/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150825.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, August 25, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 169
Headlines
ACTAVIS PLC: Sued Over Memantine Hydrochloride Drug Monopoly
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
APPLE: iMessage Class Suit Status Rejected
BRASKEM SA: Aug. 31 Lead Plaitiff Bid Deadline
CANADA: First Nation Day Scholars Class Suit Certified
CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Cuit Over Poor Network System
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Class Suit Over Treasury Manipulation
CYPRESS MEDIA: Suit Fails for Lack of Standard-Form Service Deal
DELTA AIR: Judge Allows Bag Fees Class Suit to Proceed
DOUGLAS AVENUE: Sued By Workers For Not Paying Overtime
EAST RAMAPO, NY: Faces Class Suit re Overspending on Legal Fees
EDISON INT'L: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
EZCORP INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Biometric Class Suit Moved to San Francisco
FIAT CHRYSLER: Belleville Atty Named Plaintiff in Jeep Hack
FIRST STUDENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Motty" Suit Says
GENERAL ELECTIC: Retirees Seek Class Status for Health Care Suit
HELIX ENERGY: Investors Sue Over Fraudulent Prices
HILMAR CHEESE: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Road Hog Suit Says
HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
IPC HEALTHCARE: Faces "Crescente" Suit Over Proposed Team Merger
JOHN DOE: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JORDAN: Faces US$263MM Class Suit Over Discriminatory Practices
JP MORGAN: "Hart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KEURIG GREEN: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
LA BELLA: Faces "Jerez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LELAND STANFORD: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
LRR ENERGY: Faces "Hurwitz" Suit Over Proposed Vanguard Merger
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Pickle" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MADISON GLOBAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Minimum Wages
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Data Breach Class Suit
MDC PARTNERS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
MITSUBISHI: Investigation on Fuso Medium Duty Trucks Underway
MOBILE MARTIN: Faces "Pituch" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NEW SOUTH WALES: Hugos Lounge to File Class Suit Over Bar Closure
NOBLE-INTERSTATE: Faces "Melara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NRG ENERGY: "Stone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ON DECK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ON DECK: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
PAE GROUP: Class Suits Are Not Created Equal Under CAFA
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
POPE FOODS: Faces "Abdulhe" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces "Gruby" Suit in D.N.J. Over Automated Calls
SMC INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SOLARWINDS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Cal. Over Lease Contract Breach
ST. JOHN'S: Faces "Bourne" Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Negligence
STANDARD DRYWALLS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
STARKIST: Suit Says Big 3 Conspire to Fix U.S. Tuna Prices
THB CONSTRUCTION: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TIME WARNER: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Automated Telephone Calls
TRUECAR INC: Removed "Shen" Class Suit to C.D. California
UBER: Labor Lawyers Debate Bid Seeking Class Status
UBER: District Judge Denies Class Status to Worker Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Bank" Suit in N.Y. Over Automated Calls
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Claims Handling Practice
UNITED NURSING: Faces "Hadley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VALENCIA HOLDING: Calif. High Court Upholds Class Action Waivers
VERLA LOFTON: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
WHOLE FOODS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
XUNLEI LIMITED: Howard Smith Files Securities Class Suit
* Alabama Bans on Consumer Class Actions in Jeopardy
*********
ACTAVIS PLC: Sued Over Memantine Hydrochloride Drug Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, for itself
and all others similarly situated v. Actavis, Plc, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-06549 (S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2015), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' unlawful scheme to maintain
their monopoly in the market for memantine hydrochloride, marketed
by Forest under the brand name "Namenda."
Actavis, Plc is an Irish corporation that develops, markets, and
distributes branded pharmaceutical products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Safisrtein, Esq.
Domenicao Minerva, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 564-1637
E-mail: PSafisrtein@ForThePeople.com
DMinerva@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
MILLER LAW LLC
115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 332-3400
E-mail: MMiller@millerlawllc.com
LFanning@millerlawllc.com
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
of investors, who purchased American Depositary Receipts (ADR's)
of AirMedia Group, Inc. ("AirMedia" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:AMCN) between April 15, 2015 and June 15, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Wolf Haldenstein encourages all
shareholders who suffered losses on ADRs purchased within the
Class Period to contact us immediately at classmember@whafh.com or
(800) 575-0735.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the purported sale
of a 5% interest in AirMedia's advertising subsidiary, AirMedia
Group Co., Ltd. ("AM Advertising"), to Shenzhen Liantronics Co.,
Ltd., and the valuation of the subsidiary negotiated in the deal.
AirMedia's press release announcing the sale stated that the deal
"reflected the total valuation of AM Advertising of RMB3 billion,"
or $500 million. The complaint further alleges that defendants
made additional statements during the Class Period claiming that
RMB3 billion/$500 million was a solid valuation of the AM
Advertising subsidiary.
As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements during
the Class Period, AirMedia ADRs traded at artificially inflated
prices, reaching a high price of $7.70 per ADR in intraday trading
on June 15, 2015.
On June 15, 2015, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into a definitive agreement to sell a 75%
equity interest in AM Advertising to Beijing Longde Wenchuang Fund
Management Co., Ltd. for RMB2.1 billion/$344.4 million,
significantly less than the purported value the Company had
claimed the subsidiary was worth during the Class Period.
As a result of this disclosure, the price of AirMedia ADR's fell
more than 50% over the subsequent days.
If you purchased AirMedia securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than August 24, 2015, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to the "AirMedia Investigation."
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
gstone@whafh.com
donovan@whafh.com
classmember@whafh.com
AMERICAN EXPRESS: 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 American Express Company (NYSE:AXP) ("American Express" or
"the Company") over the failure to provide information regarding
its dealings with Costco. If you have losses in American Express
securities during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman Partner
Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling
(510) 725-3000, emailing AXP@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb-
securities.com/investigations/AXP.
The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who
purchased American Express securities between October 16, 2014 and
February 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 September 28, 2015. You do not
need to move for lead plaintiff to be a member of the Class or to
participate in any recovery.
In September 2014, American Express announced that it was ending
its co-branding relationship with Costco Canada. Then on February
12, 2015, American Express announced that it had lost the U.S.
Costco co-branding relationship, which generated 8% of the
Company's revenues in 2014 and that one in ten U.S. Amex cards was
issued pursuant to the U.S. Costco co-branding arrangement.
Additionally, 20% of the Company's outstanding loans had been made
pursuant to that agreement. As a result, American Express
predicted that its 2015 and 2016 profits would suffer and it would
not be able to make any headway on its previous efforts to
increase earnings per share until 2017.
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
complaint alleges that Defendants issued false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse information
regarding the Company's business and prospects, including the
materiality and status of its negotiations with Costco.
If you were negatively impacted by your investment in American
Express securities between October 16, 2014 and February 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/
APPLE: iMessage Class Suit Status Rejected
------------------------------------------
Lance Whitney, writing for CNET, reported that Apple got a partial
victory in a lawsuit over text messages.
In a ruling handed down, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said that a
lawsuit accusing Apple of not delivering text messages sent from
iOS devices to Android devices could not proceed as a class action
suit, Bloomberg reported.
The ruling is important for Apple -- class action status would
have opened the floodgates for multiple people to participate,
making a loss or settlement all the more costly.
Filed by Samsung phone owner Adrienne Moore in 2014, the suit
argues that Apple kept text messages sent from its iMessage system
to Android users from arriving without notifying either the sender
or receiver of the glitch.
Apple's iMessage text messaging feature allows iOS users to text
other iOS users without eating up their data allowance. But
apparently an issue occurs if you dump your iOS device and jump
ship to Android. Since iMessage rolled out in 2011, many former
iPhone users and now Android users say that texts sent to them
using iMessage fall into some hole where they're never delivered,
even though the sender thinks they've reached their destination.
The glitch shows the potential pitfalls when using different text
messaging apps among different mobile operating systems. That's
one reason why apps such as WhatsApp have become popular, as they
use one single text messaging service for all users.
Apple has suggested workarounds for the problem. One fix is to
deactivate iMessage in the settings panel of your iPhone before
switching over the SIM card or phone number to a new Android
phone. However, that fix hasn't worked for a number of affected
users. Another workaround is to ask iPhone users to delete you as
a contact and then re-add you in the attempt to wipe out the
iMessage connection between the two phone numbers.
The lawsuit said that Apple neglected to reveal that switching to
a non-iOS device could result in the non-delivery of text
messages, further claiming that customers who did switch from
Apple were "penalized and unable to obtain the full benefits of
their wireless-service contracts."
Moore had been seeking class action status to incorporate other
users affected by the problem, but Judge Koh's ruling has shot
down her request. Koh said that the case could not proceed as a
class action suit because it wasn't clear that all the proposed
members of the lawsuit were inconvenienced as a result of any
"contractual breach or interference" due to the iMessage system,
Bloomberg reported.
Though the class action status was squashed, that doesn't mean the
individual lawsuit by Moore is going away. Last November, Koh said
that Moore has the right to attempt to prove that Apple did in
fact obstruct her use of an Android phone and hampered full use of
her Verizon contract.
"Plaintiff does not have to allege an absolute right to receive
every text message in order to allege that Apple's intentional
acts have caused an 'actual breach or disruption of the
contractual relationship,'" Koh wrote at the time.
BRASKEM SA: Aug. 31 Lead Plaitiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors thata class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a class of investors
who purchased shares of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company")
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between June 1, 2010 and
March 11, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Braskem investors
have until August 31, 2015 to file a motion to serve as lead
plaintiff in the class action.
Braskem is the largest producer of thermoplastic resins in the
Americas. Braskem buys naphtha, which accounts for half of its
production costs and is the main ingredient for making its
petrochemicals, from Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras
("Petrobras"). Petrobras provides approximately 70% of Braskem's
naphtha needs.
According to the complaint, the truth began to emerge on March 11,
2015, when a report from a Sao Paulo newspaper, Folha de S. Paolo,
implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding
Petrobras. As reported by Folha de S. Paolo, testimony from a
former Petrobras executive alleged that Braskem engaged in a
bribery and corruption scandal that enabled the Company to
purchase raw materials at favorable prices. According to the
testimony Braskem allegedly paid annual bribes to Petrobras,
initially set at $5 million, to buy crude derivatives such as
naphtha and propylene at low prices from at least 2006 to 2012.
After reports of the pervasive bribery scandal surfaced, the
Company's equity and debt securities prices fell sharply and
investors have been damaged, with Braskem ADRs falling $1.72 per
ADR, to close on March 11, 2015 at $6.71 per ADR, an one day
decline of over 20% on unusually heavy volume.
Braskem investors have until August 31, 2015 to file a motion to
serve as lead plaintiff in the class action. If you have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement, 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.
Casey Sadler, 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
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com
CANADA: First Nation Day Scholars Class Suit Certified
------------------------------------------------------
Christine Wood, writing for Coast Reporter, reported that a class
action lawsuit filed against Canada on behalf of all First Nation
day scholars and their children has been certified in Federal
Court and is now moving forward.
Sechelt (sh¡sh lh) Nation hereditary chief and councillor Garry
Feschuk told members of the Sunshine Coast Regional District
(SCRD) board about the certification on July 23, noting the judge
who certified the lawsuit also called for a mediated settlement.
"We will try a court-ordered mediated settlement, and if that
doesn't work, we'll go to trial," Feschuk said.
The class action lawsuit, which was launched in 2012 by the
Sechelt Nation and the Kamloops (tk'eml£ps) Nation, was certified
on June 3, 2015. As of Aug. 4, no appeal had been filed.
