/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150914.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 183 Headlines 126 BAKE CORP: "Sampedro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages 156-40 GRILL: Faces Suit in New York Over FLSA, NYLL Violations A.S.A.P. LOCK: Faces "Reyes" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Julia Chang Appointed Lead Plaintiff ACCESS MEDICAL: Faces "Legon" Suit in Fla. Seeking Unpaid Wages ACCOR NORTH: "Murray" Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws AEROGROUP RETAIL: "Roy" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ALPHA NATURAL: 4th Cir. Reviews Plaintiffs' Initial Briefs ALPHA NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Delaware Complaint Remains Pending AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Patel" Suit for Antitrust Practices AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Final Settlement Hearing on September 18 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs' Bid to Lift Stay Due Oct. 27 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: SICO Filed Notice of Appeal AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Action Trial to Begin Feb. 22 AMERICAN LANGUAGE: Faces "Volpe" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages AMERICAN VANGUARD: Intends to Defend Galvan v. AMVAC AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY: Faces "Hoelscher" Suit Seeking OT Pay ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU AZIN INC: Faces "Ferrara" Suit Under FLSA, Fla. Min. Wage Act BASS FISHING: "Tingey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation BAYBRENT TILE: Faces "Lehane" Suit for FLSA, NYLL & NYDOL Breach BBMC MORTGAGE: "Pieksma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BI-LO HOLDINGS: Faces "Rennock-Witter" Suit for Wage, Bias Claims BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Suit Over Consumer Deposit Accounts BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Suit Over Extended Overdraft Fees BREATHLESS INC: "Moon" Alleges FLSA Violations CAFE VICO: Faces "Vieira" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CELGENE CORPORATION: Faces Class Actions Over Receptos Merger COCO ASIAN: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations CSOS LLC: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay DNA ASSOCIATES: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over FLSA Violation DWM PLLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages EASTERN COMPANY: Court Okayed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal EL CAMINO: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Becker" Suit Says EL REY: Faces "Bue" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law EMDEON INC: Social Service Coordinators Paid Full Amount in Deal ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Has Deal to Decertify and Dismiss Claims EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Roberts" Suit Says FIRST INDEX: All American Painting Alleges Violation of TCPA FIRSTMERIT: Stipulation in Overdraft Suit Awaits Court Approval FIRSTMERIT: Settlement in Merger Litigation Becomes Final FREEWAY INSURANCE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements GARDEN PARTNERS: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Gender Discrimination GOLDEN INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages INTEGRATED SILICON: Case Management Conference Set for October 2 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ITG INC: Faces "Shah" Suit for Securities Law Violation ITT EDUCATIONAL: 3-Month Stay Entered in NY Securities Litigation ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Securities Action Stayed Until Oct. 13 ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Against "Gallien" Litigation IXIA: Parties at Mediation Fail to Reach Agreement JE-GO CORP: Faces "Garcia" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing to Reconsider Class Certification Held JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. 2015 Class Cert. Hearing on Field Claim JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Cases Transferred to Florida MARATHON PETROLEUM: Class Action Filed Challenging Merger MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Young" Suit Over Data Breach MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Molinaro" Suit Over Mulled IBM Takeover METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Williams" ERISA Suit Over Hershey Plan METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Moeller" ERISA Suit Over Sutter Plan METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Williams" ERISA Suit Over Hershey Plan MICROSOFT CORP: Total Remaining Settlement Cost Pegged at $200MM MICROSOFT CORP: Trial Remains Stayed in US Phone Product Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Still Inactive MILLER'S CROSSING: Faces "Banuelos" Suit for Unpaid OT Under FLSA MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiff Filed Motion to Remand NATALIA CO: "Lobut" Suit Seeks Damages for Alleged FLSA Violation NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Request to Amend "Ubaldi" Complaint NAVIENT CORP: Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Blyden" Suit Granted NEWPARK RESOURCES: Trial of "Davida" Case Set for September 2016 NEWPARK RESOURCES: Retained Counsel in "Christiansen" Case NOBLE CASING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Cooper" Suit Says NORTEK INC: No Arguments with Respect to Class Action Status OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports OCWEN FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Suit by Altisource Investors OLD NATIONAL: Indiana Supreme Court Won't Accept Case Transfer OLD REPUBLIC: "Markocki" Class Action Still Pending OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss RESPA Class Actions PARAMOUNT FOODS: Faces "Basurto" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA PARK PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages PHILADELPHIA: Police Department Sued Over Civil Rights Violation PJS OF PARMA: Accused of Violating Min. Wage Laws on Tips/Credits PLAINS ALL: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports QEP RESOURCES: Court Order Regarding Class Certification Pending QEP RESOURCES: Audet Case Stayed Pending Yannick Gagne Case QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Newhart" Suit Claims RC NYC: Faces Suit by "Pilch" for Alleged FLSA and NYLL Violation RESTAURANT BRANDS: Settlement Received Final Court Approval ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defendant in 3 Class Actions SABI VENTURES: Faces "Welch" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SAC INC: "Stecco" Suit Seeks Damages for Alleged TCPA Violations SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Peck" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Fraud Action Dismissed SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: AirTran to Defend Agaisnt Class Action SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: MDL Panel Will Hold Hearing on October 1 TETRA TECH: Class Action Against BPR Officially Closed TIME WARNER: Faces "Byrd" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls TIME WARNER: Faces 2nd "Byrd" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls VBI VACCINES: Disputes Claims Asserted in Class Action VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Arkansas Teachers Group to Lead Class Suit VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Lead Plaintiff Named in "Youngers" Case WAL-MART STORES: Removed "Mesa" Class Suit to S. District Florida WAYFAIR INC: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports WESTSIDE DONUT: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Under ADA, Rights Law YELP INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Action YELP INC: Plaintiffs Filed First Amended Complaint v. Eat24 YELP INC: Former Eat24 Sales Employee Filed Lawsuit YODLEE INC: Faces "Inala" Suit Over Proposed Envestnet Takeover ********* 126 BAKE CORP: "Sampedro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Miguel Sampedro, and all others similarly-situated v. 126 Bake Corp. dba Tasty Cafe, 128 Bake Corp. dba Tasty Cafe, Kamal Khadr, Ahmed Zabady, Mohammed Zabady, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15- cv-06537 (S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2015), seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages for overtime work, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendants owned and operated a deli/restaurant in Manhattan. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com 156-40 GRILL: Faces Suit in New York Over FLSA, NYLL Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Marco Antonio Sanchez Juarez and Janet Gutierrez individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 156-40 Grill LLC d/b/a Taverna Greek Grill, Greek Grill Crossbay Corp., d/b/a Taverna Greek Grill, Evangelos Pollatos, Maria Karras-Pollatos, Michael Siderakis, and Konstantinos Siklas, Case 2:15-cv-05081 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2015), alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, and of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Fax: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com A.S.A.P. LOCK: Faces "Reyes" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Armando B. Reyes, and other similarly-situated individuals v. A.S.A.P. Lock Safe & Key, Inc. and Howard Teamkin, individually, Case 0:15-cv-61833-WPD (S.D.Fla., Aug. 31, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A.S.A.P. Lock Safe provides locksmith services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 South Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Julia Chang Appointed Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------ Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Julia Chang has been appointed Lead Plaintiff of the purported class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us, Lawrence Mehren, and Steve Reichling, Rapp v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504. The complaint alleges that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements about our ID/AST System, formerly called the BACcel System. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock between March 7, 2014 and February 17, 2015." On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the purported class. "On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and by allegedly employing schemes to defraud. Plaintiff seeks certification of the action as a class action, compensatory damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and costs, and such other relief as the court may order. We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously. However, an adverse result could have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition or results of operations," the Company said. ACCESS MEDICAL: Faces "Legon" Suit in Fla. Seeking Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Legon, and other similarly situated v. Access Medical Acquisition, Inc., Dr. Mark McKenney, Luis H. Izquierdo, Jeff Settembrino, and Evan Horton, Case 1:15-cv-22815-UU (S.D.Fla., July 29, 2015), seeks unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: 305-416-5000 Fax: 305-416-5005 ACCOR NORTH: "Murray" Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Murray v. Accor North America, Inc., South 17th Street Leaseco, LLC d/b/a Sofitel Philadelphia, La Liberte LLC, Sofitel USA, LLC, Accor Business and Leisure North America Inc. and Accor Lodging North America, Case 2:15-cv-04907-JD (E.D.Penn., Aug. 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid gratuities and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, Philadelphia's Gratuity Protection Bill, and Philadelphia Administrative Code. The Defendants own and operate luxury hotels under the trade name "Sofitel." The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc A. Goldich, Esq. SHELLER, P.C. 1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 215 790 7300 Fax: 215 546 0942 E-mail: mgoldich@sheller.com - and - Noah Axler, Esq. Michael D. Donovan, Esq. DONOVAN AXLER, LLC 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 155 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: 610 647 6068 Fax: 610 647 7215 E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com AEROGROUP RETAIL: "Roy" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------- Jodi Roy fka Jodi Martin, and all others similarly-situated v. Aerogroup Retail Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02941 (N.D. Ga., August 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is an apparel industry that engages in the manufacturing and retailing of shoes sales. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Doss, Esq. THE DOSS FIRM, LLC 36 Trammell St., Ste. 101 Marietta, GA 30064 Tel: (770) 578-1314 Fax: (770) 578-1302 E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com ALPHA NATURAL: 4th Cir. Reviews Plaintiffs' Initial Briefs ---------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is now reviewing the plaintiffs' initial briefs. Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed wrongful death suits against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in West Virginia, in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court. In addition, two seriously injured employees filed personal injury claims against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court seeking damages for physical injuries and/or alleged psychiatric injuries, and thirty-nine employees filed lawsuits against Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court alleging emotional distress or personal injuries due to their proximity to the explosion. Through mediation ordered by the Boone County Circuit Court, the Company reached agreements to settle with all twenty-nine families of the deceased miners, the two employees who were seriously injured and thirty-nine employees who filed lawsuits for emotional distress or personal injuries. The settlements reached with the families of the deceased miners were approved by the court, and the other settlements did not require court approval. On April 5, 2012, the family of one of the deceased miners filed a class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly on behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming as defendants Massey, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors. On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013, two complaints were filed in Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims relating to the UBB explosion. In July 2014, the Circuit Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in one of the two cases. The second motion was denied in October 2014. On July 17, 2013, the administrators for the estates of three miners who died in the UBB explosion filed an action against Alpha and Alpha Appalachia in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia claiming they are entitled to "criminal restitution" under the Agreement, which defendants moved to dismiss. In October 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal order. In September 2014, the Court of Appeals determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the District Court had jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's dismissal of the case and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. On October 22, 2014, the District Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint without prejudice and terminating all pending motions as moot. Plaintiffs filed a new complaint on November 7, 2014. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a surreply memorandum. On April 6, 2015, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is now reviewing the parties' initial briefs. ALPHA NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Delaware Complaint Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the motion filed by defendants to dismiss Delaware Plaintiffs' amended complaint remains pending. In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation ("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders (the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop" provision and a termination fee. In addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which, at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey in February 2011. The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2011. In June 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In June 2011, certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining direct claims. In September 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 2012, without prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a termination of the stay by application to the court. The court approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The court extended the stay several times and the most recent stay expired on October 31, 2014. On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 5, 2014, and the motion remains pending. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Patel" Suit for Antitrust Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Kumar Patel and Rajesh Patel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case: 1:15-cv-07659 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 31, 2015), seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under the United States antitrust laws for alleged unlawfully fixing, raising, maintaining and/or stabilizing by the Defendants of the price of domestic travel. American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of American Airlines, Inc. Delta is the oldest operating airline in the United States (founded in 1924) and operates more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the U.S and six additional countries. United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of United Airlines, Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jayne Goldstein, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 S. LaSalle Street, Ste. 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel.: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com - and - Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Tel.: (610) 891-9880 Fax: (610) 891-9883 E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com - and - Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Tel: (954) 515-0123 Fax: (866) 300-7367 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Final Settlement Hearing on September 18 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the ERISA Actions - Southern District of New York, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and notice procedures, and setting a final settlement hearing for September 18, 2015. Between June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these eight actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II. On December 19, 2014, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed under seal a third consolidated amended complaint. The action purports to be brought as a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. In the third consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues. On January 6, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the action for $40 million. On June 5, 2015, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and notice procedures, and setting a final settlement hearing for September 18, 2015. The entirety of the $40 million settlement is expected to be paid by AIG's fiduciary liability insurance carriers. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs' Bid to Lift Stay Due Oct. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Canadian Securities Class Action - Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Plaintiff must move to lift the stay before October 27, 2015 or the stay will become permanent and plaintiffs will have no further rights to pursue the application or proposed class proceeding. As of August 3, 2015, plaintiff has not yet moved to lift the stay. On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act. On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17. On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out-of- province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a defendant must have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual," presence to be deemed to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in future cases, defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they are found to be doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their business activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation. On June 29, 2015, counsel for AIG and AIGFP provided notice to counsel for plaintiff in the action that a final order approving the settlement in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation was entered and can no longer be appealed. Plaintiff in the action must move to lift the stay before October 27, 2015 or the stay will become permanent and plaintiffs will have no further rights to pursue the application or proposed class proceeding. As of August 3, 2015, plaintiff has not yet moved to lift the stay. In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the Court finds appropriate. As of August 3, 2015, the Court has not determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has occurred and the action has been stayed. As a result, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: SICO Filed Notice of Appeal --------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Starr International Litigation, SICO has filed a notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO's unconstitutional conditions claim. On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) filed a complaint against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG. On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow SICO to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO describing the process by which our Board considered and refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's determination. On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative claims in the SICO Treasury Action due to our Board's refusal of SICO's demand and denied the United States' motion to dismiss SICO's direct, non-derivative claims. On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1) persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September 22, 2008 (the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class); and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG's June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders (the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class). SICO has provided notice of class certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class periods have opted into the classes. On June 15, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims issued its opinion and order in the SICO Treasury Action. The Court found that the United States exceeded its statutory authority by exacting approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity in exchange for the FRBNY Credit Facility, but that AIG shareholders suffered no damages as a result. SICO argued during trial that the two classes are entitled to a total of approximately $40 billion in damages, plus interest. The Court also found that the United States was not liable to the Reverse Stock Split Class in connection with the reverse stock split vote at the June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. On June 17, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment stating that "the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail on liability due to the Government's illegal exaction, but shall recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class shall not prevail on liability or damages." SICO has filed a notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO's unconstitutional conditions claim, the June 26, 2013 dismissal of SICO's derivative claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In the Court of Federal Claims, the United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action. AIG believes that any indemnification obligation would arise only if: (a) SICO prevails on its appeal and ultimately receives an award of damages; (b) the United States then commences an action against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United States is successful in such an action through any appellate process. If SICO prevails on its claims and the United States seeks indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses thereto. A reversal of the Court of Federal Claim's decision and judgment and a final determination that the United States is liable for damages, together with a final determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition and results of operations. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Action Trial to Begin Feb. 22 -------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the class action involving Caremark, trial is expected to commence on February 22, 2016. AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage. The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the statute of limitations. On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was denied on February 27, 2015. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits. Trial is expected to commence on February 22, 2016. AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation. AMERICAN LANGUAGE: Faces "Volpe" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- John Volpe v. American Language Communication Center, Inc. (d/b/a American Language Communication Center), Jean Pachter and Peter Pachter, Case 1:15-cv-06854 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2015), seeks to recover minimum wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and associated rules and regulations. Defendants owned, operated and/or controlled a language learning center. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317 1200 Fax: (212) 317 1620 AMERICAN VANGUARD: Intends to Defend Galvan v. AMVAC ---------------------------------------------------- American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the case, Galvan v. AMVAC, after having taken discovery against plaintiff, the Company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. On April 7, 2014, an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC Chemical Corp. was filed with the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Orange as case number 00716103CXC. This is a putative class action brought under California Labor Code Section 2698 under which claimant, an inactive employee currently on leave, seeks civil penalties on behalf of herself and other allegedly "similarly aggrieved employees" under various Labor Code sections relating to overtime compensation, minimum wages, meal periods, and rest periods among other things. After having taken discovery against plaintiff, the Company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable; accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for the matter. AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY: Faces "Hoelscher" Suit Seeking OT Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Hoelscher v. Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Case 2:15- cv-01554-MHB (D. Ariz., August 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and an equal amount of liquidated damages, including interest thereon, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover unpaid wages and an award of treble damages, including interest thereon, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Arizona Revised Statutes. Americans for Prosperity Foundation is a political advocacy group. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillips Dayes, Esq. NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: 1-800-JOB-LAWS 020805 (Trey Dayes) 030754 (Sean Davis) (602) 288-1610 ext. 301 E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU --------------------------------------------------------- Associated Estates Realty Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that counsel for the parties in the class action lawsuits have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement that would dispose of all actions in both federal and state courts, including the dismissal with prejudice of the actions and a release of all claims made therein against all defendants. Two putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Cutler v. Friedman, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00857, and Berkman v. Friedman, et. al., No. 1:15-cv-00928, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in connection with the announcement of the Merger. Two putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Witkowski v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., et. al., No. CV 15 845978, and Kessler v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., et al., No. CV 15 845987, also were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The lawsuits, filed by purported shareholders of the Company, challenge the proposed Merger and allege, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders by engaging in a flawed sale process, agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately compensate shareholders, and agreeing to certain unfair deal protection terms. The complaints also allege that Parent and Merger Sub have aided and abetted the directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other things, the shareholder litigation seeks to enjoin the Merger. The two District Court actions were consolidated by order of the Court dated July 2, 2015, and the consolidated action is now governed by an amended complaint that includes, in addition to the fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims, claims against all defendants for violation of disclosure requirements of federal proxy law and rules, specifically sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and associated SEC Rule 14a-9. "We believe that the shareholder litigation and the underlying claims are without merit," the Company said. On July 24, 2015, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement that would dispose of all actions in both federal and state courts, including the dismissal with prejudice of the actions and a release of all claims made therein against all defendants. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the Merger, and final court approval of the proposed settlement following notice and hearing. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the Merger will be consummated, that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the settlement will receive court approval even if the parties enter into such stipulation. If the settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU would become void. The settlement will not affect the amount of the Merger consideration that the Company's stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger. AZIN INC: Faces "Ferrara" Suit Under FLSA, Fla. Min. Wage Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua Ferrara, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. AZIN Inc. d/b/a Casa Dora Italian Restaurant, and Hassan Hamadi, Case 3:15-cv-01007-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid overtime compensation and under the Florida Minimum Wage Act to recover unpaid minimum wages allegedly owed to dishwashers and cooks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay P. Lechner, Esq. Jason M. Melton, Esq. WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC One Progress Plaza 200 Central Avenue, #400 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Tel: (727) 822-1111 Fax: (727) 898-2001 E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com daveyard@theFLlawfirm.com BASS FISHING: "Tingey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Kyle Tingey, Allen C. Stevens, and all others similarly-situated v. Bass Fishing & Rentals, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00705 (W.D. Tex., August 19, 2015), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is registered to do business in the State of Texas, providing products and services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a viable business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com BAYBRENT TILE: Faces "Lehane" Suit for FLSA, NYLL & NYDOL Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy J. Lehane and on behalf of All Similarly-situated v. Baybrent Tile Corp., Baybrent Construction Corp. and Richard Hoshino, Case 1:15-cv-04577 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015) seeks to recover monetary damages, declaratory and affirmative relief, overtime payment, proper meal period, maintained employment record, interest in all compensation, an award of $2,500.00, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs under Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York State Department of Labor Regulations. The Defendant is a tile supplier and installer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Saul D. Zabell, Esq. ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103 Bohemia, NY 11716 Tel: (631) 589-7242 Fax: (631) 563- 7475 E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com BBMC MORTGAGE: "Pieksma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Lynn Jean Pieksma, and all others similarly-situated v. BBMC Mortgage, LLC and Bridgeview Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07312 (N.D. Ill., August 20, 2015), seeks relief under the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001 ("the Wage Order") and the Business and Professions Code, and for the FLSA Collective under the FLSA, to remedy the Defendants' failure to pay all wages due, pay appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation, and maintain and distribute accurate time records, in addition to injunctive relief. Bridgeview Bank offers customers a complete range of mortgage services through BBMC Mortgage, LLC. BBMC Mortgage, LLC is a full-service lending subsidiary offering a complete line of residential mortgage, refinancing, and specialty loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth C. Apicella, Esq. DROST, GILBERT, ANDREW & APICELLA, LLC 800 E. Northwest Hwy, Ste. 1090 Palatine, IL 60074 Tel: (847) 934-6000 Fax: (847) 934-6040 E-mail: KCA@dgaalaw.com - and - Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC 10601 Mission Road, Ste. 100 Leawood, KS 66206 Tel: (913) 766-5585 Fax: (816) 875-5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com BI-LO HOLDINGS: Faces "Rennock-Witter" Suit for Wage, Bias Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ruthlynn Rebecca Rennock-Witter v. Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC, Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., and Southeastern Grocers, LLC, Case 0:15-cv-61680- FAM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2015), alleges the Plaintiff is owed overtime payment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and was unlawfully terminated because of her advanced age in violation of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA. Bi-Lo is the parent company of Winn Dixie, and recently changed its name to Southeastern Grocers. All Defendants jointly operate grocery stores in Florida, including the grocery stores in which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees work. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven F. Grover, Esq. STEVEN F. GROVER, PA Wells Fargo Tower One East Broward Blvd., Ste. 700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: 954-356-0005 E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Suit Over Consumer Deposit Accounts ------------------------------------------------------------ BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Bank and the Company were named on March 3, 2015, as defendants in a putative class action alleging that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts was improper from September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the period after which the Bank and BOK Financial settled a class action respecting a similar claim. BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Suit Over Extended Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 8, 2015, the Bank was named as a defendant in a putative class action alleging that the Extended Overdraft Fee charged customers who failed to pay overdrafts after five days constituted interest and exceeded permissible interest rates set by state and federal law. Management has been advised by counsel that the Bank and the Company have meritorious defenses to the actions. A reasonable estimate of losses, if any, cannot be made at this time. BREATHLESS INC: "Moon" Alleges FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------- Alissa Moon, Yasmeen Davis, and all others similarly-situated v. Breathless, Inc. aka Vision Food & Spirits dba Breathless Men's Club, Case No. 2:15-cv-06297 (D.N.J., August 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, New Jersey's Wage Payment Law and Wage and Hour Law. The violations include, but are not limited to: (a) failing to pay Plaintiffs and other dancers any wages, let alone the applicable hourly minimum wage; (b) failing to pay Plaintiffs and other dancers an overtime premium for every hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week; (c) requiring Plaintiffs and other dancers to pay a fee for the opportunity to work a shift; (d) requiring Plaintiffs and other dancers to wear, maintain, and pay for a uniform and costumes; (e) unlawfully demanding, retaining, and receiving tips; (f) requiring Plaintiffs to participate in an invalid tip pool; (g) failing to meet recordkeeping requirements; and (h) failing to meet posting requirements. The Defendant operates night clubs and is doing business as "Breathless Men's Club" in Rahway, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. SACKS WESTON MILLSTEIN DIAMOND, LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 925-8200 CAFE VICO: Faces "Vieira" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Vieira, and all others similarly-situated v. Cafe Vico, Inc. and Marcos Rodrigues, Case No. 0:15-cv-61737 (S.D. Fla., August 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and unpaid wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 503.5131 Fax: (888) 270.5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com CELGENE CORPORATION: Faces Class Actions Over Receptos Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Receptos, Inc., on July 14, 2015, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Celgene Corporation and Strix Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene, as Purchaser. Celgene said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, that a putative class action, Scott v. Receptos, Inc., related to the Merger Agreement was commenced on July 20, 2015, by the filing of a complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, Case No. 11316, against Receptos, members of its Board, Celgene as Parent and Strix as Purchaser. Four other complaints, Cacioppo v. Hasnain and Rosenberg v. Receptos, Inc., (Case Nos. 11324 and 11325) filed on July 23, Kadin v. Receptos, Inc., filed on July 27 (Case No. 11337), and Rockaway v. Hasnain, filed on July 28, 2015 (Case No. 11346), raise similar putative class claims in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, against some or all of Receptos, members of its Board, Parent and Purchaser. "These complaints generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of our Board in connection with the Merger Agreement. In the Scott, Rosenberg, Kadin and Rockaway actions, the plaintiffs also allege that Parent and Purchaser aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. These complaints seek equitable and injunctive relief, including an order enjoining the defendants from completing the proposed merger transaction, rescission of any consummated transaction, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. We believe these lawsuits are wholly without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them." COCO ASIAN: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------- Jit Shi Goh, and all others similarly-situated v. Coco Asian Cuisine, Inc. dba Coco Malaysian & Thai Cuisine and Fatt Seng Lim aka David Lim, Case No. 2:15-cv-06310 (D.N.J., August 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including all hours not paid at least the minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. The Defendants own and operate an Asian restaurant in Edison, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Hernandez, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Fax: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com CSOS LLC: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Javier Hugo Sanchez, and all others similarly-situated v. CSOS, LLC fka Cornell Solutions, LLC and Carlos I. Garza, III, Case No. 2:15-cv-00358 (S.D. Tex., August 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a mid-sized organization in the oil field contractors and services industry located in Edinburg, Texas. Carlos I. Garza, III was the person who determined and directly controlled the employee compensation policies of Cornell. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: (713) 868-3388 Fax: (713) 683-9940 DNA ASSOCIATES: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Nekell Cruz v. DNA Associates, Inc. a Florida Corporation, and Shiraaz N. Ali, Case 9:15-cv-81088-DMM (S.D. Fl. August 5, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A. 300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Tel: (954) 617-6017 Fax: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com DWM PLLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Martinez, and all others similarly-situated v. DWM, PLLC; Marion J. Danna, D.C., a Professional Corporation; Chiropractic Management, Inc.; Chiropractic Clinic of I-10, Ltd.; Marion J. Danna, D.C., P.A. and Marion J. Danna, D.C., Case No. 4:15-cv- 02409 (S.D. Tex., August 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide professional chiropractic services to patients throughout the greater Houston metropolitan area; The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (713) 222-6775 Fax: (713) 222-6739 EASTERN COMPANY: Court Okayed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Eastern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that on April 17, 2015, Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P. ("Barington") filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company and its board of directors (the "Board") in the Superior Court of Waterbury, Connecticut (the "Action"). The Action alleged, among other things, that the Eastern Board breached its fiduciary duties by amending the Company's bylaws to allow the Board to fill vacancies resulting from an expansion of the number of Board seats. The Action also challenged the Board's announced intention to increase the size of the Board and appoint a new director after the May 20, 2015 Annual Meeting, and sought, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the Board from nominating a new director that is the result of an expansion of the number of Board seats without Shareholders voting on the appointment. On April 17, 2015, Barington filed a motion for expedited proceedings and discovery prior to the May 20, 2015 Annual Meeting. On April 29, 2015, the Court issued an Order holding that the Action is derivative, and staying the case until July 11, 2015 pursuant to Connecticut law. On July 13, 2015, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal (the "Stipulation") entered into by the parties in connection with the Action. The Stipulation provides for, among other things, the dismissal of the Action after the requisite notice period to shareholders has expired. The Company expensed $320,500 in legal fees and settlement costs during the second quarter of 2015 resulting from this lawsuit. All costs and fees related to this matter in excess of this amount have been paid by the Company's insurance carrier. EL CAMINO: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Becker" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Therese Becker, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees v. El Camino Hospital, Case No. 115-cv-285184 (D. Cal., September 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. El Camino Hospital is a multi-facility hospital providing a range of inpatient and outpatient services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura L. Ho, Esq. Andrew P. Lee, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARlAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com alee@gbdhlegal.com EL REY: Faces "Bue" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law ------------------------------------------------------- Ismeal Bue, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, v. El Rey USA Meats and Seafood, Inc., and Daniel Leon, Individually, Case: 1:15-cv-07039 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. El Rey USA Meats sells food to merchants in Chicagoland area and the Midwest. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 853-1450 EMDEON INC: Social Service Coordinators Paid Full Amount in Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emdeon Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, that two separate collective class action complaints were filed on December 10, 2010 and February 4, 2013, against Social Service Coordinators, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging the Company refused to pay overtime compensation and to provide other benefits required by law. A mediation to settle all wage and hour related current and future disputes was held on April 16, 2014. These two cases were settled (subject to court approval) for a total of $4,900,000, including Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. The Company is required to separately pay all employer-side payroll taxes associated with the Class Fund. A total of $5,040,000, including payroll taxes, was accrued as of December 31, 2013. The Company paid the full amount during 2014, as agreed upon in the settlement. ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Has Deal to Decertify and Dismiss Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Bartoni case, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision. Four different putative class action lawsuits were filed against AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently been consolidated into a single action. