/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 224 Headlines AAC HOLDINGS: Faces "Kasper" Class Action in M.D. Tennessee AMAZON.COM: Leonard LLP Files Class Suit Over Wage Theft ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: To Pay $8.3MM to California Customers AREVALO MANUFACTURING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ARL CREDIT: Court Approves Amended Class Notice in "Reynolds" ASTIN FARMS: "Ruiz-Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BATH AND BODY: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Labor Code Violation BGC PARTNERS: $10.75 Million Settlement Reached in Del. Suit BLUE EARTH: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action in C.D. Cal. BOB EVANS: Has $16.5MM Deal to Resolve Claims in Snodgrass et al BUMBLE BEE: Giant Eagle Joins Tuna Antitrust Class Suit CANADA: Trial in Indian Residential Schools Suit Starts CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Ackerman" Action in Los Angeles Court CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Altman" Action in N.D. Ga. Court CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recorded $11.2MM Charge Related to Settlement CHINACAST EDUCATION: 9th Circ. Revives Securities Class Suit COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Granted Conditional Certification CONFORMIS INC: Vincent Kwong Firm Files Securities Class Suit CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit DEPAUL HEALTH: "Connors" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA DENVER PARENT: 2016 Trial in Merger Class Action in Delaware DOLLAR TREE: 2011 Case by Assistant Store Manager Continuing DOLLAR TREE: Trial Date on Individual Claim Set for March 2016 DOLLAR TREE: No Discovery Yet in 2014 Lawsuit by Store Manager DOLLAR TREE: Facing Class Suit by Distribution Center Employee DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager Filed Class Action in Calif. DOLLAR TREE: 10 Named Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL DOLLAR TREE: Pay Bias Suit v. Family Dollar in Limited Discovery DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Decision in Store Managers Case DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Facing TCPA Class Action in Missouri DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid DOLLAR TREE: Mediation Scheduled in 2014 Employee Suit in Calif. DOLLAR TREE: Briefing Complete on Motion to Strike DOLLAR TREE: Class Decertified in Case by Assist. Store Manager DOLLAR TREE: Class Action by Family Dollar Shareholder Dismissed DRAFTKINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Wall Street Trading DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cooper" Suit Alleges Negligence and Fraud EAST COAST MECHANICAL: NY S.C. Affirms Judgment in Park East Suit EXPERIAN: Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Files Securities Class Suit EXTREME NETWORKS: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit EXTREME NETWORKS: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit FACEBOOK INC: Israelis Sue Over Ignoring Palestinian Incitement FIRST SECURITY GROUP: Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Transfer of Cases to E.D.N.Y. Sought FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Retiree Benefits Litigation Resolved GFI GROUP: Nov. 24 Securities Class Settlement Hearing GLOBE SPECIALTY: Plaintiffs Filed Opening Brief GLOBUS MEDICAL: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit GYRODYNE COMPANY: To Pay $650,000 in Plaintiff Lawyer Fees HAIN CELESTIAL: Jan. 6 Hearing on Class Certification in "Ham" HAIN CELESTIAL: Working to Finalize Settlement in "Brown" HOME DEPOT: 57 Class Actions Filed Related to Data Breach IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Case IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Settles $1B Over Quebec Smokers Class Suit IXIA: Agreed to Settle Securities Class Action KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Jan. 25 Fairness Hearing on $850K Deal KIM DAVIS: Progressives Denied Class Status in Suit vs. Clerk LIBERTY TAX: $5.3 Million Deal in ERC Action Still Pending LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Has Preliminary Approval LIQUID HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit LSB INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes Class Suit to Federal Court MADISON SQUARE: Court Granted Preliminary Settlement Approval MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: November 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline MASTEC INC: Still Defending "Wrigley" Action in S.D. Fla. MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit MICHAELS COS: 40 Individual Claims Pending After Decertification MICHAELS COS: Continues to Defend Remaining FCRA Claims MICHAELS COS: Actions Pending Related to Data Security Incident MOLYCORP INC: Response to Plaintiff's Opposition Due Nov. 13 MOLYCORP INC: Motion for Reconsideration Fully Briefed MORRISONS: Sued Over Bitter Employee's Act of Revenge MURPHY OIL: 5th Cir. Nixes NLRB Ruling on Class Suit Waivers NAVISTAR INT'L: Nationwide Class Sought in Warranty Litigation NAVISTAR INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Granted in Part NET 1: Court Dismissed Purported Securities Class Action NOBILIS HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit NXT OILFIELD: "Rebardi" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation OSI SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Roberti Class Action PHOTOMEDEX INC: Settlements in Two Class Action Suits Approved PMFG INC: Entered Into MOU in Merger Class Suit PREMIER ENERGY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT PROCTER & GAMBLE: Iowa City Sues Over Flushable Bathroom Wipes PUBLIX SUPER: "Snover" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations REGIS CORPORATION: Named Co-Defendant in New York State Action REGIS CORPORATION: Named Co-defendant in NJ and Pa. Actions RESOURCE CAPITAL: November 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline RUBY TUESDAY: Parties Agree to Resolve "LaFrance" Case SALEM NURSING: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties SERETUS INC: Illinois Man Sues Over HPA Violations SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Kessler LLP Files Securities Class Suit SIGNET JEWELERS: Claimants' Motion for Clarification Granted SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against "Tapia" Wage Suit v. Zale ST. JUDE: Received $40MM Insurance Recoveries in March 2010 Suit ST. JUDE: Feb. 2017 Trial Set in Dec. 2012 Securities Case ST. JUDE: Four Suits Pending Related to Riata ST. JUDE: Riata Case in Canada Still Pending ST. JUDE: Paid $13 Million to Riata Settlement Fund SUBWAY: Settles "Sandwich Sizes" False Advertising Class Suit SUPER MICRO: Gewirtz & Grossman Files Securities Class Suit TRADE STREET: Defending Class Action in Maryland TRI-TECH HOLDING: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval TRUMP HOTEL: Hit With Data Breach Class Lawsuit UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Appeal in Shareholder Action Remains Pending ULTA SALON: Defending "Moore" Class Action in Los Angeles ULTA SALON: Parties in "Galvez" Agreed to Private Mediation ULTA SALON: Defending "Paez" Class Action in C.D. Cal. USA TECHNOLOGIES: Comments on Purported False Ad Class Suit USA TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit USAA AUTO: U.S. Bank Defendant in BlackRock Case VALEANT PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit VOLKSWAGEN: Susman Godfrey Expands Class Suit to 18 States VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Sacks" Suit Alleges Fraud/Fraudulent Concealment VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Weiss" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wallace" Suit Alleges RICO Violation VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wood" Suit Alleges RICO Violation VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Casteen" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Clarke" Suit Alleges Breach of Warranty ZAFGEN INC: December 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ZAFGEN INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit * CFPB Takes Aim at Class Action Waivers ********* AAC HOLDINGS: Faces "Kasper" Class Action in M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2015, that on August 24, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against AAC Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, captioned Dr. Joseph F. Kasper, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AAC Holdings, Inc., Jerrod N. Menz, Michael T. Cartwright and Kathryn Sevier-Phillips, No. 3:15-cv-00923. The Company has not yet been served with process in this matter. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between October 2, 2014 and August 3, 2015. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and certain of its current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose certain information. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose allegedly material facts relating to the recent indictment of certain of the Company's subsidiaries and current and former employees, specifically that certain officers of the Company knew of, but failed to disclose, a coming criminal indictment and that the initial disclosure of the indictment did not include the specific charges alleged. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company believes this case is without merit and will vigorously defend this litigation. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of this action. Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. AMAZON.COM: Leonard LLP Files Class Suit Over Wage Theft -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that delivery drivers for the new Amazon Prime Now service have been wrongfully paid as independent contractors even though they are treated as employees. "Amazon's mission to deliver 'Now' at no additional cost to its customers is being funded by the delivery drivers," said Beth A. Ross of Oakland-based Leonard Carder LLP, who is representing the plaintiffs in the case. "Unlike the drones that Amazon hopes to eventually replace them with, these drivers are human beings with rent to pay and families to feed." Ms. Ross is the attorney who successfully sued FedEx Ground over similar violations and secured a $227 million settlement. She continued, "By the time drivers pay for required expenses like gas, maintenance and car insurance they are barely getting by. This is a clear abuse of the independent contractor designation." Amazon Prime Now is a service recently debuted by the company in several metropolitan areas around the country, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. Prime Now allows customers to place orders for tens of thousands of items that can be delivered within a one-to-two hour delivery window. Amazon contracts its California Prime Now delivery services through courier company Scoobeez. Scoobeez hires its drivers as independent contractors, but the terms the drivers follow fit many of the hallmarks that would classify them as employees. The Amazon Prime Now drivers in the LA area are paid $11 per hour and are given no opportunity to negotiate a higher wage. The drivers make deliveries in their personal vehicles and cover all gas, insurance and maintenance costs out of their own pockets. Minimum wage in California is $9 per hour. After paying for all required costs, Prime Now drivers barely earn the minimum wage -- and some may earn even less. Scoobeez employs hundreds of Prime Now delivery drivers based out of Amazon warehouses in Southern California and expanded its partnership with Amazon into San Francisco. Defendants named in the case are Amazon.com, Inc., Scoobeez, Inc., and ABT Holdings, Inc. (which is the majority shareholder in Scoobeez and manages its day-to-day operations). Leonard Carder LLP has provided full service legal representation to the labor movement since 1934 and has handled dozens of high- profile wage and hour class actions over the last 25 years, including landmark independent contractor misclassification cases on behalf of thousands of FedEx Ground delivery drivers and hundreds of exotic dancers at San Francisco's historic Mitchell Brother's O'Farrell Theatre. Beth A. Ross, Esq. LEONARD CARDER LLP 1330 Broadway # 1450 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 272-0169 Email: bross@leonardcarder.com ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: To Pay $8.3MM to California Customers -------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Masunaga, writing for Los Angeles Times, reported that Anthem Blue Cross agreed to end midyear policy changes that raise costs for consumers and to reimburse nearly $8.3 million to about 50,000 customers in California as part of a settlement of a class- action lawsuit announced. The settlement resolves two lawsuits filed by policyholders in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2011 alleging that the state's largest for-profit health insurer increased annual deductibles and other yearly out-of-pocket costs on individual policies in the middle of the year. Anthem Blue Cross was accused of breach of contract and engaging in unfair business practices. Dave Jacobson, one of the plaintiffs, said he experienced this first-hand after he enrolled in a Blue Cross PPO Share $500 individual plan. In April 2011, he received medical services and Anthem Blue Cross acknowledged that he met his deductible and paid 70% of his bill. When he went back for follow-up tests three months later, he was told he needed to pay $50 more toward his deductible before the insurance company paid its percentage for his care. "My deductible had become a moving target," Jacobson, a Santa Monica resident, said at a news conference in Santa Monica held by some of the plaintiffs and their lawyers. "It's as if Anthem Blue Cross changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game." According to the lawsuit, the midyear change to Jacobson's yearly out-of-pocket maximum increased to $5,850 from $5,000. His annual prescription drug deductible increased to $275 from $250. Anthem Blue Cross did not admit liability but agreed to settle to avoid "further expense," according to the settlement. In an email, company spokesman Darrel Ng said, "Anthem is pleased that all parties were able to come to an agreement." Anthem Blue Cross agreed to mail notices to affected customers and to post information about the agreement on a public website. Checks will be mailed in December to 50,000 consumers, according to Consumer Watchdog, which jointly represented the plaintiffs. The average amount will be $167, although one unidentified consumer will receive $19,000 to compensate for particularly high out-of-pocket costs. Only consumers affected by the midyear policy changes will receive settlement checks, but all Californians enrolled in individual Anthem health plans will be subject to the agreement that prevents such cost increases in the future. "When you look at this settlement, it's such a no-brainer," said Ricardo Echeverria, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "What this settlement does is it holds the insurance company accountable to the terms they promised." Four named plaintiffs in the court case will receive an additional $10,000, subject to court approval. AREVALO MANUFACTURING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Javier Saucedo and Jose Antonio Trejo, and all others similarly- situated v. Arevalo Manufacturing, Inc. and Jesus Arevalo, Case No. 4:15-cv-03041 (S.D. Tex., October 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendants own and manufacture metal. 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 ARL CREDIT: Court Approves Amended Class Notice in "Reynolds" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, KENNETH REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. ARL CREDIT SERVICES, INC., DONETTE JABLONSKI, AND RICHARD JABLONSKI, Defendants, NO. 8:15CV25 (D. Neb.), Chief District Judge LAURIE SMITH CAMP granted the parties' joint oral motion for approval of the Amended Class Notice to be sent to class members in this case. The Amended Class Action Notice reflects information from the Court's Order certifying the class and preliminarily approving the parties' settlement. The Amended Class Action Notice states the deadlines for class members to take action to object, enter an appearance, and states when class members may appear for the hearing on final approval. The Amended Class Notice also states the amount of attorney fees and costs sought by Plaintiff's counsel and clarifies that the recovery for the class is based on a per letter basis. A copy of the Court's Order dated November 3, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/tvhBbEfrom Leagle.com. Kenneth Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg, HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, and Pamela A. Car, and William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM. ARL Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Morris, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM. The firm also represents defendants Donette Jablonski and Richard Jablonski. ASTIN FARMS: "Ruiz-Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Conrado Ruiz-Gomez, Pascualito Sol Solis, Walter Pastor Perez- Magarino, Gabriel Medina-Duque, Angel Rasgado-Sibaja, Sergio Lopez, Ismael Lopez-Perez, and all others similarly-situated v. Astin Farms, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02438 (M.D. Fla., October 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and equal amount in liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This is an action by seven migrant farm workers employed by Astin Farms, Inc. to pick strawberries and other crops on Astin's central Florida at various times during the 2013-14 or 2014-15 harvest seasons. Astin Farms Inc. produces and distributes agricultural products. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karla C. Martinez, Esq. MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT 508 Lucerne Avenue Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819 Tel: (561) 582-3921 Fax: (561) 582-4884 E-mail: karla@floridalegal.org BATH AND BODY: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Labor Code Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Nani Daniels, and all others similarly-situated v. Bath and Body Works, LLC, L Brands, Inc., fka Limited Brands, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02343 (S.D. Calif., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay reporting time pay and minimum wage in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants operate retail stores for personal care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Tel: (818) 991-8080 Fax: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com BGC PARTNERS: $10.75 Million Settlement Reached in Del. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ BGC Partners, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, that on August 24, 2015, GFI Group Inc. ("GFI"), Michael Gooch and Colin Heffron, directors of GFI and former executive officers of GFI; Jersey Partners Inc. ("JPI"), a stockholder of GFI controlled by Mr. Gooch; CME Group, Inc. ("CME"); the former members of the GFI Special Committee; BGC Partners, Inc. ("BGC"); and certain other former officers and affiliates of GFI entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with regard to a preliminary settlement (the "Settlement") of the consolidated class action case pending before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"). The case was captioned In re GFI Group Inc. Stockholder Litigation (the "Delaware Case"). Neither GFI nor BGC will contribute any funds to the Settlement, which will be paid from a combination of insurance proceeds and payments by JPI and Messrs. Gooch and Heffron. The Settlement provides for a settlement fund of $10.75 million for the class of GFI stockholders in the Delaware Case. The Settlement also provides for payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs' counsel in an amount to be established by negotiation, mediation or a fee application to the Court. The final Settlement will also require approval of the Court, with funds to be paid to the settlement fund after such date and not before September 30, 2015. The Settlement, once approved, will resolve fully and finally all of the matters pending in Delaware relating to the actions of the former GFI officers, former GFI Board of Directors and former GFI Special Committee in connection with the BGC tender offer and acquisition of GFI. In connection with the Settlement, Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, JPI, BGC and GFI have entered into a separate agreement providing for certain matters relating to the merger of BGC and GFI and allocating certain responsibilities and advancing certain payments (the "Settlement Letter"). In addition, in the MOU, CME has agreed to terminate the restriction prohibiting Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, JPI and certain other stockholders and affiliates of GFI from supporting the Back-End Mergers or similar transactions until January 30, 2016 (the "Waiver"), which was set forth in the Support Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2014, by and among the CME, JPI and affiliated entities, Messrs. Gooch and Heffron and another former GFI officer. Accordingly, the parties to the Settlement Letter have agreed that on December 21, 2015, BGC, GFI, JPI and certain affiliates shall enter into the merger agreements providing for merger transactions (the "Back-End Mergers") as required in the Tender Offer Agreement by and among BGC, GFI and BGC Partners, L.P. dated as of February 19, 2015. BGC expects the Back-End Mergers to be completed no later than January 29, 2016. In consideration of the Waiver and JPI's agreement to complete the Back-End Mergers in early 2016, BGC will advance to JPI $10.75 million of the previously agreed upon and disclosed merger consideration to which JPI is entitled in the Back-End Mergers, which JPI will contribute to the settlement fund. The Settlement Letter also includes the following agreements: (i) payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the Delaware Case first from insurance proceeds, with any excess to be paid by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron; (ii) indemnification by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron with respect to liabilities and expenses in the Delaware Case and other cases related to breach of fiduciary duty or other causes of action, the CME Merger Agreement, insurance claims and the tender offer to the extent not covered by insurance; and (iii) indemnification by Mr. Gooch with respect to liabilities and expenses in connection with the remaining New York class action case that are not otherwise covered by insurance. The JPI advance of the merger consideration will be deducted from the merger consideration payable to it upon completion of the Back-End Mergers, bear interest at the rate of 5.375% per annum and be secured by 2 million shares of GFI common stock owned by JPI. If insurance proceeds are insufficient, amounts advanced to Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, if any, would be deducted from any payment to which they may be entitled under their non-competition and distributable earnings bonus award agreements with BGC (the "DE Agreements"), which they entered into in connection with the tender offer, so long as they are eligible for payments under their respective DE Agreements. BLUE EARTH: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action in C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- Blue Earth, Inc. is seeking dismissal of a class action against the Company and certain of its officers, the Company said in its Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. Oral arguments regarding the motion to dismiss were scheduled for October 2015. On October 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, two executive officers, and one non-executive officer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No:2:14-cv-08263).On January 21, 2015, the court appointed a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel. The Court also re-captioned the case In re Blue Earth, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. CV 14-8263 DSF (JEMx). On March 13, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). The FAC alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and a purported class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from October 7, 2013 through October 21, 2014. Defendants' responded and filed a motion to dismiss FAC. Plaintiff's opposition to the motion has been submitted. Oral arguments regarding the motion to dismiss were scheduled for October 2015. The Company believes the claims contained in the complaint are without merit and is vigorously defending this matter. BOB EVANS: Has $16.5MM Deal to Resolve Claims in Snodgrass et al ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Evans Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 24, 2015, that the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims presented in the Snodgrass, Mackin and Utterback class action cases for the total sum of $16.5 million on a claims made basis. In August 2012, a former Bob Evans Restaurant employee filed an action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, styled David Snodgrass v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cvg-00768 ("Snodgrass"). The lead plaintiff alleged that the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt employees and failing to pay overtime compensation during the period of time the employee worked as an assistant manager. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees. The lead plaintiff sought to maintain the suit as a collective action on behalf of other similarly situated assistant managers employed at Bob Evans Restaurants between August 2009 and present. In December 2013, the Court in Snodgrass granted conditional certification of those assistant managers that elected to opt-in to the collective action. In May, 2014, the same plaintiffs' counsel in the Snodgrass matter filed essentially duplicative claims under the overtime laws of the State of Ohio and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, styled Utterback v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. CV14826909 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio ("Utterback") and Mackin v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-450 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ("Mackin"), respectively. Neither the Utterback nor Mackin proceedings have been certified for class status at this time. In June 2015 counsel for all parties attended the second mediation in the Snodgrass matter in an attempt to resolve each of the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin litigation matters. On July 31, 2015, the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims presented in the Snodgrass, Mackin and Utterback cases for the total sum of $16.5 million on a claims made basis. The agreement in principle is subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. "While we continue to believe that our assistant managers were properly classified as exempt from the respective Federal and State overtime requirements and that we have meritorious defenses to the claims in each of the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin matters, as previously reported in our Annual Report in Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 we received an unfavorable ruling related to the Snodgrass litigation and determined a settlement of all three matters was in the best interests of the company," the Company said. BUMBLE BEE: Giant Eagle Joins Tuna Antitrust Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Torsten Ove, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported that Giant Eagle is the latest of dozens of food companies and consumers nationwide to join a class-action suit accusing the big three tuna producers of collusion in fixing prices. The Pittsburgh-based supermarket chain filed suit in San Francisco against Bumble Bee, StarKist and Tri-Union Seafoods, which produces Chicken of the Sea. The suit is among some 45 federal complaints in San Diego and San Francisco alleging that the three companies, which control most of the tuna market, conspired to keep prices artificially high. In its suit, Giant Eagle said the conspiracy began in 2000 when growth in packaged seafood began to decline and the producers "conspired to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices" and as a result overcharged the supermarket chain. The U.S. Justice Department is reportedly investigating the allegations, according to statements from Bumble Bee and Thai Union Frozen Products, which owns Tri-Union. Both companies said earlier that they had received Justice Department subpoenas. The Justice Department has refused to comment. Lawyers for the various plaintiffs said the next step is for a federal litigation review panel to decide how the cases will be combined and where they will be heard, with San Diego the likely choice. The plaintiffs are comprised of both consumers and wholesale buyers. Several attorneys said the litigation could last as long as five years. CANADA: Trial in Indian Residential Schools Suit Starts ------------------------------------------------------- News.sys-con.com reported that the four-month trial began in Anderson v. Canada, the class action that concerns historical abuse at five Indian Residential Schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. The opening statements are now complete and all key documents have been admitted into evidence. These documents demonstrate that in the 1950s and 1960s Canada and its lawyers drafted two internal legal opinions in which Canada recognized it held a legal responsibility for Aboriginals in Newfoundland and Labrador. Despite this, Canada failed to comply with its responsibilities. To this day, Canada continues to refuse to take responsibility for the Indian Residential Schools in Newfoundland and Labrador. In 2007, a national Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement was reached between Canada and the survivors of the Indian Residential School system in every province and territory except Newfoundland and Labrador. This was the largest class action settlement in Canadian history. The settlement recognized the damage inflicted by the Indian Residential School system on the lives and culture of Canadian Aboriginals and established a $5 billion compensation package for the approximately 150,000 people who were forced to attend these schools. In 2008, on the floor of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister publicly apologized on behalf of Canada for the forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their homes and communities to attend Indian Residential School schools throughout Canada. Canada specifically excluded the Aboriginals of Newfoundland and Labrador, from both the settlement and the apology. The former residents of the Indian Residential Schools in Newfoundland and Labrador will continue testifying about their experiences. They will be made to re-live all of the sexual, physical, emotional, cultural and spiritual abuse they suffered in open court. Weeks of this evidence have already been heard and weeks more are to come. CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Ackerman" Action in Los Angeles Court --------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative representative Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc. The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things. The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint and filed its Answer on July 27, 2015. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Altman" Action in N.D. Ga. Court ---------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in July 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc. The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts. The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and will file its response by the required deadline. The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recorded $11.2MM Charge Related to Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Children's Place, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2015, that during the second quarter, the Company recorded charges of $11.2 million for unusual items, which primarily consisted of certain non-recurring items, including costs related to a class action wage and hour legal settlement, the proxy contest, impairment charges, a sales tax audit settlement and restructuring costs. CHINACAST EDUCATION: 9th Circ. Revives Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported that a corporate chief executive's $120 million embezzlement may be imputed to his company for purposes of a securities fraud class action, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. Judge M. Margaret McKeown called the case an example of "textbook securities fraud," in which the CEO and founder of ChinaCast Education, Ron Chan, both embezzled from the corporation and misled its investors. The plaintiffs alleged that executives of ChinaCast, an educational firm based in China, issued statements that were false and or misleading, and/or did not reveal material adverse facts related to the firm's business, prospects and operations. They specifically claimed that ChinaCast allowed the wrongful transfer of no less than $120 million from two bank accounts owned by two of ChinaCast's subsidiaries, and that the company allowed for wrongful transfer of its assets, including two private colleges, to third parties without authorization. They also alleged that loans were made to third parties for non- company purposes with the company's assets used as collateral, that ChinaCast's internal controls were not adequate and that the company allowed for wrongful transfer of its assets. U.S. trading in ChinaCast stock was halted in April 2012 with the share price at $4.24. It was subsequently disclosed that Chan had been removed as chairman/CEO the previous month, and that the company's chief financial officer had resigned. U.S. District Judge John Walter of the Central District of California dismissed the shareholders' complaint, finding they failed to plead intent to defraud. The ruling was based on the "adverse interest exception," which holds that such intent will not be imputed "from the fraud of a rogue agent." The appellate panel reversed. The exception, McKeown wrote, "doesn't apply in every instance where there is a faithless fraudster within the corporate ranks." McKeown explained that Chan's actions can be properly imputed to ChinaCast because "Chan acted with apparent authority on behalf of the corporation, which placed him in a position of trust and confidence and controlled the level of oversight of his handling of the business." Thus, she concluded, Chan's fraud was attributable to the corporation, even though Chan "unquestionably lined his own pockets at the expense of ChinaCast's interests." ChinaCast received a 2011 audit detailing "material internal control weaknesses," but "turned a blind eye and failed to take significant action or heighten oversight," McKeown said. "Had they done so, they may have prevented much of the decimation of ChinaCast's bottom line and share value," she said. McKeown also pointed out that Chan was "hardly a random corporate bureaucrat or mid-level manager," but ChinaCast's founder and CEO- "the one person on whom the board undoubtedly should have kept close tabs." And since the investors' complaint alleges "that third-party shareholders understandably relied on Chan's representations, which were made with the imprimatur of the corporation that selected him to speak on its behalf and sign Securities and Exchange Commission filings," McKeown said, Chan's intent to defraud can be imputed to ChinaCast. She noted that the district judge dismissed the case at the pleading stage, cautioning: "As the litigation proceeds, whether the plaintiff is an innocent third party and whether the presumption of reliance is rebutted remain open questions," McKeown said. Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Milan D. Smith Jr. concurred in the opinion. Neither side responded to request for comment. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Granted Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- Computer Sciences Government Services Inc. said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, that in the Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action, the court has entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of system administrators. On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages and associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes, including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No. 4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act. The relief sought by Plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil penalties. CSC's position is that its system administrators have the job duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation requirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in February 2015. On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more than 4,000 system administrators, of whom 1,865 are employed by the Company and the remainder of whom are employed by CSC. Courts typically undertake a two-stage review in determining whether a suit may proceed as a class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an opportunity to opt in to the action. The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported class representatives proceed. The Business's position in this litigation continues to be that the employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were paid in accordance with the FLSA. CONFORMIS INC: Vincent Kwong Firm Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of investors who purchased ConforMIS Inc.) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering, or between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015. Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/CFMS- Info-Request-Form-923. There is no cost or obligation to you. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's manufacturing processes were flawed; (ii) that as a result of the flaws in the Company's manufacturing process, a number of the Company's knee replacement product systems were defective; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, ConforMIS's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 31, 2015 the Company announced that it had initiated a voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for certain of its knee replacement product systems, in response to complaints of moisture on the patient- specific instrumentation. On this news, the Company's stock dropped $3.78, or 19.11%, to close at $16.00 on August 31, 2015. If you suffered a loss in ConforMIS you have until November 2, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/CFMS-Info- Request-Form-923. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Vincent Wong, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT WONG 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel: 212.425.1140 Fax: 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, case no. 1:15-cv-00891, on behalf of stockholders of Cytec Industries Inc. ("Cytec" or the "Company") (NYSE:CYT) who held (and continue to hold) Cytec securities acquired on or before July 28, 2015, when the Company agreed to be acquired by Solvay SA ("Solvay") through Tulip Acquisition Inc. ("Merger Sub"). If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/Cytec. The complaint charges Cytec, its board of directors, Solvay and Merger Sub with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). On July 28, 2015, Cytec, Solvay, and Merger Sub entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company's common stock will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive $75.25 in cash without interest (the "Merger Consideration"). The proposed transaction's total value is $5.5 billion and is expected to close in the fourth calendar quarter of 2015. The complaint alleges that the Form PREM14A Proxy Statement, which recommended that Cytec stockholders vote in favor of the Merger Agreement, omitted and/or misrepresented material information in contravention of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The omitted information is material to the impending decision of Cytec stockholders on whether to vote in favor or against the Merger Agreement and/or whether to seek appraisal for their shares. The complaint also alleges that the $75.25 per share offer price is inadequate, the intrinsic value of Cytec's common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered for those securities in the proposed transaction given the Company's prospects for future growth and earnings and the value Solvay attributes to its future success based on the merger. Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and Pennsylvania. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Toll Free: (877) 247-4292 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Email: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com DEPAUL HEALTH: "Connors" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ Colleen Connors, and all others similarly-situated v. DePaul Health Care Limited Partnership, dba Angela Jane Pavilion, and DePaul Health Care Limited Partnership, dba Harmony Place, Case No. 2:15-cv-05658 (E.D. Pa., October 16, 2015), seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and other equitable and ancillary relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendants operate several health care facilities throughout Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 273-1054 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com DENVER PARENT: 2016 Trial in Merger Class Action in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ Denver Parent Corporation and Venoco, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial in a merger class action in Delaware is expected to occur in 2016. In August 2011 Timothy Marquez, the then-Chairman and CEO of Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against Venoco and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware and three suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants Venoco and each of its directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in which they requested that the court determine among other things that (i) the merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded damages to compensate them for the loss resulting from the breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions have been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained in the amended complaint and believes they are without merit. Trial is expected to occur in 2016. DOLLAR TREE: 2011 Case by Assistant Store Manager Continuing ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2011, an assistant store manager and an hourly associate filed a collective action against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. The court denied the Company's motion to decertify the collective action as well as a proposed settlement. The case is now continuing. DOLLAR TREE: Trial Date on Individual Claim Set for March 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment. A trial date on the individual claim has been set for March 2016. DOLLAR TREE: No Discovery Yet in 2014 Lawsuit by Store Manager -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in May 2014, a former assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a California state court for alleged failure to provide meal periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during employment and upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, as well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees for business expenses in violation of California labor laws. Discovery has not commenced and no trial date has been set. DOLLAR TREE: Facing Class Suit by Distribution Center Employee -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination pay. Additionally, the employee seeks to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution employees for overtime compensation. The Company recently removed this lawsuit to Federal Court. DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager Filed Class Action in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in California state court alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime compensation and meal and rest periods and alleging PAGA claims. DOLLAR TREE: 10 Named Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2008, a Multi- District Litigation forum ("MDL") was created in North Carolina federal court to handle cases alleging FLSA violations against Family Dollar. In the first two cases, the court entered orders finding the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA was appropriate. Since that time, the court has granted 60 summary judgments ruling Store Managers are properly classified as exempt from overtime. Presently, there are a total of 10 named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in the MDL, for which the North Carolina Federal Court has not decided the class certification or summary judgment issue. DOLLAR TREE: Pay Bias Suit v. Family Dollar in Limited Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to Family Dollar's female store managers. This case was pled as a putative class action or collective action under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female store managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief. The case was transferred to North Carolina Federal Court in November 2008. The parties are proceeding with limited discovery. The Company believes the case is fully insured. DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Decision in Store Managers Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2013, plaintiffs filed a claim in Massachusetts state court seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under Massachusetts law. Family Dollar then removed the case to Federal District court in Massachusetts. In 2014, the case was remanded to state court. The Company has appealed the remand decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and is awaiting that court's decision. DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Facing TCPA Class Action in Missouri --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2014, Family Dollar was served with a putative class action in Missouri Federal Court alleging that customers received Short Message Service ("SMS") text message advertisements from the Company, without providing appropriate express written consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), seeking all damages available under the TCPA, including statutory damages of $500 - $1,500 per willful violation. DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2014, a putative class action was filed in a California Federal Court by a former employee alleging that Family Dollar had a policy of requiring employee bag checks while the employees were not clocked in for work. As a result of those actions, the employee alleges the Company violated California law by failing to provide meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay regular and overtime wages for work performed off the clock, failing to provide accurate wage statements, failing timely to pay all final wages and by engaging in unfair competition. He has also alleges PAGA claims. While employed by the Company, the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate matters related to his employment. Accordingly, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and is awaiting the court's ruling on that motion. DOLLAR TREE: Mediation Scheduled in 2014 Employee Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2014, a former employee brought a putative class action and asserted claims under PAGA alleging Family Dollar failed to provide suitable seating to its California store employees. Mediation had been scheduled for September 23, 2015. In the meantime, the case has been stayed pending a ruling by the California Supreme Court on a case in which the court is expected to provide guidance as to what the Company's obligations are with regard to suitable seating. DOLLAR TREE: Briefing Complete on Motion to Strike -------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2015, a lawsuit was brought as a collective action in Florida Federal Court on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated Family Dollar store managers alleging the store managers are misclassified as being exempt from overtime under the FLSA. The Company then filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative to Stay the Case, a Motion to Compel Arbitration, and a Motion to Strike the Collective Action Allegations. Briefing is completed on these motions and they are currently pending before the court. DOLLAR TREE: Class Decertified in Case by Assist. Store Manager --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2012, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those alleged to be similarly situated, filed a putative class action in a California state court, alleging the Company failed to provide rest breaks to assistant store managers. The class was decertified in July 2015 and the case has now been resolved. DOLLAR TREE: Class Action by Family Dollar Shareholder Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2014, several shareholders of Family Dollar filed class actions, now consolidated into one class action, in Delaware chancery court against Family Dollar's CEO and board members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants. The Delaware Chancery Court and appellate court refused to issue an injunction against the Family Dollar shareholder vote in favor of the merger. The case was dismissed in August 2015 and was settled for an immaterial amount. DRAFTKINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Wall Street Trading ----------------------------------------------------- Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reported that DraftKings and FanDuel -- the ultra-popular heavyweights in the unregulated world of daily fantasy sports -- have been hit with yet another class action complaint accusing the companies of what would be insider trading if it occurred on Wall Street. Ryan Leonard, a Watertown man, brought the suit in Boston's U.S. District Court and alleges that employees at both companies "were using inside information that was not disclosed or provided to the public." The suit stems from an incident when a DraftKings employee won $350,000 on FanDuel. Multiple lawsuits have accused the employee of using inside information to build his team. Both companies have repeatedly denied the allegations. DraftKings announced that an internal investigation cleared the employee of any wrongdoing. All told, more than 20 similar lawsuits have been filed against the companies in federal court since the scandal erupted. The sites are also dealing with state-level lawsuits, and 13 states -- including Massachusetts -- are considering legislative actions that could redefine how the games are played. DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cooper" Suit Alleges Negligence and Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael David Cooper, and all others similarly-situated v. DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23870 (S.D. Fla., October 16, 2015), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief for Defendants' alleged negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, and misrepresentation by omission. The Defendants operate daily fantasy sports websites. DFS is a non-regulated industry where individuals compete against other individuals in fantasy sports games. Defendant FanDuel, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Defendant DraftKings, Inc., is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Todd Mathews, Esq. GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 156 N. Main St. Edwardsville, IL 62025 Tel: (618) 659-9833 Fax: (618) 659-9834 E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com EAST COAST MECHANICAL: NY S.C. Affirms Judgment in Park East Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Cheryl E. Chambers, J.P., L. Priscilla Hall, Colleen D. Duffy, Betsy Barros, JJ of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, affirmed the judgment -- with costs -- in the case, PARK EAST CONSTRUCTION CORP., AS ASSIGNEE OF DAVIDSON GROUP COMPANIES, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS GILMOUR SUPPLY CO., ETC., Respondent, v. EAST COAST MECHANICAL SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Appellants, 2013-10849, INDEX NO. 25086/10 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Appellate Div.). This is a class action seeking to recover damages for breach of contract and for diversion of trust assets pursuant to article 3-A of the Lien Law. The defendants appeal from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered September 10, 2013, as, upon a decision of the trial court dated July 30, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff: (a) on behalf of Davidson Group Companies, Inc., doing business as Gilmour Supply Co., and against them in the total sum of $101,400.84, (b) on behalf of Associated Testing and Balancing, Inc., and against them in the total sum of $3,888.10, (c) on behalf of Johnson Controls, Inc., and against them in the total sum of $14,267.08, (d) on behalf of Island Insulation, and against the defendants William Sallee and Carlyle J. Sallee in the total sum of $58,281.26, and (e) against the defendants, in effect, dismissing their counterclaim, and (f) awarding the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of $50,000. A copy of the New York Supreme Court's Decision and Order dated Nov. 4 is available at http://is.gd/uUHsKBfrom Leagle.com. Ralph A. Hummel, Woodbury, N.Y., for appellants. Steven G. Rubin & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for respondent. EXPERIAN: Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ On October 26, 2015, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed a class action lawsuit against Experian alleging the credit reporting agency, which processes credit inquiries for potential creditors, including T-Mobile, missed numerous opportunities to prevent, detect, end, or limit the scope of the data breach, thus, allowing thieves to steal and globally publish customers' PII entrusted with Experian -- to the life-long detriment of Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers. Hackers accessed an Experian computer server that housed personal information of over 15 million T-Mobile applicants who required a credit check for service or device financing during a two-year period from September 1, 2013 through September 16, 2015. Experian said "this was an isolated incident of one server and one clients' data." But, hackers took T-Mobile customers' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, birthdays and ID numbers, such as driver's license, military ID or passport numbers. These types of critically important information are used to commit fraud or identity theft. The Complaint was filed on behalf of Washington-based Martha Schroeder who has been a T-Mobile cellular telephone and data services customer since September 12, 2015. In order to receive cellular and data services from T-Mobile, Schroeder provided her full name, home address, home telephone number, credit and bank debit card numbers, Social Security number, and birthdate. "Consumers have a right to expect that the companies they do business with will keep their information safe from criminals who can use this data to commit identity theft and fraud," said Cari Laufenberg, a member of Keller Rohrback's nationally recognized complex litigation group. "Adding insult to injury, the free identity protection services Experian is offering victims of the Data Breach does not protect consumers from identity theft or identity fraud with regard to the unauthorized use of their stolen PII," the Complaint reads, "Instead, the service monitors consumers' credit reports -- only providing alerts as to the unauthorized use of PII after the fact." If you are concerned that your personal information was breached and would like to know more about your rights, please contact attorney Cari Laufenberg at (800) 776-6044 or via email at tmobile@kellerrohrback.com. The case is Schroeder v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., in the Central District of California. A copy of the complaint is available at krcomplexlit.com. Keller Rohrback is a leader in representing consumer and employee victims of data breaches. Keller Rohrback has a long track-record of success with data breach litigation, including the Ninth Circuit case Krottner v. Starbucks where the court held that the theft of a laptop containing employees' personally identifiable information sufficed to confer Article III standing on plaintiffs. The firm also serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. Data Breach case, where thousands of current and former employees' claims are proceeding after prevailing against Sony's motion to dismiss. In addition, Keller Rohrback represents plaintiffs in the Target consumer litigation pending in the District of Minnesota, as well as the Anthem Inc. Data Breach litigation. Keller Rohrback, with offices in New York, Seattle, Phoenix and Santa Barbara, serves as lead and co-lead counsel in class actions throughout the country. Our Complex Litigation Group is proud to offer its expertise to clients nationwide, and our trial lawyers have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven billion dollars. Cari Laufenberg, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Tel: 206.224.7550 Fax: 206.623.3384 Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Extreme Networks Inc. ("Extreme Networks" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:EXTR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Extreme Networks securities between November 4, 2013 and April 9, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Extreme Networks securities during the Class Period, you have until December 22, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Extreme Networks develops and sells network infrastructure equipment and offers related services contracts for extended warranty and maintenance. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants issued false and/or misleading statements and/or omitted adverse information concerning Extreme Networks' current financial condition and outlook for fiscal 2015, including, among other things, that the Company's revenue growth depended on the successful integration of Enterasys Networks, Inc., which Extreme Networks had acquired in 2013 but had not successfully integrated, which materially impaired the Company's ability to address persisting sales problems. In addition, Extreme Networks had begun an alliance with Lenovo, but during the Class Period defendants did not have sufficient visibility into Lenovo's server business plans to support the Company's quarterly and fiscal 2015 financial forecasts. As a result of these misrepresentations and/or omissions, Extreme Networks' stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $8.14 per share in intraday trading on January 23, 2014. On April 9, 2015, after the markets closed, Extreme Networks preannounced that it would miss guidance for the third quarter of 2015, reporting revenue of $118-$120 million and earnings per share of ($0.09)-($0.07), significantly below prior guidance of $130-$140 million and ($0.03)-$0.02, respectively. The Company also announced that trading in its shares had been halted and that Jeff White, the Company's Chief Revenue Officer, who had been hired only six months earlier to manage the integration of the Extreme Networks and Enterasys salesforces, was "no longer with the Company." On these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell almost 25%, from $3.24 per share to $2.50 per share. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW Fax: 212.661.8665 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com EXTREME NETWORKS: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Extreme Networks, Inc. common stock during the period between November 4, 2013 and April 9, 2015 (the "Class Period"). If you are an Extreme Networks shareholder and fit in one of the following categories, we encourage you to contact Johnson & Weaver: (1) Shareholders buying Extreme Networks shares during the Class Period with substantial losses. (2) Shareholders continuously holding shares before November 4, 2013. As a long term shareholder, you may have standing to hold Extreme Networks harmless from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing. The complaint charges Extreme Networks and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint asserts that during the Class Period, Extreme Networks issued false and/or misleading statements and/or omitted adverse information concerning its current financial condition and outlook for fiscal 2015, including, among other things, that the Company's revenue growth depended on the successful integration of Enterasys Networks, Inc., which Extreme Networks had acquired in 2013 but had not successfully integrated, which materially impaired the Company's ability to address persisting sales problems. In addition, Extreme Networks had begun an alliance with Lenovo, but during the Class Period defendants did not have sufficient visibility into Lenovo's server business plans to support the Company's quarterly and fiscal 2015 financial forecasts. As a result of these misrepresentations and/or omissions, Extreme Networks' stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $8.14 per share in intraday trading on January 23, 2014. Then on April 9, 2015, after the markets closed, Extreme Networks preannounced that it would miss guidance for the third quarter of 2015, reporting revenue of $118-$120 million and earnings per share of ($0.09)-($0.07), significantly below prior guidance of $130-$140 million and ($0.03)-$0.02, respectively. The Company also announced that trading in its shares had been halted and that Jeff White, the Company's Chief Revenue Officer, who had been hired only six months earlier to manage the integration of the Extreme Networks and Enterasys salesforces, was "no longer with the Company." On these disclosures, the Company's stock price fell almost 25%, from $3.24 per share to $2.50 per share. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 23, 2015. If you purchased Extreme Networks shares during the Class Period, or if you are a long term shareholder and wish to discuss this action, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by email or by phone at 619-814-4471. Jim Baker, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 W Broadway #1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone:+1 619-230-0063 Email: jimb@johnsonandweaver.com FACEBOOK INC: Israelis Sue Over Ignoring Palestinian Incitement --------------------------------------------------------------- Times of Israel reported that a class-action lawsuit against Facebook is accusing the social media platform of ignoring widespread Palestinian posts calling for violence against Jews. In the suit filed in New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, the 20,000 Israeli plaintiffs claim the Facebook posts have inspired many recent terror attacks and that "Facebook's algorithms and platform connects inciters to terrorists who are further encouraged to perpetrate stabbings and other violence attacks against Israelis." According to a news release issued by the plaintiffs, many recent assailants "were motivated to commit their heinous crimes by incitement to murder they read on Facebook -- demagogues and leaders exhorting their followers to "slaughter the Jews," and offering instruction as to the best manner to do so, including even anatomical charts showing the best places to stab a human being." The suit alleges that Facebook has a "legal and moral obligation" to block much of this content but that it chooses not to. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against Facebook requiring the social network to "immediately remove all pages, groups and posts containing incitement to murder Jews; to actively monitor its website for such incitement that all incitement is immediately removed prior to being disseminated to masses of terrorists and would-be terrorists; and to cease serving as matchmaker between terrorists, terrorist organizations, and those who incite others to commit terrorism." The complaint does not seek monetary damages against Facebook. The lead plaintiff, Richard Lakin, 76, died of his wounds after he was shot and stabbed by Palestinian terrorists while riding on a crowded Jerusalem bus on October 13. Two other Israelis were killed and more than 20 were wounded in the attack. Three attorneys -- Robert Tolchin of New York; Nitsana Darshan- Leitner, the director of the Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center, and Asher Perlin of Fort Lauderdale, Florida -- filed the suit. In a news release issued by her organization, Darshan-Leitner said, "Facebook wields tremendous power and this publicly traded company needs to utilize it in a way that ensures that Palestinian extremists who are calling to stab Israelis and glorifying the terrorist that do, are not permitted to do it on its platform." An article published by The Associated Press said that social media, particularly Twitter and Facebook, is the "number one source of news among young Palestinians." Some 3.7 million Palestinians follow the Quds News Network, believed to be affiliated with Islamic Jihad, on the social media platform and 4.2 million follow the Shehab News Network, which is believed to be affiliated with Hamas, AP reported. The Times of Israel reported that Facebook pages such as Quds News Network (3.6 million followers on Facebook, 264,000 on twitter); Shehab News Agency (4.1 million followers on Facebook, 99,000 on twitter), and Urgent from Gaza (282,000 followers on Facebook) flood Palestinian computer screens with gruesome images of dead Palestinians and caricatures encouraging more attacks, often accompanied by a hashtag ordering "stab!" or warning "al-Aqsa is in danger!" Approximately one third of Palestinian society in Jerusalem and the West Bank is active on social media, said Orit Perlov, a research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) who specializes in Palestinian social media. "There are no borders in social media," she said. "The same message resonates in Gaza, Jerusalem and Umm al-Fahm." In recent months, she added, Israel and the PA have been monitoring and arresting prominent Palestinian social media activists in Jerusalem and the West Bank, leaving the arena "like an octopus with tentacles but no head." FIRST SECURITY GROUP: Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit ----------------------------------------------------- First Security Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2015, that on August 25, 2015, First Security Group, Inc. ("First Security" or the "Company") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of certain litigation related to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 25, 2015 (as amended on June 8, 2015, the "Merger Agreement"), by and between First Security and Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc. ("Atlantic Capital"). Under the Merger Agreement, First Security will merge with and into Atlantic Capital, with Atlantic Capital as the surviving corporation (the "Merger"). Immediately following the Merger, Atlantic Capital Bank will merge with and into FSGBank, National Association ("FSGBank"), with FSGBank as the surviving bank. As contemplated by the MOU, First Security and Atlantic Capital are providing certain additional disclosures with regards to the Merger. The First Security board of directors, by a unanimous vote of all directors, found the Merger to be advisable and in the best interests of First Security and its shareholders and approved the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. THE FIRST SECURITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT FIRST SECURITY SHAREHOLDERS VOTE "FOR" THE MERGER PROPOSAL, "FOR" THE MERGER-RELATED COMPENSATION PROPOSAL, AND "FOR" THE ADJOURNMENT PROPOSAL. Litigation Related to the Merger As disclosed on page 163 of the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus contained in Pre-Effective Amendment #1 to the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") under the heading "Legal Proceedings," two putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in connection with the Merger. Knutson v. First Security Group, Inc. et al., filed April 15, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board of directors, and Atlantic Capital as defendants. Meade v. Kramer, et al., filed April 24, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board of directors, FSGBank, Atlantic Capital and Atlantic Capital Bank as defendants. Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the First Security directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement and that the other named defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing the parties from consummating the Merger, rescission of the transactions completed by the Merger Agreement, an award of attorneys' fees and expenses for plaintiffs and other forms of relief. On June 1, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating these two suits under the caption In re First Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 15-0212. On June 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated class action complaint in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee. The amended complaint repeats many of the same allegations of the original complaints but also makes additional allegations with respect to disclosures contained in the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on June 10, 2015. On August 25, 2015, First Security, Atlantic Capital and the other named defendants executed the MOU with counsel for the plaintiffs in the above-described lawsuits. The MOU agreed on the terms of a settlement of the above-described lawsuits, including the dismissal with prejudice of the suit captioned In re First Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and a release of all claims that were made or could have been made therein against all of the defendants. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, consummation of the Merger, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, and final approval of the proposed settlement by the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee. 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 court will approve the settlement 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 First Security shareholders are entitled to receive in the Merger. The defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the lawsuits or otherwise in relation to the Merger. The defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement described above solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, uncertainty, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, including the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Merger. FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Transfer of Cases to E.D.N.Y. Sought ------------------------------------------------------- ForceField Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation was scheduled to take up a request by the lead plaintiff in a class action to transfer several class actions and the related derivative actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and to have all actions coordinated or consolidated before a single judge. The Panel was slated to hear argument on the motion in October 2015. On April 17, 2015, a class action lawsuit against the Company and its officers, Messrs. Richard St-Julien (who resigned as Chairman and from all other positions he held with the Company), David Natan and Jason Williams (Mr. Natan and Mr. Williams are collectively referred to as the "Individual Defendants"), and certain other third parties, was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Since the filing of this class action, additional complaints have been filed seeking class status on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company' s securities between September 16, 2013 and April 15, 2015 (together, the "Class Actions"). The Class Actions allege the Company and the other persons named therein violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Class Actions seek an unspecified amount of damages. On May 13, 2015, a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company' s officers, directors and former director Messrs. St-Julien, Natan, Williams, Kebir Ratnani, Adrian Auman, and David Vanderhorst (Messrs. Ratnani, Auman and Vanderhorst are collectively referred to as the " Director Defendants" ). This lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against these individuals for breaches of their fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. On May 29, 2015, another derivative lawsuit (together with the prior derivative lawsuit, the "Derivative Actions") on behalf of the Company was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company' s officers, directors and former director Messrs. St-Julien, Natan, Williams, Ratnani, Auman, and Vanderhorst. This lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against these individuals for breaches of their fiduciary duties, abuse of control, violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and unjust enrichment. On or about July 13, 2015, this suit was voluntarily withdrawn and re-filed in the Eastern District of New York. On June 26, 2015, a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 was made to the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (the "Panel") by a lead plaintiff movant in the Class Actions to transfer the Class Actions and the Derivative Actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and to have all actions coordinated or consolidated before a single judge. The Panel will hear argument on the motion in October 2015. On July 22, 2015, pursuant to various motions seeking consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the Class Actions were consolidated before the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, who appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the putative class. Although the ultimate outcome of the Class Actions and Derivative Actions cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations stated in the Class Actions and Derivative Actions are without merit against the Company, Individual Defendants and Director Defendants, and the Company, Individual Defendants and Director Defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously against all allegations set forth in the Class Actions and Derivative Actions. * * * In a July 22 Order, District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald appointed Beverly Brewer as lead plaintiff, and approved her selection of interim counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(3). The court also consolidated the three class actions under In Re Forcefield Energy Inc. Securities Litigation. Those actions are: LORI ATKINSON, Plaintiff, v. FORCEFIELD ENERGY INC., DAVID NATAN, JASON WILLIAMS, RICHARD ST-JULIEN, THE DREAMTEAM GROUP, and MISSION INVESTOR RELATIONS d/b/a MISSIONIR, Defendants. HANNAH MILLER, Plaintiff, v. FORCEFIELD ENERGY INC., DAVID NATAN, JASON WILLIAMS, RICHARD ST-JULIEN, THE DREAMTEAM GROUP, and MISSION INVESTOR RELATIONS d/b/a MISSIONIR, Defendants. DEAN ROSALES and NIRAV SHAH, Plaintiffs, v. FORCEFIELD ENERGY INC., DAVID NATAN, JASON WILLIAMS, RICHARD ST-JULIEN, Defendants, Nos. 15 Civ. 3020 (NRB), 15 Civ. 3141 (NRB), 15 Civ. 3279 (NRB)(S.D.N.Y.). A copy of the Court's July 22 Memorandum and Order is available at http://is.gd/Kyk6oHfrom Leagle.com. Lori Atkinson, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm P.A.. Gail Haws, Movant, represented by Gregory Mark Nespole, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP. Beverly Brewer, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm P.A.. Michael Sinclair, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP. Lovell Group, Movant, represented by Thomas James McKenna, Gainey McKenna & Egleston. Bengt Ling, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. Renata White, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. Robert Whiting, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Retiree Benefits Litigation Resolved -------------------------------------------------------- FreightCar America, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2015, that the Company -- together with co-defendants Johnstown America Corporation and Johnstown America Corporation USWA Health & Welfare Plan (collectively with the Company, the "Defendants") -- had reached an agreement in principle with the United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW" and, collectively with certain retiree plaintiffs, the "Plaintiffs") in connection with the settlement of the litigation relating to certain welfare benefits that is pending before the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Court"). Pursuant to their Joint Motion to Cancel the Trial Scheduled to Begin August 25, 2015 (the "Joint Motion") that was filed with the Court on August 20, 2015, the parties have agreed to the following terms, subject to execution of definitive documentation and approval by the Court: (1) The USW will establish and administer a Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association (the "VEBA"). The Defendants will have no responsibility for the implementation or administration of the VEBA, except that the Company will cooperate in providing health claims data and other information reasonably requested for establishment of the VEBA. (2) Within 10 business days of final approval of the proposed settlement, the Defendants will make a settlement payment of $32,750,000 in cash. Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs (not to exceed $1,500,000) will be deducted from that settlement payment, with the balance to be contributed to the VEBA. (3) Interest at the rate of 5% will accrue on the Defendants' payment obligation if payment is not made within 180 days after the filing of the Joint Motion. Interest shall in no case exceed $250,000. (4) The Defendants shall not be responsible for any other payments, expenses or costs to or by Plaintiffs or their counsel associated with the litigation or the settlement process, including, but not limited to, costs relating to class notice and settlement administration. This limitation does not apply to any proceedings to enforce the proposed settlement. (5) The final settlement agreement will contain a full release of all parties. (6) The parties will file with the court a joint motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement within 30 days of the filing of the Joint Motion. (7) All parties will use their best efforts to obtain a fairness hearing within 90 days of filing the joint motion for preliminary approval, and to secure approval of the settlement terms. (8) The settlement will not be effective until full and final class action approval has been granted. If approval of the proposed settlement terms is not obtained, the parties will revert back to their respective positions. All parties have agreed to use their best efforts to obtain a fairness hearing within 90 days of filing the motion for preliminary approval and to secure final approval of the settlement terms, which final approval is anticipated to be granted by the court by early 2016. Upon payment of the settlement amount, the Company expects to realize an after-tax gain of approximately $11 million, based on associated recorded liabilities of approximately $67 million at June 30, 2015. The current pre-tax expense associated with these postretirement benefits is approximately $3.3 million annually, which will be eliminated upon payment of the settlement amount. FreightCar America's President and Chief Executive Officer, Joe McNeely, commented, "We are pleased to have reached this preliminary settlement, which will allow us to put this matter behind us and keep us focused on the continued execution of our strategic priorities, including railcar diversification and further productivity improvements across the organization." FreightCar America, Inc. manufactures a wide range of railroad freight cars, supplies railcar parts, leases freight cars through its JAIX Leasing Company subsidiary and provides railcar maintenance and repairs through its FreightCar Rail Services, LLC subsidiary. FreightCar America designs and builds high-quality railcars, including coal cars, bulk commodity cars, covered hopper cars, intermodal and non-intermodal flat cars, mill gondola cars, coil steel cars and boxcars. It is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois and has facilities in the following locations: Cherokee, Alabama; Danville, Illinois; Grand Island, Nebraska; Hastings, Nebraska; Johnstown, Pennsylvania; and Roanoke, Virginia. More information about FreightCar America is available on its website at www.freightcaramerica.com. GFI GROUP: Nov. 24 Securities Class Settlement Hearing ------------------------------------------------------ A settlement hearing will be held on November 24, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. at the Court of Chancery in the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine, among other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated September 17, 2015 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT. If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at 888-722-0627. Copies of the Notice can also be downloaded from the settlement website, www.GFIStockholderLitigation.com. If you (i) held shares of GFI common stock that were tendered into and cashed out in the BGCP Tender Offer,1 or (ii) hold shares of GFI common stock that are cashed out in the Back-End Mergers,2 you are eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. If you are eligible to receive a Settlement payment, you do not have to submit a claim form or take any other action in order to receive your payment. Your distribution from the Settlement will be paid to you directly in the same manner in which you either (i) received your cash payment from the BGCP Tender Offer, or (ii) receive your cash payment from the Back-End Mergers. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, must be filed with the Register in Chancery and delivered to Representative Lead Counsel and Representative Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than November 14, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the following Lead Counsel: Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne O. Bell, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd Radnor, PA 19087 Toll Free: (888) 299-7706 Email: info@ktmc.com -- and -- Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITIWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas # 38 New York, NY 10019 Phone: +1 212-554-1400 Email: avi.blbglaw.com GLOBE SPECIALTY: Plaintiffs Filed Opening Brief ----------------------------------------------- Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs in a class action filed their opening brief in support of their motion for preliminary injunction. On February 23, 2015, the Company, Grupo Villar Mir, S.A.U., a public limited company (sociedad anonima) incorporated under the laws of Spain ("Grupo VM"), Grupo FerroAtlantica, S.A.U., a Spanish public limited liability company in the form of a sociedad anonima and wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo VM ("FerroAtlantica"), VeloNewco Limited, a newly formed private UK holding company and wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo VM ("VeloNewco"), and Gordon Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of VeloNewco ("Merger Sub"), entered into a Business Combination Agreement (the "Original Business Combination Agreement") pursuant to which the parties agreed, subject to the terms and conditions of the Original Business Combination Agreement, to combine the businesses of the Company and FerroAtlantica under VeloNewco as described below (the "Business Combination"). On March 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Company's shareholders ("Company Shareholders") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Fraser v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10823-VCG, named as defendants the Company, the members of its board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best price possible for Company Shareholders, that the proposed merger consideration to be received by Company Shareholders is inadequate and significantly undervalued the Company, that the Company directors failed to adequately protect against conflicts of interest in approving the transaction, and that the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deters competitive offers. The complaint also alleged that the Company, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The action sought to enjoin or rescind the Business Combination, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 1, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned City of Providence v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG, named as defendants the Company, the members of its board of directors, its Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential alternative transaction. The complaint further alleged, among other things, that the Company's Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating the Business Combination Agreement, and, in the case of the Executive Chairman, by entering into a voting agreement in favor of the Business Combination Agreement, out of self-interest. The action sought to enjoin the Business Combination, to order the board of directors to obtain an alternate transaction, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 10, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 478 Pension Fund v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10899-VCG, named as defendants the Company, the members of its board of directors, its Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco. The complaint made identical allegations and sought the same relief sought in City of Providence v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG. On April 21, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Cirillo v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10929-VCG, named as defendants the Company, its board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's directors, aided and abetted by the Company, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential alternative transaction. The action sought to enjoin or rescind the Business Combination, disclosure of information, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On May 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated these four actions for all purposes into C.A. No. 10865-VCG, now captioned In re Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10865-VCG. The Court further designated the complaint filed in C.A. No. 10865-VCG as the operative complaint in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Company from convening a special meeting of Company Shareholders to vote on the proposal to adopt the Business Combination Agreement or consummating the Business Combination. In addition, Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings, and supporting brief, in which they requested that the Court schedule a trial in this action before the Company Shareholders vote on the Business Combination. Defendants, including Globe, filed an opposition brief in which they objected to Plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings to the extent it seeks expansive discovery and an expedited trial on the merits in lieu of a preliminary injunction hearing. Subsequently, the parties reached agreement on the scope of expedited discovery. The Court scheduled a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for August 26, 2015. On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint, realleging, among other things, that the Company's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential alternative transaction. The amended complaint further alleges that, among other things, the Company's preliminary proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 6, 2015, is materially misleading and incomplete, and that the Company's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to Company Shareholders in connection with the Business Combination. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, an order enjoining the Defendants from consummating the proposed Business Combination; a declaration that the disclosures contained in the preliminary proxy statement/prospectus are deficient; damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in support of their motion for preliminary injunction. The amended complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought by Plaintiffs in the consolidated action and it is not presently possible to determine the outcome of these matters. Accordingly, the possible loss, if any, related to these matters is uncertain and cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. GLOBUS MEDICAL: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Globus Medical, Inc. (NYSE:GMED) securities from February 26, 2014 through August 5, 2014, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Globus Medical investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Globus Medical class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-621.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Globus Medical's relationship with a significant distributor was deteriorating; (2) such deterioration was negatively impacting Globus Medical's financial performance; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about Globus Medical's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 30, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-621.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com GYRODYNE COMPANY: To Pay $650,000 in Plaintiff Lawyer Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Gyrodyne Company Of America, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the parties to the Action have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement. On July 3, 2014, a shareholder of Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. (the "Company") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and members of its board of directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and against Gyrodyne Special Distribution, LLC ("GSD") and Gyrodyne, LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (the "Court"), captioned Cashstream Fund v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index No. 065134/2014 (the "Action"). The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties or aided and abetted the breach of those duties in connection with the proposed merger of the Company and GSD with and into Gyrodyne, LLC (the "Merger"), and (ii) the Company and the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material information in the proxy statement/prospectus relating to the Merger (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"). On August 14, 2015, the parties to the Action entered into a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for settlement of the Action, subject to the Court's approval, a summary of which is as follows: * The Company will file a Current Report on Form 8-K supplementing the Proxy Statement/Prospectus with disclosures on specified topics relating to the Merger and the related plan of liquidation. * The Company may sell the properties currently owned by GSD in arm's-length transactions at prices at or above the most recent appraised values of those properties. * Plaintiff will apply to the Court for certification, for settlement purposes only, of a class of all persons who held Gyrodyne shares from September 12, 2013 through the effective date of the Merger. Excluded will be any shareholder who may and elects to opt out of the class. Pursuant to a side agreement, the Company has an option to terminate the settlement if more than a specified percentage of the outstanding shares opts out. * There will be mutual releases of all claims arising out of or relating to the Merger, the plan of liquidation, the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, the retention bonus plan and the rights offering. Excluded from the release are claims for statutory appraisal of Gyrodyne shares, employment-related disputes, antitrust matters and enforcement of the Settlement. * The parties will ask the Court to schedule a hearing for approval of the Settlement and to award plaintiff's counsel attorneys' fees and expenses of $650,000 in the aggregate. While the Company believes that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, the Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the Merger, all of which are set forth in Supplement No. 2 dated August 17, 2015 to the Proxy Statement/Prospectus. The Settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, the Merger becoming effective under the New York Business Corporation Law. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the Settlement. In the event that the Settlement is not approved, the Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Action. HAIN CELESTIAL: Jan. 6 Hearing on Class Certification in "Ham" -------------------------------------------------------------- The hearing on the motion for class certification is set for January 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in the case, ANA BELEN HAM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-CV-02044-WHO (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Stipulation and Order signed by the Court on October 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/er95sRfrom Leagle.com. Scott Edward Cole, Esq., Molly A. DeSario, Esq., Christopher B. Johnson, Esq., SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC, Oakland, California, Attorneys for Representative Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff Classes. JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Kenneth K. Lee, Kelly M. Morrison, Los Angeles, CA, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Dean N. Panos (pro hac vice), Chicago, IL, Attorneys for The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. District Judge William H. Orrick presides over the case. Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Representative Plaintiff Ana Belen Ham ("Plaintiff"), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Defendant The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel of record, agree and stipulate to extend Defendant Hain Celestial's deadline to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification from October 28, 2015 to its requested continued deadline of November 30, 2015. The Parties further stipulate to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file her Reply from November 11, 2015 to December 11, 2015. The Parties stipulate and request that the hearing on this matter be continued to December 23, 2015 or to another date in accordance with the Court's convenience. HAIN CELESTIAL: Working to Finalize Settlement in "Brown" --------------------------------------------------------- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is currently working to finalize the settlement in a class action lawsuit. On May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County against the Company. The complaint alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics(R) brand and JASON(R) brand personal care products used prior to the Company's implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated certain California statutes. Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed putative class action containing substantially identical allegations concerning only the JASON(R) brand personal care products. The consolidated actions sought an award for damages, injunctive relief, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. The consolidated lawsuits were certified as a class action by the trial court in November 2014. In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the class action for $7.5 million in addition to the distribution of consumer coupons up to a value of $2.0 million. The Company is currently working to finalize the matter. HOME DEPOT: 57 Class Actions Filed Related to Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------- The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 2, 2015, that at least 57 class actions have been filed in courts in the U.S. and Canada related to a data breach. In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company confirmed that its payment data systems were breached, which potentially impacted customers who used payment cards at self-checkout systems in the Company's U.S. and Canadian stores (the "Data Breach"). The Company's investigation to date has determined the intruder used a vendor's user name and password to enter the perimeter of the Company's network. The intruder then acquired elevated rights that allowed it to navigate portions of the Company's systems and to deploy unique, custom-built malware on the Company's self-checkout systems to access payment card information of customers who shopped at the Company's U.S. and Canadian stores between April 2014 and September 2014. The investigation of the Data Breach is ongoing, and the Company is supporting law enforcement efforts to identify the responsible parties. In the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the payment card networks made claims against the Company for costs that they assert they or their issuing banks have incurred in connection with the Data Breach, including incremental counterfeit fraud losses and non- ordinary course operating expenses (such as card reissuance costs). At this time, the Company believes that settlement negotiations will ensue and that it is probable that the Company will incur a loss in connection with the payment card networks' claims. The Company has recorded an accrual for estimated probable losses that it expects to incur in connection with the claims made by the payment card networks, which amount is included in the expenses discussed below. The accrual for estimated probable losses is based on currently available information and expected payments associated with those claims. These estimates may change as new information becomes available or circumstances change. In addition, at least 57 class actions have been filed in courts in the U.S. and Canada, and other claims may be asserted against the Company on behalf of customers, payment card issuing banks, shareholders or others seeking damages or other related relief, allegedly arising from the Data Breach. The U.S. class actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That court ordered that the individual class actions be administratively closed in favor of the filing of consolidated class action complaints on behalf of customers and financial institutions allegedly harmed by the Data Breach. In addition, several state and federal agencies, including State Attorneys General, are investigating events related to the Data Breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and the Company's responses. The Company is cooperating in the governmental investigations, and the Company may be subject to fines or other obligations. While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, the Company is not able to estimate the costs, or range of costs, related to these matters because the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved. The Company has not concluded that a loss from these matters is probable; therefore, the Company has not recorded an accrual for litigation, claims and governmental investigations related to these matters in the second quarter of fiscal 2015. The Company will continue to evaluate information as it becomes known and will record an estimate for losses at the time or times when it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. The Company believes that the ultimate amount paid on these actions, claims and investigations could have an adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows in future periods. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that a court has granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, in the case, Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc. A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleged that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint alleged that defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of veltuzumab. On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 24, 2014 the District Court entered an order appointing John Neff as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. The defendants believed that the allegations in the class action complaint were without merit and intended to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014. On January 29, 2015 the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court's opinion concluded that Immunomedics had no duty to disclose issues raised with Takeda- Nycomed prior to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. The Court granted Plaintiffs thirty days from the date of the opinion in order to file an amended complaint. On February 27, 2015 a second amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff alleging failure to disclose information related to the status of the agreement. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on April 13, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that the Company had no duty to make the disclosure of information concerning the agreement at an earlier time and that there was no misstatement or omission sufficient to support the claim. The Court ordered this action closed. IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Settles $1B Over Quebec Smokers Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ CBC News reported that the Quebec Court of Appeal has ordered two big tobacco companies -- Imperial Tobacco and Rothmans Benson & Hedges -- to set aside almost $1 billion for members of Canada's largest class-action lawsuit. Back in June, the two companies, along with a third big tobacco company, JTI-Macdonald, were ordered to pay $15 billion in damages to more than one million Quebec smokers. The plaintiffs were separated into two groups: some who became seriously ill from smoking and others who said they became addicted. The case marked the first time tobacco companies have gone to trial in a civil suit in this country. The original judgment ordered the companies to set aside $1 billion right away to ensure victims get some sort of compensation. The tobacco companies argued that they simply didn't have the funds, saying it could cause irreparable harm to their ability to appeal and even put them on the brink of bankruptcy. Court of Appeal Justice Mark Schrager ordered the companies to start paying in instalments. "It is not acceptable that appellants merely say that they have no funds to satisfy the judgment or an order to furnish security and continue to distribute earnings because that is 'business as usual,'" Schrager said in his ruling. "I do not question appellants' right to appeal but neither can I stand idly by while appellants pursue an appeal which will benefit them if they win but which will not operate to their detriment if they lose." The judge said that Rothmans Benson & Hedges, which owes $226 million in security, must pay in in six instalments. Imperial Tobacco, which owes $758 million, must pay in seven instalments. The motion against JTI-Macdonald was withdrawn because attorneys were unavailable. "The above amounts are less than average quarterly revenue. They are far easier to manage financially than a single lump sum," Schrager said. The first payments are due at the end of December. The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health called ruling an important one. "This is an important moral victory," said Mario Bujold, general manager of the council. "We now have the certainty that the victims will be compensated." Imperial Tobacco issued a statement , saying it is disappointed with the Court of Appeal's decision. "Imperial Tobacco Canada . . . does not believe it should have to secure a payment before all appeals are exhausted and a final judgment is rendered," the statement said. "Imperial Tobacco Canada continues to disagree with the overall judgment rendered by the Superior Court of Quebec. It is unjustified to hold legal manufacturers responsible for the personal choices of adult consumers and it will continue to defend that position as its appeals proceed before the courts." IXIA: Agreed to Settle Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------- IXIA said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company on August 14, 2015, agreed in principle to settle the purported securities class action litigation, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg, that is 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. Upon final approval, the settlement will resolve the claims asserted against all the defendants in the purported class action. The terms agreed upon by the parties include a settlement payment of $3.5 million, which will be paid in full by one of the Company's insurance carriers. The terms of the settlement are subject to the parties' execution of final settlement documents and the approval by the U.S. District Court. 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 dismissal of, and a full release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the purported class action. The Company previously announced in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on August 3, 2015, that it had agreed in principle to 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. For certain background information regarding the purported securities class action discussed above, please refer to the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, as filed with the SEC on August 7, 2015. KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Jan. 25 Fairness Hearing on $850K Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District Court District of New Jersey has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. (OTCMKTS:KEYP): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED (A) KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS, INC. ("KEYUAN") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 16, 2010 THROUGH OCTOBER 7, 2011, INCLUSIVE AND/OR (B) KEYUAN SECURITIES PURSUANT TO THE CONFIDENTIAL PRIVATE OFFERING MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 22, 2010 CONSISTING OF PURCHASERS IN THE FIRST TRANCHE THAT CLOSED ON APRIL 22, 2010 AND THE SECOND TRANCHE THAT CLOSED ON MAY 18, 2010. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will be held on January 25, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Judge of the District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom MLK 2A, Newark, New Jersey 07101 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $850,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of $283,333.33 or one-third and reimbursement of expenses of not more than $7,500 and an incentive payment of no more than $5,000 to Lead Plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice. If you purchased (a) Keyuan common stock during the class period from August 16, 2010 through October 7, 2011, inclusive, and/or (b) Keyuan securities pursuant to the confidential private offering memorandum dated March 22, 2010 consisting of purchasers in the first tranche that closed on April 22, 2010 and the second tranche that closed on May 18, 2010, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at: Patrizio & Zhao LLC, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel) 610-565-7985 (Fax); info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net). If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must either (1) have already submitted a claim in connection with the "First Keyuan Settlement"1 by September 28, 2015; or (2) if you did not submit a claim in connection with the First Keyuan Settlement by September 28, 2015, submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than December 21, 2015 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than January 5, 2016, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than January 5, 2016, to each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of New Jersey 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07101 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS: Thomas F. Quinn, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP 200 Campus Drive Florham Park, NJ 07932 Tel: 973.735.6036 Fax: 973.624.0808 Email: thomas.quinn@wilsonelser.com If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com KIM DAVIS: Progressives Denied Class Status in Suit vs. Clerk ------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Unruh, writing for WND.com, reported that a federal judge who ordered Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex duos in violation of her faith then jailed her when she refused says there's no need for more arguments over which couples can obtain a license. So Judge David Bunning rejected a request from the plaintiffs to give their lawsuit against Davis class-action status. Bunning initially ordered the deputies in Davis' office to issue marriage licenses to the plaintiffs then expanded the order to include anyone. "Although the court initially enjoined Defendant Davis from applying her 'no marriage licenses' policy to plaintiffs, who at the time were the only ones to request marriage licenses in Rowan County post-Obergefell, it later clarified that its order prohibited Defendant Davis from applying her policy to marriage license requests submitted by any couples. . . " the judge wrote in an order. The non-profit legal group Liberty Counsel, which represents Davis, said the ACLU made the request because it wanted to avoid the conclusion that its demand is moot. The next step will be to file briefings with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Davis' case in pending. WND reported earlier Liberty Counsel asserted the case was not about "gay weddings" but about forcing a homosexual agenda on a Christian. The same-sex duos who originally brought the case were trying to get Bunning to penalize Davis again, claiming she's not following his orders and the licenses may not be legitimate. "The plaintiffs are showing their true colors in this latest filing," the statement from Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel contended. "It has never really been about a marriage license -- Rowan County has issued the licenses -- it is about forcing their will on a Christian woman through contempt of court charges, jail and monetary sanctions. Kim wouldn't give up the job she loves, so the plaintiffs are asking the court to put the county office into receivership -- removing Kim from doing her job." "Outlasting the Gay Revolution" spells out eight principles to help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists The statement continued: "The fact is the plaintiffs already possess marriage licenses from Rowan County that have been approved as being valid by the Kentucky governor and Kentucky attorney general. Kim has taken all reasonable steps and good faith efforts to substantially comply with this court's orders." The licenses are being issued by the county clerk's office deputies to anyone legally eligible. Davis is redacting her name from the licenses, and the governor and the state attorney general have affirmed their validity. But the plaintiffs insist that's not good enough. They assert Davis should be fined, and the federal courts should take over her office. "There is no cause for this court to punish Davis with civil fines or take the extraordinary measure of annexing the Rowan County clerk's office through the intrusive remedy of a receivership. This sanction is reserved exclusively for situations of last resort -- not a hammer to be used while Davis' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint has been stayed, her consolidated appeals are pending in the Sixth Circuit, and licenses that are recognized as valid by the Kentucky governor and Kentucky attorney general are being issued in Rowan County," Staver said. The legal brief states: "Since her return to the office on Sept. 14, 2015, Davis has not interfered with, hindered, blocked or obstructed the issuance of any marriage licenses by her deputy clerks to couples who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky. Instead, marriage licenses approved, authorized and recognized as valid in the Commonwealth of Kentucky are being issued without delay to eligible couples. "And 'alterations' made by Davis constitute reasonable steps taken to ensure compliance with the court's orders, because these steps ensure that marriage licenses will be issued in Rowan County, while also accommodating her sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions." Lawyers previously had speculated the case was more about attacking a Christian than obtaining a license. To get to Davis' jurisdiction, the plaintiffs had to travel through other jurisdictions where they could have obtained a license. The plaintiffs in the case, although they already have licenses, had demanded of the court fines for Davis and a "receivership" of her office. "Imposing civil monetary sanctions against Davis and a receivership upon the Rowan County Clerk's Office is extreme, unnecessary and improper under the circumstances of this case," Davis' lawyers said. "After setting aside plaintiffs' bluster and rhetoric in the motion to enforce, the following facts are undisputed: (1) licenses are being issued to all eligible couples in the Rowan County clerk's office; (2) there are no differences between licenses issued to same-sex and different-sex couples in Rowan County -- all licenses are the same; (3) Davis is not interfering . . . ; (4) couples who are legally eligible to receive marriage licenses are receiving the licenses and are deeming them vaild and acceptable," the filing said. "Outlasting the Gay Revolution" spells out eight principles to help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists Davis has several challenges to the district court's handling of the case pending before the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. LIBERTY TAX: $5.3 Million Deal in ERC Action Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that following mediation, the parties in the so-called ERC class action litigation entered into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which the Company will establish a settlement fund of $5.3 million, inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees. The parties are in the process of seeking the approval of the trial court, which must approve the settlement. The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in Arkansas, California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012 in New York and Minnesota. In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the consolidated action. The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's refund transfer products formerly called electronic refund checks ("ERC") represent a form of refund anticipation loan ("RAL") because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that the refund transfer product is, therefore, subject to federal truth-in-lending disclosure and state law requirements regulating RALs. The plaintiffs also allege disclosure violations related to the ERC fees paid by RAL customers. The plaintiffs, therefore, claim violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes. The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege potential damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit a ruling that certain of the plaintiffs' claims were not subject to arbitration. Following mediation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which the Company will establish a settlement fund of $5.3 million, inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees. The parties are in the process of seeking the approval of the trial court, which must approve the settlement. The Company has preserved potential claims against a financial product partner that was responsible for the design of a portion of the ERC programs in the years at issue in the cases. The Company previously accrued the proposed settlement amount during fiscal 2015. LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Has Preliminary Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the settlement in the TCPA class action litigation has received preliminary approval of the court, but the settlement remains subject to other conditions typical in a class action. The Company was sued in September 2013 in federal court in Illinois in connection with alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges that the Company inappropriately made auto dialed telephone calls to cellular telephones, seeks the certification of a nationwide class action, and claims statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation. The Company tendered the defense of this litigation to a third party entity that had contracted with us to solicit potential franchisees, and that third party entity acknowledged its defense and indemnification obligations to the Company. However, because the third party did not have the financial resources to satisfy its defense and indemnity obligations, the Company concluded that it could not rely upon the fulfillment of those obligations. In September 2014, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement of this litigation pursuant to which the Company will establish a settlement fund of $3.0 million, inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees. This settlement has received the preliminary approval of the court and notices to class members have been sent, but the settlement remains subject to other conditions typical in a class action. The Company previously accrued the proposed settlement amount during fiscal 2015. LIQUID HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:LIQD) securities pursuant and/or traceable to Liquid Holdings' Initial Public Offering on or about July 25, 2013 and/or during the period from July 26, 2013 through December 23, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Liquid Holdings investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Liquid Holdings class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-723.