"We got a letter a couple of weeks ago, that Canada wasn't going
to appeal the certification," Feschuk noted.
The class action seeks compensation for those who attended
residential school during the day, but were allowed to return home
at night (day scholars) as well as their children and all Indian
Bands affected by the loss of their language or culture as a
result of the schools.
It's broken down into three categories: the day scholar class, the
descendent class and the band class, Feschuk said.
Day scholars and descendents across Canada are automatically
covered by the class action lawsuit; however, if they want to opt
out, they must do so by Nov. 30, Feschuk said.
In the lawsuit, "descendents" are described as children of day
scholars, including those who were legally or traditionally
adopted.
Under the "band class," Indian Bands across Canada that had a
residential school (that housed day scholars) in or near them must
opt in to the class action lawsuit by Feb. 29, 2016.
Feschuk said the Federal Court recognized a total of 140
residential schools across Canada that housed day scholars, which
equates to upwards of 200 Indian Bands that could get involved in
the lawsuit.
He plans to give out official notices to the Indian Bands
identified once the court documents are all translated into
French, which is a stipulation of the Federal Court.
"That should be finalized," Feschuk told Coast Reporter.
In addition to getting the word out to other Indian Bands, Feschuk
said he and members of the Kamloops Nation will also push for a
meeting with the federal government to start the mediation
process.
Although an election has been called, he said, the sitting
government still has an obligation to start the process.
"As part of the court order, there has to be an attempt at
mediation," Feschuk said.
"We're hoping to meet with the leaders of the government soon to
see if, based on the TRC [Truth and Reconciliation Commission]
that came out in Ottawa and the 92 recommendations, if they're
focused on reconciliation and if they want to negotiate a
settlement on this one rather than go to trial."
At the July 23 SCRD meeting, Feschuk asked for a letter of support
from the board urging the federal government to settle out of
court.
"We've been talking on a one-on-one basis about support," said
SCRD board chair Garry Nohr. "Here's one opportunity for us to
prove it, and I hope you realize that when you see the vote, where
the board stands."
When the vote was called to draft a letter of support, all were in
favour, with Sechelt Mayor Bruce Milne noting the letter should
use the phrase "in the spirit of reconciliation."
CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Cuit Over Poor Network System
---------------------------------------------------------
Iain Thompson, writing for The Register, reported that Black Hat
2015 Fiat Chrysler is facing a class-action lawsuit in the US
after researchers proved they could wirelessly snatch control of
the engine management systems in some of its vehicles.
The lawsuit, filed in the southern district of Illinois, claims
Chrysler knew the networking systems in its cars were insecure.
The motoring giant offers a service called uConnect that connects
vehicles and their internal Wi-Fi to the public internet via the
cellular network, allowing people to check Facebook on the move,
or whatever.
Security researchers Chris Valasek and Charlie Miller warned, at
Black Hat 2014, that hackers could reach across the internet, and
exploit software vulnerabilities to interfere with hardware and
machinery in Chrysler's Jeeps.
Chrysler recalled 1.4 million vehicles just days after Miller and
Valasek proved that, yes, they could remotely control a Chrysler's
brakes and engine without permission via uConnect.
Amid the recall, the US National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration shed more light on the problem:
A communications port was unintentionally left in an open
condition allowing it to listen to and accept commands from
unauthenticated sources. Additionally, the radio firewall rules
were widely open by default which allowed external devices to
communicate with the radio.
Chrysler released a firmware update to address the remote-control
vulnerability, which triggered class-action lawsuit. It was
brought to court by Brian Flynn, and husband and wife duo George
and Kelly Brown. Flynn, of Belleville, Illinois, owns a 2014 Jeep
Grand Cherokee, as do the Browns, of Pacific, Missouri. The
Cherokee is included in the mass recall.
The trio's legal eagles claim the distribution of the security
software update was flawed. Car owners download the patch via
HTTP, and not secure HTTPS, which leaves the code vulnerable to
tampering by man-in-the-middle attackers, the filing claims.
The key to a civil damages case is proving harm, and since no one
has been hacked, such a claim should be hard to prove. So the
lawyers are working on the idea that the affected vehicles are now
worth less than they should be because of the flaw, and are
seeking recompense - at least $50,000 per affected owner.
The only problem with this is that the hack demonstrated by Miller
and Valasek is now impossible to exploit. At their Black Hat
presentation on (which was standing room only), the dynamic duo
explained that the hack was possible thanks to an open IP port on
the uConnect equipment in the cars.
Port 6667 was reachable from the public internet via the car's
uConnect cellular system, which piggybacks on Sprint's network:
accessing that port would allow you to control the car's systems
without authentication. You'd just need to know the vehicle's
public IP address.
The telco has now locked down its network, firewalling off access
to that port, so drivers needn't worry about it - but should still
install the patch anyway.
The legal challenge notwithstanding, Miller told The Register that
Chrysler could have solved all its problems if it had only used a
basic intrusion detection system that he and Valasek cobbled
together. The Can-no Hackalator 3000 system is gathering dust on
his desk, but implementing it would have cost very little and
saved Chrysler from its current woes.
The two said that the recall was very welcome news, because the
vulnerability was a viable attack vector. Valasek said he was sure
that the recall wouldn't have happened if the two hadn't gone
public.
Neither of the researchers has since been offered a job by a motor
manufacturer, but said that they do speak at car conferences and
get a warm response. In particular, attendees tell them that they
are finally getting a budget to PEN test vehicles.
CITIGROUP INC: Faces Class Suit Over Treasury Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------
Dani Kass, writing for Law360, reported that a Chicago resident
who purchased U.S. Treasuries filed a putative class action
against Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase &
Co. and several other major banks in New York federal court
alleging manipulation of the Treasury market.
Michael St. John is suing 23 primary dealers of Treasuries,
claiming they violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Commodity
Exchange Act by fixing the prices of Treasuries.
The other defendants include the Bank of Nova Scotia, New York
Agency, Barclays Capital Inc., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Bank of
America Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC, RBC Capital Markets LLC, RBS Securities Inc., SG
Americas Securities LLC, TD Securities (USA) LLC and UBS
Securities LLC.
"Sadly, these primary dealer-defendants abused their positions of
trust to their own ends," St. John said in the complaint.
"Defendants conspired to fix and otherwise manipulate the when-
issued treasuries market and related auction, at both the point of
purchase and the point of sale."
The suit alleges the banks used electronic chat rooms, instant
messaging and other communication to coordinate customer orders
and trading strategies in order to control the price of
Treasuries. The banks would decrease the prices when they were
buying them at auction from the U.S. Treasury and inflate them
when selling to buyers, St. John said.
He said there is no proper oversight to prevent this kind of
manipulation.
"While the Treasury Department has rules, and the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York audits the auctions, neither has enforcement
powers and there is no cohesive regulatory oversight in this
market," he said. "Primary dealers have taken advantage of this
gap in regulatory oversight to share proprietary client positions
and related information with supposed competitor primary dealers."
St. John is asking for an unspecified amount of damages.
In July, the United Food and Commercial Workers International
Union sued 24 financial institutions alleging the same
manipulation. That proposed class is estimated as including tens
of thousands of investors.
Another case alleging those manipulations by many of the same
defendants was filed by the pension fund State-Boston Retirement
System earlier that month.
Merrill Lynch and JPMorgan declined to comment. The remaining
defendants either didn't respond to requests for comment or
couldn't be reached.
St. John is represented by Linda P. Nussbaum of Nussbaum Law Group
PC, Michael E. Criden of Criden & Love PA and Scott P. Schlesinger
and Jeffrey L. Haberman of Schlesinger Law Offices PA.
The case is St. John v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency et
al, case number 1:15-cv-06139, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
CYPRESS MEDIA: Suit Fails for Lack of Standard-Form Service Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Plunkett, Esq. -- mplunkett@shb.com -- at Shook Hardy &
Bacon LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that may say that
daily print newspapers are a dying breed. Not Plaintiffs in
O'Shaughnessy v. Cypress Media, L.L.C., No. 4:13-CV-0947-DGK, 2015
WL 4197789, (W.D. Mo. July 13, 2015), who attempted to certify a
class action for their newspaper delivery service cut short. But
Plaintiffs' hopes for a certified class certainly died after a
recent order issued by Judge Kays reporting on the numerous ways
in which Plaintiffs failed to prove that their class should be
certified.
Cypress publishes three newspapers, the Kansas City Star, the Fort
Worth Star-Telegram, and the Belleville News-Democrat, in
Missouri, Texas, and Illinois, respectively, and has hundreds of
thousands of subscribers. As part of its newspaper delivery,
Cypress would deliver premium editions for holidays, special
events, or elections. As the name premium denotes, those editions
were charged at a higher rate. For some subscribers, Cypress
would charge for the premium addition by shortening the
subscriber's billing period. And the shortened billing period is
where the Plaintiffs took issue with their bills. No news is not
good news, said the Plaintiffs, who complained that the shortened-
subscription billing practice violated consumer protection
statutes, and they sought to represent a class of subscribers who
had their subscriptions cut short.
The court did not bring happy news to Plaintiffs. First, the
Court noted problems with typicality and adequacy for subscribers
to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the Belleville News-Democrat.
Plaintiffs subscribed to theKansas City Star but sought
certification on behalf of subscribers to all three newspapers --
not adequate, not typical. The court also took issue with the
fact that one of the named Plaintiffs was the brother of
Plaintiff's counsel: siblings apparently can't be trusted . . .
in a class action. The court next bemoaned the multiple states
involved. Choice of law is a problem for certification,
particularly "where, as here, the class action would have to be
litigated under the consumer-protection statutes of multiple
states." Id. at 9.
The biggest headline for the court was that there were no standard
agreements to "serve as common evidence on which to base class-
wide liability determinations." Id. at 7. As you would expect
out of a company who publishes papers every day, Cypress was
skilled at producing forms and used a number of different service
agreements that contained substantively different information
about how it billed the premium editions. The varying forms not
only destroyed commonality, but made it "impossible to determine
on a class-wide basis whether Cypress incurred any liability to
the class members," thereby destroying predominance as well. Id.
at 9.
So the newspaper survives. There were just too many papers --
well, service agreements anyway -- to certify the class.
DELTA AIR: Judge Allows Bag Fees Class Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Carla Cardwell, writing for Business Journal, reported that a
federal judge says a lawsuit accusing Atlanta-based Delta Air
Lines Inc. (NYSE: DAL) of colluding with AirTran Airways to impose
baggage fees on passengers can go forward as a class action suit
on behalf of customers.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten said the price-fixing
litigation, filed by more than a dozen Delta and AirTran customers
in 2009, will be litigated on behalf of all Delta and AirTran
passengers who since 2008 have been charged fees to transport a
single or first bag in the planes' cargo holds, the paper reports.
Batten imposed $2.7 million in fines, legal fees and expenses
against Delta for repeatedly having lost, misplaced or destroyed
company records critical to the litigation, the legal newspaper
says.
DOUGLAS AVENUE: Sued By Workers For Not Paying Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott Anderson, writing for The Journal Times, reported that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Douglas Avenue Diner,
Inc., claiming the restaurant and its owner Anthanasios Tohovitis
failed to pay overtime wages to certain employees at his Caledonia
restaurant over the last three years.
Tohovitis opened Douglas Avenue Diner, 5121 Douglas Ave., in March
2007 in the Greentree Shopping Center, between Pick 'n Save and
Kmart in Caledonia.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on July 17, on behalf of plaintiff Marco
Antonio Aburto, a former employee there, and a group of more than
10 "similarly-situated current and former back house employees,"
including "cooks, dishwashers and/or expeditors."