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in compliance with California law, and failed to provide required meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and attorneys' fees under California law. The Court has certified classes in the consolidated Karapetian/ Aguilar case on claims alleging that AMR has not provided meal periods in compliance with the law as to dispatchers and call takers, that AMR has an unlawful time rounding policy, and that AMR has an unlawful practice of setting rates for those employees; the Court denied certification of the rest period claims of these employees. In the Banta case, the Court denied certification of the meal and rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that is being appealed; the Court indicated that it would certify a class on overtime claims, but plaintiff's counsel has indicated that they intend to dismiss that claim as AMR's policy complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision. In the Bartoni case, the Court denied certification on the meal and rest period claims of all unionized employees in Northern California, a decision that is being appealed. While the Court certified a class on the overtime claims, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision. The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Roberts" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Scripts Holding Company, Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and Accredo Health Group, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-1368 (E.D. Mo., September 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' robo-calling practices and obtain redress for the thousands of individuals injured by their conduct. The Defendants own and operate its own mail-order pharmacies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C. 1824 Chouteau Avenue St. Louis, MO 63103 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 Facsimile: (618) 656-6230 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari J. Scharg, Esq. Alicia E. Hwang, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com ahwang@edelson.com - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP Galleria Tower I 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Facsimile: (888) 995-333 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com FIRST INDEX: All American Painting Alleges Violation of TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------ All American Painting, L.L.C., individually and as a representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. First Index, Inc., Case: 4:15-cv-01230 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 12, 2015), seeks an award of statutory damages for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by the Defendant. First Index, Inc. provides online sourcing and marketplace services to manufacturing companies, identify low cost suppliers for various types of manufactured parts, in the United States and internationally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Ste. 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Tel: 847-368-1500 Phillip A. Bock, Esq. Tod A. Lewis, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: 312-658-5500 Max Margulis, Esq. MARGULIS LAW GROUP 28 Old Belle Monte Rd. Chesterfield, MO 63017 Tel: 636/536-7022 E-mail: MaxMargulis@Margulislaw.com FIRSTMERIT: Stipulation in Overdraft Suit Awaits Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Overdraft Litigation, the parties have stipulated to a revised class definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay), and an order approving that stipulation is awaiting court approval. Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas against the Corporation and the Bank. The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees. In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's class certification order, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in particular with respect to the class definition. On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for reconsideration and application for consideration en banc. On November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those applications. On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3, 2014, they filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in support of the Court's exercising its jurisdiction and accepting the appeal. The plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. On August 6, 2014, the Bank and Corporation filed a motion asking the trial court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to an arbitration agreement. That motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting a decision by the court. On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to a revised class definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay), and an order approving that stipulation is awaiting court approval. FIRSTMERIT: Settlement in Merger Litigation Becomes Final --------------------------------------------------------- FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Merger Litigation, an appeal of the settlement was dismissed and the settlement has become final. Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged shareholders of Citizens filed six purported class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, relating to the proposed merger between Citizens and FirstMerit, which merger closed in April 2013. The lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit"). The consolidated complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former directors of Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best available price in the merger and by not providing Citizens shareholders with all material information related to the merger, and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable relief. The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of the Lawsuit, which the court approved on September 20, 2013. Under the settlement, the defendants amended the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include certain supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the court. An appeal of the settlement was dismissed in March 2015 and the settlement has become final. FREEWAY INSURANCE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements --------------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Barrios, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. BC593102 (D. Cal., September 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees with accurately itemized wage statements. Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. owns and operates an auto insurance agency doing business in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Otkupman, Esq. Rita Leong, Esq. OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION 5950 Canoga Ave Suite 550 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 293-5623 Facsimile: (888) 850-1310 E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com Rita@OLFLA.com GARDEN PARTNERS: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Gender Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Magdalena Erica Najera v. Garden Partners, LLC d/b/a Peacock Garden Cafe, Case No. 31624129 (D. Fla., September 2, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's sex discriminatory practices. Garden Partners, LLC owns and operates a landscaping company in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq. MCGUINNESS & GONZALEZ, P.A. 3126 Center St. Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 448-9557 Facsimile: (305) 448-9559 E-mail: 1jmpalaw@netzero.net GOLDEN INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Simpson v. Golden Investments, Shankar Bhatta, Geetha Madhavan, Sethu Madhaven, David Hutchison, Hutchison and Hutchison Accountancy, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BG593402 (D. Cal., September 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, damages stemming from rent overcharges pursuant to California Labor Code. The Defendants own and manage a commercial property located at 1341 E. Avenue R, Palmdale, CA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. John T. Stralen, Esq. Joshua Watson, Esq. THE ARNOLD LAW FIRM 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 INTEGRATED SILICON: Case Management Conference Set for October 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a case management conference is currently scheduled for October 2, 2015, in the stockholder class action litigation. Beginning on April 1, 2015, three purported stockholder class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of Santa Clara on behalf of a putative class of ISSI stockholders and naming as defendants ISSI's Board of Directors and Uphill: Richard Wilson III v. Jimmy S.M. Lee, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-278815 (filed April 1, 2015); Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Jimmy S.M. Lee, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-278812 (filed April 1, 2015); and Kathy Guerra v. Scott D. Howarth, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-279142 (filed April 8, 2015) (the "Guerra Action"). On May 5, 2015, the actions were consolidated to form In re Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 1-15-cv-278812, and plaintiffs designated the complaint filed in the Guerra Action as the operative complaint. The operative complaint generally alleges that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of ISSI by Uphill, the ISSI directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to ISSI's stockholders by, among other things, purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of ISSI to ISSI's stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement. The operative complaint also alleges that the ISSI directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose material information to ISSI stockholders. The operative complaint further generally alleges that Uphill aided and abetted the ISSI directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The operative complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, or alternatively, in the event that the proposed transaction is consummated, an order rescinding it. A case management conference is currently scheduled for October 2, 2015. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrei Savu, and all others similarly-situated v. Michael P. Cole, Justin C. Dearborn, William J. Devers, Jr., Michael W. Ferro, Jr., Matthew M. Maloney, Richard A. Reck, Neele E. Stearns, Jr., International Business Machines Corporation and Datong Acquisition Corp., Case No. 2015CH12408(Ill. Cir., August 19, 2015), asserts claims against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties to the shareholders of Merge Healthcare Incorporated ("Merge"). The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin IBM's proposed acquisition of Merge. Michael P. Cole is a Merge director and has been since April 2015. Justin C. Dearborn is Merge's CEO and has been since August 2013, previously serving in the role from June 2008 until November 2010; Chief Executive Officer of Merge DNA and has been since May 20 12; Corporate Secretary and has been since May 2013; President and has been since November 2010; and director since his original appointment as CEO in June 2008. William J. Devers Jr. is a Merge director and has been since February 2014. Michael W. Ferro, Jr. is Merge's Chairman of the Board and director and has been since November 2014. Defendant Ferro previously served as Chairman of the Board and director from June 2008 until August 2013. Matthew M. Maloney is a Merge director and has been since August 2012. Richard A. Reck is a Merge director and has been since April 2003. Neele E. Stearns, Jr. is a Merge director and has been since June 2008. IBM is a New York corporation with principal executive offices located at 1 New Orchard Road, Armonk, New York. IBM manufactures and markets computer hardware, middleware, and software, and offers infrastructure, hosting and consulting services in areas ranging from mainframe computers to nanotechnology. Datong Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") is a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant IBM. Upon completion of the proposed acquisition, defendant Merger Sub will merge with and into Merge and cease its separate corporate existence. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward T. Joyce, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 135 South La Salle St., Ste. 2200 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 641-2600 Fax: (312) 641-0360 - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Ste 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Tel: (858) 914-2001 Fax: (858) 914-2002 ITG INC: Faces "Shah" Suit for Securities Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Rajesh Shah and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Investment Technology Group, Inc., Robert C. Gasser and Steven R. Vigliotti, (C.D. Cal. August 5, 2015), was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of ITG from February 28, 2011 to July 29, 2015, inclusive. The Defendant operates as an independent broker-dealer and dark pool operator. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 L.A., CA 90071 Tel: (213) 785-2610 Fax: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com ITT EDUCATIONAL: 3-Month Stay Entered in NY Securities Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the New York Securities Litigation, the court has entered a stipulation and order providing for a three-month stay of all proceedings. The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the following caption: William Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch Litigation")." "On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the following caption: Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al (the "MLAF Litigation"). "On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation and MLAF Litigation under the following caption: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "New York Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs. On October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second amended complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation. The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by: * our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, CUSO RSA and PEAKS Program; * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud; * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; * making the statements intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our common stock; * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs and the purported class, regarding, among other things, our artificially inflated statements of financial strength and understated liabilities; and * causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members to purchase our common stock at inflated prices." The Company said, "The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008 through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees, and such equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems appropriate. On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of our motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. On August 5, 2014, we filed our answer to the second amended complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on March 27, 2015. On June 16, 2015, to facilitate the parties' efforts to resolve this action by mediation, the court entered a stipulation and order providing for a three-month stay of all proceedings. All of the defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the second amended complaint. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Securities Action Stayed Until Oct. 13 --------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Indiana Securities Litigation, to facilitate the parties' efforts to resolve this action by mediation, the court granted a joint motion for a stay of proceedings until October 13, 2015. The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: David Banes, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation"). On October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three similar complaints were filed against us and two of our current executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under the following captions: Babulal Tarapara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara Litigation"), Kumud Jindal, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal Litigation") and Kristopher Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Hennen Litigation"). On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara Litigation and the Jindal Litigation were consolidated into the Banes Litigation. On January 21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was consolidated into that consolidated action (the "Indiana Securities Litigation"). On December 1, 2014, motions were filed in the Indiana Securities Litigation for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 16, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Subsequently, the caption for the Indiana Securities Litigation was changed to the following: In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana). On May 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Indiana Securities Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business, operations, prospects and financial results. Plaintiffs assert that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of business and that alleged misstatements and/or omissions by the defendants caused members of the putative class to purchase our securities at artificially inflated prices. The amended complaint includes allegations relating to: * the performance of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program; * our guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program; * our accounting treatment of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program; * consolidation of the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated financial statements; * the impact of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program on our liquidity and overall financial condition; * our compliance with Department of Education financial responsibility standards; and * our internal controls over financial reporting. The putative class period in the Indiana Securities Litigation is from February 26, 2013 through May 12, 2015. The plaintiffs in the Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among other things, the designation of the action as a proper class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, interest, costs, expenses, counsel fees and expert fees, and such other relief as the court deems proper. On July 14, 2015, to facilitate the parties' efforts to resolve this action by mediation, the court granted a joint motion for a stay of proceedings until October 13, 2015. All of the defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint. ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Against "Gallien" Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to continue to defend vigorously against the allegations made in the so-called Gallien Litigation. The Company said, "On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation"). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under California law, we: * failed to pay wages owed; * failed to pay overtime compensation; * failed to provide meal and rest periods; * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements; * engaged in unlawful business practices; and * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act. The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17, 2013. The amended complaint seeks: * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses; * general damages; * pay for missed meal and rest periods; * restitution; * liquidated damages; * statutory penalties; * interest; * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses; * civil and statutory penalties; * injunctive relief; and * such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable and appropriate. "We have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint," the Company said. IXIA: Parties at Mediation Fail to Reach Agreement -------------------------------------------------- IXIA said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, that on July 23, 2015, the Company agreed in principle to resolve and settle the consolidated shareholder derivative action, captioned In re Ixia Shareholder Derivative Litigation, that is currently pending against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The agreement in principle was reached in connection with a voluntary mediation held to explore a possible settlement of both the shareholder derivative action and a purported securities class action. The settlement will not become effective until the parties agree on a formal Stipulation of Settlement and such Stipulation is approved by the court. The settlement will require that the Company implement certain corporate governance measures and will also provide that the plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $575,000. The Company expects that any fees and expenses awarded by the court to the plaintiffs' counsel will be paid by one of the Company's insurance carriers. The settlement will not include any admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants and will include a full release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made in the derivative action. The parties at the mediation did not reach an agreement to resolve and settle the purported securities class action, captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg, that is currently pending against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. JE-GO CORP: Faces "Garcia" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Vivian Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals v. Je-Go Corporation, Rafael Tapanes, individually, and Nereida Tapanes, individually, Case 1:15-cv-22811-JEM (S.S.Fla., July 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Je-Go Corporation operates in the grocery stores industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: 305-416-5000 Fax: 305-416-5005 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing to Reconsider Class Certification Held ----------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that a hearing to reconsider class certification took place at the District Court in July 2015 and the parties are awaiting a decision. In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho- Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that may result from these cases. In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class certification. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the class certification ruling and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. A hearing to reconsider class certification took place at the District Court in July 2015 and the parties are awaiting a decision. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. 2015 Class Cert. Hearing on Field Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that a hearing to class certification of the so-called BC Civl Claim will be held next month. In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc. received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim). The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December 2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the- counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing is scheduled for October 2015. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Cases Transferred to Florida ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that in March and April 2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, alleging vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of contact lenses. The complaints alleged that the manufacturers reached agreements between each other and certain distributors and retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages. All of the class action cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015 along with the related case filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation. MARATHON PETROLEUM: Class Action Filed Challenging Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in July 2015, a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims challenging the proposed merger of MPLX LP and MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. ("MWE") was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by a purported unitholder of MWE. The lawsuit alleges that the individual members of the board of directors of MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. the general partner of MWE, breached their fiduciary and/or contractual duties to the unitholders of MWE and that MPLX, MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a subsidiary of MPLX, aided and abetted those breaches. The complaint seeks to enjoin the proposed merger or, if the merger is consummated, to rescind the transaction or recover rescission damages. The lawsuit also seeks an accounting and recovery of attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other litigation costs. "We believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit," the Company said. MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Young" Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- James Young, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00197-WCL-SLC (N.D.Ind., July 29, 2015), asserts claims for alleged violations of Indiana's consumer laws, negligence, breach of implied contract, bailment, and unjust enrichment as a result of a data breach when hackers stole the personal financial and protected health information of numerous individuals whose information was used in a MIE electronic health record. MIE is a software developer that provides technical solutions targeted to the healthcare industry. MIE also provides an electronic medical record system. The Plaintiff is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Vess A. Miller, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Tel: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Molinaro" Suit Over Mulled IBM Takeover ---------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Molinaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merge Healthcare Incorporated, et al., Case No. 11458 (D. Del., September 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Merge Healthcare Incorporated to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Merge by International Business Machines Corporation for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Merge Healthcare Incorporated is a provider of medical imaging software solutions. International Business Machines Corporation is a technology and consulting corporation that manufactures and markets computer hardware, middleware, and software, and offers infrastructure, hosting, and consulting services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. Citizens Bank Center 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Telephone: (302) 656-4433 E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com - and - Robert I. Harwood, Esq. Peter W. Overs Jr., Esq. HARWOOD FEFFER LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 935-7400 E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com povers@hfesq.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Williams" ERISA Suit Over Hershey Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carmela Williams v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case 1:15-at-00678 (E.D.Cal., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by a purported participant of The Hershey Company Program of Flexible Benefits ("The Plan"). Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued a Group Policy to Hershey and thereby insured The Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Rosati, Esq. Thornton Davidson, Esq. ERISA Law Group 6485 N. Palm Ave. Fresno, CA 93704 Tel: (559) 478-4119 Fax: (559) 478-5939 E-mail: robert@erisalg.com thornton@erisalg.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Moeller" ERISA Suit Over Sutter Plan -------------------------------------------------------------- Insook Moeller v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case 2:15- cv-01717-GEB-CKD (E.D.Cal., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by a purported participant of the Master Plan For The Sutter Health Sponsored Welfare Benefit Plans. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued Group Policy to Sutter Health and thereby insured The Plan for Long Term Disability benefits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Rosati, Esq. Thornton Davidson, Esq. ERISA LAW GROUP 6485 N. Palm Ave. Fresno, CA 93704 Tel: (559) 478-4119 Fax: (559) 478-5939 E-mail: robert@erisalg.com thornton@erisalg.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Williams" ERISA Suit Over Hershey Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carmela Williams v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case 1:15-cv-01252---SKO (E.D.Cal., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by a purported participant of The Hershey Company Program of Flexible Benefits ("The Plan"). Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued a Group Policy to Hershey and thereby insured The Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Rosati, Esq. Thornton Davidson, Esq. ERISA Law Group 6485 N. Palm Ave. Fresno, CA 93704 Tel: (559) 478-4119 Fax: (559) 478-5939 E-mail: robert@erisalg.com thornton@erisalg.com MICROSOFT CORP: Total Remaining Settlement Cost Pegged at $200MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that in the Antitrust, Unfair Competition, and Overcharge Class Actions, the Company estimates the total remaining cost of settlements is approximately $200 million, all of which had been accrued as of June 30, 2015. The Company said, "A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and certain other software products between 1999 and 2005." "We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made in the U.S. Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies by state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two- thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $200 million, all of which had been accrued as of June 30, 2015." "Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In 2010, the court in the British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial in 2016. The other two cases are inactive." MICROSOFT CORP: Trial Remains Stayed in US Phone Product Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that in the U.S. cell phone product-related litigation, trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their brain tumors and other adverse health effects. "We have assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia defendants," the Company said. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed. In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines ("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines. In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of flawed scientific methodologies. In March 2014, defendants filed a separate motion to preclude plaintiffs' general causation testimony. In August 2014, the court granted in part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal. In December 2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc defendants' interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for evaluating expert scientific evidence. Trial court proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal. MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Still Inactive --------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Canadian cell phone class action is not yet active as several defendants remain to be served. Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours, including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted for the Nokia defendants. MILLER'S CROSSING: Faces "Banuelos" Suit for Unpaid OT Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heleodoro Banuelos and all others similarly situated v. Miller's Crossing, LLC, Mark Shklar, Case: 4:15-cv-01202, (E.D. Mo., August 5, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff are represented by: Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC 2726 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63144 Tel: (314) 645-4100 Fax: (314) 736-6216 E-mail: kevin@dolleyla\v.cotn - and - Richard B. Hein, Esq. THE HEIN LAW FIRM, L.C. 7750 Clayton Road, Suite 102 St. Louis, MO 63117 Tel: (314) 645-7900 Fax: (314)645-7901 E-mail: rhein@heinlegal.cotn MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiff Filed Motion to Remand --------------------------------------------------------- Moneygram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Class Action Securities Litigation, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to Delaware State Court. On April 15, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of its executive officers, THL, Goldman Sachs and the underwriters of the secondary public offering of the Company's common stock that closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was brought by the Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's registration statement and prospectus, and all documents incorporated by reference therein, issued in connection with the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014 Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On May 19, 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice of removal to the federal district court of the District of Delaware. On June 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to Delaware State Court. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. NATALIA CO: "Lobut" Suit Seeks Damages for Alleged FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mustafa Lobut v. The Natalia Company, Inc., Natalia Morozova and Vladislavas Borisevic, Case 1:15-cv-22942-KMW (S.D. Fl., August 5, 2015) seeks to be paid for damages exceeding $15,000 for unpaid wages under Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is an active carrier, licensed to carry hazmat rated materials from the general freight, cargo categories. Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: 305-416-5000 Fax: 305-416-5005 NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Request to Amend "Ubaldi" Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., the Court has denied Plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint again. On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class action complaint against Old SLM in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., Case No. C-11-01320EDL. The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees proportional to the amount of missed payments constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law; and Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging daily interest on private educational loans. Following motion practice and additional amendments to the complaint, which added usury claims under California state law and two additional defendants (Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A), a Modified Third Amended Complaint was filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs sought restitution of late charges and interest paid by members of the class, injunctive relief, cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among other relief. Prior to the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005, Old SLM followed prevalent capital market practices of acquiring and securitizing private education loans purchased in secondary transactions from banks who originated these loans. Plaintiffs alleged that the services provided by Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. to the originating banks resulted in Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc. constituting lenders on these loans. Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank originated the vast majority of all private education loans acquired by Old SLM. The claims at issue in this case expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank since its inception. Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient and as such the Ubaldi litigation will remain the sole responsibility of Navient Corporation. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on October 22, 2013. On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification without prejudice, but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2014, a Complaint in Intervention was filed on behalf of two additional customers representing a proposed usury sub-class. On June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On December 19, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification regarding the claims concerning late fees, but denied the motion as to the usury claims. On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file another amended complaint. On March 24, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion, denying their request to amend the complaint again. "It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith," the Company said. NAVIENT CORP: Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Blyden" Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the putative class action filed by Marlene Blyden, the Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, Bank of New York, and the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. The complaint was captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation et. al., Case No. 5:14-CV-2456. On December 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff purports to bring the First Amended Complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The First Amended Complaint alleged that plaintiff and members of the asserted class were charged and/or paid interest at a rate above that permitted under California law. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint, which drops SLM Corporation as a defendant, adds various securitization trusts as defendants, and adds claims for conversion and for money had and received. Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 6, 2015. The plaintiff filed her Opposition on April 16, 2015, and Defendants filed Replies on April 20, 2015. On July 23, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint but permitted certain amendments to be made by Plaintiff no later than August 4, 2015. "It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection therewith," the Company said. NEWPARK RESOURCES: Trial of "Davida" Case Set for September 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial of the case, Davida v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, has been scheduled for September 2016. On June 18, 2014, Jesse Davida, a former employee of Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties for the Company's alleged failure to: properly classify its field service employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and, pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiff seeks recovery on his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of similarly situated employees. On January 6, 2015, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to "conditionally" certify the class of fluid service technicians that have worked for Newpark Drilling Fluids over the past three years. Beginning in early March of 2015, notification was given to 658 current and former fluid service technician employees of Newpark regarding this litigation and those individuals were given the opportunity to "opt-in" to the Davida litigation. The opt-in period closed in early May of 2015 and a total of 91 individuals have joined the Davida litigation. The Court has given the plaintiffs' attorneys until September 2015 to add state law claims to the litigation (if any). The trial of the case has been scheduled for September 2016. "We have a number of defenses we can assert against these claims including that these employees are properly classified as exempt employees. We have retained counsel with experience in cases of this nature, and intend to vigorously defend this litigation," the Company said. NEWPARK RESOURCES: Retained Counsel in "Christiansen" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Christiansen v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, the Company has retained counsel with experience in cases of this nature, and intend to vigorously defend this litigation. On November 11, 2014, Josh Christiansen filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties for the Company's alleged failure to: properly classify him as an employee rather than an independent contractor; properly classify its field service employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and, pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime) and seeks damages and penalties for the Company's alleged failure to pay him and the others in the proposed class on an hourly basis (including overtime). Following the filing of this lawsuit, five additional plaintiffs joined the proceedings. The plaintiff seeks recovery on his own behalf, and sought certification of a class of similarly situated individuals. In March of 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification. Counsel for the plaintiffs did not appeal that ruling and have now filed individual cases for each of the original plaintiffs plus one new plaintiff, leaving a total of seven separate independent contractor cases pending. "We have retained counsel with experience in cases of this nature, and intend to vigorously defend this litigation," the Company said. NOBLE CASING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Cooper" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tyeler Cooper, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. Noble Casing, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01907 (D. Colo., September 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay straight time pay and time and one-half premium pay for all regular and overtime hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Noble Casing, Inc. is an oilfield casing company providing services in North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 123 North College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 212-4665 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com NORTEK INC: No Arguments with Respect to Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------ Nortek, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that no arguments or ruling with respect to class action status have occurred to date in either of the class actions. The Company said, "Nortek Global HVAC LLC ("Nordyne"), our wholly owned subsidiary, is the defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in Florida, Harris, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC, Case No. 1:14- cv-21884-BB, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In addition, Nortek, Inc., Nortek Global HVAC LLC and Nortek Global HVAC Latin America, Inc. are the defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in Tennessee, Bauer, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01940, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee." "These lawsuits allege that evaporator and condenser coils in Nordyne's residential heating and cooling products are susceptible to a type of potential corrosion of the copper tubing in the units that can result in coil leaks and/or failure of the units. The Florida action was initiated on May 21, 2014 and seeks compensatory damages associated with Nordyne's alleged wrongdoing, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Tennessee action was initiated on October 3, 2014 and seeks damages associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or replacing the allegedly defective products, the loss of value due to the alleged defect, property damages associated with the alleged defect, injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. No arguments or ruling with respect to class action status have occurred to date in either of these actions. "While these actions are in their initial stages, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses against these complaints. At this time, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material loss in such matters is remote and has not recognized a loss or liability in these actions; however, it is possible that events could occur that would change the likelihood of a material loss, which could ultimately have a material impact on our business. The Company will continue to assess the likelihood of a material loss as the actions progress." OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minakshi Kumari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OCH-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, et al., Case No. 653016 (D.N.Y., September 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. OCH-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC is a Delaware corporation that provides investment advisory services for its clients. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 240 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501 Telephone: (516) 714-4799 Facsimile: (516) 741-0626 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com OCWEN FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Suit by Altisource Investors --------------------------------------------------------------- Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate consolidated securities fraud class action that has been brought on behalf of a putative class of Altisource shareholders. The Company said, "Following our announcement on August 12, 2014 that we intended to restate our financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and the quarter ended March 31, 2014, and amend our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, putative securities fraud class action lawsuits have been filed against Ocwen and certain of its officers and directors regarding such restatements and amendments. Those lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending in federal court in Florida. After Ocwen signed a Consent Order with the NYDFS on December 22, 2014, the consolidated class action complaint was amended to include allegations relating to that Consent Order and other matters. "In January 2015, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate consolidated securities fraud class action that has been brought on behalf of a putative class of Altisource shareholders. "Ocwen and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits." OLD NATIONAL: Indiana Supreme Court Won't Accept Case Transfer -------------------------------------------------------------- Old National Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Indiana Supreme Court declined to accept transfer of the class action lawsuit. The Company said, "In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging our checking account practices associated with the assessment of overdraft fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is similar to other class action complaints filed against other financial institutions in recent years and settled for substantial amounts. On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other relief, including treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act. On June 13, 2012, Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from highest to lowest." Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class certification on April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. On June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary judgment asserting the law as applied to the material facts not in dispute should result in judgment in favor of Old National. On September 16, 2013, a hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and the Motion was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014. Subsequently, Old National sought and was granted leave to appeal the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 11, 2014, the Indiana Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and the parties fully briefed the matter as of February 23, 2015. On April 23, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the Circuit Court's denial of Old National's Motion for Summary Judgment and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for further proceedings. Specifically, the Court of Appeals rejected Old National's contention that all of plaintiffs' claims were preempted by federal law but did agree that plaintiffs' state law claims of conversion, unconscionability and unjust enrichment were unsupported under Indiana law. The dismissal of these claims removes any claims which would entitle plaintiffs to treble damages. The Court of Appeals determined Old National had not negated plaintiffs' state law claim for breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing as to the deposit account agreement and remanded that claim back to the Circuit Court. On May 22, 2015, Old National filed a Petition to Transfer the Case to the Indiana Supreme Court in which it asked the Court to accept an appeal of the remaining count. On July 23, 2015, the Indiana Supreme Court declined to accept transfer of the case. The case will now return to the trial court for further proceedings on the sole remaining count. At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for management of Old National to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any loss. OLD REPUBLIC: "Markocki" Class Action Still Pending --------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a certified class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). ORNTIC challenged the certification of the consumer protection class and the RESPA class based on more recent case precedents. On May 28, 2015, the consumer protection class was decertified and ORNTIC's motion for summary judgment on the RESPA claim was granted and that claim was dismissed. The individual consumer protection claim alleged against ORNTIC remains. OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss RESPA Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that RMIC has filed motions to dismiss RESPA-related class action cases. On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. (White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the cases. PARAMOUNT FOODS: Faces "Basurto" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Angel Basurto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Paramount Foods Inc. (d/h/a Baluchi's) and Rakesh Aggarwal, Case 1:15-cv-05937 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York Code Rules and Regulations. Baluchi's is an Indian Restaurant owned by Rakesh Aggarwal at First Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212)317-1200 PARK PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ponciano Villalva-Zeferino, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Park Pizza, Inc. and Arturo Ientile, Case No. 1:15-cv-06932-JMF (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1233 First Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Guirrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, PC 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com PHILADELPHIA: Police Department Sued Over Civil Rights Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tanya Brown-Dickerson, on behalf of others similarly situated v. City of Philadelphia, Nicholas Carrelli, and Heng Dang, Case No. 2:15-cv-04940-SD (E.D. Penn., September 2, 2015), arises out of The Philadelphia Police Department's use of force training, policies, practices that violate the Plaintiff's federal civil rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution. City of Philadelphia is a municipality duly existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq. MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C. 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 545-4870 E-mail: brian@mildenberglaw.com PJS OF PARMA: Accused of Violating Min. Wage Laws on Tips/Credits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carol Carter, Destiny Armelli, Mary Heuser, Carrie Hejduk, Judith Lauber, Dawn Melvin, Jeannette McDaniel, Melanie Moyers, Stephanie Sir Louis, Jennifer Welz, Jenny Zellers, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PJS of Parma, Inc., Stancato's Italian Restaurant and Lorraine Stancato, Case: 1:15-cv-01545, (N.D.Ohio, August 5, 2015) alleges violations of federal and state minimum wage laws regarding tips and tip credits. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephan I. Voudris, Esq. Alix Noureddine, Esq. VOUDRIS LAW LLC 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Tel: 440-543-0670 Fax: 440-543-0721 E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com anoureddine@voudrislaw.com PLAINS ALL: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-02540 (S.D. Tex., September 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is one of the largest crude oil and other liquid energy pipeline operators in United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq. Dona Szak, Esq. AJAMIE LLP Penzoil Place - South Tower 711 Louisiana, Suite 2150 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 860-1600 Facsimile: (713) 860-1699 E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com dszak@ajamie.com - and - Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com michaelb@blblgaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON 7080 NW 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com QEP RESOURCES: Court Order Regarding Class Certification Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court order regarding class certification is pending in the case, Yannick Gagne and others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc., et al., No. 480- 06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac- Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous defendants, including the rail company that transported the crude oil (which filed for bankruptcy protection in August 2013). The plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants, sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota, who resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train. Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil, failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil, failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt, implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification hearings took place in June 2014, and a court order regarding class certification is pending. Many of the defendants, including QEP, and their insurers have reached an agreement with Trustees in both Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts to resolve all of these claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential and are contingent upon the approval of the courts. QEP RESOURCES: Audet Case Stayed Pending Yannick Gagne Case ----------------------------------------------------------- QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on July 15, 2015, QEP was served with a complaint entitled Samuel Audet, et al. vs. Devlar Energy Marketing, LLC, et al., No. DC-15-06428, District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 95th Judicial District. The plaintiffs, defendants, allegations, and damages sought are materially similar to those in the Yannick Gagne case, and plaintiffs state that this lawsuit is filed to preserve claims under the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case for 90 days pending the outcome of the global settlement discussions in the Yannick Gagne case. The court's order on this request for a stay is pending. QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Newhart" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darren Newhart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Quicken Loans, Inc. and Seterus, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-81250- RSR (S.D. Fla., September 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged illegal telemarketing practices via unsolicited automated or prerecorded telephone calls. Quicken Loans, Inc. is one of the largest mortgage lenders in the United States. Seterus, Inc. is a leading specialty loan servicing company, with a principal place of business in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1054 31st Street, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 342-2103 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com jkauffman@baileyglasser.com RC NYC: Faces Suit by "Pilch" for Alleged FLSA and NYLL Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Pilch individually and on behalf of all others similarly v. RC NYC Holdings LLC, Rieder Communities LLC, and Leslie Rieder, Case 1:15-cv-06143 (S.D.N.Y. August 05, 2015), seeks payment for all hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime pay of one and a half times the regular rate, straight time, timely wages, pay notice or proper paystubs as required by New York Labor Law and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage Order. The Defendant is a non-bank holding, domestic limited liability company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allan Serrins, Esq. Corey M. Stein, Esq. SERRINS FISHER LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Tell: (212) 571-0700 RESTAURANT BRANDS: Settlement Received Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit finalized a settlement agreement which received final court approval on April 15, 2015. On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against BKC in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The complaint alleges that BKC and/or its agents sent unsolicited advertisements by fax to thousands of consumers in Maryland and elsewhere in the United States to promote its home delivery program in violation of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. The plaintiff sought monetary damages and injunctive relief. On August 19, 2014, BKC agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle the lawsuit. On December 2, 2014, the parties finalized a settlement agreement which received final court approval on April 15, 2015. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defendant in 3 Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------- Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in three purported class-action lawsuits in California alleging violations of various California labor laws. The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek to recover unspecified monetary damages and other items. In addition, the California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement has brought administrative actions against the Company on behalf of six individuals alleging that the Company violated California labor laws. Given the early stage of all of the proceedings, the Company is not able to assess with certainty the outcome of these proceedings or the amount or range of potential damages or future payments associated with these proceedings at this time. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these actions and intends to defend these proceedings vigorously. SABI VENTURES: Faces "Welch" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Randi Welch, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Sabi Ventures, Inc., Muhammad Faisal, individually and 7-Eleven, Inc., Case 8:15-cv-01755-RAL-MAP (M.D.Fla., July 29, 2015), seeks damages exceeding $15,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and for declaratory relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the common law for unpaid wages. 7-Eleven Inc. is a franchisor in Texas. Sabi Ventures Inc. is a 7-Eleven franchisee, with multiple gas station/convenience stores in and around Manatee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Stret, #700 Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: 813.223.5505 Fax: 813-257-0572 E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com SAC INC: "Stecco" Suit Seeks Damages for Alleged TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Stecco on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated, v. Student Aid Center, Inc., Case 0:15-cv-61610-WJZ (S.D. Fla. August 5, 2015) alleges willful and/or knowing violations under the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and thus seeks statutory damages. The Defendant is a self-described industry leader in the federal student loan debt relief industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Milian, Esq. Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Ernesto M. Rubi CAREY RODRIGUEZ O'KEEFE MILIAN GONYA, LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Tell: (305) 372-7474 Fax: (305) 372-7475 E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com fhedin@careyrodriguez.com erubi@careyrodriguez.com SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Peck" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Mickey Peck, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00950-F (W.D. Okla., September 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. SandRidge Energy, Inc. owns and operates an oil and natural gas company and maintains its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: Leah Roper, Esq. Mark Hammon, Esq. HAMMONS, GOWENS, HURST & ASSOCIATES 325 Dean A. McGee Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-6100 Facsimile: (405) 235-6111 E-mail: leah@hammonslaw.com mark@hammonslaw.com - and - Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Alex M. Baggio, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: fisher@nka.com abaggio@nka.com SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Fraud Action Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted Louis Ferrari, et. al.