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Liquid Holdings was overstating its ability to generate customers; (2) Liquid Holdings' business model was unsustainable; (3) the financial condition of Liquid Holdings' main and largest customer-an investment entity known as QuantX Management, LLP-was deteriorating; (4) as a result, Liquid Holdings' financial results and operating metrics were overstated; (5) as such, Liquid Holdings' financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (6) Liquid Holdings lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, Liquid Holdings' financial statements and defendants' statements about Liquid Holding's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 20, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-723.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com LSB INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of LSB Industries, Inc., securities during the period from May 8, 2015 through August 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for LSB Industries investors under the federal securities laws. To join the LSB Industries class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-720.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LSB Industries costs related to the expansion of the El Dorado Facility would be significantly higher than reported; and, (2) as a result, LSB Industries' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On August 7, 2015, LSB Industries announced its intent to implement certain recommendations by the Strategic Committee of the LSB Industries Board of Directors and that the total cost to complete the El Dorado Facility expansion would now be in the range of $660 million to $680, significantly higher that its previous estimates of $495 million to $520 million on May 8, 2015. On this news, shares of LSB Industries declined $12.09 per share or over 34% to close at $23.01 per share on August 7, 2015, on heavy volume. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-720.htmlfor more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes Class Suit to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reported that Lumber Liquidators removed a class action suit to federal court that alleges it sold a defective Dura-Wood flooring. Lumber Liquidators filed the notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Sept. 25 through attorneys Matthew Robinson and Andrew Martone of Hesse Martone in St. Louis. Kevin Morris filed the class action on Aug. 18, claiming that in February 2013 he bought 900 square feet of the Casa de Colour Collection by Dura Wood, which is a pre-finished and stained hardwood flooring. Morris, who claims he is a skilled at installing flooring, alleges that six months after spending about $5,000 and 24 hours installing the flooring, he started noticing defects in the flooring. He claims he specifically noticed warping, buckling and cupping, the suit states. Morris alleges common law fraud, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty and violations of the state Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and state Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The class seeks a refund of their money and installation costs, injunctive relief, court costs and attorney's fees. The plaintiffs are represented by James G. Onder and William W. Blair of Onder, Shelton, O'Leary and Peterson LLC in St. Louis. MADISON SQUARE: Court Granted Preliminary Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison Square Garden Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in antitrust class action against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellite distributors. On August 31, 2015, the Court held a final fairness hearing on the Settlement. On September 1, 2015, the Court found that the Settlement's terms were fair, reasonable and adequate and issued an order approving the Settlement, which became effective on September 16, 2015. As a result of the Court's order, the lawsuit was dismissed and all appeals were withdrawn with prejudice. The time to appeal the court's order has expired. The Settlement did not result in any changes to the distribution of NHL games on the MSG Networks or in any Company payment obligations. In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports networks and cable and satellite distributors. The second complaint, which was substantially identical to the first, was dismissed after its named plaintiff was named as a co-plaintiff in the first complaint. The operative complaint primarily asserts that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the television and online distribution of live hockey games, violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against the defendants' continued violation of the antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On December 5, 2012, the court issued an opinion and order largely denying the motion to dismiss. On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the case in its entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court denied the motions for summary judgment. On May 14, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion with respect to damages but granted it with respect to injunctive relief. Both plaintiffs and defendants filed petitions with the Court of Appeals seeking pretrial review of these rulings. On June 10, 2015, the parties entered into a proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the lawsuit and the Settlement was filed with the Court on June 11, 2015. The Settlement would not result in any changes to the Company's distribution of NHL games on the MSG Networks or in any MSG payment obligations. The Settlement is subject to Court approval. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, the lawsuit and all appeals will be withdrawn with prejudice. On June 15, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement, directed that notice of the proposed Settlement be sent to the putative class and scheduled a hearing on final approval for August 31, 2015. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that only two weeks remain to file a motion for lead plaintiff in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. ("Marvell" or the "Company") from November 20, 2014 through September 10, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The action alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Marvell is a fabless semiconductor company, and ships over one billion chips a year. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had engaged in inappropriate revenue recognition practices; (2) Marvell's management permitted an inappropriate and ineffective control environment; (3) the Company's key accounting metrics were misstated; and (4) Defendants' statements about Marvell's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On September 11, 2015, the Company reported a quarterly loss of $382.4 million for its fiscal second quarter, whereas analysts on average had predicted a quarterly profit of $11.9 million. The Company also announced an internal probe by its Audit Committee into Marvell's key accounting practices including its revenue recognition, litigation reserves, and internal controls. Marvell also revealed that it would be unable to timely file its quarterly report due to the fact that its Audit Committee was examining "certain revenue recognition issues in the second quarter of fiscal 2016 and any associated issues with whether senior management's operating style during the period resulted in an open flow of information and communication to set an appropriate tone for an effective control environment." On this news, shares of Marvell fell over 16%. On October 26, 2015, after market close, the other shoe dropped. Marvell disclosed in a regulatory filing that PricewaterhouseCoopers had resigned as its auditor. Notably, PwC advised Marvell on its way out that it would need to expand its 2016 audit to areas including whether senior management set an appropriate tone for effective control management. After this news, Marvell stock fell approximately 15% from $9.45 per share to close at only $8.05 per share. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who invested in Marvell securities during the Class Period. If you invested in Marvell securities as described above, and lost money on the transactions, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than November 10, 2015. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Marvell shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212.779.1414 Fax: 212.779.3218 Email: Seidman@bernlieb.com MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan announces that class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. ("Marvell" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MRVL) securities from November 20, 2014 through September 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Marvell investors under the federal securities laws. If you purchased Marvell securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than November 10, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the Marvell Securities Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Marvell and certain of its executive officers and directors issued materially false and/or misleading information and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Marvell had engaged in inappropriate revenue recognition practices; (2) the Company's management permitted an inappropriate and ineffective control environment; (3) Marvell's key accounting metrics were misstated; (4) that the Company lacked adequate controls at all relevant times; (5) and as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Marvell's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On September 11, 2015, the Company reported a quarterly loss of $382.4 million for its fiscal second quarter, whereas analysts on average had predicted a quarterly profit of $11.9 million. The Company also announced an internal probe by its Audit Committee into Marvell's accounting practices including its revenue recognition, litigation reserves, and internal controls. Following this news, the price of Marvell's common stock fell $1.71 per share, or nearly 17%, to close on September 11, 2015 at $8.84 per share. On October 26, 2015, Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP ("PwC") resigned as the outside auditor to Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. PwC's resignation comes a little more than a month after Marvell disclosed an internal investigation into its accounting. In its resignation, PwC questioned whether Marvell's senior management set a "tone for effective control." Marvell's price per share was down more than 14% since closing price. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection and always fight "for the people." Peter Safirstein, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 564-1637 Email: psafirstein@forthepeople.com MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: November 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (NASDAQ:MRVL) securities between November 20, 2014 and September 10, 2015. Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/MRVL- Info-Request-Form-927. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that the Company made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Marvell had engaged in inappropriate revenue recognition practices; (b) the Company's management permitted an inappropriate and ineffective control environment; (c) as a result, Marvell's key accounting metrics were misstated; and (d) the Company lacked adequate controls at all relevant times. On September 11, 2015, Marvell Technology announced it would delay filing its Form 10-Q reporting its financial results for the period ended August 1, 2015. The Company noted that an Audit Committee is conducting an independent investigation of certain accounting and internal control matters in the second quarter of fiscal 2016. If you suffered a loss in Marvell Technology you have until November 10, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/MRVL-Info-Request-Form-927. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Vincent Wong, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT WONG 39 East Broadway, Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com MASTEC INC: Still Defending "Wrigley" Action in S.D. Fla. --------------------------------------------------------- MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on May 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"), Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jose R. Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer, George L. Pita, as defendants. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities laws arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained in, or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's filings with the SEC and other statements, in each case with respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the independent internal investigation being conducted by the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors. The Lawsuit seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense. MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Goldberg Law PC (www.Goldberglawpc.com) announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. ("MaxPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: MXPT), for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on March 6, 2015, are advised to contact the Firm prior to the October 30, 2015, lead plaintiff deadline. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at info@goldberglawpc.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the complaint, the Company's offering documents failed to disclose that MaxPoint derived two-thirds of its sales from only 50 customers. In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company was signing up smaller businesses in advance of its IPO, which meant that the Company's growth was declining at the time of the IPO. When the truth was revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm. If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at info@goldberglawpc.com. Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: 800-977-7401 Email: info@goldberglawpc.com MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. MXPT, ("MaxPoint" or the "Company") shareholders that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or acquired MaxPoint common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO") on March 6, 2015. MaxPoint shareholders are reminded that they may, no later than October 30, 2015, petition the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class. MaxPoint shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request information about this action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/maxpoint-interactive-inc. MaxPoint is a provider of business intelligence and marketing- automation software services designed to enable national brands to drive local in-store sales. On March 6, 2015, MaxPoint completed its IPO, selling 6.5 million shares of common stock to investors at $11.50 per share, for gross proceeds of more than $74 million. In connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Materials") with the SEC. The class action lawsuit alleges that MaxPoint's Offering Materials contained false and misleading statements about the Company's financial condition, business and prospects. Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that MaxPoint's Offering Materials failed to disclose: (i) that the Company was wholly dependent upon its top 50 customers alone for two-third of its sales; and (ii) that the Company had been signing smaller customers with smaller advertising budgets in the months leading up to its IPO. Following the Company's IPO, the price of MaxPoint common stock significantly declined from an IPO price of $11.50 per share to a current trading price of less than $5.00 per share. MaxPoint shareholders are reminded that they may, no later than October 30, 2015, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or (610) 667 -- 7706, or via e- mail at info@ktmc.com Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.ktmc.com. Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne O. Bell, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd Radnor, PA 19087 Toll Free: (888) 299-7706 Email: dcheck@ktmc.com skaskela@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Goldberg Law PC (www.Goldberglawpc.com) announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. ("MaxPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: MXPT), for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on March 6, 2015, are advised to contact the Firm prior to the October 30, 2015, lead plaintiff deadline. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at info@goldberglawpc.com. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the complaint, the Company's offering documents failed to disclose that MaxPoint derived two-thirds of its sales from only 50 customers. In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company was signing up smaller businesses in advance of its IPO, which meant that the Company's growth was declining at the time of the IPO. When the truth was revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm. If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at info@goldberglawpc.com. Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights litigation. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Brian Schall, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Suite 1404 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Phone: 800-977-7401 Email: info@goldberglawpc.com MICHAELS COS: 40 Individual Claims Pending After Decertification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that 40 individual claims are pending as well as a separate representative action are pending in the California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego brought on behalf of store managers throughout the state, following decertification of class action. On September 15, 2011, Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI") was served with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange ("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current store managers employed by MSI in California. The lawsuit alleges that MSI improperly classified its store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all wages, overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleges that the foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including California's unfair competition law. On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order certifying a class of approximately 200 members. MSI successfully removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was decertified. "As a result of the decertification, we have approximately 40 individual claims pending as well as a separate representative action pending in the California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego brought on behalf of store managers throughout the state. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements," the Company said. MICHAELS COS: Continues to Defend Remaining FCRA Claims ------------------------------------------------------- The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company continues to defend remaining Fair Credit Reporting claims. On December 11, 2014, Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI") was served with a lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former associate. The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background check for employment was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks. Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. filed in the Superior Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, and Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in the Central District of California. All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA. In addition, Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut also alleged violations of California's unfair competition law. The Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits have been dismissed and an offer of judgment has been accepted in the Castro lawsuit and will be dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were transferred by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for centralized pretrial proceedings to the District of New Jersey. The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously. "We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said. MICHAELS COS: Actions Pending Related to Data Security Incident --------------------------------------------------------------- The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company continues to defend remaining class actions related to Data Security Incident. Five putative class actions were filed against Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI") relating to the January 2014 data breach. The plaintiffs generally alleged that MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers' private information including credit and debit card information, and as such, breached an implied contract, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states' similar laws) and are seeking damages including declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the United States District Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions. On July 14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was granted. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied on October 14, 2014. The deadline to file a notice of appeal expired on November 13, 2014. On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI related to the data breach in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief, monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The Company filed a motion to dismiss and is awaiting a decision from the Court. The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related to the lawsuits, if any. "In connection with the breach, payment card companies and associations may seek to require us to reimburse them for unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also impose fines or penalties in connection with the data breach, and enforcement authorities may also impose fines or other remedies against us," the Company said. "We have also incurred other costs associated with the data breach, including legal fees, investigative fees, costs of communications with customers and credit monitoring services provided to our customers. In addition, state and federal agencies, including states' attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission may investigate events related to the data breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and our responses. Although we intend to cooperate in these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business and our results of operations. We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss related to any reimbursement costs, fines or penalties that may be assessed, if any. Such amounts incurred to date are immaterial to the consolidated financial statements." MOLYCORP INC: Response to Plaintiff's Opposition Due Nov. 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's response to a class action plaintiff's opposition is due by November 13, 2015. The Company said, "In February 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal District Court against us and certain of our current and former executive officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. A Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also named most of our Board members and some of our stockholders as defendants, along with other persons and entities." "On March 31, 2015, the Colorado Federal District Court granted our motion to dismiss that Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 29, 2015, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 24, 2015. "As a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, plaintiffs filed a motion of voluntary dismissal of us from the purported class action lawsuit, without prejudice. On July 24, 2015, plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Our response to the opposition is due by November 13, 2015. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims." MOLYCORP INC: Motion for Reconsideration Fully Briefed ------------------------------------------------------ Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a motion for reconsideration filed by class action plaintiffs of certain portions of the case dismissal order has been fully briefed. The Company said, "In August 2013, two purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and certain of our current and former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, filed on May 19, 2014, also named us and certain of our current and former executive officers. On March 12, 2015, the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. On April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of certain portions of the dismissal order. The motion for reconsideration has been fully briefed." "As a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Federal Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order terminating the motion for reconsideration, subject to reinstatement upon the disposition of the Chapter 11 Cases. We believe that this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims." MORRISONS: Sued Over Bitter Employee's Act of Revenge ----------------------------------------------------- Olivia Waring, writing for Metro.co.uk, reported that Andrew Skelton, 43, worked as a senior internal auditor for Morrisons when he leaked sensitive data relating to 100,000 staff and their finances, to newspapers -- and uploaded it to data sharing websites. At trial it was found Skelton held a 'grudge' after being reprimanded for using the mail room at the supermarket's Bradford headquarters for sending out his eBay packages. Details of salaries, national insurance numbers, dates of birth and bank account details were leaked by Skelton in a flagrant act of revenge. Solicitor Nick McAleenan said thousands more staff are likely to complain. He said: 'My clients' position is that Morrisons failed to prevent a data leak which exposed tens of thousands of its employees to the very real risk of identity theft and potential loss. 'In particular, they are worried about the possibility of money being taken from their bank accounts and -- in the case of younger clients -- negative consequences for their credit rating.' The data breach has already cost Morrisons GBP2million to rectify and Mr McAleenan says the consequences of the lawsuit has implications for all 'employers and employees' in the UK. He added: 'Whenever employers are given personal details of their staff, they have a duty to look after them. 'That is especially important given that most companies now gather and manage such material digitally and, as a result, it can be accessed and distributed relatively easily if the information is not protected.' Skelton was given an eight-year jail sentence in July following a trial at Bradford Crown Court. A Morrisons spokesperson said: 'We are contesting this case. We're not accepting liability for the actions of a rogue individual. 'We can confirm that we're not aware that anybody suffered a financial loss from this breach. 'When we found out about the breach we immediately put in place, at a cost of GBP2million to the company, Experian protection to ensure that people's accounts were protected.' They added: 'This particular law firm has been searching for our employees for the or so, going through social media to ask colleagues to join this class action.' MURPHY OIL: 5th Cir. Nixes NLRB Ruling on Class Suit Waivers ------------------------------------------------------------ Daniel wiessner, writing for Reuters, reported that a U.S. appeals court on overturned a National Labor Relations Board decision that said a gas station operator violated the law by requiring workers to sign class action waivers and suggested the agency was too cavalier in applying a legal standard rejected by federal courts. Arbitration agreements signed by employees of Murphy Oil USA Inc that barred them from participating in class or collective actions were valid because they did not affect any basic right granted to workers by the National Labor Relations Act, a unanimous three- judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. NAVISTAR INT'L: Nationwide Class Sought in Warranty Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that N&C Transportation Ltd. has filed a Notice of Application seeking an order certifying a nationwide class of Canadian residents who purchased in or after January 2009 a Class 8 Navistar truck equipped with an "Advanced EGR" engine. On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") filed a putative class action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action"). Subsequently, six additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed in four other provinces in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions"). On July 13, 2015, N&C filed a Notice of Application seeking an order certifying a nationwide class of Canadian residents who purchased in or after January 2009 a Class 8 Navistar truck equipped with an "Advanced EGR" engine. Meanwhile, on July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4 Action"). Subsequently, similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Texas, the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of Alabama, the Western District of Kentucky, and the Middle District of Pennsylvania (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions"). The U.S. Actions contained allegations substantially similar to the Canadian Actions. More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions (collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify one or more classes of persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine. In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and/or correct the alleged defect. The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on various theories, including breach of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs. On October 3, 2014, NIC and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions then pending, as well as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various federal district courts. On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S. Actions pending on the date the motion was filed before Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The MDL Panel also consolidated certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. The Company said, "For cases filed after the initial ruling by the MDL Panel, we continue to request that the MDL Panel similarly transfer and consolidate cases involving one or more common questions of fact. To date, eight putative class actions and three non-class cases have been added to the MDL proceeding before Judge Gottschall. On March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall entered an order in the MDL proceeding, appointing interim lead counsel and interim liaison counsel for the Plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The Company answered the Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015. The next status conference is set for September 11, 2015." "Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows," the Company said. NAVISTAR INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the Court has granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Defendants' Second Amended Complaint in the Shareholder Litigation. The Company said, "In March 2013, a putative class action complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010 and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J. Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5 Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and future business prospects and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings with the SEC concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. In May 2013, an order was entered transferring and consolidating all cases before one judge and in July 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint in October 2013. The consolidated amended complaint enlarged the proposed class period to June 9, 2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen additional current and former directors and officers as defendants. In December 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In July 2014, the Court granted the defendants' Motions to Dismiss, denied the lead plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. In August, 2014, the plaintiff timely filed a Second Amended Complaint, which narrows the claims in two ways. First, the plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of the defendants, asserting claims against only Navistar, Dan Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The plaintiff also shortened the putative class period by changing the class period commencement date from June 9, 2009 to March 10, 2010. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in September, 2014 and in October, 2014, the plaintiff filed its opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In November, 2014, defendants filed their reply brief in support of defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Also in November 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech as a defendant. The Company said, "On July 10, 2015, the Court issued its Opinion and Order on our Motion to Dismiss the Defendants' Second Amended Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court (i) dismissed all of plaintiff's claims against the Company, Andrew J. Cederoth and Jack Allen and (ii) dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims against Daniel C. Ustian, the only remaining defendant, except for claims regarding two of Mr. Ustian's statements. Further, all of the dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice except for claims based on statements made subsequent to the lead plaintiff's last purchase of the Company's stock (the "Post-Purchase Claims"). The Court determined the lead plaintiff lacked standing to assert the Post-Purchase Claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice." NET 1: Court Dismissed Purported Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (NasdaqGS: UEPS; JSE: NT1) ("Net1") said the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed the purported securities class action litigation originally filed on December 24, 2013, against Net1, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. "We are pleased with the Court's decision and believe that its opinion confirms our assertion that this case was without any merit," Dr. Serge C.P. Belamant, Net1's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, said in a statement dated Sept. 17. The Court's order allows the plaintiff to file a further amended complaint on or before October 16, 2015, failing which the action may be dismissed with prejudice. Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that, "On December 24, 2013, Net1, our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported shareholder of Net1 and all other similarly situated shareholders who purchased our securities between August 27, 2009 and November 27, 2013." "On July 23, 2014, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On September 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that we made materially false and misleading statements in that we failed to disclose material adverse information and misrepresented the truth about our finances and business prospects. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of the lead plaintiff and all other similarly situated shareholders who purchased our securities between January 18, 2012 and December 4, 2012, which is a shorter class period than proposed in the original complaint. "On January 16, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On March 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss its complaint, and we filed a reply brief on March 27, 2015. No motion for class certification has been filed. We believe this lawsuit has no merit and intend to defend it vigorously." NOBILIS HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Nobilis Health Corp. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is April 2, 2015 through October 8, 2015. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Nobilis Health Corp. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class. You may move the Court no later than, December 21, 2015 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Tel: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com NXT OILFIELD: "Rebardi" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Wade Rebardi, and all others similarly-situated v. NXT Oilfield Rentals, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03047 (S.D. Tex., October 15, 2015), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. NXT Oilfield Rentals, LLC is an oilfield services company providing well-related services to oil and gas companies and operators. NXT maintains significant operations throughout the State of Texas and across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Tel: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com OSI SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Roberti Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- OSI Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that a settlement has been reached in the Roberti class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On December 12, 2013, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of our officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the "Court") captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al. (the "Securities Class Action"). The Amended Complaint in the Securities Class Action, filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated the Exchange Act by misrepresenting or failing to disclose facts concerning the status of the Security division's efforts to develop automated threat recognition software and the alleged use of unapproved parts in its baggage scanning systems in violation of its contract with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (the "TSA"). The Amended Complaint also asserts that the individual defendants allegedly sold stock based on material non-public information. Following a mediation and further post-mediation settlement discussions, the parties to the litigation accepted settlement terms proposed by the mediator and entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement (the "Settlement"), which was filed with the Court on August 21, 2015. The Settlement provides for the resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities Class Action. The Company and the other defendants agreed to the Settlement Agreement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction and inherent risks of burdensome and protracted litigation. Neither the Company nor the individual defendants conceded any wrongdoing or liability, and continue to believe that they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the Securities Class Action. Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants will pay $15.0 million (the "Settlement Amount") for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or the other defendants in the Securities Class Action. The Company expects that the Settlement Amount will be fully covered and funded by the Company's insurers pursuant to the applicable insurance policies. The Settlement remains subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court and certain other conditions, including notice to all class members. PHOTOMEDEX INC: Settlements in Two Class Action Suits Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, that on August 11, 2015, PhotoMedex, Inc. (the "Company") was notified that the proposed settlements in two class action suits against the Company and its subsidiaries had been approved by the respective courts with jurisdiction over those suits. The Company had been served on December 20, 2013, with a purported shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Eastern District Court") against the Company and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial Officer. The action alleged various violations of the Federal securities laws between November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013, including that the Company and its officers made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose material facts concerning the Company's business. The plaintiffs sought class action status for the suit, as well as an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs. A companion action had also been brought against the Company and its two officers in the State of Israel, where the Company's shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The Eastern District Court has entered an order approving the settlement in this action. The settlement provides a fund of $1.5 million for the benefit of those persons or entities who purchased securities issued by the Company during the period November 6, 2012 and November 5, 2013, inclusive. The settlement fund will also pay for plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses approved by the Eastern District Court with respect to the action. The Company maintains insurance that will help defray the cost of the proposed settlement, and does not expect the settlement to have a material impact on its financial results. The Company was also a party in the consolidated action In re LCA- Vision Inc. Shareholder Litigation. The Company received notice of this order on March 30, 2015. The action consolidated four separate cases that had been filed in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio (the "Ohio Court") against the Company, its subsidiary Gatorade Acquisition Corp., LCA-Vision, Inc. ("LCA"), LCA's chief executive officer, Michael J. Celebrezze, and LCA's board of directors over the proposed acquisition of LCA by the Company. On May 12, 2014, the Company acquired LCA, and on January 31, 2015, the Company sold LCA to Vision Acquisition, LLC. The action alleged that LCA's officer and board members breached their fiduciary duty to LCA, and that the acquisition of LCA by the Company failed to maximize LCA's stockholder value and deprived LCA's stockholders of the ability to participate in LCA's long-term prospects. The suit further alleged that the Company aided and abetted LCA's officer and directors in their breaches of fiduciary duties. Similar suits had also been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its subsidiary, Gatorade Acquisition Corp. The Ohio Court has entered an order approving the settlement of all suits in this action. Under the settlement, LCA had published certain additional disclosure statements regarding its acquisition by the Company and its financial statements prior to its shareholder vote on the acquisition, which was held on May 12, 2014. The settlement also provides for the payment of plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses with respect to the action. The Company believes that LCA maintains insurance that will help defray the cost of the proposed settlement; the Company does not expect the proposed settlement to have a material impact on its financial results. PMFG INC: Entered Into MOU in Merger Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- PMFG, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, that the Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed in connection with litigation involving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 3, 2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among PMFG, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("PMFG" or the "Company"), CECO Environmental Corp., a Delaware corporation ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of CECO ("Merger Sub I"), and Top Gear Acquisition II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of CECO ("Merger Sub II"). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other things, (1) the merger of PMFG with and into Merger Sub I, with PMFG as the surviving entity (the "First Merger"), and (2) a subsequent merger whereby PMFG will merge with and into Merger Sub II, with Merger Sub II as the surviving entity (the "Second Merger" and together with the First Merger, the "Mergers"). As disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the Mergers, dated as of July 31, 2015 (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), three lawsuits related to the Mergers have been filed by alleged stockholders of PMFG after the public announcement of the Mergers on May 4, 2015. The first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second and third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit"). A description of the Texas and Delaware Lawsuits is included under the heading "Legal Proceedings Related to the Mergers" beginning on page 150 of the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. Effective as of August 23, 2015, the Company and the other defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit. In connection with this Memorandum of Understanding, the Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures to Company stockholders in order to supplement those contained in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. After the Company enters into a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the settlement, as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the Mergers, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but will not affect any shareholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. The proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to Company stockholders under the Merger Agreement or change any of the other terms of the Mergers or the Merger Agreement. The Company and its directors vigorously deny all liability with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the lawsuit and specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure was required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the directors failed to maximize stockholder value by entering into the Merger Agreement. The Memorandum of Understanding is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant. However, to avoid the risk of delaying or otherwise imperiling the Mergers, and to provide supplemental information to Company stockholders at a time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the Mergers, the Company and its directors have reached the Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit as described above. The parties consider it desirable that the actions be settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally resolve the settled claims. PREMIER ENERGY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Rodriguez, and all others similarly-situated v. Premier Energy Technical Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00295 (S.D. Tex., October 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Premier provides the design, development, deployment, management and maintenance of equipment used to monitor and control various types of machinery, processes, and engineering systems in the oil and gas industry. Its principal office is located in Woodstock, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS, & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Iowa City Sues Over Flushable Bathroom Wipes -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that an Iowa city has filed a class action lawsuit against a half-dozen makers of bathroom wipes, claiming the companies' so-called "flushable" wipes have caused damage to the city's sewer system and a number of its buildings. The City of Perry filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Oct. 13. The named defendants include: Procter & Gamble Company; Kimberly- Clark Corporation; Nice-Pak Products Inc.; Professional Disposables International Inc.; Tufco Technologies Inc.; and Rockline Industries. The companies make up the vast majority of the flushable wipes market -- most notably, Pampers, Huggies, Charmin, Cottonelle and Scott. The city, in its 44-page complaint, seeks to recover for the harm allegedly caused by the defendant companies' "unfair practices associated with the design, testing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and/or sale of allegedly flushable bathroom wipes." The city argues that the defendants know, and have known, about the wipes' negative effects, yet continue to manufacture and promote them as "flushable" -- meaning they are suitable or able to be flushed down a toilet without causing harm to plumbing, sewer and septic systems. "As the key participants in the flushable wipes market, Defendants have had access to a plethora of information about the harm their wipes cause to plumbing systems," attorneys for Perry wrote. The city contends that contrary to the defendants' representations, their so-called "flushable" wipes do not degrade after flushing. "Rather, the flushable wipes remain intact long enough to pass through private wastewater drain pipes into the municipal sewer line causing clogs and other issues for municipal and county sewer systems, wastewater treatment plants and public buildings, resulting in thousands, if not millions, of dollars in damages," the city wrote. According to its complaint, the city -- located in central Iowa, with a population of more than 7,000 -- has incurred a great deal of expenses associated with the removal of flushable wipes from its lift stations. The lift stations, of which Perry is the owner and operator of two, pump its wastewater to a treatment facility. The city has been forced to repeatedly clean the lift stations and fix mechanical damage. Perry, which oversees and is responsible for its sewer lines, also contends the wipes have repeatedly clogged its sewer lines and the city has had to "expend significant resources" cleaning out the lines. In addition, various city-owned buildings have experienced plumbing problems associated with the use of the wipes. The city pointed to a pipe in the bathroom of the Perry Public Library that was clogged by patrons who flushed the wipes down a toilet. "In order to function properly, flushable wipes must hold up under the pressure of scrubbing after being soaked in water and propylene glycol lotion for an extended period of time," the city wrote. "The ability of a wipe to hold together when subjected to water is referred to as its 'wet strength.' "In order to maintain 'wet strength,' and despite the Defendants' claims otherwise, flushable wipes do not degrade after flushing. Rather, once in the sewer system, they ultimately wrap around structures within the system, such as filters or pumps, creating clogs and back-ups. In order to clear the clogs, the systems need to be shut down and the wipes manually removed." The city continued, "Plaintiff believes that if the flushable wipes were designed to degrade, similar to traditional toilet paper, the sewer industry would no longer be faced with the rapid spike in operating and repair expenses caused directly by the alleged flushable wipes." Perry seeks an order designating it as the named representative and designating attorneys with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Audet & Partners LLP and Hudson Mallaney Shindler & Anderson PC as class counsel. It also wants a declaration that the defendants' flushable wipes do not degrade and are not sewer safe; an order enjoining the companies from further advertising, sale or distribution of the flushable wipes; an order requiring the companies to establish a fund to compensate the city and the class for the cost associated with ongoing clean-up and removal of the wipes from their sewer systems; damages; an award of attorneys' fees and costs; pre- judgment and post-judgment interest; and leave to amend the complaint. PUBLIX SUPER: "Snover" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------- Eric Snover, and all others similarly-situated v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02434 (M.D. Fla., October 15, 2015), seeks damages and other equitable and legal remedies against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is one of the ten largest-volume supermarket chains in the U.S. A principal part of the Defendant's business is the provision of in-store pharmacy services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Tel: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 222-2434 E-mail: jcohen@forthepeople.com REGIS CORPORATION: Named Co-Defendant in New York State Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Regis Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been named a co-defendant in a lawsuit filed in New York State which seeks class action status. While management believes the Company will successfully defend itself in this lawsuit, the ultimate outcome and legal costs to defend the Company may be material to the future financial results of the Company, and are undeterminable at this time. As such, no accruals have been recognized in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. REGIS CORPORATION: Named Co-defendant in NJ and Pa. Actions ----------------------------------------------------------- Regis Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been named a co-defendant and defendant in lawsuits filed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively. Each of the suits seek class action status. While management believes the Company will successfully defend itself in these lawsuits, the ultimate outcome and legal costs to defend the Company may be material to the future financial results of the Company, and are undeterminable at this time. As such, no accruals have been recognized in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. RESOURCE CAPITAL: November 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Resource Capital Corp. ("Resource Capital" or the "Company") (NYSE:RSO) common stock from March 2, 2015 through August 4, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Resource Capital investors under the federal securities laws. If you purchased Resource Capital common stock during the Class Period, you may, no later than November 9, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the Resource Capital Securities Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Resource Capital and certain of its executive officers and directors issued materially false and/or misleading information regarding the risk of the Company's commercial loans portfolio and its processes and controls for assessing the quality of its portfolio. On August 4, 2015, Resource Capital disclosed a GAAP net loss of $31.0 million during the quarter ended June 30, 2015, citing the recording of a $41.1 million allowance for loan loss. Following this news, the price of Resource Capital common stock fell from $3.48 per share on August 4, 2015, to a close of $3.05 per share on August 5, 2015. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer protection and always fight "for the people." Peter Safirstein, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 564-1637 Email: psafirstein@forthepeople.com RUBY TUESDAY: Parties Agree to Resolve "LaFrance" Case ------------------------------------------------------ Ruby Tuesday, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 2, 2015, that the parties in the case, Kimberly LaFrance, et al. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., have agreed to resolve the matter. On July 23, 2014, a case styled Kimberly LaFrance, et al. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., was filed against the Company in the State of New York Supreme Court, County of Onondaga on behalf of the plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals. The plaintiff is alleging violations of certain wage notice requirements under New York law and is seeking wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees. The matter has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. "On November 20, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss, which was followed by motions filed by the plaintiff on December 29, 2014, for class certification, and on December 31, 2014, for partial summary judgment. The parties agreed to mediate the case, and on March 5, 2015, the court stayed all deadlines in the matter pending the completion of mediation," the Company said. "On August 5, 2015, the parties agreed to resolve the matter, but the agreement requires court approval and will take several months to finalize. We believe that we have accrued an appropriate amount based on the agreement in principle." SALEM NURSING: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------- Louise Paschall, Gayla Jean Espiritu, Connie J. Frazier, Sheila Rozier, Angela D. Lowery and Tina Marie Jones, and all others similarly-situated v. Salem Nursing & Rehab Center of Augusta, Inc., Altacare Corporation, Douglas Mittleider, John Doe Corporate Defendants 1-10, and John Doe Individual Defendants 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00167 (S.D. Ga., October 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Salem Nursing & Rehab Center of August, Inc. is the owner and operator of a nursing home facility doing business as "Amara Healthcare & Rehab", located in Augusta, Georgia. Altacare Corporation is the parent company of Salem Nursing. Douglas Mittleider is the president of Salem Nursing and the CEO, CFO and Secretary of Altacare Corporation. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles C. Stebbins, Esq. WARLICK, STEBBINS, MURRAY & CHEW, LLP 209 Seventh Street, Third Floor Augusta, GA 30901 Tel: (706) 722-7543 Fax: (706) 722-1822 E-mail: cstebbins@wtsmlaw.com - and - Barry Middleton, Esq. TISDALE MIDDLETON LAW FIRM 207 North Belair Road Evans, GA 30809 Tel: (706) 869-1348 Fax: (706) 869-9464 E-mail: barry@tisdalelawfirm.com SERETUS INC: Illinois Man Sues Over HPA Violations -------------------------------------------------- Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a Romeoville man is in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois, alleging a home loan servicing company is sticking him and other troubled borrowers with unneeded mortgage insurance because the company gets a cut of the premiums. Patrick Ciolino filed suit Oct. 19 against Seterus Inc., formerly known as IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., alleging Seterus violated the U.S. Homeowners Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and breached contract with him. Ciolino is seeking class action status for his suit. IBM Lender Business Process Services renamed itself Seterus in July 2011. Seterus does business in Illinois and is incorporated in Delaware, with its main office in Beaverton, Ore. The company offers mortgage options to distressed borrowers. Ciolino said he took out a $226,800 mortgage in 2007 with Marquette Bank. One of the terms to which Ciolino agreed, was to pay for private mortgage insurance until the principal balance decreased to $201,600, which would represent 78 percent of his home's appraised value. The 78 percent mark is set by the Homeowners Protection Act. However, Ciolino fell into default and inked a modification agreement with Seterus on Feb. 19, 2011 that raised the principal balance from $219,064 to $220, 091. As part of the modification, Ciolino asserted the parties would adhere to the original loan agreement that provided Ciolino's mortgage insurance would end when his balance reached 78 percent of his home's value -- under the new arrangement, that would have occurred on May 1, 2012, presuming Ciolino kept up his loan payments. Ciolino said he maintained his payments and reached the 78 percent mark, but Seterus never notified him of his rights to automatic termination and of the new termination date, as required by federal law. Further, being Seterus refrained from ending the insurance, Ciolino said Seterus was required to inform him of the grounds underlying the decision not to terminate the insurance, but Seterus allegedly did not do that either. When Ciolino contacted Seterus to inquire about ending his insurance, Seterus replied by letter in August 2015, telling him he must wait until the "estimated midpoint" of his loan for termination to occur or pay a $350 appraisal fee and apply for termination. Ciolino pointed out termination was to be automatic and he should not be required to "apply" for it. As of September 2015, Ciolino said his balance was $180,683 -- a level well below the balance needed for termination. In Ciolino's view, Seterus should have ended his insurance requirement, because both the law and his contract with Seterus demanded such action. Ciolino said he has had to continue unnecessarily paying the insurance to avoid default. Worsening the situation, Ciolino said he is trying to refinance his loan through the federal Home Affordable Refinance Program, but under the program's rules, if he has insurance on his current loan, he must have insurance on the refinanced loan, which will needlessly cost him money for several more years. Ciolino claimed Seterus' conduct showed a "reckless indifference" to his rights. Ciolino said he understands it is Seterus' "standard practice" to improperly require insurance on all modified loans it services, because the company has a "financial interest" in mortgage insurance, as it allegedly receives a portion of premiums. Ciolino seeks statutory, compensatory, punitive and actual damages, as well as reimbursement for the costs of litigation. Ciolino's suit against Seterus is the 15th suit filed in Chicago federal court since September 2011 naming Seterus as a defendant. The Chicago firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin is representing Ciolino. In lodging the suit for Ciolino, the firm filed notice it will claim a lien for one-third of any recovery awarded in the case. SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Kessler LLP Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against SFX Entertainment, Inc. (Nasdaq:SFXE) ("SFX" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between February 25, 2015 and August 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). SFX shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request information about this action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new- cases/sfx-entertainment-inc. SFX is engaged in the production and promotion of live music festivals and events, production of music tours, selling event tickets through a ticketing platform, merchandising and related services. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, SFX and certain of its executive officers made a series of materially false and misleading statements in connection with a proposed acquisition of SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman ("Sillerman"), SFX's Chief Executive Officer and largest shareholder. For example, the complaint alleges that although Sillerman repeatedly affirmed his commitment to acquire SFX, he and other SFX executive officers knew or recklessly disregarded, and failed to disclose to shareholders, that Sillerman did not have the requisite financing in place at the time he made his proposal to acquire SFX, and knew or recklessly disregarded that Sillerman would not be able to obtain the required financing to consummate the transaction. The Complaint further alleges that, given the Company's growing debt and decreasing margins, it was not feasible that Sillerman was ever going to buy the Company. Rather, Sillerman initiated and maintained a sham process designed to lure third party buyout offers for SFX, all in an attempt to shed his personal SFX investment before the truth about the deterioration of the Company's finances could no longer be concealed. The effect of the false and misleading statements by SFX and its executive officers during the Class Period was to fraudulently inflate and maintain the market price of the Company's securities at levels that would not otherwise have prevailed based on the true financial performance and future prospects of the Company. As the truth about Sillerman's intentions reached the market, shares of SFX's common stock substantially declined in value. SFX shareholders who purchased their securities during the Class Period may, no later than November 10, 2015, petition the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.ktmc.com Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne O. Bell, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd Radnor, PA 19087 Toll Free: (888) 299-7706 Email: dcheck@ktmc.com skaskela@ktmc.com abell@ktmc.com SIGNET JEWELERS: Claimants' Motion for Clarification Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims has been granted. In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015. The parties await a ruling. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015. SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against "Tapia" Wage Suit v. Zale ------------------------------------------------------------ Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company intends to defend against the case, Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation. Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on June 3, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this litigation. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. ST. JUDE: Received $40MM Insurance Recoveries in March 2010 Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, that during the first quarter of 2015, the Company received insurance recoveries of $40 million and continues to pursue collection of the remaining insurance recovery related to the March 2010 Securities Class Action Litigation. In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit related to the Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated October 6, 2009. The complaint, which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleged that the defendants failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members alleged that the defendant's failure to disclose information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated price. In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010. In October 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action and the discovery phase of the case closed in September 2013. In October 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. In November 2014, the defendants filed a motion for leave to proceed with a motion to decertify the class, which the Court denied in December 2014. On February 18, 2015, the parties entered into a written settlement agreement resolving the case, pending notification to class members and subject to court approval. Under the settlement, the Company agreed to make a payment of $50 million to resolve all of the class claims and recorded a charge of that amount during the fourth quarter of 2014. The Company had estimated its damages exposure on the claims alleged to be approximately $475 million. A preliminary order approving the settlement was entered by the District Court on March 9, 2015 with the final settlement order and judgment closing the case entered on June 12, 2015. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company received insurance recoveries of $40 million and continues to pursue collection of the remaining insurance recovery, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs. ST. JUDE: Feb. 2017 Trial Set in Dec. 2012 Securities Case ---------------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, that the so-called December 2012 Securities Litigation is expected to be ready for trial in February 2017. On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint, which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported class period. On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011 and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims and sought similar relief. In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or misleading representations made during the class period extending from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012. In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting the motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount of compensation in the second amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on January 15, 2015. The Company was to file a response by September 16, 2015, plaintiffs will file a reply by November 16, 2015, and a hearing before the Court on the plaintiffs' class certification will be scheduled at some point in the future. Fact discovery closes December 18, 2015 and the case is expected to be ready for trial in February 2017. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this matter. The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential damages in connection with the December 2012 Securities Litigation because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable. Because, based on the Company's historical experience, the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any relationship to the amount claimed, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. ST. JUDE: Four Suits Pending Related to Riata --------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, that as of July 31, 2015, the Company is aware of four lawsuits, of more than 70 such suits filed as of December 17, 2014, which were filed by plaintiffs in the U.S. alleging injuries caused by, and asserting product liability claims concerning, Riata(R) and Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads where the claimant elected to not participate in the settlement program. Three of the remaining lawsuits are pending in the state courts of Illinois, Kentucky and South Carolina. In May 2015, a new lawsuit was commenced in state court in Florida and was removed to and is now pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. ST. JUDE: Riata Case in Canada Still Pending -------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, that in November 2013, an amended claim was filed in a Canadian proposed class proceeding alleging that Riata(R) leads were prone to insulation abrasion and breach, failure to warn and conspiracy. The plaintiffs took no action between their 2008 filing and the amended claim they filed in November 2013. The Company has filed its statement of intent to defend in response to the amended claims, and the plaintiffs have not taken any further action. ST. JUDE: Paid $13 Million to Riata Settlement Fund --------------------------------------------------- St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, that the Company has made an initial payment of $13 million to the settlement fund in the Riata(R) Litigation. On December 17, 2014, the Company entered into an agreement that establishes a private settlement program to resolve the actions, disputes and claims-both filed and unfiled-of certain claimants against St. Jude Medical, Inc. relating to its Riata(R) and Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. The agreement was entered into with a group of counsel representing plaintiffs in proceedings in jurisdictions around the country as well as claimants with Riata leads who have not initiated litigation. St. Jude Medical, Inc. accrued $15 million in the fourth quarter of 2014 to fund the settlement and related costs. The settlement was expected to resolve approximately 950 of the outstanding, pending cases and claims. The time period in which eligible claimants could submit their documentation to participate in the settlement has now closed with the final settlement comprising 886 claimants. The Company made an initial payment of $13 million to the settlement fund in May 2015. Additional contributions to the fund are not expected to be material. Although the majority of the claimants in the suits and claims identified no specific injuries, some of the claimants alleged bodily injuries as a result of surgical revision or removal and replacement of Riata(R) leads, or other complications, which they attribute to the leads. The majority of the claimants who sought recovery for implantation and/or surgical removal of Riata(R) leads sought compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and declaratory judgments that the Company is liable to them for any past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and corrective medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses. Several claimants also sought punitive damages. SUBWAY: Settles "Sandwich Sizes" False Advertising Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Subway's sandwiches were falsely advertised as being six and 12 inches long. Judge Lynn Adelman for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin signed an 11-page order preliminarily approving the settlement agreement and certifying the settlement class earlier. In their complaint, lead plaintiffs Nguyen Buren, John Farley, Vincent Gotter, Barry Gross, Jason Leslie, Ayanna Nobles, Charles Noah Pendrak, Andrew Roseman, Richard Springer and Zana Zeqiri alleged that foot-long sandwiches sold at Subway restaurants were marketed as being 12 inches in length, when, in fact, they were not. The plaintiffs also alleged that the chain's six-inch sandwiches were not the advertised length. According to their complaint, Subway's alleged business practices violated state consumer protection statutes. The class action stemmed from a social media post in 2012, pointing out how the chain's foot-long sandwich came up short. The class includes anyone who has purchased a six-inch or foot- long sandwich from Subway between Jan. 1, 2003 and Oct. 2. Doctor's Associates Inc., or DAI, the franchisor of Subway Sandwich Shops, noted in a statement that the court, in its Oct. 2 order, did not make any findings that any of its marketing or practices were improper or unlawful. "In settlement, DAI has agreed to certain practice changes for the benefit of all Subway customers and to pay attorney's fees and class representative service awards," the company stated. The court appointed the following firms as class counsel: Zimmerman Law Offices PC; DeNittis Osefchen PC; Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman; Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC; Agruss Law Firm LLC; Ademi & O'Reilly LLP; Evans Law Firm PA; Hirsch Law Firm PA; Marks & Klein LLP. Zimmerman and DeNittis were appointed lead class counsel, according to Adelman's order. According to the settlement website, class counsel will submit an application to the court by Dec. 7 to award payments in an amount not to exceed $1,000 for each of the lead plaintiffs. DAI has agreed not to oppose any request up to this amount so long as the attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and class representative service award sought do not total more than $525,000. No money is available to class members under the terms of the settlement. However, Subway agreed to require that franchisees use a tool for measuring bread in each restaurant to help ensure that the bread sold to customers is either six or 12 inches long. It also agreed to require a regular compliance inspection of each restaurant, generally to be conducted monthly. "The sampling will include measuring at least 10 baked breads in total, and breads using both the Italian and Nine-Grain Wheat loaves will be included in the sample," according to the settlement website. The court must approve the settlement before it becomes final. Currently, a settlement fairness hearing has been set for Jan. 15. Dec. 16 is the deadline for filing objections to the deal. Though it has settled, Subway vehemently denies it has "caused damages to anyone." "The settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing by the defendant, and the court did not decide in favor of plaintiffs or defendant. Instead, both sides mutually agreed to settle the claims," according to the settlement website. "By settling, they both avoid the risks, delay, and costs of a trial, and consumers get benefits. The class representatives and the attorneys believe this settlement is the best option for everyone in the class." SUPER MICRO: Gewirtz & Grossman Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a securities class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Norther District of California on behalf of those who purchased shares of Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("Super Micro Computer" or the "Company") (nasdaqgs:SMCI), during the period between February 15, 2014 and August 31, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company improperly recorded expenses in its financial reports; and (ii) as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 31, 2015, post-market, Super Micro Computer disclosed that the Company, "has determined that it is unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 within the prescribed time period without unreasonable effort or expense. [Super Micro] recently discovered certain irregularities regarding certain marketing expenses and additional time is required for [Super Micro] to complete its investigation of the matter." Following this news, shares of Super Micro Computer fell $2.58 or 9.43% to $24.77 per share on September 1, 2015. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in Super Micro Computer you have until November 3, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN,LLC 144 N Beverwyck Rd Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034 Tel: 212-697-6484 Email: info@bgandg.com TRADE STREET: Defending Class Action in Maryland ------------------------------------------------ Trade Street Residential, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and the director defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claim in a class action lawsuit. On June 11, 2015, a complaint was filed naming the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors as defendants in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs amended their complaint and added Senator, Monarch Alternative Capital, LP ("Monarch") and BHR Capital LLC ("BHR") as defendants. The amended complaint purports to assert class action claims alleging that the members of the Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's minority stockholders by approving the Merger for inadequate consideration, that the process leading up to the Merger was flawed, and that three directors of the Company, by virtue of their affiliations with certain stockholders of the Company, engaged in an alleged self-interested scheme to force the sale of the Company. The amended complaint alleges that the stockholder defendants aided and abetted these alleged violations and were unjustly enriched by the merger. Among other relief, the complaint seeks a finding that the individual director defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties; an order requiring that the directors affiliated with the stockholder defendants disgorge all profits, compensation and other benefits obtained by them as a result of their conduct in connection with the Merger; and an award of plaintiffs' costs and disbursements of this action, including attorney's fees. The amended complaint does not seek an injunction against the shareholder vote or the closing of the transaction. The deadline for an answer or other responsive pleading by the defendants has not yet passed. The Company and the director defendants intend to vigorously defend against the claim and believe the probability of an unfavorable outcome as less than probable. However, the Company cannot give any assurance as to the legal or financial outcome of this defense. TRI-TECH HOLDING: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Tri-Tech Holding Inc. on October 30, 2015, said a U.S. court has granted final approval of the settlement and dismissal of a class action lawsuit commenced on December 20, 2013, against the Company and its Board of Directors. Tri-tech said in a Form 6-K Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between September 10, 2009 and December 12, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that it lacked adequate disclosure and internal controls relating to control over its funds. On March 17, 2015, the parties notified the Court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April 6, 2015, the lead plaintiffs in the suit and the Company executed a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") subject to approval of the Court. In the Settlement, the Company denied any wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damages associated with the claims alleged. Following preliminary approval by the Court, on or about July 31, 2015 the Company paid $975,000 into an escrow account to create a settlement fund for a class of all persons and entities who purchased the Company's common stock between September 10, 2009 and December 12, 2013 (inclusive of any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded to counsel for the plaintiffs). Excluded from the Settlement class were (i) persons who suffered no compensable losses; (ii) parties that opted out of the settlement; (iii) any named defendants or any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and the officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, immediate family members, heirs, successors, subsidiaries and/or assigns of any such individual or entity in their capacity as such. Pursuant to the Court's preliminary approval order, notice was provided to class members. No objections to the proposed settlement were received. Two class members requested exclusion from the class. On October 16, 2015, the Court conducted a final settlement hearing and granted final approval of the Settlement. The Court issued orders dismissing the class action lawsuit and entering final judgment. Accordingly, the claims of class members (other than the two who excluded themselves from the Settlement) against the Company and the individual defendants were released. Tri-Tech Holding said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that as negotiated with the Company's directors and officers liability insurance carrier, the Company is to pay $610,000 of that sum and the insurance carrier to pay $365,000. The final approval hearing was scheduled for October 16, 2015. TRUMP HOTEL: Hit With Data Breach Class Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------- Tim J. St. George, David M. Gettings, David N. Anthony, Ron Raether and John C. Lynch, writing for Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor, reported that a new putative class action lawsuit has been filed against the hotel chain owned by Donald Trump in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, after the hotel chain revealed that it had been the subject of a data breach. The suit asserts claims under "state consumer protection laws" and "state data breach notification statutes" of the states of the affected class members, along with claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The suit claims that the Trump Hotel Collection failed to enact appropriate computer safeguards to prevent the breach. The complaint alleges that "the root cause of the data breach was defendants' failure to fix elementary deficiencies in their security systems, abide by industry regulations and respond to other similar data breaches directed at retailers. Had defendants acted competently, criminals would have been unable to access the [personal identifying information]." The lawsuit claims that the stolen data has since been used by criminals, and it also accuses the organization of not disclosing the breach in a timely manner after it was discovered. Parent entity The Trump Organization previously disclosed that it had found malicious software on payment card systems at two locations in New York and others in Chicago, Miami, Las Vegas, Waikiki, and Toronto. Customers who used their credit cards between May 19, 2014, and June 2, 2015, were potentially affected. Has already seen several data breaches and related class action lawsuits. Troutman Sanders LLP has extensive experience in defending data breach class action lawsuits nationwide. UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Appeal in Shareholder Action Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal in the shareholder class actions involving Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. remains pending, Ubiquiti said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015; and in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015. Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April 16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the appeal proceeding. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, that it may experience in connection with this litigation. ULTA SALON: Defending "Moore" Class Action in Los Angeles --------------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. continues to defend the employment class action lawsuit (Moore v. Ulta), the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015. On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit (Moore v. Ulta) was filed against us and certain unnamed defendants in state court in Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On August 8, 2013, the plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed class, the Company opposed the plaintiff's request and is waiting for the court to issue a decision. The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of California's labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay, all related to exit inspections of employees. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. ULTA SALON: Parties in "Galvez" Agreed to Private Mediation ----------------------------------------------------------- Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that parties in Galvez v. Ulta have agreed to private mediation. On December 4, 2013, a putative employment class action lawsuit (Galvez v. Ulta) was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County and was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 8, 2014. It seeks class action certification for claims involving payment of wages using an ATM card ("pay card" related claims); as well as claims related to allegedly failing to provide accurate and complete wage statements; allegedly failing to pay all minimum and overtime wages; and allegedly failing to pay meal and rest break premiums due to exit inspections of employees (exit inspection related claims). On August 29, 2014, the court stayed the exit inspection portion of the litigation, thus the case is proceeding only with respect to the pay card-related claims. The suit alleges that Ulta was required by law to obtain employee consent to use pay cards for purposes of supplemental and final pay and that pay statements issued in conjunction with pay cards did not comply with California's Labor Code. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. The parties have agreed to private mediation, which was set for September 2, 2015. ULTA SALON: Defending "Paez" Class Action in C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that on May 19, 2015, a putative employment class action lawsuit (Paez v. Ulta) was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on June 24, 2015. As with the Moore class action, it also alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of California's labor laws and failed to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay, all related to exit inspections of employees. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the matter. USA TECHNOLOGIES: Comments on Purported False Ad Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- USA Technologies, Inc., a leader of wireless, cashless payment and M2M/IoT solutions for small-ticket, self-serve retailing industries, commented on the purported class action securities lawsuit, Messner v. USA Technologies, Inc., et al., which was filed on October 1, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against USAT and its executive officers. The purported class action was brought on behalf of purchasers of USAT stock between September 29, 2014 and September 29, 2015. The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to, among other things, the failure to identify a large number of uncollectible small balance accounts. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified damages, including attorney's fees and other costs. Based on its review of the complaint, USAT believes that the claims alleged in the complaint lack merit, and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. USAT does not believe that it made materially false and misleading statements as alleged in the complaint. USAT remains committed to maintaining its leadership position in the small ticket, self-service retailing industries that it serves. USAT recently announced the addition of 31,000 net new connections to its ePort connect service during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, resulting in 333,000 connections to its ePort connect service as of June 30, 2015, an increase of twenty-five percent from June 30, 2014. About USA Technologies USA Technologies is a leader of wireless, cashless payment and M2M telemetry flagship service platform, a PCI-compliant, end-to-end suite of cashless payment and telemetry services specially tailored to fit the needs of small ticket, self-service retailing industries. USA Technologies also provides a broad line of cashless acceptance technologies including its NFC- ready ePort G- series, ePort Mobile [TM] for customers on the go, and QuickConnect, an API Web service for developers. USA Technologies has been granted 87 patents; and has agreements with Verizon, Visa, Chase Paymentech and customers such as Compass and others. Visit the website at www.usatech.com. Investor Contacts: Blueshirt Group Michael Bishop Tel: +1 415-217-4968 Email: mike@blueshirtgroup.com -- or -- Media Contacts: ANW Networks Alicia V. Nieva-Woodgate Tel: +1 415-515-0866 Email: alicia@anwnetworks.com -- and -- Emily F. Porro Tel: +1 347-960-3603 Email: emily@anwnetworks.com USA TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased USA Technologies Inc. ("USA Technologies" or the "Company") USAT, +0.00% between September 29, 2014 to September 29, 2015, both dates inclusive, concerning the Company's and its officers' possible violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's recent disclosure that it lacked adequate controls over financial reporting. USA Technologies investors are encouraged to contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. to discuss their legal claims for losses incurred as a result of USA Technologies' alleged wrongdoing. On September 29, 2015, after the market closed, the Company disclosed that it was delaying its annual 10-K financial filing because "management identified deficiencies in both the design and operating effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting, which when aggregated represent a material weakness in internal control." On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.23, or over 8%, to close at $2.49 on September 30, 2015, thereby damaging investors. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that : (i) there were significant deficiencies in both the design and operating effectiveness of the company's internal control over financial reporting; (ii) the deficiencies, when aggregated, represented a material weakness in internal control; (iii) as a result of these deficiencies, the Company's procedures failed to identify a large number of uncollectible small balance accounts; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, USA Technologies' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased shares of USA Technologies during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than November 30, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll- free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com Howard G. Smith, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Tel: (215) 638-4847 Fax: (215) 638-4867 Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com USAA AUTO: U.S. Bank Defendant in BlackRock Case ------------------------------------------------ USAA Auto Owner Trust 2014-1 said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2015, that U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts with the most substantial case being: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts). Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs or plaintiff groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened standard of care following alleged events of default. Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts as described above with the most substantial case being: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts) and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case. There can be no assurance as to the outcome of any of the litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously. VALEANT PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("Valeant" or the "Company") (NYSE: VRX) who purchased shares between February 28, 2014, and October 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") and have been damaged by the recent declines in the Company's stock price. Valeant investors have until December 21, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On October 14, 2015, in connection with concerns over the Company's practice of buying drugs and dramatically increasing prices, the Company reported that it was subpoenaed by U.S. prosecutors seeking information on its pricing decisions, drug distribution and patient assistance programs. The Company also reported that it had responded to a letter from U.S. Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill concerning Valeant's heart drugs Nitropress and Isuprel. On October 21, 2015, the Company was the subject of an analyst report published by Citron Research that alleges that Valeant is using pharmacies related to Philidor to store inventory and record the transactions as sales. The Citron Research report further alleges that it appears "that Valeant/Philidor have created an entire network of phantom captive pharmacies" to create fake sales of drugs or to avoid scrutiny from auditors. Following this news, shares of Valeant fell $28.13, or almost 20%, to close at $118.61 per share on October 21, 2015. On October 26, 2015, Valeant announced that it was appointing a committee to review the Company's relationship with Philidor. The Company also indicated that it intended to continue with its previously announced plan to focus on developing new drugs rather than acquiring older ones and raising their prices. On this news, Valeant shares fell by as much as $9.56, or more than 8%, during intra-day trading on October 26, 2015. The complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Valeant had deficient internal controls, (2) Valeant had a relationship with a network of specialty pharmacies used to boost Valeant's sales of its high-priced drugs, (3) the use of specialty pharmacies left Valeant vulnerable to increased regulatory risks, (4) Defendants were under government scrutiny for its financial assistance programs for patients, pricing decisions and the distribution of its products, (5) Valeant faced the risk of scrutiny over its price increases, (6) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance would be negatively impacted, (7) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's Class Period performance would have been negatively impacted, (8) Valeant's true relationship with Philidor and the extent of that relationship, (9) Valeant controlled Philidor, (10) Valeant's subsidiary KGA had a secured lien interest on Philidor's ownership, (11) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to manipulate Valeant's stock price, and (12) as a result, Valeant's public statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Valeant securities during the Class Period, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773- 9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Lesley Portnoy, Esq. Casey Sadler, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-free: (888) 773-9224 Fax: (310) 432-1495 Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com csadler@glancylaw.com VOLKSWAGEN: Susman Godfrey Expands Class Suit to 18 States ---------------------------------------------------------- Tim Brown, writing for The Manufacturer, reported that the states included in the Volkswagen class action so far are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Originally filed on September 24 in California, the suit claims Volkswagen secretly used software designed to cheat emissions tests and falsely advertised its vehicles as environmentally friendly. Due to those actions, consumers were allegedly deceived into purchasing what they believed were eco-conscious "CleanDiesel" vehicles that actually emit up to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide. "We are pleased to expand this lawsuit, as we know hundreds of thousands of people across the country have been affected by Volkswagen's deceptive actions," said Steven Sklaver, a Susman Godfrey attorney on the Volkswagen case. "We look forward to helping compensate these consumers for their losses." Buyers of the 2009 to 2015 Jetta and Jetta SportWagen models, 2010 to 2015 Audi A3 and Golf models, 2012 to 2015 Beetle, Beetle Convertible and Passat models, and the 2015 Golf SportWagen model are alleged to have paid a significant premium for so-called "CleanDiesel" vehicles. It now appears these consumers actually received vehicles that cannot even pass state and federal emissions standards and are being encouraged to join the VW class action. VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Sacks" Suit Alleges Fraud/Fraudulent Concealment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Sacks, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02327 (S.D. Calif., October 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud/fraudulent concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violations of California False Advertising Law, violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of Express Warranty, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants installed a software program in all Clean Diesel cars that detected when the cars were undergoing emissions testing. When the software detected emissions testing, it turned on full emissions control during the test. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states (including the District of Columbia) and is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation and sole owner of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG is based in Germany and directly controls and directs the actions of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which acts as its agent in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Zifkin, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: (310) 752-2400 Fax: (310) 752-2490 E-mail: dzifkin@bsfllp.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Weiss" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Weiss, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08126 (S.D. Calif., October 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud/fraudulent concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violations of California False Advertising Law, violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of Express Warranty, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants utilized a sophisticated software program to deceive purchasers, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators, about the true nature of the emissions from these Clean Diesel cars. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states (including the District of Columbia) and is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David L. Zifkin, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: (310) 752-2400 Fax: (310) 752-2490 E-mail: dzifkin@bsfllp.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wallace" Suit Alleges RICO Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Valerie Wallace, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Robert Bosch GmbH, Case No. 5:15-cv-01808 (N.D. Ala., October 15, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, false advertising and consumer fraud. Defendant Volkswagen USA is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, doing business as Volkswagen Group and/or Volkswagen AG, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Volkswagen USA. Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH ("Bosch") is a German multinational engineering and electronics company, headquartered in Stuttgart Germany. At all times from at least January 1, 2007 through the present, Bosch supplied the defeat device to Volkswagen. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric J. Artrip, Esq. MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC 301 Washington Street, Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801 Tel: (256) 532-2222 Fax: (256) 513-7489 E-mail: Artrip@mastandoartrip.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wood" Suit Alleges RICO Violation ---------------------------------------------------- Crystal Wood, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Robert Bosch GmbH, Case No. 5:15-cv-01800 (N.D. Ala., October 15, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud by concealment and breach of contract and express warranty. The lawsuit concerns the intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. As of October 8, 2015, Volkswagen representatives conceded that the emissions fraud affected as many as 11 million Volkswagen vehicles worldwide, including at least 480,000 vehicles sold in the United States. Defendant Volkswagen USA is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, doing business as Volkswagen Group and/or Volkswagen AG, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Volkswagen USA. Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH ("Bosch") is a German multinational engineering and electronics company, headquartered in Stuttgart Germany. At all times from at least January 1, 2007 through the present, Bosch supplied the defeat device to Volkswagen. The Plaintiff is represented by: George N. Davies, Esq. QUINN CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO LLP 2-20th Street North, Ste 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: gdavies@qcwdr.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Casteen" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment ------------------------------------------------------------- Ellis Casteen, Hans Schult, Sheila Schult, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-13660 (E.D. Mich., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud by concealment and breach of contract. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states (including the District of Columbia) and is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation and sole owner of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG is based in Germany and directly controls and directs the actions of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which acts as its agent in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy L. Marino, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Tel: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: amarino@sommerspc.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Clarke" Suit Alleges Breach of Warranty ---------------------------------------------------------- Amy Clarke, Mark Gjonbalaj, John McLaughlin, Kelly Mulliganmahoney, Sharon Ransavage, David Rien, David Sibley, Mark Houle, Kurt Mallory, Joan Dudley, Marybeth Winkler, Catherine Roberts, Joseph Collesano, Simon Beaven, Steve Mortillaro, Ryan Geier, Daniel Sullivan, Barry Glustoff, Thomas Ayala, James Bergmann, Matthew Mikulsky, Richard Grogan, Chad Dial, Lori Edwards, Tamara Lyman, Eric White, William Preininger, Daniel Ohlstein, Dorie Mallory, Wendy Goldner, Brian Bialecki, Dawn Boulware, Angela Wagner, Charles Robbins, Thomas Buchberger, Carla Berg, Kyle Tisdel, Craig Lybarger, Britney Schnathorst, Jonathon Rodgers, Donald Allen, Luis Moreno, Charles Nicolosi, Alfred Golden, Jack Sandelman, Linda Hunt, Daphne Marcyan, Paul Harris, Heather Lemelle, Harry Walsh, Andrea Franz, Warren Coffin, Cesar Olmos, Thomas Lasko, John Gamble, Leslie Maclise-Kane, Jason Hill, Aaron Joy, Robert Miller, Ramon San Nicolas, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07549 (D.N.J., October 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Clean Air Act and state regulations and breach of express and implied warranties, defrauded its customers, and engaged in unfair competition under state and federal law. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business in all 50 states (including the District of Columbia) and is organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States. Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation and sole owner of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG is based in Germany and directly controls and directs the actions of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which acts as its agent in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 - and - Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water Street, 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 584-0700 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com ZAFGEN INC: December 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Zafgen, Inc. ("Zafgen" or the "Company") common stock during the period between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have until December 21, 2015 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you have suffered a loss from investment in Zafgen common stock purchased on or after January 12, 2015 and held through the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class Period, as described below, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-6616. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in important decisions including whether to accept a settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from investment in Company common stock during the Class Period. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants' failure to disclose during the Class Period that there were more thrombotic adverse events related to beloranib during clinical studies than had been disclosed at the beginning of the Class Period. According to the complaint, following rumors that a patient had died in an ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of beloranib, following the Food and Drug Administration informing the Company on October 15, 2015 that beloranib has been placed on partial clinical hold, and following the Company's October 16, 2015 disclosure that the patient who died was receiving beloranib, that there had been four thrombotic adverse events in prior clinical studies of beloranib (two more than previously reported) as well as two additional, previously undisclosed thrombotic events in ongoing studies, for a total of six thrombotic events out of 400 patients receiving beloranib compared to zero thrombotic events in the approximately 150 patients treated with a placebo, the value of Zafgen shares declined substantially. Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating securities and other class action cases and have been advocating for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the class. Charles J. Piven, Esq. BROWER PIVEN 1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, MD 21153 Tel: 410.332.0030 Fax: 410.685.1300 Email: piven@browerpiven.com ZAFGEN INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of Zafgen, Inc. (NASDAQ:ZFGN) securities from January 12, 2015 through October 16, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Zafgen investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Zafgen class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-752.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, Zafgen made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) one participant in the beloranib Phase 3 study, who had died, was receiving beloranib and not a placebo; (2) while Zafgen had reported 2 thrombotic events in prior clinical studies, there had actually been 4 such events, as well as 2 additional thrombotic events in other ongoing studies; and (3) consequently, Defendants' statements about Zafgen's business, operations and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 21, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-752.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com * CFPB Takes Aim at Class Action Waivers ---------------------------------------- Joseph L. Olson, Marie G. Bahoora and Benjamin A. Kaplan, writing for The National Law Review, reported that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has announced that it is considering rulemaking that would prohibit class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Background Arbitration agreements frequently govern the resolution of consumers' disputes with providers of consumer financial products and services. The CFPB studied these agreements and submitted a report to Congress. The CFPB's Final Report, released on March 10, 2015, concluded that consumers are better served by litigation -- particularly class action litigation -- than by arbitration agreements in disputes regarding consumer financial contracts. The CFPB is authorized under the Dodd-Frank Act to prohibit or impose conditions on the use of arbitration clauses by regulation in accordance with these findings if doing so would protect consumers and serve the public interest. Proposals Currently Under Consideration by The CFPB On October 7, 2015, the CFPB announced that it is considering rulemaking to implement a possible ban on class action waivers in arbitration agreements in consumer financial services contracts. The CFPB published an outline of its proposal and is currently gathering feedback from a panel of small industry stakeholders. The proposed rule would prohibit contracts in which consumers forfeit their right to join a class action. For companies still willing to offer individual arbitration, the agreements would have to explicitly state that they do not apply to class actions. Further, the proposed rule would require that companies choosing to use individual arbitration clauses submit arbitration claims and awards to the CFPB in an effort to increase transparency and deter what it may deem as "unfair" arbitrations. Additionally, the CFPB is considering publishing those claims and awards on its website, making them available to the public. Impact of the Proposed Changes The proposed changes would affect most consumer financial products and services that the CFPB oversees, including but not limited to credit cards, prepaid cards, checking and deposit accounts, money transfer services, certain auto loans, private student loans, small-dollar or payday lenders and installment loans. Any proposed changes likely will not take effect until late 2016 or early 2017, and compliance with any new rules will not be required until 180 days post-issuance. In the interim, companies that do not currently use arbitration agreements in their financial services contracts should consider adding them, since agreements entered into before the new rules become effective will survive enactment of the new rules. In addition, financial service companies that employ arbitration provisions in their customer agreements should consider participating in the rulemaking process and making their views part of the administrative record. ********* 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 * * *