According to the lawsuit, when Aburto and fellow employees
regularly performed work in excess of 40 hours in various work
weeks since July 17, 2012, they were paid their regularly hourly
rate and not compensated for overtime work.
They allege Douglas Avenue Diner's policy was to pay employees
"the same hourly rate regardless of the number of hours of work
performed," the lawsuit states.
State and federal law requires that employers pay time and one-
half the regular rate of pay to employees, for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in the workweek.
The lawsuit also alleges the restaurant "failed to post certain
required information regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act" in
its establishment. According to the Wisconsin Department of
Workforce Development, this posting is required by all employers
covered by law.
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs are seeking relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and under Wisconsin wage laws
for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees and other relief.
Plaintiffs are claiming the conduct of Douglas Avenue Diner was
willful, in bad faith and has caused significant damages to Aburto
and fellow employees.
At the time of Douglas Avenue Diner's opening, it had been
Tohovitis' third full-fledged restaurant.
Previously, he had been involved in a short-lived partnership,
Chef Louie's, in Burlington. Tohovitis then opened the Olympic
Family Restaurant in Sturtevant. He sold that after 18 years,
opened the Acropolis in Oak Creek and later sold that.
Attempts to reach Tohovitis and Aburto directly were unsuccessful.
Attorneys for the two did not return multiple calls for comment.
According to court records, Tohovitis and Douglas Avenue Diner
have been given until Sept. 3 to formally to answer the
plaintiff's complaint.
Correction: The original story incorrectly stated who was claiming
the conduct of Douglas Avenue Diner was willful. It was the
plaintiff, not the defendant.
EAST RAMAPO, NY: Faces Class Suit re Overspending on Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janie Rosman, writing for Rockland County Times, reported that
school board members were served with legal papers in front of a
packed audience at Kakiat Elementary School auditorium minutes
before the meeting started.
The location was moved to accommodate the larger crowd.
Angry parents and educators carrying protest signs and demanding
equal treatment for minority students watched as the board -- save
for Bernard Charles and Yonah Rothman, who were absent -- left
their seats as community members served them.
Public interest law firm Advocates for Justice is representing the
plaintiffs, who allege the board breached its fiduciary duty "due
to hiring excessively expensive attorneys, imposing excessive
hourly rates and excessive time charges, and failing to review
attorney bills, and agreeing to overcharges" and causing "ongoing
and irreparable injury and harm."
"You have removal of the entire board," Robert Kurkela said. "The
legislature isn't meeting until January, and it will be a whole
year."
Kurkela notarized the petitioners' signatures for the lawsuit, and
after they were served, he notarized the Affidavits of Service.
"The Commissioner of Education has the ability to remove board
members if they have broken fiduciary responsibilities, and this
board has by overspending $2.2 million," he said.
Former board members and the district's former law firms Proskauer
Rose, LLP, and Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, LLP, were also named in
both this and in a second lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court
that details how board members overspent federal and state funds,
and includes findings from independent fiscal monitor Hank
Greenberg's report.
"They're appealing (asking) the State Education Department to
remove the board members pursuant to Section Section 306 of the
education law," Laura Barbieri, counsel for the plaintiffs,
explained.
Plaintiffs are also asking the court for reimbursement of legal
fees above and beyond the $187,500 stemming from ongoing civil
rights lawsuit filed by public school parents against both the
largely Orthodox school board and its individual members for
allegedly sending public funds to private religious schools.
The district asked for the $2.2 million it spent defending school
board members in a class-action civil rights lawsuit between 2012
and 2014. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Bucaria ruled that the
case did not present any novel challenge to the district's law
firm and thus the exorbitant costs could not be justified.
Several factors are involved, Barbieri said. "There's the Hank
Greenberg report detailing excessive legal fees, and the board
just hired a competent law firm at $200 per hour. This
demonstrates to the community that a reasonable fee is $200 an
hour. Why are they paying a law firm $650 per hour? To spend that
much money between August 2012 and mid-2014 it outrageous, and it
doesn't include money spent since then."
Klein and the board left immediately after the meeting as
protestors held signs and asked him to resign his position.
School board president Yehuda Weissmandl released a statement the
next day regarding opponents' legal action.
The progress will continue and expand, Weissmandl said, exuding
praise to the school board and "the outstanding people who are our
teachers and administrators (and many people in the community)
committed to that."
"There are, however, some in the community who are relentless
opponents of the board and district," he said. These individuals
clearly believe in what they are fighting for, but their actions
aren't constructive."
Weissmandl cited the opposed bond act that would have provided
money to repair school facilities, the failed compromise
legislation when the oversight monitor bill failed, and the
lawsuits served the board because the district incurred
significant legal expenses in recent years.
"The common thread in all of these positions is that to make a
political point, these individuals are willing to do something
that goes against the interests of students," Weissmandl said.
"This lawsuit is a clear example of that. It will only serve to
drive up the very legal fees they are complaining about. It will
only siphon off resources that could be used for school programs."
Since the district changed law firms to reduce legal fees and
resolve ongoing matters, the new lawsuit negates the process, he
said.
"Again, we respect those who disagree with us," Weissmandl said.
"We respect their right to protest and to use the court system. At
some point, however, this community, as a whole, must come
together. We must overcome our differences and focus on what will
help students."
Betty Carmand, a plaintiff in both lawsuits, said her son will
start 7th grade. Carmand is running for Rockland County
Legislature in District 8, where all seats are up for grabs in the
2015 general election.
"It's important "to fight for what is right. We're angry about the
money spent on legal fees, and we're going to come to every rally
until Klein resigns," she said of the weekly summer protests
organized by advocacy group Get Up, Stand Up: East Ramapo.
EDISON INT'L: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, on behalf of
investors of Edison International (NYSE:EIX) ("Edison" or the
"Company") that held shares between July 31, 2014 and June 24,
2015 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Edison securities
during the Class Period, you may, no later than September 4, 2015,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class.
A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Andrews & Springer LLC. If you would like to join the class
action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer,
Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-
423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
The lawsuit alleges that Edison made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. In particular, the complaint alleges that:
(i) Edison's ex parte contacts with the California Public
Utilities Commission ("CPUC") decision makers were more extensive
than the Company had reported to CPUC; (ii) that belated
disclosure of Edison's ex parte contacts with CPUC personnel would
jeopardize the Company's $3.3 billion dollar San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station ("SONGS") Settlement; and (iii) as a result of
the above, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On June 22, 2015, the law firm Strumwasser & Woocher released an
independent report commissioned by the CPUC in connection with a
review of ex parte meetings between utility lobbyists or
executives and CPUC decision makers (the "Strumwasser Report").
The Strumwasser Report described such ex parte meetings as
frequent, pervasive, and at least sometimes outcome-determinative,
and recommended banning them altogether in rate cases.
On June 24, 2015, the Utility Reform Network ("TURN") filed an
application with the CPUC that charged Edison's largest
subsidiary, Southern California Edison ("SCE"), with fraud by
concealment and urged the CPUC to set aside the SONGS Settlement
and reopen its investigation.
As a result, Edison executives caused Edison securities to trade
at artificially inflated prices by improperly concealing this
information.
On this news, shares of Edison declined $1.56 per share or over
2.70%, to close at $56.07 on June 24, 2015.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 4, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.
Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in
the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to
prosecute. For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney
Advertising.
Craig J. Springer, Esq
Andrews & Springer LLC
3801 Kennett Pike #305, Wilmington, DE 19807
1-800-423-6013
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
www.andrewsspringer.com
EZCORP INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:EZPW) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased EZCORP securities between October 27, 2014 and July 16,
2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased EZCORP securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 18, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
EZCORP delivers cash solutions to customers across channels,
products, services and markets. With approximately 1,400 locations
and branches, the Company offers customers multiple ways to access
instant cash, including pawn loans and consumer loans in the
United States, Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company improperly recognized particular structured assets
sales; (2) that the Company improperly classified certain out-of-
payroll loans; (3) that, as a result, the Company overstated its
gains on assets sales and accrued interest revenue; (4) that, as
such, the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");
(5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On April 30, 2015, after the market closed, the Company announced
that it would delay its earnings release for the second quarter of
fiscal 2015, due to an ongoing review of certain elements of its
Grupo Finmart loan portfolio. According to the Company, certain
errors had been identified in a portion of the Grupo Finmart loan
portfolio that could impact current and historical amounts of loan
reserves and interest income, and that the Company was conducting
a more thorough review to quantify the errors and assess the
associated processes and controls.
On this news, shares of EZCORP declined $0.79 per share, over 8%,
to close on May 1, 2015, at $8.41 per share, on unusually heavy
volume.
On May 20, 2015, after the market closed, the Company revealed
that, while the review of the Grupo Finmart loan portfolio was
still ongoing, management and the Audit Committee would likely
conclude that the Company had a material weakness in internal
control over financial reporting and deficiencies in its
disclosure controls and procedures.
On this news, shares of EZCORP declined $0.66 per share, over 7%,
to close on May 21, 2015, at $8.33 per share, on unusually heavy
volume.
On July 17, 2015, the Company announced that it would restate its
financial statements for fiscal 2014 (including the interim
periods within that year) and the first quarter of fiscal 2015,
and that the previously issued financial statements for those
periods should no longer be relied upon. According to the Company,
the restatement adjustments, all of which are non-cash, will
correct certain errors relating to the accounting for Grupo
Finmart's structured assets sales that, based on certain control
rights, should not have been recognized as sales. While the
Company has not yet quantified the effect of reversing the sale
accounting treatment, the Company's previously recognized $39.6
million of gain ($33.0 million in fiscal 2014 and $6.6 million in
the first quarter of fiscal 2015) will be eliminated, but interest
income in the periods subsequent to the assets sales will be
increased. Additionally, the Company identified a number of out-
of-payroll loans that had not been properly classified and
accounted for, causing an understatement of bad debt expense and
an overstatement of accrued interest revenue in prior periods.
According to the Company, the review was still ongoing and
financial statements for periods prior to fiscal 2014 could also
require restatement.
On this news, shares of EZCORP declined $0.26 per share, nearly
4%, to close on July 17, 2015, at $6.48 per share, on unusually
heavy volume.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, 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/
FACEBOOK INC: Biometric Class Suit Moved to San Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------
Justin Lee, writing for Biometric Update, reported that three
class actions against Facebook over allegations that the social
media giant's tag suggestion feature violates users' privacy
rights, have been moved from Chicago's federal courts to San
Francisco's, according to a report by Cook County Record.
U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel granted Facebook's request to
transfer the cases filed this spring in the Northern District of
Illinois in Chicago to the Northern District of California.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs also supported the request to
transfer the cases.
On April 1, plaintiff Carlo Licata, represented by attorney Jay
Edelson, of Edelson P.C., of Chicago, filed the first of the three
class action suits against Facebook in Cook County Circuit Court.
The lawsuit was soon followed in federal court by two additional
lawsuits launched by plaintiff Adam Pezen, represented by attorney
Joel H. Bernstein, of Labaton Sucharow, of New York, on April 21,
and plaintiff Nimesh Patel, represented by attorneys Shawn A.
Williams and Paul Geller, of Robbins Geller Rudman, of San
Francisco, on May 14.
All three cases center on similar allegations involving Facebook's
new photo tagging system, which uses facial recognition technology
to identify people in photos posted by users. Facebook then
suggest users to "tag" their friends in the photos.
