) 224-6246 Facsimile: (508) 224-4356 E-mail: ajkier@aol.com - and - Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER N.WASYLYK 1307 Chalkstone Avenue Providence, RI 02908 Telephone: (401) 831-7730 Facsimile: (401) 861-6064 E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com WCA MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Velasquez and Jose Ortiz, individually and behalf of all others similarly situated v. WCA Management Company L.P., Case No. 4:15-cv-02329 (S.D. Tex., August 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. WCA Management Company L.P. is a Houston-based non-hazardous solid waste management company providing waste collection, transfer, material processing and disposal services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence B. Robinson, Esq. Michelle Mishoe Miller, Esq. KENNARD, BLANKENSHIP, ROBINSON, PC 2603 Augusta Dr., Ste. 1450 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: (713) 742-0900 Facsimile: (713) 742-0951 E-mail: terrence.robinson@kennardlaw.com michelle.miller@kennardlaw.com WCA WASTE: "Ordonez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fredy Ordonez, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. WCA Waste Corporation, Manbro Contracting, LLC, Aurelio AlonsO, and Melissa Alonso, Case No. 4:15-cv-02312 (S.D. Tex., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operates a non-hazardous solid waste management company providing waste collection, transfer, and material processing and disposal services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 WIRELESS AND BEYOND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Sincere E. Coles and Kevin Ventura v. Wireless and Beyond Dallas LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02374-RTW (S.D. Md., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Wireless and Beyond Dallas LLC operates authorized cricket wireless retail stores, with its corporate head office located at 609 Fairway Lakes Dr., Garland, Texas 75044 The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Nyombi, Esq. Ikechukwu K. Emejuru, Esq. EMEJURU & NYOMBI L.L.C 8403 Colesville Road, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (240) 638-278 Facsimile: (800) 250 7923 E-mail: anyombi@enylaw.com imejuru@enylaw.com WOLVERINE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Lane" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Lane and Eric C. Zamora v. Wolverine Construction, Inc. and Cesar Rivera, Case No. 5:15-cv-00679-DAE (W.D. Tex., August 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate an oilfield construction and well- site services company operating in South Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Portia J. Bott, Esq. WATT, JONES & BOTT 224 W. Main Street Kenedy, TX 78119 Telephone: (830) 583-7019 Facsimile: (830) 583-0856 E-mail: lawyerbott@gmail.com XOMA CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a securities fraud class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that officers and directors of XOMA Corporation (NASDAQGM: XOMA) violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015, by making materially false and misleading statements about XOMA's business prospects. XOMA discovers and develops antibody-based therapeutics in the United States, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. The company developed gevokizumab, a drug believed to have the potential to address the inflammatory causes of a wide range of diseases with unmet medical needs. XOMA Misrepresents its Drug Trial According to the complaint, XOMA initiated three clinical trials to evaluate gevokizumab for the treatment of, among other things, Behcet's disease uveitis, a multisystem inflammatory disorder most commonly involving the eyes which could lead to blindness. Among the three trials is the Phase 3 EYEGUARD-B study for patients with Behcet's decease uveitis outside of the United States. The complaint alleges that the company repeatedly made material representations concerning the imminent commercialization of gevokizumab, which in turn artificially inflated the prices of XOMA's securities. Specifically, the company led investors to believe that the Phase 3 study would be concluded successfully and that approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would then be sought. On May 28, 2015, XOMA informed the market that it had reached its target exacerbation event as specified in the gevokizumab study, causing an increase in trading and leading to nearly an 8% jump in its share price on the day of the news. However, on July 22, 2015, XOMA revealed that the study did not meet the primary endpoint of first acute ocular exacerbation. On this news, XOMA stock fell $3.48, or over 79%, to open at $0.91 per share on July 22, 2015 on extremely high volume. XOMA Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Darnell R. Donahue, Esq. Robbins Arroyo LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com Phone: (619) 525-3990 Toll Free (800) 350-6003 www.robbinsarroyo.com XUNLEI LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming deadline in the class action filed on behalf of investors of Xunlei Limited ("Xunlei" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: XNET). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between June 24, 2014 and May 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until August 7, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action. According to the lawsuit, Xunlei operates an internet platform in China based on cloud computing to provide users with quick and easy access to digital media content through its core products and services. One of the company's premier products was Xunlei Kankan, a video-on-demand service permitting users to view content on a variety of devices. On June 24, 2014, Xunlei completed its IPO of 7,315,000 American depositary shares ("ADS"), at a price of $12.00 per ADS, indicating to investors strong potential growth in the areas of content distribution, especially the growth of its Kankan video-on-demand service. Then, on May 21, 2015, the Company issued a press release announcing the unaudited financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. Therein, the Company stated in relevant part that revenues had decreased 8.4% from the corresponding period of, and a 14.9% decrease from the previous quarter. The Company also reported an operating loss of $1.4 million, and attributed the poor financial results to, "transition to mobile internet," and the divestiture of Xunlei's Kankan service. On this news, ADSs of Xunlei declined $1.69 per share, or nearly 15%, to close on May 21, 2015 at $9.71 per share, on unusually heavy volume. If you purchased shares of Xunlei prior to May 20, 2015, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Lesley Portnoy, Esq Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-free: (888) 773-9224 Fax: (310) 432-1495 info@glancylaw.com YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Hutchison, Eduardo Luna, Jose Luna, Chris Debroeck and Erasmo Nava, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. YellowJacket Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00343 (S.D. Tex., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. YellowJacket Oilfield Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability company that provides services to oil and gas production facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 ZIRTUAL INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice ------------------------------------------------------------ Felice Martin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Zirtual Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00701-UNA (D. Del., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days advance written notice of termination in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Zirtual Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Loizides, Esq. LOIZIDES, P.A. 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 654-0248 Facsimile: (302) 364-0728 E-mail: loizides@loizides.com - and - Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 ********* 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 * * *