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for securities fraud filed by Matz Johansson. Defendants Louis Ferrari, et. al., were the former directors and officers of Savient Pharmaceuticals. Johansson contends that two categories of disclosures in the April, May, and August 2013 SEC filings ("class period filings") were violations of Rule 10b-5: (1) Savient's failure to update the public concerning the directors' evaluation of potential strategic alternatives; and (2) Savient's cash projections indicating that it could operate at least into the second quarter of 2012. The Defendants argue that Johansson's Amended Complaint does not state a claim for either category because Johansson failed to allege an actionable misrepresentation or omission and failed to allege sufficient facts to support a "strong inference" of scienter. Judge Sleet agreed with the Defendants' argument. He held that because Johansson has not alleged an actionable material omission concerning Savient's strategic alternatives, his claim must fail. He further held that the allegations in the complaint fail to support a strong inference of scienter -- that the Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the possibility that their omission was misleading to the public. The case is MATZ JOHANSSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS FERRARI, GINGER CONSTANTINE, M.D., STEPHEN O. JAEGER, DAVID P. MEEKER, M.D., DAVID Y. NORTON, ROBERT G. SAVAGE, VIRGIL THOMPSON, RICHARD CROWLEY, JOHN P. HAMILL, PHILIP K. YACHMETZ, and DAVID G. GI ON CO, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-42-GMS. A full-text copy of Judge Gregory M. Sleet's Memorandum dated August 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/o1TXxTfrom Leagle.com. Matz Johansson is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302)295-5310 Facsimile: (302)654-7530 Email: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com Louis Ferrari, et al., are represented by: Robert Scott Saunders, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302)651-3000 Facsimile: (302)651-3001 Email: rob.saunders@skadden.com About Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey, Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.savient.com/-- is a specialty biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing KRYSTEXXA(R) (pegloticase) for the treatment of chronic gout in adult patients refractory to conventional therapy. Savient has exclusively licensed worldwide rights to the technology related to KRYSTEXXA and its uses from Duke University and Mountain View Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Company and its affiliate, Savient Pharma Holdings, Inc., sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 13-12680) on Oct. 14, 2013. In its schedules, Savient Pharmaceuticals listed $43,065,650 in total assets and $284,078,461 in total liabilities. The Debtors are represented by Kenneth S. Ziman, Esq., and David M. Turetsky, Esq., at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in New York; and Anthony W. Clark, Esq., at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware. Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard P.A., also serves as the Company's conflicts counsel, and Lazard Freres & Co. LLC serves as its financial advisor. GCG Inc. serves as the Debtors' claims agent. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP is the Debtors' special intellectual property counsel. U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee and Collateral Agent, is represented by Clark T. Whitmore, Esq., at Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Unofficial Committee of Senior Secured Noteholders is represented by Andrew N. Rosenberg, Esq., Elizabeth McColm, Esq., and Jacob A. Adlerstein, Esq., at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, in New York; and Pauline K. Morgan, Esq., at Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware. The Troubled Company Reporter reported on Jan. 15, 2014, that Savient Pharmaceuticals has completed the sale of substantially all of its assets, including all KRYSTEXXA assets, to Crealta Pharmaceuticals for gross proceeds of approximately $120.4 million. Savient Pharmaceuticals has filed with the Bankruptcy Court a plan of liquidation following the sale to Crealta. The Plan impairs senior secured noteholder claims and general unsecured claims. The Plan also impairs intercompany claims, subordinated 510(c) claims and subordinated 510(b) claims, although holders of these claims are not entitled to vote on the Plan. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: AirTran to Defend Agaisnt Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that AirTran intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations in a class action lawsuit. A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees. On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The parties have submitted briefs on class certification, and AirTran filed a motion to exclude the class certification reports of plaintiffs' expert. The Court has not yet ruled on the class certification motion or the related motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert. The parties engaged in extensive discovery, which was extended due to discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta, but discovery has now closed. On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta have delayed further briefing on summary judgment. On December 2, 2013, plaintiffs moved for discovery sanctions against Delta, and the Court suspended further briefing on (i) the motion for summary judgment, (ii) the motion for class certification, and (iii) the motion to strike plaintiffs' expert on class certification, until the sanctions motion is resolved. On May 14, 2014, the Court referred the sanctions dispute to a special master. The special master has issued a series of reports and recommendations, and the Court is considering objections filed by plaintiffs and Delta to the special master's reports and recommendations. AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: MDL Panel Will Hold Hearing on October 1 ------------------------------------------------------------ Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the MDL panel will hold a hearing to consider requests to transfer on October 1, 2015. On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints have been filed in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the District of Minnesota, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaints seek treble damages for periods that vary among the complaints, costs, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. The time for the Company to respond to the complaints varies by case and has not yet expired. Requests to transfer the pre-trial proceedings of these cases into to a single federal court have been filed with the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ("MDL Panel"). As of July 16, 2015, motions have been filed asking the MDL Panel to transfer to (i) the District of Columbia; (ii) the Northern District of Illinois; (iii) the Eastern District of New York; (iv) the Southern District of New York; and (v) the Northern District of Texas. The MDL panel has set an August 4, 2015 deadline for all such requests and has notified the parties that it will hold a hearing to consider the requests on October 1, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend these civil cases. TETRA TECH: Class Action Against BPR Officially Closed ------------------------------------------------------ Tetra Tech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the class action filed against BPR Inc., is officially closed. On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in Montreal in which BPR Inc., BPR's former president, and other Quebec-based engineering firms and individuals are named as defendants. The plaintiff class includes all individuals and entities that have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal. The allegations include participation in collusion to share contracts awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce competition and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials, making illegal political contributions, and bid rigging. A class certification hearing was held in March 2014, and on May 7, 2014, the court dismissed the action. On June 5, 2014, the plaintiff filed an appeal, and on November 3, 2014, the court dismissed this appeal. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada, and on April 23, 2015, the court dismissed the application. Accordingly, this matter is officially closed. TIME WARNER: Faces "Byrd" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Damon Byrd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15- cv-06831 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular telephone using an artificial or prerecorded voice. Time Warner Cable, Inc. offers satellite television services and a variety of consumer and business related satellite television services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com TIME WARNER: Faces 2nd "Byrd" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Damon Byrd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15- cv-06834 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular telephone using an artificial or prerecorded voice. Time Warner Cable, Inc. offers satellite television services and a variety of consumer and business related satellite television services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com VBI VACCINES: Disputes Claims Asserted in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company disputes the claims asserted in a putative class action case and is vigorously contesting the matter. On November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 14-cv-9435, as amended on February 11, 2015 and March 25, 2015, on behalf of pre-Merger shareholders of Paulson Capital (Delaware) Corp. who held shares on October 11, 2013 and were entitled to vote at the 2013 Shareholder Meeting, against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as of the date of the vote, in a matter captioned Furlong et al. v. VBI Vaccines, Inc. et al., making claims arising under Section 20(a) and Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.14a- 9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The claims allege false and misleading information provided to investors in the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the SEC on October 18, 2013 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to authorize the Board to pursue potential restructuring transactions. If the plaintiffs were able to prove their allegations in this matter and to establish the damages they assert, then an adverse ruling could have a material impact on the Company. However, the Company disputes the claims asserted in this putative class action case and is vigorously contesting the matter. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Arkansas Teachers Group to Lead Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has entered an order appointing Arkansas Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff in the case, Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et al. On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 28, 2013 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to certain funds subadvised by F-Squared. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members. On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. One of the motions has been withdrawn and on May 7, 2015, the other applicant filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion of Arkansas Teachers Retirement System to be appointed lead plaintiff. On June 9, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Arkansas Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Lead Plaintiff Named in "Youngers" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has granted the motion, appointing movants as lead plaintiff in the case, Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. et al. On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by an individual who alleges he is a former shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSector Funds. The complaint purports to allege claims against the Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff. No other motions to be appointed lead plaintiff were filed. On July 27, 2015, the court granted the motion, appointing movants as lead plaintiff. Also, on July 27, 2015, the court issued an order to show cause requiring lead plaintiff to explain no later than July 31, 2015, why his claims should not be transferred and consolidated with the Cummins action. The Company believes the plaintiff's claims asserted in the complaint are frivolous and intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim. WAL-MART STORES: Removed "Mesa" Class Suit to S. District Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- Walmart Stores, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit captioned Brynner Mesa, and other similarly situated individuals v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, d/b/a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Case No. 2015- 016115CA01 from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in Miami-Dade County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-23311-CMA to the proceeding. The complaint asserts a claim for alleged unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jsr@rgpattorneys.com bms@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher P. Hammon, Esq. Gregory R. Hawran, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131-2813 Telephone: (305) 374-0506 Facsimile: (3050 374-0456 E-mail: chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com gregory.hawran@ogletreedeakins.com WAYFAIR INC: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Gerald Dingee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wayfair Inc., Niraj Shah, and Michael Fleisher, Case No. 1:15-cv-06941 (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects following its initial public offering ("IPO"). Wayfair Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices situated at 4 Copley Place, 7th Floor, Boston, MA. Wayfair is purportedly one of the largest online retailer of home goods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com WESTSIDE DONUT: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Under ADA, Rights Law ------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Parenteau v. Westside Donut 8th Ave. Ventures LLC, d/b/a Dunkin' Donuts #344936, and 265 W. 37th Street LLC, Case 1:15-cv- 06363 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2015), seeks injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the United States Code, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the New York City Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff is represented by: B. Bradley Weitz, Esq. THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A. Bank of America Building 18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214 Aventura, FL 33160 Tel: (305) 949-7777 Fax: (305) 704-3877 E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com YELP INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on May 21, 2015. On June 26, 2015, the Company and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, and a hearing on this motion has been scheduled for September 10, 2015. YELP INC: Plaintiffs Filed First Amended Complaint v. Eat24 ----------------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as defendants the Company and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24 customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On May 25, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. YELP INC: Former Eat24 Sales Employee Filed Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit, on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages, allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. YODLEE INC: Faces "Inala" Suit Over Proposed Envestnet Takeover --------------------------------------------------------------- Suman Inala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No. 11461 (D. Del., September 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Yodlee Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Yodlee by Envestnet, Inc., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration. Headquartered in Redwood City, California, Yodlee Inc. is a technology and application software company which provides digital financial services in the cloud. Envestnet, Inc. is a financial services company that provides wealth management software and services to independent financial advisors and financial institutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com ********* 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 * * *