Although Facebook defends the practice as being a "convenience
feature," the plaintiffs argue that the use of facial recognition
technology is Facebook's way of secretly collecting, using and
storing the biometric data of users.
The lawsuits allege that these actions are in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Plaintiffs have asked the judge to create a class of users, which
could amount to millions of users and result in award damages of
$5,000 per violation.
In early July, Facebook's lawyers requested the judge to relocate
the case to the San Francisco Bay Area of California, home of
Facebook's corporate headquarters.
Facebook has a clearly marked clause in its user agreement, which
users must consent to when registering with the site, that all
disputes between the company and its users must be handled in the
Northern California federal courts.
The attorneys for the three plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation
with the court on July 27, indicating their intent to consolidate
the cases into a single class action, as well as agreeing to the
transfer "to avoid unnecessary delay" for the case.
FIAT CHRYSLER: Belleville Atty Named Plaintiff in Jeep Hack
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tobias Wall, writing for Belleville News-Democrat, reported that a
Belleville attorney is among plaintiffs named in a lawsuit filed
in federal court in East St. Louis against Fiat Chrysler, maker of
Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler models, after an article was published
describing how hackers were able to hack into the computer system
used by a Jeep SUV that was traveling on Interstate 64 in St.
Louis.
Brian Flynn, an attorney at Flynn, Guymon & Garavalia in
Belleville, and George and Kelly Brown of Pacific, Mo., are named
as plaintiffs in the suit. Their attorneys are asking the court to
certify the case as a class-action that would include other Fiat
Chrysler owners as plaintiffs.
Flynn owns a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Browns own a 2014
Jeep Cherokee, each equipped with an uConnect computer system that
allows for WiFi hotspots and other entertainment options in Jeep
SUVs, Dodge trucks and some Dodge cars.
The Wired Magazine article detailed how friendly hackers remotely
accessed the uConnect system in a Jeep driven by the author and
manipulated the radio, door locks and winshield wipers and even
shut down the vehicle as it drove on I-64 in St. Louis after
rewriting code in the uConnect hardware.
The maker of the software, Stamford, Ct.,-based Harmon
International Industries, Inc., also is named as a defendant in
the suit.
Two days after the article was published, Fiat Chrysler announced
a recall of vehicles equipped with the uConnect system.
Court documents show Flynn and the Browns claim that the Jeep
models they purchased are worth less due to the defective computer
system compared to vehicles with non-defective software, and that
the risk of a serious accident is greater in the vehicles they
purchased compared to others.
What's more, they claim Fiat Chrysler knew about the
vulnberabilities in the uConnect software for well over a year
before the July recall was announced.
Neither Christopher Cueto nor Michal Gras, who are listed as the
plaintiffs' attorneys, could immediately be reached for comment.
FIRST STUDENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Motty" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Motty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First Student, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. BC591518 (D. Cal., August 18, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay regular wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.
First Student, Inc. is a provider of school bus transportation and
provides expert privatized transportation management to school
districts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
Armand Kizirian, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203-1922
Telephone: (818) 547-5200
E-mail: thomaswfavley@gmail.com
mike.falveylaw@gmail.com
- and -
Carol L. Gillam, Esq.
Sara Heum, Esq.
THE GILLAM LAW FIRM
11620 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 203-9977
Facsimile: (310) 203-9922
E-mail: carol@gillamlaw.com
sara@gillamlaw.com
GENERAL ELECTIC: Retirees Seek Class Status for Health Care Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Passeri, writing for The Street, reported that two retired
employees suing General Electric over cuts to health-care coverage
are seeking class-action status for the complaint, which asks for
their previous benefits to be reinstated.
Dennis Rocheleau and Evelyn Kaufman made the request in a motion
filed in U.S. District Court in Milwaukee, and Tom Geoghegan,
their attorney, said Judge Lynn Adelman is slated to hold a
scheduling conference with attorneys for both sides. Class-action
status allows individuals to serve as representatives for a broad
group of plaintiffs in a civil case, bringing more resources to
bear and potentially heightening awards.
"Plaintiffs in seeking to restore the plans are necessarily acting
in a representative capacity for others, and this litigation would
necessarily affect them," Rocheleau and Kaufman said in the
motion. "The relief sought is indivisible by nature. It cannot be
awarded to named plaintiffs unless it is awarded as well to all
other participants."
Quite simply, "either the plan is reinstated or it's not,"
Geoghegan said in a phone interview. "We are not seeking
individual monetary relief."
The motion to add class allegations comes on the heels of Judge
Adelman's June denial of GE's request to dismiss the suit in its
entirety, though he did toss out one of the claims. His decision
to let the remainder of the case go forward was based largely on a
statement in an employee handbook a few years ago that "GE expects
and intends to continue the GE Medicare Benefit Plans described in
this handbook indefinitely."
GE moved shortly afterward to end the plans, instead offering
reimbursements of about $1,000 a year to retirees who obtain
Medicare-supplement policies through Towers Watson's (TW)
OneExchange program, a system the former employees claim increases
their financial burden significantly. The company reported about
$3.3 billion in savings from the change as well as adjustments to
retiree life-insurance benefits, as of the second quarter.
"GE will continue to defend the one surviving count of the
complaint and remains confident that the company acted properly
and lawfully in making changes to retiree health benefits
consistent with trends among other large companies," GE said in an
emailed statement.
Geoghegan said in a phone interview he expects little resistance
to obtaining class-action status and that a trial may be held as
early as the beginning of 2016.
"They took their best shot to get this thrown out, and they lost,"
he said.
The retirees' case turns on whether GE violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, known as ERISA, by
breaking a commitment implied in the handbook, even though the
handbook also noted that the Fairfield, Conn.-based company
reserved the right to end the policies at any time. GE, which
employed more than 300,000 people at the end, declined to comment
because the case is pending.
The company has previously said the changes to its retiree health-
care plans are consistent with trends among major companies.
Corporations including Time Warner (TWX), IBM (IBM), and Walgreens
(WBA), have also moved to private exchanges following passage of
the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in 2010.
HELIX ENERGY: Investors Sue Over Fraudulent Prices
--------------------------------------------------
Angela Neville, writing for Texas Lawyer, reported that a group of
riled-up shareholders of Helix Energy Solutions Group recently
filed a class action against the Houston-based provider of
specialty services to the international offshore energy industry.
The shareholders allege they were injured by Helix Energy's
fraudulent actions and big falls in share prices.
The shareholders in the class action, Izadjoo v. Kratz, are
represented by Thomas Bilek of Houston-based Bilek Law Firm. In
addition, partner Nicholas Porritt and associate Julia Sun of New
York-based Levi & Korsinsky are serving as of counsel in the case,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas in Houston. The class action was filed on behalf
of shareholders who purchased Helix Energy common stock between
Oct. 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015. As stated in their complaint,
the plaintiffs are seeking remedies under the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and asserting their claims against certain
Helix executive officers and directors.
According to the complaint, Helix Energy seeks to provide services
and methodologies it believes are critical to developing offshore
reservoirs and maximizing production economics. Helix primarily
conducts operations in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, and the
Asia-Pacific and West Africa regions. Helix's services are
segregated into four disciplines: well intervention, robotics,
production facilities and subsea construction.
The plaintiffs allege that since Oct. 21, 2014, the company has
misrepresented the time that two of its main well-intervention
vessels would be idle during 2015. Specifically, the company
provided guidance relating to the length of time each vessel would
be in regulatory dry dock. During the second quarter of 2015,
however, one vessel, the Q4000, was in dry dock for a full month
longer than the company previously disclosed. The other vessel,
the Helix 534, was unused for nearly half the quarter, and has not
yet been put in regulatory dry dock. As a result, the company's
revenues and earnings have suffered, according to the complaint.
Helix issued a news release on July 21, 2015, announcing its
financial results for the second quarter of 2015, according to the
complaint. "The company reported revenue of $166 million, compared
to $305 million in the second quarter of 2014, and a net loss of
$(2.6) million, compared to net income of $57.8 million in the
second quarter of 2014," the plaintiffs allege. "On this news, the
price of Helix common stock declined from a closing share price of
$11.30 on July 20, 2015, to close at $9.40 per share on July 21,
2015, a loss of more than 16.8 percent, on extremely heavy trading
volume."
In addition, the plaintiffs claim that Helix CEO and president
Owen Kratz acted as a controlling person of Helix within the
meaning of S.20(a) of the Exchange Act. By reason of his position,
Kratz had the power and authority to cause Helix Energy to engage
in the wrongful conduct, according to the plaintiffs. Kratz
controlled Helix Energy and all of its employees, the plaintiffs
further allege, and thus is a primary violator of S.10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that by reason of his
conduct, Kratz is liable pursuant to S.20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Erik Staffeldt, director of finance and treasury with Helix
Energy's office in Houston, declined to comment about the case.
Bilek did not return a call seeking comment. Porritt and Sun were
unavailable to speak about the case.
Looking ahead, the case is scheduled for an initial pretrial and
scheduling conference before Judge Lee Rosenthal on Oct. 30.
HILMAR CHEESE: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Road Hog Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Road Hog Trucking, LLC, Jared Berg and Emily Berg v. Hilmar Cheese
Co., Inc., CDF-D Dairy, LLC, Charles Ahlem, David Ahlem, James
Ahlem, Richard "Dick" Clauss and C.A. Russell, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00258-J (N.D. Tex., August 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated employees their lawful regular time for a full workweek
and their overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are engaged in the milk production business and the
making or processing of cheese and cheese byproducts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip R. Russ, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP R. RUSS
2700 S. Western, Suite 1200
Amarillo, TX 79109
Telephone: (806) 358-9293
Facsimile: (806) 358-9296
HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen A. Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive,
Case No. BC591772 (D. Cal., August 18, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.
Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W. Olympics, Blvd., Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 432-0000
Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
IPC HEALTHCARE: Faces "Crescente" Suit Over Proposed Team Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Crescente, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. IPC Healthcare Inc., et al., Case No. 11405
(D. Del., August 18, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of IPC Healthcare Inc. to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of IPC by Team Health
Holdings, Inc. through a flawed process and an inadequate
consideration.
IPC Healthcare Inc. is a national acute hospitalist and post-acute
provider group practice company.
Team Health Holdings, Inc. is a provider of outsourced physician
staffing solutions for hospitals in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
James R. Banko, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 482-3182
E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
jbanko@faruqilaw.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
imelamed@faruqilaw.com
JOHN DOE: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dora Luna, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. John Doe Corp. d/b/a Valley Brook Market and Daljit Pandher,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06492 (S.D.N.Y., August 18, 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 supermarket located at 1053 Main
Street, Peekskill, New York 10566.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillance, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLANCE & ASSOCIATES, PC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com
JORDAN: Faces US$263MM Class Suit Over Discriminatory Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Yashar, writing for Israel Natinal News, reported that Jewish
activist and attorney Baruch Ben-Yosef launched a 1 billion shekel
($263 million) class-action lawsuit against Jordan, the
Palestinian Authority (PA) and a radical Arab group over their
discriminatory practices against Jews on the Temple Mount, the
holiest site in Judaism.
An Israeli law from 2000 states that operators of public sites
cannot deny entry on the basis of race, religion, nationality,
gender or political affiliation, with offenders liable to pay up
to 50,000 shekels in damages. Ben-Yosef is suing on behalf of the
thousands of Jews who have been harassed, banned from prayer, or
simply blocked from the Mount for decades, reports Walla! on.
In the suit submitted to a Jerusalem District Court, Ben-Yosef
pointed out that the PA and its chairman Mahmoud Abbas are guilty
of "continuously inciting violence on the Temple Mount to
eliminate or decrease Jewish visitors to the Mount."
His suit also argues that the ongoing Jordanian claim of
sovereignty at the Mount, which it continues to hold de facto
control over via the Waqf, is illegal, given Israel's liberation
of the holy site in the 1967 Six Day War.
The lawsuit also targets the radical Islamic Movement in Israel,
which has called to conquer the Mount, and which he notes "took it
upon themselves to fund, support and incite Muslims on the Temple
Mount to take action against Jews who visit the site."
Ben-Yosef noted that activists of the Islamic Movement in Israel
routinely harass Jews on the Mount and even violently attack them,
in an attempt to intimidate them from visiting the site.
"While the plaintiff and other Jewish citizens of Israel are
waiting outside in the cold or hot weather for approval to enter,
hundreds of tourists from around the world receive preferential
treatment and are allowed inside," reads the suit.
It noted that the discrimination "damaged the dignity and respect
of the defendants during their visit to the Temple Mount."
JP MORGAN: "Hart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Hart, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. JP
Morgan Chase & Co., Case No. 8:15-cv-01923-CEH-MAP (M.D. Fla.,
August 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
JP Morgan Chase & Co. is a banking and financial services holding
company headquartered in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. John Gadd, Esq.
2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste, 250
Clearwater, FL 33762
Telephone: (727) 524-6300
E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com
KEURIG GREEN: 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 Northern District of California on behalf
of those who purchased shares of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.
("Keurig" or the "Company") (nasdaqgs:GMCR), during the period
between February 4, 2015 and May 14, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class
Period").
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic and
unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over the
Company's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retail distribution
of Company's new cold brewing system, Keurig Kold, would be
delayed; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Keurig's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On May 6, 2015, the Company issued a press release aftermarket
announcing its financial results for the fiscal second quarter of
2015. The press release revealed that the Company's sales growth
for the quarter fell below its previously stated expectations. On
that same day, Bloomberg Business published an article concerning
the slow sales of the Keurig 2.0 brewing system for the quarter.
On this news, shares of Keurig fell $9.92 per share, or over 9%,
to close at $98.16 per share on May 7, 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 Keurig you have until August 18, 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.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
info@bdandg.com
LA BELLA: Faces "Jerez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Zhagnay Jerez, for himself and on behalf of himself and
similarly situated workers v. La Bella Mozzarella, LLC and James
Miller, Case No. 2:15-cv-06271-CCC-MF (D.N.J., August 18, 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 restaurant located at 15
Arlington, Avenue, Kearney, New Jersey 07032.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey L. Olshansky, Esq.
DAVID TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
161 Walnut Street
Montclair, NJ 07042
Telephone: (973) 509-9292
Facsimile: (973) 509-1181
E-mail: Jeffrey@dtesq.com
LELAND STANFORD: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lagos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Leland Stanford Junior University and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 115-cv-284497 (D. Cal., August 18, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, specifically by procuring or causing to be procured
consumer reports for employment purposes without first making the
requisite disclosures and obtaining the requisite consent and by
failing to make the required certifications.
The Leland Stanford Junior University is a private research
university in Stanford, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C.
21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 883-4900
Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com
- and -
Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq.
THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
3311 East Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90023
Telephone: (213) 599-8255
Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com
- and -
Jeff Holmes, Esq.
HOMES LAW GROUP, APC
3311 East Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90023
Telephone: (310) 396-9045
Facsimile: (970) 497-4922
E-mail: jeffholmesjh@gmail.com
LRR ENERGY: Faces "Hurwitz" Suit Over Proposed Vanguard Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hurwitz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LRR Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00711-SLR
(D. Del., August 18, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
unit-holders of LRR Energy, L.P., to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of LRR Energy by Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC at an
unfair price through an unfair process.
LRR Energy, L.P. operates, acquires, exploits, and develops
producing oil and natural gas properties in North America.
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company that focuses on the acquisition and development of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 10th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
Felipe J. Arroyo, Esq.
Jenny L. Dixon, Esq.
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-3900
Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
farroyo@robbinsarroyo.com
jdixon@robbinsarroyo.com
- and -
Richard J. Vita, Esq.
VITA LAW OFFICES P.C.
100 State Street, 9th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 426-6566
Facsimile: (617) 249-2119
E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Pickle" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Pickle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02762-AJT-TRJ (W.D. Okla., August 18, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Monty L. Cain, Esq.
P.O Box 892098
Oklahoma City, OK 73189
Telephone: (405) 759-7400
Facsimile: (405) 759-7400
E-mail: monty@cainlaw-okc.com
- and -
Edward L. White, Esq.
EDWARD L. WHITE, PC
825 East 33rd Street
Edmond, OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 810-8188
Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com
- and -
Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq.
LACKEY HERSHMAN, LLP
3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 777
Dallas TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 560-2201
Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net
beb@lhlaw.net
MADISON GLOBAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandru Surdu, Dino Tito, Anastasia Mayfat, Ciprian Grosu, and
Luis Lopez, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated
v. Madison Global, LLC, d/b/a Nello, Nello Balan, and Thomas
Makkos, Case No. 1:15-cv-06567 (S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to compensate their
food service workers the federal and state minimum wage.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 696 Madison
Avenue, New York, NY.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eli Z. Freedberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG, PC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 2103
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (347) 651-0044
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Data Breach Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Snell, writing for Health IT Security, reported that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Medical Informatics
Engineering (MIE), months after it was discovered that a health
data breach had taken place at the software company, potentially
affecting millions of patients across the country.
As previously reported by HealthITSecurity.com, MIE became aware
of suspicious activity on one of its servers on May 26, and called
the incident a "sophisticated cyber-attack." MIE said that the
unauthorized access may have begun on May 7, and it began to send
data breach notification to individuals via mail on July 17, 2015.
Indiana resident James Young filed the lawsuit, claiming that MIE
failed "to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its
data systems were protected," and also failed "to take available
steps to prevent and stop the breach from ever happening." The
company also did not disclose material facts to its customers,
according to the lawsuit, and failed "to provide timely and
adequate notice of the MIE data breach."
"As a result of the MIE data breach, numerous individuals whose
PII and PHI was used in a MIE electronic health record have been
exposed to fraud and these individuals have been harmed," the
lawsuit stated. "Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms, and
prevent their future occurrence, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals whose PII and PHI was stolen as a
result of the MIE data breach. Plaintiff asserts claims against
MIE for violations of Indiana's consumer laws, negligence, and
breach of implied contract, bailment, and unjust enrichment."
Young reportedly received notification from MIE that his PII and
PHI were compromised in the MIE health data breach. Young stated
that he would not have given that information to MIE had he known
that the company "lacked adequate computer systems and data
security practices" to keep sensitive data secure.
"Plaintiff suffered actual injury from having his PII and PHI
compromised and stolen in and as a result of the MIE data breach,"
the lawsuit read.
The case was filed in federal court, and has more than 100
plaintiffs. There could eventually be hundreds of thousands of
individuals whose personal information was compromised in the
health data breach, according to the legal documents.
Some of the questions that the plaintiffs hope to answer include
the following:
-- Whether MIE engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged herein;
-- Whether MIE's conduct was deceptive, unfair, unconscionable
and/or unlawful;
-- Whether MIE owed a duty to Plaintiff and members of the
Class to adequately protect their PII and PHI and to provide
timely and accurate notice of the MIE data breach to Plaintiff and
members of the Class;
-- Whether MIE breached its duties to protect the PII and PHI
of Plaintiff and members of the Class by failing to provide
adequate data security and whether MIE breached its duty to
provide timely and accurate notice to Plaintiff and members of the
Class;
-- Whether MIE knew or should have known that its computer
systems were vulnerable to attack;
Attorney Richard Shevitz explained to Indiana news station WANE
that there are many ways that damages could be calculated in this
incident, but that it is "clearly in the millions of dollars
range."
"A company of this nature should have the highest level of
safeguards in place to make sure that the information will not be
compromised, so for it to allow for the information to become
released this way is obviously something regarded as a very
serious breach," Shevitz told the news source.
The case was filed on July 29, and is currently working its way
through the Indiana federal court system. This will likely not be
the only lawsuit brought against MIE for this health data breach,
and further works as an example to other organizations why it is
essential to have current and comprehensive data security measures
in place. Furthermore, it shows why companies need to understand
the data breach notification procedures at the federal, state, and
local level.
MDC PARTNERS: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased MDC Partners, Inc. ("MDC" or the "Company")
(NYSE:MDCA) securities during the period between September 24,
2013 and April 27, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint
charges MDC and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges during the Class Period, Defendants made or
caused to be made a series of materially false or misleading
statements about MDC's business, executive compensation, related-
party transactions, goodwill, prospects and operations. The
Complaint alleges these material misstatements and omissions had
the cause and effect of creating in the market an unrealistically
positive assessment of MDC and its business, prospects and
operations, thus causing the Company's securities to be overvalued
and artificially inflated. As a result, the Complaint alleges
that MDC securities traded at artificially inflated prices and the
investing public suffered damages.
On April 27, 2015, after the close of trading, MDC issued a press
release announcing its financial results for the period ended
March 31, 2015. The press release also reported that the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had been conducting a
formal investigation into the Company's reporting of executive
compensation and goodwill. In response to these revelations, the
price of MDC securities, which traded near the Class Period high
of $28.65 per share on the last day of the Class Period, plummeted
27.8%, or $7.78 per share, from $27.98 per share on April 27, 2015
to close at $20.20 per share on April 28, 2015.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston,
Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
Gainey McKenna & Egleston LLP
440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 983-1300
Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
tjmckenna@gme-law.com
gegleston@gme-law.com
MITSUBISHI: Investigation on Fuso Medium Duty Trucks Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in New Jersey has cleared the way for further
nationwide investigation of inherent and irreversible defects in
Mitsubishi Fuso trucks equipped with BlueTec(R) technology
emission control.
On July 30, 2015, a Florida grocery store chain's putative class
action, alleging claims related to defective emission controllers
in Mitsubishi Fuso truck engines, survived as a judge denied most
of the truck maker's motion to strike class allegations and breach
of warranty claims.
The court held that the plaintiff had adequately alleged a state
law consumer protection claim for deceptive or unfair practices in
connection with the marketing and sale of the purportedly
defective trucks.
WHAT SHOULD OWNERS KNOW ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE AFFECTED
MITSUBISHI FUSO TRUCKS?
Owners of the defective trucks may experience stalling or shutdown
of the engine and the inability to restart due to the allegedly
defective emission control, requiring maintenance, potential
downtime and loss of business while the truck is out of service.
Owners may not be aware that the stalling, shutdown, or other
performance issues are related to the emission control system.
HOW CAN MITSUBISHI FUSO OWNERS FIND MORE INFORMATION?
The Sheller, P.C. law firm is investigating whether Mitsubishi
Fuso owners across the United States have been affected by the
alleged defects in trucks equipped with the BlueTec(R) technology
emission control.
Owners who have experienced any performance issues or who have had
to have their trucks repeatedly serviced should contact the
attorneys in Sheller, P.C.'s Consumer Protection Group now to
learn their legal rights by calling 800-883-2299 or emailing
info@sheller.com
THE 'BlueTec(R) EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM'
According to the complaint filed with the court, Mitsubishi Fuso
announced a new series of engines that include "proven, easy-to-
use technology" designed to boost fuel economy and protect the
environment following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announcing the new 2010 emissions standard. Trucks equipped
with a BlueTec(R) technology engine have an exhaust emission
control system designed to reduce air pollutants to comply with US
EPA 2010 emission standards. The "Electronic Control Unit" (ECU)
software is supposed to monitor and ensure the exhaust was
sufficiently reduced to meet the 2010 standards.
Mitsubishi allegedly marketed the new BlueTec(R) engines as a
better alternative to the systems installed by other engine makers
to comply with the new EPA regulations. However, in court
documents, the initial plaintiff alleges that Mitsubishi's
representations about the engines were wrong and that the
technology rendered the trucks defective and caused operational
failures that resulted in the engines unexpectedly shutting down
for no apparent reason. The engine defect is alleged to put
"extreme and harmful" pressure on the engines, resulting in
regular and catastrophic failures of the engine, including power
loss, stalling and failure to restart.
If you own a Mitsubishi Fuso truck equipped with BlueTec(R)
technology, you may be eligible to join the potential class
action. Call Sheller, P.C. for more information now, as the
investigation is underway: 800-883-2299.
The original complaint is captioned Q+Food LLC v. Mitsubishi Fuso
Truck of America Inc., case number 1:14-cv-06046, and is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Sheller, P.C. Law Firm
Fourth Floor, 1528 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone:+1 215-790-7300
www.sheller.com
MOBILE MARTIN: Faces "Pituch" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Pituch, Haley Nash, and Loraine Alexander v. Mobile Martin,
Inc., d/b/a Mobil Martin and Mirtin Virsis, Case No. 12:12-cv-15-
849943, (D. Ohio, August 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.
The Defendants are in the business of providing emergency and non-
emergency medical transportation services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter c. Mapley, Esq.
Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
Telephone: (216) 291-4744
Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
E-mail: peter.mapley@spitzlawfirm.com
brian.spitz@spitzlawfirrn.com
NEW SOUTH WALES: Hugos Lounge to File Class Suit Over Bar Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Browne, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that staff from Hugos Lounge in Kings Cross are considering legal
action against the NSW government after losing their jobs due to
the closure of the venue.
Owner Dave Evans blamed the state's controversial lock-out laws
for a decline in revenue, which put the bar and nightclub into
administration.
Mr Evans and 70 staff who have been made redundant will announce
details of their proposed class action.
The club said it had suffered a 60 per cent drop in revenue and 80
per cent drop in customers since 2012 when new licensing
restrictions were applied to venues in the inner-city suburb.
Mr Evans will be joined by libertarian senator David Leyonhjelm
and Doug Grand of the industry-based King's Cross Liquor Accord at
the announcement to take place at the Bayswater Road nightspot.
The restauranteur and brother of celebrity chef Pete Evans blamed
the state government for singling out Kings Cross venues and not
applying the same restrictions to bars in other parts of the city
such as Pyrmont and Newtown.
Hugos has traded for 15 years and was voted the best Australian
nightclub six times.
At its peak it drew 6000 patrons a week and had never received a
strike under the government's "three strikes" liquor licensing
rule.
Hugos is one of a growing number of bars to have shut down or been
sold since the 1.30am lock-out laws were enacted.
Nearby venues Soho, the Trademark Hotel and the Backroom have all
fallen victim to the new restrictions.
Darlinghurst's Flinders Hotel and The Exchange have also shut
their doors.
The laws have been credited with reducing alcohol-related violence
in Kings Cross by one-third and will be reviewed in February.
But crime figures show that alcohol-related assaults on licensed
premises more than doubled in Pyrmont over the 12 months until
March and increased by two-thirds in Newtown over the same period.
The lockout legislation was introduced as part of a raft of new
liquor licence restrictions following community concern about
alcohol-related violence in the Kings Cross, including assaults
that led to the deaths of Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie.
Other venues in the Hugos group, including its Manly restaurant,
are unaffected.
NOBLE-INTERSTATE: Faces "Melara" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Juana Melara, Francisco Estin, and Rosas Casarrubias, individually
and on behalf of the general public, and all others similarly
situates v. Noble-Interstate Management Group-California, LLC
d/b/a The Westin Long Beach, et al., Case No. BC591782 (D. Cal.,
August 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.
Noble-Interstate Management Group-California, LLC is a Georgia
corporation that owns and operates a hotel in California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael S. Mirison, Esq.
Ana Najera Mendoza, Esq.
ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 394-0888
Facsimile: (310) 394-0811
E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com
amendoza@akgllp.com
- and -
Kyle Todd, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (323) 208-9171
Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com
NRG ENERGY: "Stone" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Stone, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. NRG Energy, Inc., Roof Diagnostics Solar of Mass.,
LLC, and Kelcy Pegler, Case No. 15-2495G (D. Mass., August 19,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Massachusetts Wages Act.
The Defendants operate a residential solar installation company
with a principal place of business located at Princeton, New
Jersey.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
99 High Street, Suite 304
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 338-9400
E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com
ON DECK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers
of On Deck Capital, Inc. (NYSE: ONDK) securities pursuant to On
Deck Capital's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its December 16, 2014 initial public offering. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for On Deck Capital investors
under the federal securities laws.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the actual rate of default for
On Deck Capital's loan portfolio was progressively rising; (2) the
real value of On Deck Capital's loan portfolio was in material
decline; and (3) consequently, On Deck Capital's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 5, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-687.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com
ON DECK: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of On Deck
Capital, Inc. ("On Deck") (NYSE: ONDK) common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with On Deck's December 17, 2014 initial public stock offering
(the "IPO").
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 4, 2015. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class
action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ondeck/. Any member
of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges On Deck, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933. On Deck is an online subprime commercial
lender offering small businesses quick-approval 3- to 24-month
loans at interest rates exponentially higher than those offered by
traditional banks.
On December 17, 2014, On Deck commenced the IPO and issued 11.5
million shares of common stock at $20 per share pursuant to the
Registration Statement. The complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO contained
untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state material
facts both required by governing regulations and necessary to make
the statements made not misleading. The Registration Statement
failed to disclose already occurring shifts in the Company's
lending practices to less profitable channels and longer term
loans, which were negatively affecting, among other things, On
Deck's interest rate spread, effective interest yield, annual
percentage rates ("APR") and earnings.
In late February and early March 2015, On Deck issued its first
public financial reports, which disclosed that On Deck's once
constant effective interest yield had dropped 10% sequentially to
38.7% in the fourth quarter of 2014, caused by On Deck's shift to
less profitable channels and longer term loans. On this news, the
price of On Deck common stock dropped to as low as $16.08 per
share on March 5, 2015. Then, on May 4, 2015, On Deck issued a
press release announcing its second quarter 2015 financial
results, disclosing yet another over 10% decline in effective
interest yield as well as a nearly 20% year-over-year decline in
APR.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
On Deck common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with On Deck's December 17, 2014
IPO (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins
Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor
class actions including actions involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many
of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and
was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder
class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/ondeck/for more
information.
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101
T: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900
F: (619) 231-7423
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/
PAE GROUP: Class Suits Are Not Created Equal Under CAFA
-------------------------------------------------------
Aubry Holland, Esq. -- aholland@orrick.com -- Andrew Livingston,
Esq. -- alivingston@orrick.com -- and Kimpo Ngoi, Esq. --
kngoi@orrick.com -- at Orrick, in an article for JD Supra, wrote
that the Ninth Circuit recently delivered a setback to defendants
seeking to remove cases to federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA") when it interpreted the statute narrowly to
exclude consideration of non-class claims in determining the
jurisdictional amount in controversy in Yocupicio v. PAE Grp.,
LLC, No. 15-55878, 2015 WL 4568722 (9th Cir. 2015).
The Class Action Fairness Act authorizes federal jurisdiction over
"any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and
is a class action." Federal district courts typically aggregate
the claims of individual class members to determine whether the $5
million jurisdictional threshold is met. And July this year,
federal courts generally included in that figure the recovery
sought for non-class claims pled within a class complaint, such as
other representative claims often brought under the California
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").
That was the case in Yocupicio, No. CV 14-8958-GW JEMX, 2014 WL
7405445, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2014). The plaintiff in that
action claims that her employer, among other things, denied her
and other employees meal and rest breaks in violation of
California labor laws. After she filed the complaint in state
court, her employer removed it to federal court under CAFA,
estimating that the lawsuit seeks $1.7 million for the class
claims and $3.2 million for the PAGA claims. With fees and costs,
those amounts tallied up to more than CAFA's jurisdictional
threshold requirement of $5 million. The district court agreed
with this approach in its order denying the plaintiff's subsequent
motion to remand. It explained that the PAGA claims were properly
considered within the amount in controversy because they
contribute to a case that had been "unquestionably" filed as a
class action. To treat the PAGA claim any differently, the court
elaborated, would have required the court to "ignore the statutory
language" and misread prior precedent.
A Ninth Circuit panel, however, reversed the district court's
decision, stating that the district court failed to give
consideration to CAFA's legislative history, which, according to
the panel, "clearly indicates that Congress meant something other
than what it said" when it enacted the statute. In the Court of
Appeals' opinion, CAFA's references to "class actions" shows that
Congress did not intend to afford jurisdiction over "all
representative actions or on cases where a class claim was only a
part, perhaps a small part, of a civil action." Based on this
narrow interpretation of CAFA, the Ninth Circuit held that the
statute grants federal jurisdiction only when the class claims
alone meet the $5 million threshold.
The Court of Appeals' ruling in Yocupicio departs from more recent
jurisprudence that favors an expansive reading of CAFA. In Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 552
(2014), for example, the Supreme Court held that unlike other
removal statutes, CAFA does not contain an anti-removal
presumption, citing in support a legislative instruction that
CAFA's "provisions should be read broadly."
The defendant in Yocupicio is reportedly considering an appeal of
the Ninth Circuit's decision. Until the U.S. Supreme Court
reverses the opinion or issues a superseding decision, businesses
should be aware that Yocupicio is the prevailing authority within
the Ninth Circuit, and will likely be cited by plaintiffs in other
jurisdictions who seek to avoid CAFA.
PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Kozar v. Peterson Environmental, Inc. and Nathan Peterson,
Case No. 3:15-325-HES-JBT (S.D. Fla., August 19, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
Peterson Environmental, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is in
the business of environmental sampling and monitoring equipment
rentals and sales.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Celler, Esq.
CELLER LEGAL, PA
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2772
E-mail: Richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com
POPE FOODS: Faces "Abdulhe" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zaharaa Abdulhe, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Pope Foods, Inc., Lehigh Foods LLC, and Maps14 Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-04732-EGS (E.D. Penn., August 19, 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 Dunkin Donuts franchise in
Allentown, Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manali Arora, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 North Kings Highway, Suite 402
Cherry Hill NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685-7420
Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces "Gruby" Suit in D.N.J. Over Automated Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Gruby, Susan Neuhaus, Adam Rittenhouse and Yvonne Rumsey,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Quicken Loans, Inc., Case No. 2:2014cv05912 (D.N.J., August 19,
2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's telemarketing
practices using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice.
Quicken Loans, Inc. is an online retail mortgage lender in the
United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
475 White Horse Pike
Collingswood, NJ 08107
Telephone: (856) 858-1770
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
- and -
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com
mreiten@tmdwlaw.com
SMC INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. S.M.C., Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02392 (S.D. Tex.,
August 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
S.M.C., Inc. is a Texas corporation that supplies and manufactures
reliable oil field related quality products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg S. Gober, Esq.
BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, L.L.P.
421 W. 3rd Street, Suite 900
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Telephone: (817) 334-0800
Facsimile: (817) 334-0574
E-mail: greggober@bhilaw.com
SOLARWINDS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds, Inc. ("SolarWinds" or
the "Company" (NYSE:SWI) securities between April 28, 2015 and
July 16, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class Period").
If you purchased SolarWinds securities during the Class Period,
you may, no later than September 29, 2015, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose, among others: (1) that the Company's
domestic business was struggling; (2) that the Company's growth of
core license products and resulting license revenue was lower than
expectations and guidance; (3) that the overall quality of the
"demand capture" the Company was garnering for certain core
products was dropping; and (4) that as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On July 16, 2015, SolarWinds announced that its second quarter
earnings failed to meet its revenue forecast. Additionally,
SolarWinds lowered its full-year 2015 outlook from $512-$527
million to $502-$512 million. On this news, shares of SolarWinds
fell $11.51 per share or over 24% to close at $35.54 per share on
July 17, 2015.
About Morgan & Morgan
Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal
endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and
consumer protection and always fight "for the people."
Peter Safirstein, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan
28 West 44th Street Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036
1-800-732-5200
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Cal. Over Lease Contract Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diversified Capital Investments, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Sprint Communications, Inc., Nextel
Communications, Inc., Nextel of California, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-03796-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
August 19, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of
contract, specifically by failing to pay rent for DEH office
building located at 1299 Fourth Street, San Rafael, CA
94901 and terminating lease agreement while the site remained
suitable as a Communications Facility.
The Defendants are wireless service operators that maintained a
national wireless communication network based on Integrated
Digital Enhanced Network technology, which supports normal cell
phone voice communications, data services, messaging, and Nextel's
signature push-to-talk walkie-talkie feature.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
Dominic Valerian, Esq.
GALLO LLP
1299 4th St., Ste. 505
San Rafael, CA 94901
Telephone: (415) 257-8800
Facsimile: (415) 257-8844
E-mail: rgallo@gallo-law.com
dvalerian@gallo-law.com
- and -
Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
Roland Tellis, Esq.
Mark Pifko, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
rtellis@baronbudd.com
mpifko@baronbudd.com
ST. JOHN'S: Faces "Bourne" Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Englebert Bourne v. St. John's Shipping Co., LLC, Case No. CACE-
15-014762 (D. Fla., August 18, 2015), is an action for damages as
a proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, by failing to
warn of danger zone of the area where Plaintiff was working.
St. John's Shipping Co., LLC is a multiple services provider in
the Logistics & Shipping industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wayne Johnson, Esq.
DECICCIO & JOHNSON
652 West Morse Boulevard
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 740-4111
Facsimile: (407) 740-4011
E-mail: info@deciccio.com
STANDARD DRYWALLS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Vincent de la Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Standard Drywalls, Inc. and Does 1 through
100 inclusive, Case No. BC591790 (D. Cal., August 19, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.
Standard Drywalls, Inc. is a California corporation that provides
plastering, drywalls and other construction services to various
industries, including the medical, gaming, education, and hotel
industries.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
Morgan Glynn, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Telephone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
sblakely@mahoney-law.net
mglynn@mahoney-law.net
STARKIST: Suit Says Big 3 Conspire to Fix U.S. Tuna Prices
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the "oligopolistic structure" of the nation's three largest
packed-seafood companies -- StarKist, Bumble Bee and Tri-Union --
helps them conspire to fix tuna prices, a class of wholesalers
claim.
Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative filed the federal complaint
against Bumble Bee Foods, Tri-Union Seafoods and StarKist. Tri-
Union, the only name that may be unfamiliar to U.S. consumers,
sells its canned fish under the trade name Chicken of the Sea. The
complaint is the Top Download for Courthouse News.
Since at least July 24, 2011, Olean Wholesale claims, the food
giants conspired to "fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices
for PSPs [packaged seafood products] within the United States, its
territories and the District of Columbia in violation Sections 1
and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act."
The three companies control 73 percent of the U.S. market: Bumble
Bee 29 percent, StarKist 25.3 percent and Tri-Union 18.4 percent,
according to the complaint.
Packed seafood was a $2.3 billion U.S. market in 2011, $1.7
billion of it tuna, Olean Wholesale says, citing a Bumble Bee
report.
Tuna accounts for 73 percent of their market, and their dominance
in "shelf-stable tuna" is even greater: StarKist with 34.6
percent, Bumble Bee 27.8 percent and Tri-Union 18.4 percent -- 81
percent of the domestic market.
All three companies are foreign-owned. The "oligopolistic
structure" of the "highly concentrated" industry is the result of
recent mergers and acquisitions, Olean Wholesale says. Dongwon, of
South Korea, bought StarKist from Del Monte for $363 million in
2008. Tri-Union, of Thailand, bought King Oscar, a Norwegian
canner, in 2014, and acquired, or tried to acquire Bumble Bee that
year for $1.5 billion.
The combination of Tri-Union and Bumble Bee "would have created a
virtual duopoly, with the combined entity exceeding the market
share of StarKist," Olean Wholesale says.
But on July 23, Thai Union Frozen Products, owner of Tri-Union,
suspended a preferential public offering in light of a grand jury
investigation.
Thai Union Frozen Products announced that Bumble Bee and Tri-Union
had received grand jury subpoenas in an antitrust investigation,
Olean Wholesale says. It claims that StarKist also received a
subpoena, and that the Justice Department is investigating the
entire domestic packed seafood industry.
The subpoenas, Olean Wholesale says, are "significant."
"There are economic indications that support the conclusion that
there was collusive pricing within the domestic PSP industry," the
company says.
Olean, based in Olean, N.Y., says it bought packed seafood
directly from one or more of the defendants, and "suffered
pecuniary injury" from the antitrust violations alleged in the
complaint.
Consumption of packed seafood, particularly tuna, has declined
nationally in the past decade, Olean says: Annual per capita
consumption of packed seafood fell from 3.1 lbs. in 2005 to 2.3
lbs. in 2013.
Given that decline, "one would expect rational businesses to
reduce the prices for PSPs, but that did not happen," the company
says. It attributes that to the defendants' collusion.
"The prices charged by defendants to, and paid by, plaintiff and
members of the class for PSPs were fixed, raised, maintained
and/or stabilized at artificially high and non-competitive
levels," Olean says. "Plaintiff and members of the class have been
deprived of free and open competition in the purchase of PSPs."
The defendant companies and their attorneys did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.
Olean, founded in 1922, sells to retailers in western and central
New York, western Pennsylvania and northeastern Ohio.
It seeks class certification, costs of suit and treble damages for
restraint of trade, under the Sherman Act.
It is represented by Michael Lehmann with Hausfeld LLP, of San
Francisco.
Michael Lehmann, Esq.
Hausfeld
165 Broadway Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006
646-357-1100
212-202-4322 fax
http://www.hausfeld.com/
info@hausfeld.com
THB CONSTRUCTION: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest De La O, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THB Construction, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-02710-D (N.D.
Tex., August 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
THB Construction, LLC owns and operates a construction company and
maintains its principal place of business in Dallas County, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Greg S. Gober, Esq.
BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, L.L.P.
421 W. 3rd Street, Suite 900
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 334-0800
Facsimile: (817) 334-0574
E-mail: greggober@bhilaw.com
TIME WARNER: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Automated Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Montegna, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01841-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., August 18, 2015), is a case for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants, in
negligently or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on the cellular
telephone via an automatic telephone dialing system.
Time Warner Cable, Inc. is a cable telecommunications company
headquartered in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica R. K. Dorman, Esq.
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: jessica@westcoastlitigation.com
josh@westcoastlitigation.com
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
TRUECAR INC: Removed "Shen" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ning Shen and William
Fitzpatrick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TrueCar, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-03979-R-PJW, was
removed from the Superior Court 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-
06270 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs asserts causes of action for violation of the
Securities Act.
The Defendant is represented by:
Boris Feldman, Esq.
Jerome F. Birn Jr., Esq.
Benjamin M. Crosson, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com
jbirn@wsgr.com
bcrosson@wsgr.com
UBER: Labor Lawyers Debate Bid Seeking Class Status
---------------------------------------------------
AirTalk reported that a court hearing in San Francisco is set to
hear whether a group of Uber drivers can obtain class-action
status for a lawsuit it filed against the e-hailing giant seeking
to classify drivers as employees of the company, instead of
independent contractors.
The hearing comes two months after California's labor commission
ruled that a driver for Uber must be considered an employee. Uber
is appealing that decision, which applies only to one individual
driver.
If class-action status is granted in hearing, plaintiffs would be
able to pool together resources and gain more leverage in
negotiating settlements.
The case is closely watched by other tech companies that rely on
independent contractors for labor. An employee designation would
mean a guaranteed minimum wage for Uber drivers, mileage
compensation, and Social Security benefits. Lyft, another e-
hailing service, faces a similar lawsuit.
UBER: District Judge Denies Class Status to Worker Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Annie Gaus, writing for Business Journal, reported that U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen declined to approve class-action status
to a closely-watched worker classification lawsuit against Uber,
but appeared unmoved by entreaties from Uber's outside counsel,
Theodore Boutros, that drivers would prefer to remain independent
contractors.
"You have 400 declarants -- that sounds impressive," Chen quipped.
"Except when you measure that against 160,000 class members."
At issue is whether Uber drivers are similar enough to be
considered a single class of workers, and a decision could
considerably raise the stakes for the trial slated to begin this
fall. A class-action certification would bring 160,000 drivers
into the suit -- as opposed to the three now named in the
complaint -- and compel Uber to reimburse drivers for expenses
like gas and mileage. Under discussion were a range of factors,
including termination rights, scheduling flexibility and even the
drivers' skill levels.
Chen ultimately opted to consider arguments from both sides and
issue a decision later, likely within a few weeks.
"We have a very involved judge who is considering this very
carefully," said attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the
drivers in the case. She later added that she hadn't been
expecting a ruling. "It was a good discussion. I'm hopeful."
Complex case
Stretching long into the afternoon, the hearing in San Francisco
highlighted the complexity of the case, the widespread interest in
its outcome, and a simmering debate over what workers need. Prior
to the hearing, Boutros -- accompanied by drivers -- warned of
"devastating consequences" should Uber lose, and insisted that
they don't want employee status.
"Do they like the flexibility? Of course," Liss-Riordan later
contended. "But if we win the case, the flexibility doesn't have
to go away. The system can stay as it is, but the workers will get
protections that we're fighting for."
The outcome of the trial is expected to have far-reaching
consequences across the sharing economy. Uber is credited with
popularizing a new class of on-demand services -- similar to
startups like Postmates, Caviar and numerous others -- that rely
heavily on independent contractors. Such worker build their own
hours, but generally use their own supplies and aren't entitled to
benefits and protections like expense reimbursement, overtime or
worker's compensation.
Several of these companies are also facing lawsuits over labor
practices. Home-cleaning startup Homejoy cited legal problems in
its decision to shut down in late July. Boston attorney Liss-
Riordan, whom the Business Times profiled earlier, has been
involved in many of the cases.
Meanwhile, a growing number of on-demand companies -- like
Instacart, Shyp, and Luxe -- have opted to offer employee status
to some or all of their independent contractors. The food-delivery
startup Sprig followed suit, its CEO Gagan Biyani writing in a
blog post that offering employee status to its workers "allows us
to better develop and retain team members who stand behind our
mission."
"I'm pleased to see that some companies are taking a step back and
reversing this trend, and deciding to classify their workers
properly as employees," Liss-Riordan told the Business Times in
July. "I hope more companies come to this conclusion and make
these kinds of lawsuits unnecessary."
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Bank" Suit in N.Y. Over Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd C. Bank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04858-JG-JO
(E.D.N.Y., August 18, 2015), arises out of telephone calls,
commonly known as "robocalls," using an artificial or prerecorded
voice that delivered a message that advertised the commercial
availability and quality of a service provided by Uber.
Uber Technologies, Inc. owns and operates a transportation network
company with a principal place of business at 1455 Market Street,
4th Floor, San Francisco, California 94103.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd C. Bank, Esq.
TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 520-7125
E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Claims Handling Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beri Murphy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-
03799 (N.D. Cal., August 19, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
has engaged in and continues to engage in a pattern of
unreasonable and egregious claims handling practices which have
directly and adversely impacted individuals suffering from
Hepatitis C, and particularly those individuals with a METAVIR
liver fibrosis staging score of F0, F1 or F2 on a scale F0-F4.
UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company is a Connecticut corporation
that sells and markets its insurance products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
19839 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
trozelle@kantorlaw.net
UNITED NURSING: Faces "Hadley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryna Hadley, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. United Nursing International and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Case No. BC591750 (D. Cal., August 18, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.
United Nursing International operates a nursing recruitment agency
located at 330 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1270, Glendale,
California, 91203.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, PC
6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 924-3103
Facsimile: (818) 924-3079
E-mail: stephen@smh-legal.com
- and -
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
23277 Ventura Boulevard
Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
Telephone: (818) 225-9040
Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
VALENCIA HOLDING: Calif. High Court Upholds Class Action Waivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew A. Wood, Esq. -- awood@bakerlaw.com -- at BakerHostetler,
in an article for Lexology, wrote that the California Supreme
Court issued its long-awaited decision in Sanchez v. Valencia
Holding Company, LLC (2015) -- Cal.4th -- (Sanchez). The court
provided much-needed clarity for consumers and auto finance
companies alike by finding that class action waivers found in
consumer car purchase agreements must be enforced. The court also
found that the arbitration provision at issue was not
unconscionable as a whole. In making this finding, the court
reiterated that "[a]n evaluation of unconscionability is highly
dependent on context" and should be considered on an individual,
case-by-case basis.
Sanchez arose in 2010 after plaintiff Gil Sanchez purchased a used
2006 Mercedes-Benz S-500V. As part of his purchase, Sanchez signed
the front of a standard retail installment sale contract ("RISC"),
which included an arbitration agreement. Sanchez claimed to have
never read or even seen the arbitration agreement. The arbitration
agreement included a class waiver and provided that any
arbitration decision could be appealed only if the award was
exactly $0 or over $100,000.
Sanchez ultimately sued Valencia for, among other things,
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
Automobile Sales Finance Act, unfair competition law, Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, and Public Resources Code. Valencia
immediately moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied
the motion, finding that class arbitration cannot be waived under
the CLRA. The Court of Appeal did not address the class waiver but
affirmed on the grounds that the arbitration agreement as a whole
was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
The court quickly found the class waiver enforceable. Sanchez
argued the waiver could not be enforced because the CLRA expressly
prohibits class waivers. The court easily disposed of this
argument under AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___
[131 S.Ct. 1740]. The court noted the importance of the CLRA to
consumer rights but then found
Concepcion's rule that states may not require a procedure that
interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration, 'even if it
is desirable for unrelated reasons' [Citations] applies equally to
requirements imposed by statute or judicial rule. We conclude that
the CLRA's anti-waiver provision is preempted insofar as it bars
class waivers in arbitration agreements covered by the FAA.
Sanchez's argument that enforcing the CLRA's anti-waiver provision
merely puts arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other
contracts is unavailing. Concepcion held that a state rule can be
preempted not only when it facially discriminates against
arbitration but also when it disfavors arbitration as applied.
As the court found the RISC at issue fell under the FAA, the class
waiver was enforceable.
The court took a more nuanced approach to the issue of whether the
arbitration agreement as a whole was unconscionable. As an initial
issue, the court found that Concepcion requires arbitration
agreements to be evaluated using the same standards of
unconscionability that are applied to any other contract.
Arbitration agreements must not be evaluated under more stringent
standards. The court then quickly found the agreement was
procedurally unconscionable simply because Valencia did not
dispute that Sanchez was not afforded an opportunity to negotiate
its terms. The court then moved on to substantive
unconscionability. The court reiterated that whether a contract is
substantively unconscionable must be determined on a case-by-case
basis. As to Sanchez, the contract was not unconscionable because
Sanchez could not establish that the cost of arbitration as to him
was prohibitively expensive or that he would be ultimately
deterred from proceeding with his claim if he were forced to
arbitrate. The court found particularly important the fact that
Sanchez's dispute arose out of the purchase of a high-end luxury
vehicle.
More generally, the court declined to find the binding nature of
the arbitration rendered the contract unenforceable. The fact the
arbitration result could be appealed only in the event of a
judgment of $0 or more than $100,000 does not unfairly favor the
dealer/finance company over the consumer because, the court found,
both outcomes are extreme outliers. Neither party is more likely
than the other to be able to appeal. In making this finding, the
court distinguished outcomes in cases in which it had found
similar provisions rendered employment contracts unenforceable.
Justice Chin concurred in the judgment and generally agreed with
the court's reasoning as to the enforceability of the class waiver
and substantive unconscionability. However, he strongly disagreed
with the court's analysis of procedural unconscionability. Justice
Chin emphasized the burden was on Sanchez to establish procedural
unconscionability, and because Sanchez had presented no evidence
on the point, the issue of procedural unconscionability was not
properly before the court.
Sanchez is most significant for finding that class waivers in
consumer auto finance contracts are enforceable. The decision
resolves a wide split within the California Court of Appeal. In
resolving that split, the Supreme Court has paved the way for
lower courts to enforce class waivers, and provides clarity to
both auto finance companies and consumers as to their rights.
Somewhat less significantly, the court has left it up to the lower
courts to determine on a case-by-case basis whether arbitration
agreements in RISCs are substantively unconscionable as to
particular consumers. While that may appear to be a win for
consumers, the court has made clear that the burden will be on the
consumers to prove contracts unconscionable in their specific
cases. In the court's view, such a showing will be particularly
difficult for consumers such as Sanchez who purchase high-end
luxury vehicles and then seek to avoid the terms of the contracts
they signed.
VERLA LOFTON: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeisha Owens v. Xiaofeng Li, Yijun You, Verla Lofton,
individually and as Trustee of the Verla Lofton Living Trust and
Does 1-30, Case No. RG15782508 (D. Cal., August 19, 2015), is
brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress,
physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses
as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs
of the habitability defects to the subject premises.
The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Wolff, Esq.
Chris Beatty, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 834-3300
Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
chris@awolfflaw.com
WHOLE FOODS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Whole Foods Market, Inc. ("Whole Foods" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:WFM) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and
docketed under 15-cv-00681, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Whole Foods securities
between August 9, 2013 and July 30, 2015 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Whole Foods securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 5, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
Whole Foods operates as a retailer of natural and organic foods.
The Company's stores offer produce and floral, grocery, meat,
seafood, bakery, prepared foods and catering, coffee, tea, beer,
wine, cheese, nutritional supplements, vitamins, and body care
products, as well as lifestyle products, including books, pet
products, and household products. As of May 7, 2015, the company
had approximately 417 stores worldwide.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company routinely overstated the weight of its pre-packaged
products and overcharged customers; and (ii) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Whole Foods's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
On June 25, 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
("NYCDA") announced it had uncovered "systematic overcharging for
pre-packaged foods" at Whole Foods' eight New York City locations.
On a survey of 80 different types of prepackaged products, NYCDA
reported that it had found thousands of potential overcharging
violations. In response, the Company stated that there was no
evidence of overcharging and responded that it would vigorously
defend itself against what it described as "overreaching
allegations" by NYCDA. On this news, Whole Foods stock fell
$0.19, or 0.47%, to close at $40.57 on June 23, 2015.
On July 29, 2015, post-market, the Company issued a press release
and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing its financial and
operating results for the quarter ended July 5, 2015 (the "July
2015 8-K"). For the quarter, net income was $154 million, or
$0.43 per diluted share, on revenue of $3.63 billion, compared to
net income of $151 million, or $0.41 per diluted share, on revenue
of $3.38 billion for the same period in the prior year. Reporting
store sales growth of 0.6% for the quarter, the July 2015 8-K
stated, in part, that "[w]eights and measures audit in New York
City stores garnered national media attention."
On this adverse news, Whole Foods' common stock fell $4.74 per
share, or 11.61%, to close at $36.08 on July 30, 2015.
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/
XUNLEI LIMITED: Howard Smith Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Xunlei Limited
("Xunlei" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: XNET). Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Xunlei securities 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,
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. you may
move the Court no later than August 7, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-
free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com
* Alabama Bans on Consumer Class Actions in Jeopardy
----------------------------------------------------
E. Travis Ramey, Esq. -- tramey@burr.com -- at Burr & Forman LLP,
in an article for JD Supra, wrote that numerous states have
adopted statutory bans on "unfair" or "deceptive" trade practices.
When state legislature enacted those statutes, most of them
decided to let consumers sue directly for damages. However, many
state legislatures also barred consumers from bring class actions
under those state consumer-protection statutes. See, e.g., Ala.
Code Section 8-9-10(f) (barring class actions under Alabama's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act); O.C.G.A. Section 10-1-399(a)
(barring class actions under Georgia's Fair Business Practices
Act); Miss. Code Section 75-24-15(4) (barring class actions under
Mississippi's consumer protection act); Tenn. Code Section 47-18-
109(a)(1) (barring class actions under the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act).
Previously, federal courts had enforced those restrictions,
refusing to allow plaintiffs to bring state-law consumer class
actions in federal court if the relevant state law barred class
actions. Those days may be coming to an end.
In Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, No. 14-11714, 2015 WL
4139470 (11th Cir. July 10, 2015), the plaintiff filed a putative
nationwide class action alleging claims under Alabama's consumer
protection statute (the ADTPA). The district court dismissed the
complaint because the ADTPA does not authorize private class
actions. The plaintiff appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,
which governs class actions in federal court, preempted Alabama's
ban on consumer class actions. The court concluded that the
Alabama ban was not meaningfully different from the New York ban
the U.S. Supreme Court concluded was preempted by Rule 23 in Shady
Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 550
U.S. 393, 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010). The Eleventh Circuit decided
that it was required to follow that Supreme Court precedent, and
it reinstated the class action.
The defendant in Lisk has asked for rehearing by the entire
Eleventh Circuit, and it may petition the U.S. Supreme Court for
review. Nevertheless, at this point, there is little reason to
believe the Lisk decision will not stand.
Assuming Lisk stands, individual plaintiffs who want to bring
ADTPA class actions can now do so if they are able to bring their
claims in a federal court within the Eleventh Circuit. But the
ADTPA may be only the tip of the iceberg.
Georgia also has a consumer protection statute (the GFBPA), and it
also bars class actions. If a plaintiff challenges in federal
court the bar on GFBPA class actions, courts in the Eleventh
Circuit are almost certain to apply the reasoning used in Lisk. As
a result, if Lisk stands, individual plaintiffs will likely be
able to bring GFBPA class actions in federal court as well.
The Lisk decision is also likely to embolden plaintiffs to try to
bring state-law class actions in federal courts despite similar
statutory bans on class actions. For example, it does not appear
that any U.S. Court of Appeals has decided whether Rule 23
preempts the class-action bans in the Mississippi and Tennessee
consumer protection acts. After Lisk, it is probably only a matter
of time before the Fifth and Sixth Circuits are asked to resolve
those questions.
*********
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 * * *